The Constitution Project

The purpose of this post is to induce a dialog about how the Constitution could/should be drastically changed.  Realistically, this will never happen, so view this as a way to have some fun.  I am sure at some time you have thought that such and such an amendment should be made, so this is your opportunity to let some of those ideas get some air.  So nothing is too wacky.  

Interested?  Then keep reading beyond the fold...

I believe the Constitution to be one of the crowning achievements of humankind.  The ideals it represents and attempts to espouse have proved to be an inspiration to countless people across the globe throughout the last 200 or so years of history.  However, American society, culture and politics have evolved considerably in those 200 or so years while the Constitution has not, at least not at the same rate.  The Constitution included ways to change it because the Founders expected this evolution.  Just as a tall building is designed to sway from side to side so it will not crumble, so was our Constitution designed.  It is therefore incumbent upon us to change the Constitution in order to better govern We, the People in these trying times before our great Republic crumbles.  

The Constitution Project is divided into four major catagories, which are fairly self explanatory:

1. Executive: Concerning characteristics and powers of the President, etc.  
   
2. Legislative: Concerning characteristics and powers of the Congress
   
3. Judicial: Concerning characteristics and powers of the Supreme Court and all lower federal courts
   
4. Amendments: This where rights of the people are guaranteed

A lot of "good" things have happened over the years that came about as legislation and/or Supreme Court decisions.  These should be included in our new and improved Constitution.  On the other hand, a lot of "bad" things have also happened, and these should be expressly dealt with.  

So, please add, remove, discuss, debate, and otherwise critique the following provisions.  They are listed in no particular order: they are merely ideas I have had or heard others have.  I do not in any way take credit for having "invented" any of them, and I apologize for not giving credit to those who may have invented them.  

So, HAVE FUN!!

(And don't forget to take the poll)

EXECUTIVE

1. The extent of military action which can be authorized by the President with no declaration of war should be strictly defined.  The President should be able to authorize limited (which is relative) action in the case of emergencies such as direct attacks while Congress is being convened.  No more "blank checks" for war that Bush received for his invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.
   
2. A dual presidency?  A prime minister?  A position with sufficient power to keep the President in check.  To accomplish this this position would have to be filled with a member of the opposition party.  
   
3. A mandatory vote of confidence, by referendum, in the President every two years.  A sort of evaluation of progress at the halfway point.  The result of such a vote could result in removal from office (if its really bad) or barring from running for re-election at the end of the four year term (if its not too bad).  
   
4. Elimination or drastic overhaul of the failed Electoral College system.  There are many theories as to how to do this, and I leave that up to the thread to discuss.  There should be guaranteed counting, verifible paper records, no touch-screens, instant runoff voting, etc.  
   
5. Anything the President or anyone below him/her does that is not related to national security, i.e. any domestic and/or economic policy debates/discussions should be completely open to the public.  No more "secret" energy policy task force meetings.  A bipartisan panel made of Congresspersons, Senators and experts decides what issues are and are not considered national security related.
   
6. Some variation on the idea of a Shadow Government.  

LEGISLATIVE

1. Term limits for Representatives.  Not for Senators, as I believe that this is how poorer states maintain certain powers and dont get crushed (e.g. West Virginia and Robert Byrd).  This is of course open for debate, so please do.  
   
2. Expansion of the House to include many more members, thereby increasing representation of the people and diluting the influence of corporations, media, etc.  This is from a post by kos on today's front page.  (Sorry I dont have a link...)  There are many problems with this idea, but in theory I like it, and this is an exercise in the theoretical.  
   
3. There has to be some way to eliminate the influence of corporations/lobbyists on legislation.  No more industries writing their own regulation and/or subsidy bills.  
   
4. There should be more (since there are none now) federal referendums on major issues that will not go away, such as national health care, etc.  How these will be decided I dont know.  
   
5. Congressional districts are to be drawn by advanced computer algorithms that focus only on population centers.  I am not a computer person, but I am sure someone out there can do it.  
   
6. Congress shall be required to pass a balanced budget for every fiscal year.  With such stipulations as funding for education and public services at a defined percentage of GDP (at the expense of defense preferrably).

JUDICIAL

In theory, I believe the US Judicial system to be OK, and since I know squat about law and such things, I'll leave it up to others to discuss proposals.  
However, I think there should be more control over objectivity... a way to punish judges for always ruling a certain way, right or left, on cases.  A way to control "activist judges".  

AMENDMENTS

1. All the current Amendments that guarantee some right (1 through 10, 13, 14, etc) and have not been invalidated by any changes made above, should be kept.  
   
