Rewriting the Constitution. POLL

Theory of governance is essentially what we do here. We work on a hypothesis that electing Democrats is the next and necessary first step, but, as Jerome a Paris says in his recommended diary, we need to talk about what we are going to do if we get in, and pick people in the primaries that will have a strong understanding of, and commitment to progressive principles.

But if we are going to advocate, people need to know precisely what it is we advocate, or at least the outside lines of what we will accept.

Subjects we must cover at a minimum are the ones that Dennis Kucinich has laid out so well on his website, including (necessarily) policy on war, checks and balances of powers among the branches of government and the people, accountability of civil servants, the responsibility of a government for basic civil rights to health, food, shelter, education, and a clean environment.

Hat tips to Jerome a Paris and Gooserock, our subtle sages.

•  Did you hit "publish" before you were done?

  Mas!  Mas!

  I know Markos disagrees but I am very glad Kucinich is running for president.  He may be goofy at times but he keeps the front runners honest (by which I mean as honest as a politician can be).

  by The Termite on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:21:52 PM PDT

  •  Goofier than Clinton...

    ...or Obama?

    by Rex Manning on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:25:12 PM PDT

    •  "Picture that equals sign....

      ....inside a heart."

      I dunno, man.  I'm not ragging on the guy.  I find him occasionally goofy.

      by The Termite on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:27:05 PM PDT

      •  Me too.

        Anybody who runs for public office and/or serves in public office has to be goofy to begin with.

        by Rex Manning on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:29:06 PM PDT

      •  Would someone please post that graphic,

        The big red heart with the white tan = sign inside it?

        by ormondotvos on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:30:57 PM PDT

      •  I'll take "goofy" over

        sociopathic chickenhawks any day of the week.  If the worst thing that could happen under President Kucinich is that occasionally we'd get a weekly radio address that was a little on the warm and fuzzy side, I could live with that.

        It's a sorry thing when someone who happens to be very kind-hearted, and not shy about expressing that, is pigeonholed as "goofy".

        Let us not forget that "goofy" Kucinich is the only person in the entire House of Representatives with the stones to try to impeach Dick Cheney.

        by Mehitabel9 on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 07:50:05 AM PDT

        •  Of course goofy > chickenhawk

          by The Termite on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 04:34:44 PM PDT

  •  Why does Markos advocate the same things as DK

    and then say ugh? Where's the big tent, where's the fairness?

    Markos ain't that big or pretty himself, considering he's been trying to go on TV as much as Dennis Kucinich...

    You know that old saw about a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged, and a liberal is a conservative who's had a heart attack?

    Maybe someday Kos will get criticized for looking goofy. Maybe someone will say "Nice ideas, but you look too funny for me to take you seriously!"

    by ormondotvos on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 11:01:29 PM PDT

    •  Well....

      Why does Markos advocate the same things as DK and then say ugh?

      That's a question only a trained therapist can answer.

      by Mehitabel9 on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 07:51:47 AM PDT

•  Um, Poll? (n/t)

  by RobLewis on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:22:11 PM PDT

•  Also

  Where's the promised poll?

  by The Termite on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:22:21 PM PDT

•  Laws or amendments.

  Military spending may not exceed ten percent of total discretionary spending.

  In time of emergency, government borrowing may be implemented only if increased taxation has not been able to meet the demand for emergency spending.

  by Rex Manning on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:24:33 PM PDT

  •  how about

    no federal official can vote or act to start a war unless they or their children or grandchildren will actively fight in it.

    by Turkana on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:26:30 PM PDT

    •  I don't love his amendments...

      ...I hate yours.  No offense.

      by Jay Elias on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:27:59 PM PDT

    •  I'd be satisfied with...

      ...a law that prohibited federal officials from profiting from war.

      by The Termite on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:29:41 PM PDT

    •  Better.

      Low income citizens will be denied entry into the the armed forces, during time of war, since their families depend on them for support.

      Those with the highest income and wealth accumulation will be considered first for military service and if voluntary enlistment does not meet demand, those with the highest income and wealth accumulation will be drafted first since their families are less likely to suffer economic privation do to their absence or their death in combat.

      by Rex Manning on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:34:39 PM PDT

      •  We could restore paying people to serve for you.

