Ok, so in several threads, the discussion of amendments and changes that we need to make in our government to solve our problems as a country have been thrown around. Some say we need to force the government to use the amendment process to authorize new departments such as Homeland Security, Department of Energy etc. Some ideas that I have read are amendments to limit terms for congress, even to amend the term limits for the president. I have not found a discussion about amendments specifically, so I thought I would start another friendly discussion here at on this topic since many here seem to have an opinion on the topic.

Questions for discussion:

1. Would you support another Constitution Convention (wasn't the last one in 1787?) to review and update our Constitution, why or why not?

2. What are the top three (I know we will cover more than three, right?) amendments you would propose and why?

3. Do you think that our government uses the amendment process too little, or just right (obviously they don't use it too much since only less than half of the amendments were ratified since 1900, and the 27th was proposed in 1789)?

Feel free to discuss your opposition to the amendments proposed by your fellow debaters!

My thoughts below:

Questions for discussion:

1. Would you support another Constitution Convention (wasn't the last one in 1787?) to review and update our Constitution, why or why not?

I think a constitutional convention is long overdue. We have debated here at whether or not the constitution is a living document or not. I think since it hasn't really changed much since 1787, it is hard to think of it as a living document if we don't make changes in the way that it was designed to do so. The amendment process was established for that purpose, and since we have not made any major changes to the constitution, but have changed the face of our government so dramatically, I think it is long overdue for a constitutional convention.

2. What are the top three (I know we will cover more than three, right?) amendments you would propose and why?

First term limits. Congress has become a profession, not a service. It should be the other way around. As we have discussed in other threads, one of the biggest roadblocks in our government right now is two parties playing politics and not getting a damn thing done in congress, just to jocky for more votes in the next election. No longer are our elected officials working for the betterment of our country, but the betterment of thier next election. If we limited the number of years one can serve in either house of congress, they might be more interested in preserving their legacy in history as a strong leader instead of preserving the votes of their special interest groups.

Second, either amend the constitution to eliminate all programs that are not specifically laid out in the constitution, or amend the constitution requiring their existance. The constitution is the law of the land. If programs such as social security, homeland security, department of energy, department of education, and many others are so important for our federal government to control and run, amend the constitution. If they are the responsibility of the federal government, and they are that important, amending the constitution shouldn't be that hard. If all of these programs and departments in our federal government that in the opinion of many are left to the states by the 10th amendment are necessary for the federal government to run, amend the constitution. If you believe that they are being run by the right level of government, and that they are so vitally important to spend federal tax dollars on, you should have no reason why the constitution shouldn't be amended.

Third, and my most off the wall, congressional and presidential pay raises by majority vote of the people during general elections. I know this is a crazy idea, but give me a chance. Every general election, there would be a section pertaining to approve pay raises. You would have the option to select various percentages similar to the percentages that most American employers offer. For most people, if you were to be offered a 6% pay raise, you would be the luckiest person on earth. So, every general election, you could choose from 0% to 6% pay increase for both the president and for congress. Which ever percentage for each that had the most votes, would be the pay raise for the following budget. Any compensation for either position would have to be approved by the people, increasing any benefit would require such a vote. I know this is a slippery slope to mob rule, but this amendment would be for the sole purpose of deciding congressional and presidential compensation.

3. Do you think that our government uses the amendment process too little, or just right (obviously they don't use it too much since only less than half of the amendments were ratified since 1900, and the 27th was proposed in 1789)?

I think our government doesn't use it enough, and the process that they do use should be scrapped. It is too easy to buy enough votes to get a majority by promising to support another bill one would normally not support. In order to get enough votes to amend the constitution, one has to have real support, and has to propose valid changes. No longer would a 55% majority and a president of the same party be enough to run things as they see fit. This would require actual cooperation from all parties involved. Getting 66% of the vote would help make sure valid and necessary laws and powers were passed, for the general welfare of the country, and not the insurance of a re-election.

1. Would you support another Constitution Convention (wasn't the last one in 1787?) to review and update our Constitution, why or why not?

