Forum Thread

A New Constitution for the United States

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 1 - 15 of 18 1 2 Next
  • Democrat
    Arkansas
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I am new to this forum but feel that this is the place to post. I believe that it is time to have a new constitutional convention at which adjustments to the original document can be made. I have spent the past few months "editing" the current document. I offer it here for the members of this forum, and anyone with whom you wish to share it, for their consideration and suggestions. http://voices.yahoo.com/a-updated-constitution-united-states-of-12657520.html?c...

    I'm trying to spread this to all American citizens, regardless of party, but I realize that Democrats are more likely to be interested in the changes which I have made.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I took 5 min to glance through it. A lot of it is copy and paste from the original with some of the Amendments integrated in. Some of the additions are ridiculous. You are making political parties a Constitutional requirement and not making them a natural development of the political process of the people. You are also requiring a minimum 3 parties for some reason. You also have moved the Executive branch to Article I and the Legislative to Article II. Do you intend for the President to be more powerful than the Congress?

    Also, the count for the number of House Reps use the population count of "legal citizens who are registered voters." I understand the idea of giving people an incentive to register, but you are excluding children, who arguably have the highest vested interest in the future of the country, from being counted when determining the size of House.

    Your lobbying prohibitions are awful as well. For a person, group, or organization to communicate their interests to their elected official is the very essence of free speech. It's actually exactly what political parties do and is exactly how they were formed in the first place. Kind of silly to require political parties then prohibit them. You can currently have just as much access as your representative as any lobbyist. Lobbyist just know how to and choose to utilize that access more. Your Reps just choose to ignore you because the other guy has more money. If you contact your Rep for any reason, you are in essence lobbying him.

    Anyway. That was just my 5 min quick scan. I have a hunch that you may just be a passerby and I'm not entirely sure if there will be responding much on.

    However, you are genuinely interested in some critiques from the forum, try breaking it down. It is A LOT of information for just one forum discussion so there would be tons of jumping around segways if you try and combine it all. Try a separate post for House, Senate, Executive, Judicial, etc.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Took a glance as well. Sorry, it is quite long for one sit down. But I got the same impression as Zach. Seems like you are trying to address some real issues with our political system that would best be solved with revisions to current legislation over a complete redo: only 2 choices for POTUS, fundamental healthcare, access to employment and social care for all, an attempt to take money out of politics, making corporations not the same as people. Its a commendable effort though. I too think that this country could (operative word there) benefit immensely from a new or greatly updated and revised constitution. But, I would be honestly scared half to death to see what constitutional lawyers in today's world would come up with. And this draft has many holes. Although I will say again that I think at least it seems like your heart's the right place.
  • Democrat
    Arkansas
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Appreciate the input. I'm no constitutional scholar. You may find the idea of only giving the vote to legal registered voters, but I think it has merits. The point here is to start a discussion which will lead to changes. There is nothing that says there will be only 3 parties. As a matter of fact, there could be representatives from 20 different parties in Congress with these changes. As much as I dislike the Tea Party, this would actually give them a greater voice, allowing them to splinter away from the Republicans. That would be a good thing for the country. Children have never had the right to vote, so I don't get that objection. I never said this was perfect, just a starting point. Removing the ability of parties to gerrymander in states such as Texas would make it harder for one party to "run" the state.

    By the way, I am not just a passerby; I am hoping that there will be others on this forum who look at my suggestions (there are many more to come) with an open mind and not reply with such disdain. Let's work together to make a document that works for those who want to make this a better country and a better government.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Forgot to say George Robert, welcome to Democratic Hub.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    sbfriedman Wrote: Forgot to say George Robert, welcome to Democratic Hub.
    I don't even want to look at it; sorry to say I've got the impression that this country needs a total new "base ground law" based on todays society.
    Look at al the twisting and turning to make that old document fit anything, (cost a fortune on lawyers and fees to make any changes) like gun laws, election bribery, lobbying, our role in the world, corruption, NSA spying on us, abortion and birth control, seperation between church and state (not clear at all), same sex marriage; drug control, State laws, tax structure, internet use and ownership, education without indoctrination, etc etc.
    Right now with our disfunctional government the Constitution is more or less a "headache" stand in the way to get things done.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    First off Robert, welcome to this Forum, I read some of your reformation project, I do like the term limits portion for the President and Vice-President, however changing the order of Succession is a bad idea, the same with altering the Oath of Office " from faithfully to the best of my ability", leaves it open to many different interpretations of the phrase best of my ability, there should be no equivocation on the discharging of Presidential duties nor of the Vice President's duties. I'll limit my posting and opinions to just this portion of your New Constitution as it is quite lengthy and attempting to discuss all of it would be quite a chore.
  • Center Left
    Independent
    Denton, TX
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    George Robert Wrote: Appreciate the input. I'm no constitutional scholar. You may find the idea of only giving the vote to legal registered voters, but I think it has merits. The point here is to start a discussion which will lead to changes. There is nothing that says there will be only 3 parties. As a matter of fact, there could be representatives from 20 different parties in Congress with these changes. As much as I dislike the Tea Party, this would actually give them a greater voice, allowing them to splinter away from the Republicans. That would be a good thing for the country. Children have never had the right to vote, so I don't get that objection. I never said this was perfect, just a starting point. Removing the ability of parties to gerrymander in states such as Texas would make it harder for one party to "run" the state.