        Wasn't that a great idea?

        by ormondotvos on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 11:38:04 PM PDT

      •  Unintended consequence

        You get rich children denouncing their US citizenship
        for some other nice one.

        by debedb on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 02:15:51 AM PDT

        •  Either way

          we get rid of them and break the generational chain.

          What a win win is that?

          by Dave925 on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 02:41:03 AM PDT

•  we don't need to rewrite the constitution

  we just need to restore it.

  by Turkana on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:24:45 PM PDT

  •  The Federalist Papers and the admonishments of

    Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Eisenhower (you all know them) should be enough to remind us that THEY knew major revisions would be necessary.

    Culture evolves faster than understanding. Dare I mention the author?

    by ormondotvos on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:28:45 PM PDT

    •  there's always the power of amendment

      but the basic structure has held up pretty well. until recently...

      by Turkana on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:30:46 PM PDT

      •  The fundamental weakness

        is that the founders counted upon Congress being jealous of its power.  Instead, they merrily give it away to the executive.  That's true of both parties.

        That, and the rise of visual media, and the rise of international corporations, have changed the political environment.  Other factors?

        by Simplify on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:44:58 PM PDT

        •  many things have changed

          the advances in science and technology, including weaponry; the end of monarchy; a much better understanding of the consequences of capitalism and imperialism and racism and sexism...

          even so, it's been a very resilient and adaptive document. always worth tweaking, but i don't think it needs a major rewrite.

          by Turkana on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:50:44 PM PDT

    •  Bunch a damned subversives they.

      by Rex Manning on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:38:14 PM PDT

      •  Thomas Jefferson:

        Every generation needs a new revolution.

        That's from our second President.

        by Simplify on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:46:17 PM PDT

        •  third

          but if washington had just become king, we wouldn't have had to bother with such subversives!

          by Turkana on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:52:22 PM PDT

          •  Damn. Oops! "Freedommm! >hic<"

            You might be a little premature with "end of monarchy."  I'd say the Divine right of Kings is pretty much the operative political theory federally right now.  Senators are royals, and the DC press is the royal court...

            Amazing that it took until FDR for a prez to reach for that golden ring of a third term...  Giuliani has already tried, and that was just for mayor!

            But yeah, although the means and media change, people are pretty much the same.

            by Simplify on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 11:01:23 PM PDT

          •  He was even asked to become a king...

            ...and he said "Nah, I'm going back to my farm. Thanks though."

            by Rex Manning on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 11:25:24 PM PDT

            •  The fact that people asked him

              is telling.  In a way, it answers Franklin's "A republic, if you can keep it" in the negative, right off the bat.

              by Simplify on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 11:55:03 PM PDT

              •  Excellent point. Franklin, the exacting judge

                of the foible of the public.

                by ormondotvos on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 12:00:41 AM PDT

  •  I would like to change lifetime tenure for

    the Supreme Court to 16 years.  They are political appointees and as such have way to long to serve. Does the Consitution need to be ammended for this?

    by hairspray on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:45:38 PM PDT

    •  i believe it does

      although i'm not certain. could check a copy of the constitution, but i'm lazy...

      by Turkana on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:53:09 PM PDT

    •  Yep

      But why not change the way they're appointed instead?  You could have them be elected by the Governors of the States.  It would re-insert the role of the State government in the affairs of the federal government, as it once was in the appointment of Senators, it would likely shift the ideology of the Court to a more states-rights position, and it would place selection of the Justices closer to control by the people.

      by Nellebracht on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:53:32 PM PDT

      •  Oh, yes, we need more states' rights!

        Are you nuts?

        I'd say that we need more local sensitivity to regional variations, but not necessarily more political power.

        Universal rights for all in this country are currently LAGGING world standards.

        I'd be interested in acknowledging the UN in a more official way than merely saying we will treat treaties as the law of the land.

        Maybe we could define bribery of legislators more clearly and firmly?

        And bring back exile.

        by ormondotvos on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 11:35:59 PM PDT

        •  You bring up some good points

          But there are also problems that occur because the Federal government refuses to allow the States the freedom to pursue alternative remedies to social problems.  The war on drugs and medical marijuana is a good example.  The genius of our state system is that it is supposed to give states wide latitude to try alternative policies and programs, not only as a way of running a sort of experimental method for solving those problems; after all nobody knows beforehand which solution is going to be the best one, but also as a recognition that some regulations and policies need to have regional variance to overcome quantity and quality of regional differences.