Not my call, but I don't see how it would do any harm. Just by going through the process the public (and government) understanding of and relationship to the Constitution would be refreshed and renewed, even if no changes were made.

2. What are the top three (I know we will cover more than three, right?) amendments you would propose and why?

As an outsider, these suggestions cover the things that seem to me to smell most funny about US politics:

• An amendment to put limits on funding. No one individual or organisation to be able to donate more than $10,000 in total in any one fiscal year to any person stading for office or party supporting someone standing for office. And any organisation making a donation must ballot the relevant decision makers on a one-member-one-vote basis i.e. a trades union has to ballot all members, and a corporation would have to ballot all stockholders (and holding $1 would give you as many votes as $1 million). This would do something to get politicians out of the pockets of the very rich and big corporations and force them to engage with the mass of ordinary voters more than they currently do.
• An amendment to extend term limits to members of a family. Maybe one person could stand for two terms, and another member of their family could stand for another one or two terms. But after that, that's it. It just strikes me as odd that if Clillary Hinton wins in 2008, and maybe gets 2 terms (possible, even if it doesn't seem so yet), Jeb Bush could well stand after that. If he won 2 terms, you'd effectively have a situation where you'd been governed by the same two families for up to 36 years. And - if that's what you want - why no go the whole hog and become a monarchical empire like every other republic in history eventually did? (Before anyone asks, while I know Britain is a monarchy, I am not a monarchist myself but a republican).
• An amendment to bring in some more meaningful proportionality to the way presidential* elections work. *Or Congressional ones, it need not be both. This is tricky because I know different states decide for themselves quite how they count the votes, and electoral colleges are involved. However, it does seem odd that votes for smaller parties, or red votes in blue states & vice versa don't matter very much. (We Brits have the same problem with first past the post elections here).

3. Do you think that our government uses the amendment process too little, or just right (obviously they don't use it too much since only less than half of the amendments were ratified since 1900, and the 27th was proposed in 1789)?

I don't know, but it sounds a bit like too little rather than too much.

As an outsider, you sometimes have a clearer view on the problems our nation faces, as well as we may have a clearer view of the problems of your nation.

I like the idea of limits on fundraising for political office. One abstract idea would be to not allow donations to political campaigns. Let the special interest groups run ads to support certain candidates, but the candidates themselves would only be allowed to use a limited amount of funds to run their campaign. These funds would be from donations to political parties from voters. These candidates would be given a limited amount of money and that would be all they are allowed to use in their campaign, they would have to get creative in how they campaign when the money runs out. No tax dollars or personal money could be used. Only the limited funds that are allowed to be given by the parties. The parties would be required to give the same amount to each candidate from their party. So, if you have eight candidates for president in the primary from the republican party, each would recieve the same amount of money. If there isn't enough in the party to max out the limit, then what is there is divided up equally. The party will then have to raise enough money to fulfill the maximum allowed, but can only disburse money equally to all candidates as it comes in. I would hope that the party plans ahead in case more candidates throw their hat in the race to be able to fund those candidates. This would eliminate the fact that right now, it appears the White House is for sale. This would also level the playing feild for those lesser known, but possibly better candidates (John Cox). No longer would one's fortune buy them the election, and everyone that meets the age and citizenship requirements has a shot at the political office they want to run for. Of course there would be seperate limits and funds distributed for primaries vs. general elections.

The only reason I oppose your last proposed amendment is because of lineage. Long term thinking says that if I were president, and my son were president, my great-great-great grandchildren would not be eligible, even if they have different views from mine, and the country is in a completely different state of affairs. I can almost see an amendment limiting the number of consecutive terms served by family members, but to eliminate people entirely because of relation would eventually eliminate the majority of the country. To what distance of relative do we eliminate eligibility? I can argue that somewhere in my history, I might have distant lineage from someone who has already served, so that would make me related, but not really family, if that makes any sense.

