Five Constitutional Amendments

This is short, so I will put it all here.

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of permanent political parties nor prohibiting the free association thereof.

2. No individual or association with a grant of limited liability may be granted powers that violate the rights of individuals granted by this Constitution and its amendmendments.

3. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of gender or sexual orientation.  The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provision of this article.  This amendment shall take effect upon ratification.

4. No election shall be decided except that all votes of the people be counted.  No election shall be certified except that all challenges to the election be satisfied by presentation of evidence that proves the issue one way or the other.

5. Money shall not be construed as protected speech.

•  Here's another.

  6. Every state, territory or other property of the United States is hereafter designated a "Free Speech Zone." No exceptions will be granted.

  by droogie6655321 on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:20:16 AM PDT

  •  They already are, We just need to stand up for

    the current Bill of Rights. The only Constitutional amendment I would like to see is an acknowledgement of the Right to Privacy.

    by buddabelly on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:30:21 AM PDT

•  Human right bill

  1. fundamental freedoms (section 2), namely freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and of other media of communication, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association. Only for "an actual person" not corporation or whatever else. (things are specifically spell out)

  2. equal protection. (Habeas corpus, military court is banned permanently. Only the court can arbitrate laws. )

  3. No torture

  4. right to vote is absolute (no state can take that away)

  5. Term limit.

     Section 7: right to life, liberty, and security of the person.
     Section 8: right from unreasonable search and seizure (only if the authorities believe someone is a threat to another, to society or to themselves, is such a search justified).
     Section 9: freedom from arbitrary detainment or imprisonment.
     Section 10: The right to legal counsel and the guarantee of habeas corpus.
     Section 11: rights in criminal and penal matters such as the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
     Section 12: Right not to be subject to cruel and unusual punishment.
     Section 13: rights against self-incrimination (this is most seen during plea bargains between the accused and the crown)
     Section 14: rights to an interpreter in a court proceeding.

  http://en.wikipedia.org/...

  by fugue on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:23:47 AM PDT

•  One of my favorites. . .

  But it's already there:

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

  by Pacifist on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:24:26 AM PDT

  •  Wrong, It Actually Says The Exact Opposite

    [ sigh ]

    According to the Constitution we presently have from the mouths of the Holy Supreme Court, and not the Constitution we would like to have at some future time or did have in the past.

    by Gooserock on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:32:43 AM PDT

    •  Right way, wrong way, real way.

      I wish that I could enter personal combat with every "Strict Constructionist" who lives out their lives in denial of the Ninth Amendment, but there aren't enough hours in the day, nor enough days in my lifetime.

      by Pacifist on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:47:15 AM PDT

•  It's About Time People Started Talking Amendments

  About damned time.

  The most serious problem we face however, which at least partly underlies all of these, is the lack of an "information commons" supporting free discourse and the free distribution of information to and among the people.

  The 1st Amendment's "speech" and "press" accomplished that in the framers' epoch, but the world no longer operates according to their conceptions, and it's full of new systems and powers they never imagines. So "our" rights now protect the society's owners against we-the-people.

  I don't have an amendment or revision to suggest.

  I think it's a much bigger challenge than the other issues we face because most of us are so thoroughly integrated with the framers' original solution.

  For my money, we need to collectively step back from their approach and think about the problem of information in general enough terms that could us to a solution that accomplishes in our time what theirs did in theirs.

  

  This calls for immediate discussion!

  by Gooserock on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:30:46 AM PDT

  •  +4 for People's Front of Judea. nt

    by polecat on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:15:14 AM PDT

•  The Constitution is not the problem.

  The problem is the lack committment and adherence to it.

  I think that your amendments are pretty much all there already.  The problem is that the people running our government aren't upholding Constitutional principles.

  by inclusiveheart on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:37:06 AM PDT

  •  Agreed. This gov't is of men, not laws...

    ...ergo, changing the laws isn't necessarily a solution.

    by Cliffy on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:55:18 AM PDT

•  don't forget

  A corporation does not have the same rights as a person

  by FreeTradeIsYourEpitaph on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:38:38 AM PDT

•  If I may emend an amendment...

  This one:

  Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of gender or sexual orientation.

  Technically speaking, "sex" is the XX/XY thing, plus the mutated variants. "Gender" is the phenotypal expression of that chromosomal makeup, both in appearance and behavior. So, the word gender covers all possible outcomes and is inclusive in the sense you want.

  However, some sexual orientations are criminal and rightfully so. Shorten to just "gender" and you're good to go.

  by The Raven on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:39:31 AM PDT

•  I like this idea -- thanks for posting it.