          I'm not convinced that appointment of the Justices by the States would result in a deterioration of the recognition of universal human rights, and yes, we do need more State's rights.  In particular, we need to pay greater homage to the 9th and 10th amendments at the very least.  I'm going to need an argument for why you think it would diminish recognition of universal rights and what areas you think the States have too much authority now and why.  

          I'm curious as to what more could be done than defining treaties as "the law of the land."  It places them on a par with the Constitution, so any recognition or acknowledgment of the UN in those treaties is defacto recognition and acknowledgment by the government.  Unless you would like to claim that the UN charter should legally supersede the Constitution, and as progressive as I am, I am not prepared to take that position.

          Exile is an immature solution to the problem of wealthy or politically powerful criminals.  It's the epitome of putting off your problems onto someone else.  Rehabilitation, incarceration and, as a last resort and with great trepidation, humility and sorrow, execution should be our priorities for dealing with criminals, in that order.

          by Nellebracht on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 12:21:01 PM PDT

          •  I'll stick with regionally elected Senate, no

            House, and national laws.

            I'm sick of states' rights evasions of civil rights.

            Of course a few decades of civil rights fights may have dimmed my appreciation of the holiness of the Southron Way of Life.

            Or the joys of Best Use policy.

            Regions, Urban, Rural, Industrial, Agricultural are so much more useful that little lines on a map.

            by ormondotvos on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 05:45:36 PM PDT

    •  Yes

      Article III, Section I:

      The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

      One way to get around a court filled with political hacks, without an amendment, is to expand the size & pack the court. The number of justices who sit on the court can be changed by an act of Congress. FDR threatened this, and was able to change resistance to his New Deal programs on the court.

      by Rimjob on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:55:55 PM PDT

      •  That doesn't say anything about lifetime tenure.

        I know that the numbers of justices has varied from 5-11 (I believe) in order to blunt the ruling party from gaining too much power.  I still think the easiest way is to determine limited terms in office, as the public seems most likely to support this.  

        by hairspray on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 01:28:12 PM PDT

  •  I think it might also

    benefit from an amendment or two.  But yeah, for the most part I agree with you.

    by Mehitabel9 on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 07:52:54 AM PDT

•  Tip jar.

  Sorry I didn't get the poll in the first publish. Sheesh!

  This is meant as a collaborative effort, O poll-bouncers!

  Say something about the topic: modern governance, using cognitive science, human universals, evolutionary psychology, and a broad understanding of what is different now in governance compared to 1800 CE.

  by ormondotvos on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:26:51 PM PDT

•  1st Amendment, Hillary style

  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, except for videogames, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

  by ben masel on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:29:59 PM PDT

  •  No flag burning, or gay marriage.

    More things the constitution didn't consider: gays and the Internet.

    by ormondotvos on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 11:39:18 PM PDT

  •  Petition the government for a redress

    of grievances.

    There are too many sharp people here for this not to have been discussed. But, it just struck me.

    If we have the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances", what prevents us from petitioning?

    It must have been discussed already. I don't know what the process would be like. But, where's our petition for redress of torture, warrantless wiretaps, pre-emptive war, war profiteering, et cetera???

    by EclecticFloridian on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 05:10:12 AM PDT

•  I want more than 2 parties

  I want at least 3 competitive parties.

  I honestly believe by now that it will be the only way that we will survive.

  Right now the Republican Party and the Democratic party is tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee.

  Neither is bold.

  By getting a permanent 3rd party - a very competitive party - that will force the two old parties to become alive - and serious - and really work to get voters to vote for them - and their programs.

  So world - welcome to my party -- the Kos Party - truly progressive - truly for the people and by the people.

  by sara seattle on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:31:02 PM PDT

  •  That won't happen without electoral reform

    So long as it's winner-takes-all, two parties is the stable number.

    by Simplify on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:47:20 PM PDT

    •  Oh yeah, dump the electoral college and past the

      post elections.

      by ormondotvos on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 11:40:11 PM PDT

  •  I have found that

    people who would be willing to work to create a third party often instead find it easier to make a major party adopt their views.  It is sometimes easier than reinventing the wheel.  There are actually many parties in America, if you look at interest groups as a 'party'.  Then many interest groups join and compromise to find a way to elect people that will support their views.

    by norahc on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 01:27:47 AM PDT

•  4th Amendment +

  The right of the people to be secure in their persons, bodily fluids, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

  by ben masel on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:38:29 PM PDT

  •  On second thought

    I rescind my previous comment. I'll take that one. Can you think of a way to rephrase it so that our bodily fluids are secure from corporations too? And keep them secure even if we join the military?

    by kyril on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:44:20 PM PDT

    •  You mean your blood, like the draft?