Okay - that's a reasonable point. How about the anti-dynastic amendment (for that's what it's really trying to do) says something like "there shall be a maximum for presidential terms each individual, and a maximum of three terms spread across members of the same family where the lifespan of the second president overlaps with the presidential term of the first".

In this scenario, the living descendents of Teddy Roosevelt would be okay to run (I'm assuming any that were born while he was still president would be too old to run now), but no living Bush or Clinton would. Similarly, no Carter family member over the age of 27 today could stand (Reagan took office in 1980, right?).

Or, if your notional constitutional convention preferred, it might come out as "no sibling, spouse or offspring of a former president is eligible to stand for President".

Like it any better now, in either form?

This would not rule out other high offices - Hillary could be Secretary of State under some other Dem president, or Jeb under another GOP leader, for instance, but they wouldn't be able to be Vice Pres because, if the fickle finger of fate points at the Pres, they'd be next in line and would breach the anti-dynastic rule.

Though you have a valid point to avoid dynasties, something still doesn't sit well with me on eliminating eligible people because family members held the same position. Take Cheney's daughter. Now I don't want this to begin any slams on either the VP or his daughter, but I think we would agree that she would have a different view on many issues in this country. Obviously I don't know where she stands on many issues, but as far as gay rights, I would think she opposes those of her father, but I am just guessing. The point is, if she were to run, she would probably take a completely different direction than her father. This is just speculation but the point is, not all family members agree on political views, and simply by electing a second, third or even fourth family member into the presidency, there is no garauntee that those subsequent family members would run things the same. They might be complete opposites of the previous presidents, so it would be the same as electing someone that isn't related as far as policy goes. All in all, I think the American people will elect based on merit rather than family name, if the playing feild were more equal. Right now, one of the reasons the same people are always in the political spotlight is money. The election boils down to who has the most money to sling the most mud and buy the most votes. I think if that were to change, the entire election process would change as a domino affect.

No, absolutely not. I see the Constitution as somewhat of a sacred document, not a living document.

Imagine if the 4th and 5th Amendments were pulled or changed where the government had the right to look in your computer. I am not a fan of the Patriot Act - even though it has done some good, I think finalizing a change in the Constitution would be a terrible idea.

I'm also a gun owner. All we need is to open that can of worms. It has served us well thus far, and even if it gave owners MORE rights, I'd still be against the principle.

That, and we're on a global scale now. It's just just America. It's a global economy, and they'll want a say. The U.N. will want a say. EVERYONE will want a say. And when people don't get what they want, they'll propose ANOTHER Constitutional Convention.

I'm against it. C'mon. I'm Conservative. But especially, don't change what's not broken!

I think IF there was ONE thing I'd propose, it would be to prohibit judges from creating laws from the bench from shallow and unagreed and unspecified "interpretation". It's either legal, or illegal. IF it should be different, then there's a process for that. The most injustice I can see is in our courtrooms. Just my opinion.

Oooh, my creative juices are beginning to flow. Here's another one:

I'd create term limits for House and Senate representatives. Get your stuff done, get out. Nobody needs the same senator for 10 years. If your butt print begins to sink in the chair, let's replace both!

Here's something else I'd do, and I really like this idea.

I've seen the representation of the will of the people limited to a government leader. That's rubbish. Just because they got voted in doesn't mean that EVERYTHING THEY DO is the Will of the People! So I propose:

I'd require any House of Representatives AND Senators to take a poll of their Constituents for measures that are to be voted on and immediate and direct results would be on C-Span and documented in official papers. That way, when they stand up there and represent our state, THEY (and everyone else) can see the results of the voters versus what they say it is.

That way, if the Great State of Arizona says "yea" or "no" on whatever topic, and John McCain or Jon Kyl try to inject their own agenda into it (I mean, when McCain actually shows up, which is rare), they will either have to vote with the will of the participants, or not - but then everyone will see!. With technology today, we don't even need those guys to speak. Go to the state website, type in your SS#, you get to vote once, and you get your voice heard.

They're called representatives for a reason. To represent us, not to make us vote for "the guy closest to our beliefs and then they can be as rogue as they want to be after the election", which happens in waaay too many states, IMHO.

