What would you change?

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
By "change" I mean modify, delete or add to. I refer you here to the Constitution of the United States. You non US readers are welcome to chime in as well, as I suspect you have a greater knowledge and understanding of our Constitution than most Americans.

NPR recently asked its audience what to change about the Constitution. The top 3 choicesare 3 new amendments:

1) Abolish the Electoral College

2) Limit campaign contributions from corporations & deny corporations the rights of citizens

3) Prohibit members of Congress from lobbying once they leave office

While this may sound good on the surface, I ask you how you would word these amendments. The Fallen Angel is in such details. In a nation where we argue and sue over what the placement of a comma in the Constitution means, your amendment must be clear, concise and have PLENTY of ancillary information to back up the meaning of it.


By ancillary information, I mean the debate, discussion and what you want the amendment to mean. This information not included in the text of the amendment will be used by courts in the future to decide how the amendment should be applied.

 I'll tackle my take on these tomorrow (unless I shoot a deer in the morning). Meantime, give me your ideas.

Here's some more to masticate in the meantime. The NPR story contains some surprising and not surprising suggested amendments. Some I like. Some I don't.

Limits on government should be very tight.

For space reasons I post the ones I like. Presume if I don't post it, I don't like it.

4. Limit Supreme Court seats to a single 9-year term with one seat getting turned over every year. Justices would be chosen by lot from a pool of candidates. The amendment would state the requisite qualifications needed (as decided by both houses of Congress). If you meet the criteria, and you want to be a Supreme Court justice, you enter your name in the pool. The most senior judge is chief justice.


6. Ten percent of voters may demand a national referendum on laws passed by Congress. A law is void if voters reject it, otherwise it retains its validity. Congress may repeal the law before the referendum takes place.

11. A direct citizens' vote should be required before entering in any type of war. 

If you look at the three I like v. the 8 I don't you may be surprised that I rejected proposals which would put even more control of the government into the average citizen's hands.

I do not like electronic elections. It's too easy to hack and FUBAR the election.

Some, I object to the way the amendment is phrased. Too many loopholes and if I can see 'em and I (for which I am MOST thankful) ain't a lawyer, then such amendments are doomed.

This one is particularly troubling: 5. The approval of the U.S. citizens would be required on all spending bills. Once per month, all taxpaying U.S. citizens would have the ability to log in to an Internet site and vote on the spending proposals that Congress puts forward.

The Magic 8 Ball says...

In addition to the electronic voting issue, there's the problem of getting the nation to vote monthly on spending bills. Consider the present gridlock in Congress which is merely a reflection of the collection state of mind of the U.S.

I ask, would someone in Washington State vote to approve a bill that included spending only in Florida? Get more personal. Would you vote to approve a spending bill that did nothing for your state and exclusively benefited a state 1,000 miles away?

While I'm against pork barrel spending probably more than most people, I also admit that a few state-specific projects are good ideas and need some federal funding.

I also ask you, are you going to take the time to read through all the spending bills?

When you head to the ballot box come time to vote, if there's an issue for you to vote on and you don't understand it, how do you vote?