      Conscientious objection should be holy.

      by ormondotvos on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 11:41:05 PM PDT

      •  Well, that would be nice

        but I was thinking more along the lines of the involuntary random piss tests...

        by kyril on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 01:30:21 AM PDT

•  My Constitution is Just Fine

  The bastards with custody of it, not so much.

  The ONLY change I support is inserting "natural" in front of "person" in the 14th Amendment.

  by The Baculum King on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:40:42 PM PDT

  •  Thinking of the Totality of Complaints

    as I've commented, it goes far far beyond the admin.

    Our 4th estate is behaving wrongly. Economic leaders are behaving wrongly. Cultural leaders especially in religion behaving wrongly. Military complex behaving wrongly. Intelligence, obviously. And masses of the voters are behaving wrongly.

    We've got the best system in the world, nobody important ever copied it, and everybody using it is being incompetent or evil.

    It looks like a giant Occam's Razor Alarm.

    by Gooserock on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 11:43:40 PM PDT

    •  And even when some of the voters

      behaved sort of rightly, in the 2006 election, the rest of those trends are still pegged in the wrong direction.

      by Simplify on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 12:05:52 AM PDT

    •  Occam's Razor Alarm, like "Get out of the box"

      We're going over a cliff?

      How does the Constitution deal with Clash of Civilizations? Theocracy by Vote? Insanity on the Supreme Court?

      by ormondotvos on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 12:07:23 AM PDT

  •  Could you explain this further?

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Not sure I follow what the suggested change would do.

    by norahc on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 01:32:57 AM PDT

    •  Limit Those Rights to Actual Persons

      It would eliminate the fiction, fostered by a corrupt Court clerk in the 1880's, that Corporations are entitled to Constitutional Rights, and would allow their expulsion from our political process.

      by The Baculum King on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 06:08:04 AM PDT

      •  A-freakin'-men.

        by Mehitabel9 on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 07:54:57 AM PDT

      •  This can be done through the legislative process

        with far less work, if the support is there.  It would take less support also, a constitutional ammendment takes a high standard.

        by norahc on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 05:48:44 PM PDT

•  Leave my Constitution alone.

  Please. Simply enforcing it would be plenty.

  by kyril on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:40:58 PM PDT

•  Changes that increase the power

  and responsibility of individual citizens.

  Ditch the voting and representation structure that was set up as a compromise with slave states.  No electoral college.  Proportional representation in the Senate, possibly including voting districts drawn from multiple states.  Bedrock voting standards for election result trustworthiness (but no mandated voting system).  Ranked-choice voting for the Presidency.

  Possibly, separate taxation legislation from expenditure legislation.

  Require amendments to be related to the core subject of a bill.  A corollary:  ban omnibus legislation.

  Put some teeth in the 9th and 10th Amendments.

  Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution.
  The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

  Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
  The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

  In some ways, it is hard to say, since the words of the Constitution don't even mean what they say.  I'm not sure they ever did, given how our very first war was undeclared.  How do you make that happen?  "Article VII.  We really, really mean it."  Yeah, that'll do it.

  Ultimately, if the citizens don't care to make themselves free, they won't be.

  by Simplify on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 10:41:52 PM PDT

  •  One legislature, electronic voting, mandatory

    audiences with citizens.

    by ormondotvos on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 11:42:48 PM PDT

    •  I'd rather keep the Senate

      Make it proportional, but keep the longer terms.  Need that brake on the tyranny of the majority.

      Oh, and mandate that the primary be within say three months of the general.  Early primaries are truly hurting democracy, institutionalizing the permanent campaign and taking time and attention away from legislating and governing.  Not so much elected officials' legislating/governing, but our holding them to account for it.

      by Simplify on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 12:02:01 AM PDT

      •  Supermajorities and citizen endorsement might

        solve the tyranny of the majority problem.