I can tell you, Diane Feinstein always says that 90% of her Constituents are anti-gun, which is why she always votes that way. Let's SEE those numbers! Nobody holds them accountable after the election, and that's the extent of our voice. I think that's wrong, and I'd propose an Ammendment to put them back where they belong: In SERVICE to the public, not THEM leading US.

Okay, that's three.

I admit, it'd be fun to re-try OJ on double jeopardy with his snappy new book. Or to put government in check.

Oh, if wishes were horses... beggars would ride!

/edited because I was nutty with the quotes
//man, I quoted everything!
///didn't even give myself a chance to speak!

1. Would you support another Constitution Convention (wasn't the last one in 1787?) to review and update our Constitution, why or why not?

Yes, it needs some updating to fix some of the problems the forefathers never were able to imagine- like a diverse population of 350 million poeple?

2. What are the top three (I know we will cover more than three, right?) amendments you would propose and why?

1) There can be no laws made that forbids a consenting adult from injesting or using any substance they wish, to any amount they wish. Gambling, prostitution and drug use can not be made illegal again. Write it so that it can be regulated for quality control, and allow it to be taxed to a certain amount, but make sure there is a provision that it is not taxed out of reach for a medium income person to purchase. That way they can't illegalize it by placing a 1 billion dollar tax on it or something. Further bracket personal rights that any consenting adult can waste thier money and pollute thier bodies in any fashion they wish to, and the goverment MUST allow zoning in "X" density of poeple a certain amount of room to do those
things. You can have heroin dens, and they can be zoned in a certain part of any population, just not so small or inaccesable for it to become impossible to perform the business. Make it 75% taxable to the city that the area lies in, and the feds get 0.

2) Freedom from conflict of interest to big business interests. This is in two parts-

1) There can be no informal contact between a board member of a pubically traded company, or any privately held company with over 500 employees. All meetings must be completely accesable to the pubic, with all meetings recorded on reliable media (VHS, DVD, whatever the future may bring us) that is viewable at public libraries, schools, court houses, federal buildings etc. Also, there must be one dedicated public channel that broadcasts city, state and federal meetings, 24/7. No private business of over 500 employees of privately held, and no publically traded company may make any campaign donations, nor may they use company resources to promote or make opinions on any elected official. However, non-profit non-business aligned entities shall continue to have full access.

2)WE do need to hear from business, but it should never be allowed to be confidential, and it should always be public. Any contact between elected officialls and those poeple should be carefully monitored, and if there is a group that needs THIER basic rights curtailed somewhat- it is elected officials!

If we need to hear from big business on an issue, which it is reasonable that we should, it should not be allowed any privacy, secrecy is the devil's workshop. The only exception is defense contracts, and those should have VERY specific rules as to oversite, with all three branches having equal access to all classified data, by subpoena, with no right to refuse to turn it over, and removal from office and criminal charges if it is destroyed illegally. Make it 3 from each of the two legislative houses, 2 from majority, one from minority. 2 supreme court judges, they vote amongst themselves. The prez.

3) Make it more difficult to interfere in other countries, with out military resources. Curtail the presidents power here greatly. Must have 2/3 majority, both houses to utilize troops outside of our borders for more than 30 days, and no yes vote, must be pulled back. Has to be re-voted on every 30 days. Funding must be approved in 120 day blocks, with withdrawal being mandatory if not renewed on date.

The exception is a total declaration of war- 2/3 majority, both parties, for attack on US soil. There must be a trial, held in the house, for the country we wish to condemn. Similar to impeachment for a prez, but for a foriegn country. In case of a full scale attack were further attack is eminent, there can be some safeguard emergency powers- like full nuke launch or something


bonus #40 tune up the 2nd amendment, clarify it a bit.

3. Do you think that our government uses the amendment process too little, or just right (obviously they don't use it too much since only less than half of the amendments were ratified since 1900, and the 27th was proposed in 1789)?