    By the way, I am not just a passerby; I am hoping that there will be others on this forum who look at my suggestions (there are many more to come) with an open mind and not reply with such disdain. Let's work together to make a document that works for those who want to make this a better country and a better government.
    I said it requires a minimum of 3 parties. 3 Senators from each state, none from the same party. The none from the same party is atrocious. If your state is 90% Republican then having a delegation that is AT MOST 33% Republican is a gross misrepresentation of that state's interest.

    Also, huge chunks of this reads like an anti-immigration bill. Being born in the US would no longer make you a citizen? The U.S. currently has a immigration policy that is on par with Iran, Iraq, Somalia, and Libya. Why would you want to make it even stricter? "Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"
    ring any bells?

    In any case. It's too much content to address in just one thread. Break it down if you are looking for in-depth discussions. And don't get discourage, it took the founders years to iron out the original, and the first version failed miserable.
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Zach F Wrote:
    George Robert Wrote: Appreciate the input. I'm no constitutional scholar. You may find the idea of only giving the vote to legal registered voters, but I think it has merits. The point here is to start a discussion which will lead to changes. There is nothing that says there will be only 3 parties. As a matter of fact, there could be representatives from 20 different parties in Congress with these changes. As much as I dislike the Tea Party, this would actually give them a greater voice, allowing them to splinter away from the Republicans. That would be a good thing for the country. Children have never had the right to vote, so I don't get that objection. I never said this was perfect, just a starting point. Removing the ability of parties to gerrymander in states such as Texas would make it harder for one party to "run" the state.

    By the way, I am not just a passerby; I am hoping that there will be others on this forum who look at my suggestions (there are many more to come) with an open mind and not reply with such disdain. Let's work together to make a document that works for those who want to make this a better country and a better government.
    I said it requires a minimum of 3 parties. 3 Senators from each state, none from the same party. The none from the same party is atrocious. If your state is 90% Republican then having a delegation that is AT MOST 33% Republican is a gross misrepresentation of that state's interest.

    Also, huge chunks of this reads like an anti-immigration bill. Being born in the US would no longer make you a citizen? The U.S. currently has a immigration policy that is on par with Iran, Iraq, Somalia, and Libya. Why would you want to make it even stricter? "Give me your tired, your poor,
    Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"
    ring any bells?

    In any case. It's too much content to address in just one thread. Break it down if you are looking for in-depth discussions. And don't get discourage, it took the founders years to iron out the original, and the first version failed miserable.
    Like you said; even the smallest change will take forever, let alone a revision of the whole document; lets start with the "gun" thing; this will never gets done;the result will be evenmore "gun" freedom istead of restrictions; the NRA will even try then to allow armed drones in your possesion; I ordered already 10 of them; all pointed at certain politician's.................asses (just kidding)
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Watch it Dutch, big brother( NASA) may be monitoring/ gathering..
  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    johnnycee Wrote: Watch it Dutch, big brother( NASA) may be monitoring/ gathering..
    I doubt it will be NASA ( I'm not plannig to go to the moon yet) so I guess you mean NSA.
  • Democrat
    Philadelphia, PA
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    OOPS! Your right, although they the NSA have the capability to monitor communications on the moon.
  • Democrat
    Arkansas
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I'm am certainly not opposed to immigration, but in the past illegals have entered the country just so that they could have a baby who would then automatically be an American citizen. I believe that is wrong. So far as those who are already considered citizens, they are. I see no reason to continue the practice. All those who enter and become a part of the U.S. are welcome; I just think that only American citizens can forward that privilege to their offspring.
  • Democrat
    Arkansas
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I believe that it is only a matter of time before the NSA is put out of business. Obviously I can't do anything right now about their illegal "tapping" of my communications. It is wrong, and sooner or later the American people will do something about it.
  • Other Party
    Nebraska
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    The NSA isn't going out of business.

    They may change the name, and even say that the mission is changed (yeah, right) but it's not going anywhere. There will be MORE surveillance, not less in the future.

    Big Brother is watching...and listening...and surveilling...and mining our data...hacking our records...

    Be afraid, be very afraid.