2. A national health care system.  Every other industrialized nation has one, why not us?
   
3. A voting period (President, Congressional, etc.) that lasts for at least one week, at least half of which should be a national paid holiday.  Citizens should be required and/or otherwise motivated to vote.  With IRV, verifible, every-vote-counts guarantees.  
   
4. Equal rights to all: women, minorities, homosexuals, little green men, etc.  Period.  
   
5. A corporation is not a person and therefore is not entitled to the same rights as one.  
   
6. An end to the disatrous war on drugs.  

***************
These are only some of the thousands of possiblities.  Remember, this is a discussion of "What if"s and "Wouldn't __ be cool?"s, so please no negative comments.  If you don't want to partcipate, don't.  Be constructively critical and use your imagination: since this is all fantasy, anything goes.  

Let the dreaming begin...

•  Tip jar and shameless plea

  Please recommend to include the greater DailyKos community in this discussion.  

  by Billy Shears on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 08:14:15 PM PDT

•  Great Idea, Billy

  You should try it again when the coffee's flowing through our veins.

  by Dallasdoc on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 09:07:38 PM PDT

•  Wonderful Idea!

  I highly suggest reading Sizing Up the Senate : The Unequal Consequences of Equal Representation by Frances E. Lee and Bruce I. Oppenheimer before you feel like the smaller states are in some type of need of protection.  The system today is perverse and I feel that the smaller states aren't being protected, they are benefiting to an unfair degree.

  Here's my Senate Proposal:  Amend the Constitution so that the Senate can only vote yes or no on bills coming from the House.  It still gives the Senate the ability to protect the smaller states, but the smaller states can't warp the agenda.

  by LoganFerree on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 09:12:53 PM PDT

•  Interesting Idea --

  I was listening tonight to a sort of debate between Scalia and Breyer on the appropriateness of the Supreme's Court's use of foreign law as a touchstone for ideas like what is cruel and unusual punishment, or standards for the use of the death penalty (juveniles, mentally retarded). As they went back and forth, Scalia kept going back to his "originalism" theory of the Constitution  - i.e. it is a document in stasis, not a document that changes over time, and if the drafters didn't say it or clear English law concepts didn't inform their understanding of a particular phrase, then you aren't allowed to try to devine answers to new questions from just the general layout of the document.  Key case for Scalia of failure to adhere to originalism: Roe v. Wade.  As he spoke, I thought to myself, didn't the fact that we as a country gave women the right to vote change that analysis somewhat?  I mean, if WOMEN had been politically empowered at the time of the drafting of the Constitution, I'm sure we'd have a different document.  For that matter, if women had been politically empowered, stuff like the constitutionality of abortion restrictions wouldn't have taken 170 years to get addressed.  Not one of those men who drafted the Constitution was even remotely thinking about stuff that primarily impacted women, like, uh, pregnancy.  So if women had had a hand in writing a Constitution, we'd still have checks and balances, but we'd also have put in a clear and defined right restricting the government from interference with our bodies and our health (short of emergency stuff like an epidemic).  We'd have had an ERA for sure.  We also would have done something (I'm not sure exactly what) to ensure that the country had a longer term view than four years in enacting legislation.  Six years for the Senate sort of gets there, but not really.  If Congress actually had to account for the impacts of its legislation down the road, there'd be less monkeying around with budgets where everything is pushed out beyond the next administration.  Like, the Repubs say "we repealed the 'death tax'" - sure they did, yeah, for one year total, eight years out from when the legislation was enacted (I support the imposition of estate taxes -- don't think I'm buying into their framing - it's just an example).  Forgive the broad overgeneralization, but I think women do tend to think about long-term impacts.  I'm not sure that men as a group always do.  Certainly not Republican men -- just look at the Iraq war for prime exhibit No. 1

  by md jeffersonian on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 09:37:04 PM PDT

  •  Scalia an originalist: pure hypocrisy

    I've never seen a likelier Tory in my entire life than Scalia.  He would have fled to Canada or London after the Revolution.  Having such a cur opine about the intentions of the Founding Fathers reminds me of right-wing propagandists advising us about who should run the DNC.

    by Dallasdoc on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 10:51:28 PM PDT

•  Parliamentary Government

  What you are describing here is an American version of a parliamentary government, like almost every other democracy in the world, with the amendments they've adopted after seeing our shortcomings.

  Oughtn't we call a spade a spade, and (as my late father used to say,) a shovel a Goddamned shovel?

  by zentiger on Thu Jan 13, 2005 at 11:56:59 PM PDT