  I hope lots of folks participate and share in the interplay.  We need this kind of discussion to help prepare for driving home the point that our nation needs to be more "reality based" -- starting now.

  Also -- check out Can a Creationist Be President? by StrangeAnimals.  It raises an interesting and somewhat related concept -- what kind of person ~should~ be President, and what kind of restrictions (if any) should figure into the determination? How can some limits be expressed and not violate the rights of the individual, while still protecting the rights of the minority as well as the popular majority?

  Never, never brave me, nor my fury tempt:
    Downy wings, but wroth they beat;
  Tempest even in reason's seat.

  by GreyHawk on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:42:44 AM PDT

•  While we're amending the constitution,

  how about an amendment that makes Congress more parliamentary.  Say that the House of Representatives is elected via proportional representation, so that the system will accommodate more than two political parties.

  Also, popular election of the president, instead of the Electoral College.

  Also, throw in a method for popular recall of the President and of Congresscritters.  If there are certified petitions submitted with more than say 5,000,000 signatures, then a recall election will be held to decide if the current President or Congresscritter can be removed from office.

  Lastly, a couple rights amendments.

  Like the diary states, money is not speech.

  Also, entities granted limited liability are not entitled to free speech protections as individuals are.

  Also, amend the constitution as needed to make campaign finance public.  No private contributions allowed, no direct or indirect help (like with 527's) allowed - the politicians have to use the public money, and only the public money for their campaigns.  If something happens that even looks like a quid-pro-quo, break their balls.

  by meldroc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:55:05 AM PDT

  •  Recall? UGH!

    Perhaps there was a time when "direct democracy" wasn't a euphamism for "not democracy," but that time is long past.  As we see in initiative and recall processes all around the country, they're motivated and managed strictly by well-heeled, rabble-rousing political operatives.  Increasing the apparatuses of direct democracy makes politicians less accountable to the people and more beholden to the special interests, not less, because they're always on the hook to fight for their political lives at the whim of any moneyed interest.

    by Cliffy on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 09:59:36 AM PDT

    •  A recall could be useful

      for getting rid of future Presidents like Bush.

      Though we'd have to add in the campaign finance amendments I proposed to keep big money from corrupting the process.

      by meldroc on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:12:18 AM PDT

      •  IMHO, it'll be abused much more than used n/t

        by Cliffy on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 11:47:43 AM PDT

  •  proportional representation

    perhaps in the House, would help solve the gerrymandering problem.

    by Ticonderoga on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:41:40 AM PDT

•  Presidents cannot pardon for political gain

  nor can they pardon people who were doing the bidding of the Executive when they were found to be guilty.

  by Hey BB on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:16:12 AM PDT

  •  Re-word

    "Political gain" is too vague. And since pardons can be given prior to a finding of guilt, the second part doesn't work.

    I would actually favor eliminating the pardon power completely.

    by Elwood Dowd on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:21:26 AM PDT

    •  true

      There is something naively magical about the concept of a president "correcting wrongs done an innocent person" but in reality the presidential pardon (and both sides are guilty of this) is all about clearing the records of "friends" so they don't have blemishes on their record.

      by Hey BB on Tue Aug 21, 2007 at 03:44:18 AM PDT

•  Let's add six more vital ones:

  Constitutional Amendments:

  1. Limit the powers of the Vice President (and term limits)

  2. Limit to whom the President can delegate authority to Senate Confirmed Appointees (and not the VP and not the First Spouse) And if that person's porfolio changes they need reapproval for the new functions.

  3. Explicitly state that the Executive must a) follow the laws unless/until they're declared unconstitional by the Judiciary and b) that they DO apply to the Executive as well.

  4. Replace the DOJ with a new department from the ground up.  I would increase the number of Senators that must agree to the appointment and add a lot of teeth to the oversight requirements of the Replacement DOJ.  {Department of Law and Order?}

  5. Apply limits to the Executive on pardoning members or former members of his own administration -- possibly adding an OVERRIDE in the House of a Pardon, including a Pardon from a previous administration.

  6. A privacy Amendment that explicitly states what is private and public and makes allowances for technologies that we can't even imagine now.  (Like detecting EEG fields around people to determine how they feel, or tracking their eyes or pupils, etc.)

  by polecat on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:17:52 AM PDT

•  Agree 100% that money is not speech

  Buckley v. Valeo is one of the worst decisions ever handed down by the Supreme Court.

  And I'd like to suggest another amendment: Make the War Powers Resolution of 1973 part of the U.S. Constitution to put the brakes on runaway use of the commander-in-chief power.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 11:25:08 AM PDT