        Theoretically, supermajority-amended constitutions are supposed to prevent tyranny of the majority.

        At least that's what Robert's Rules of Order says. I'm a huge fan of Robert's. The preface is one of the best general commentaries on the uses of  procedure and law to calm conflicts of deliberative bodies I've ever seen.

        by ormondotvos on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 12:15:43 AM PDT

        •  Define citizen endorsement - referenda?

          I'm tempted by supermajority.  I mean, if you can't get 3/5 of your representatives to agree to do something, should you really be doing it?

          That said, California proves that neither is panacea, and both might be counterproductive.  I mean, look at the state budget fiasco right now.

          by Simplify on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 12:27:40 AM PDT

          •  Well, we elect REPRESENTATIVES that theoretically

            do what we want. I want to complete the circuit, as they say in cybernetics: Since we have electronic voting available to us, through the same technology that runs PayPal, I'd like veto power on what the legislature is PROPOSING.

            Let them pass it first. Then the citizens give final approval. It wasn't possible before, but it is now.

            Replace the House of Representatives with the entire citizenry. Universal Wireless Access and popular reins on a Senate, with at least one per state, and with some bow toward regionality, which could be proportionally elected, every four years, with one of the better voting schemes.

            by ormondotvos on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 01:09:09 AM PDT

            •  Universal Wireless accees is going to

              be expensive for big parts of the country. Hell, there's a lot of it that doesn't get cell coverage, and that's much less demanding in signal quality.

              And let's not consider the problem of verifying those votes. The computer/data security guys tend to get the screaming shudders whenever some brings up full e-voting. If you think Diebold is a problem ...

              Paypal and ATM work because both ends of the exchange have assets changing. If you see the money go out, but the other party doesn't see it come in, the problem is quickly recognized. If you vote for X and Y wins, only polling can show if there was a possibly problem; you'd need to go with supermajorities to keep from polling accuracy from explaining a 'flip' between polls and a majority vote.  

              by wondering if on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 03:21:41 AM PDT

              •  Isn't it a little disingenuous to suggest

                That there is no tech solution to identity and counting, the two essential elements of the Internet, banking, and taxes?

                On another subject,

                the supermajority is the golden mean between consensus and bare majority flipping.

                by ormondotvos on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 05:39:44 PM PDT

                •  Not really

                  Isn't it a little disingenuous to suggest that there is no tech solution to identity and counting,

                  Listening to those whose profession is in that field, there is no good solution near at hand. The problems of identity verification, anonymity, and validatible vote is a bit more complex than "counting"' As for simple identity, that's a little easier, but given the problems in elections of the past some years it too is not as simple as it first may appear. Voter challenges aren't going to go away with e-voting, unless the requirement that anyone challenging the validity of voters will be shot on the spot.  

                  Then with voting machines there is at least the physical proximity, tangible bits of paper can be associated with votes cast in the system is so designed.  A good deal more difficult when the tabulators are sitting in the subbasement of a building in DC.

                  by wondering if on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 03:09:08 PM PDT

      •  Has advantages and disadvantages

        mandate that the primary be within say three months of the general

        The disadvantage is that the incumbents started campaigning for re-election the day they were elected and the challengers would only have 3 months.

        I prefer to be called realistic rather than cynical.

        by shann on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 05:50:33 AM PDT

        •  Realistic is that incumbents have an advantage.

          Public financing is as neutral as you can get.

          We will never have rational comprehension of platforms.

          People will always vote mostly with their gut. We can only hope to improve it, not abolish it.

          by ormondotvos on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 05:42:00 PM PDT

          •  My problem with public financing is the numbers

            When Arnold ran for governor of Kalifornia, I think there was something like 35 declared candidates. OK, which ones should have received public campaign financing?

            I remember Pat Paulson, a television comic, and Lyndon Larouch, a nut case, running for president for many elections. Should they have received public campaign financing?

            I know these are extreme examples. But, we are used to allowing anyone who wants to run for public office  to file and letting their ability to attract campaign contributions determine whether they are serious or not. The European alternative (as I understand it) is to have multiple parties and only allow representatives of those parties as candidates, with the attendant government campaign financing.

            by shann on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:02:58 AM PDT

•  Oops! Didn't you get the memo?...

  ...By the actions of His Majesty King Bush and his servile Congress, we no longer have a Constitution left to "amend"-or to "re-write", seeing they have taken it upon themselves to save us the trouble of this old, outdated, inflexible hindrance, by first shredding it, then throwing it into its funeral pire. I'm very sorry that the memo must have also met the same fate as our Constitution. You see, I'm sorry to be among the first ones to tell you, we ipso facto no longer have a Constitution left to defend!

  [I'm in the process right now of writing my next diary, where I will prove that it's already gone like the wind. I took a break to check-out the recent diary/rec list so I wouldn't steal anyone's thunder. Then I realized, there's still some who think we actually have a Constitution left. We are now living under de facto coup d'etat, but enough for now. You'll see my counter-point diary to this one and the other one tomorrow. I'm going to be up all night. Now where's my coffee?]

  by ImpeachKingBushII on Sat Aug 18, 2007 at 11:08:36 PM PDT

•  I don't know if it needs

  to be rewritten. Certainly, we could add a few amendments to straighten some things out.

  For example:

  Amendment XXVIII

  Until a corporation receives a colonoscopy, mammogram or other similarly invasive procedure, they shall not be considered persons.

  by kml on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 01:48:28 AM PDT

•  Two amendments

  One- All public office elections shall be publicly  financed.

  Two- Electoral college has got to go.

  Three- Vote of no confidence. The executive can be removed and an election held to replace that executive on a simple motion and two thirds support of the House of Representatives. The vice president goes too.

  OK, three amendments.

  by Dave925 on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 02:50:22 AM PDT

  •  Leaves t he President too open to

    'flash' emotional pressure during times of crisis. Impeachment would do the job as well, the requirement for conviction in the Senate insulates a President that might have to do something unpopular during a crisis - say enforcing quarantines in the face of an aggrssive disease.

    by wondering if on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 03:26:10 AM PDT

  •  The Senate needs to be recast

    The Senate needs to be recast it is a problem for states with populations of less than 1% of the population to have the same voting power as those with significantly more population.

    by danmac on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 06:46:13 AM PDT

•  Constitution is Technology Neutral

  The Constitution was written with one core underlying premise in the minds of the authors.

  That premise is summed up in a line from a story by an early American writer, Nathaniel Hawthorne:

  "The nature of man is evil".

  The core premise of the Constitution and Bill of Rights was the belief that, without the bounds of a neutral law that held sway regardless of who was in power, that men would do evil.

  That was the incredible leap forward in human society that the framers of our system accomplished. That was America's contribution to the culmination of the Age of Enlightment.

  The current administration proves two things:

  1. The framers were right

  2. There are a lot of incredibly evil men and women willing to do evil, and they are in power in our current executive, and in the legislature.

  The Bush / Cheney regime is a crystal clear illustration of why the premises of the Constitution remain correct. And their every effort to destroy the constraints of the rule of law demonstrate the accuracy of the fundamental premise that guided the thinking of the framers.

  Bush and Cheney should be impeached and removed from office, along with their pathetic criminal sidekick Gonzales.

  The Patriot Act, the Military Authorization Acts, and all the unconstitutional, illegal trappings of tyranny and the police state that Congress has passed under this regime should be repealed. Immediately.

  We live on the verge of a police state, people. What part of this do you simply not grasp yet? Will you not get it until they come for you, throw the hood over your head, shove sedatives up your ass, and throw you on a plane and 'rendition' you overseas? How far are we from the point they don't even go to that much trouble, but we have our own Treblinkas operating here in on the 'Homeland' soil.

  The Fatherland.

  Amerika.

  The only role technology plays in all of this is that it makes it incredibly easier for men to do evil. And that is exactly what they are doing.

  by HeartlandLiberal on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 03:25:23 AM PDT

•  False choice

  The constitution is fine, even though the quality of the American people is much diminished. We must defend the constitution against these inferior citizens! When our nation was founded there was no shortage of fools, but they were kept out of positions of power. For most of our history the voters have protected us. Now we must protect ourselves.

  by MakeChessNotWar on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 04:33:34 AM PDT

  •  You just rewrote the Constitution, I think, for

    elites.

    Not that that's a bad thing!

    by ormondotvos on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 11:02:33 AM PDT

•  Yes, Re-Write the Constitution.

  Take out the 6 references to Impeachment. We won't be needing that anymore in the Empire.

  by Vigil Lante on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 05:58:46 AM PDT