Probably about right

[

I reduced your post seemingly because the question appears how one would act in a provision of more absolute power in respects to lawfully executing the reality of the constitution.

If this is the case I would simply like to frame that all of my replies are on the basis of what I feel is currently the possibly objective views I hold of life. Firstly I redefine marriage as a state right to define at any giving time based of course on state level popular vote. I would abolish Affirmative action and yet replace any lawfully based case in which a company was found guilty of current laws of destroying liberty in say respects to employment for example in favor of an individual a lifetime monetary award from the company based on a non lethal upfront monetary fine. I would enact an anti discrimination law based around the perception of American freedom for all or liberty which I cannot see as existing in the face of inequality. This law of course would be in respect to industry and any actions based on a cultural function of America which would require at minimum a certain body count to be established that is not a family function.

Second I would enact a natural laws and reality measure based on constantly redefines a based level of environmental education for all on purely objective views presented in a level of uncertainty that can be reduced to subatomic realms. This law would also make provisional a base standard of industry and mass technology meaning tools around environmentally sound strategies for long term survival.

I would also begin that education become more formal and upfront in regards to language and the ability for a person to speak more then one. I would probably try to require this becoming a lifelong education requirement that educational systems must fulfill, open to various state level ability to also define such as to how many. I would pass this along with the environmental act as a package deal to ensure long term survival.

I would make interaction at the U.N a governmental duty to participate in. This does not however specify save to a position in federal government as an elected and acting politician of state level or higher for positions not to exceed two years open to yearly reelection by the people via state voting systems. Popular vote based. This is to be accompanied by a member of congress under the same conditions. I would also enact that this congressional status member has a vote that must be counted for a presidential or congressional act of war outside of U.S territories. The presidential vote on a presidential situation resides at the president and vice president level.

I would lastly define education as something needed for liberty to sustain. I would require this to be compulsorily and open to constant definition of what is actually regard to sustain a healthy life in contemporary America. I would sustain it as something that cements education as a standard tax all will pay of course unless it becomes towards the mere mortal end of the economic spectrum.

Along with this I would substitute a rule for a certain degree of federal taxes that cannot be ruled as a direct benefit to all Americans as a nation certain taxes that cannot be reduced to having no benefit to such a people and state. Beyond this I would regulate taxes to be a state level issue beyond that reality that no property tax may exist. I would due this on the idea of long term survival.

*of course in retrospect all of this is purely speculation as I only know Iraq to be really wrong so don’t worry my presidential chance rates are pretty low already

Just because there would be a convention, doesn't mean that they are going to tear the entire constitution up and start over. What the intent is to add amendments to fix the problems that our government has, such as too much government. There is too much support for the Bill of Rights that I doubt those would change at all. From one conservative to another, a Constitutional Convention could do this country a world of good. No one would have a say at the convention except the delegates from each of the several states. No other representatives. I would propose that a proportionate number of delegates from each state. Similar to the way representatives are distributed for the House. These delegates would be average people that pass a written exam pertaining to government and politics and the current state of affairs. The could not be politicians.

I disagree that the consitution doesn't need work and isn't broken- the forefathers weren't gods, they couldn't see the future, and we have a pretty hard core erosion of individual rights for all, all in the name of "security" or "welfare"- those need to be clearly defined, so that politicians can't form us, anymore than we already are, into a totalitarian nanny state.

Can I get an Amen!? I do disagree that the Constitution being broken. I don't think that it is broken by any means, but I think, it needs to updating, clarifying, and revising. The root of the Constitution is still very valid, however, we have allowed our federal government to twist and turn it's way through the constitution to make it mean anything they want, and in doing so, we have this wonderful nanny state that we do. I want the government out of my house, my business, and my pocket as much as possible. Unfortunately, as things have gone throughout history, that isn't the case.


If I must, I will clarify for you. If you were to be one of the delegates at the next constitutional convention, what three amendments would you propose and why? Sorry for any confusion this may have caused you.


I was with you up there with the abolishing affirmative action, but lost me completly thereafter. Are you saying that if a company violated someone's personal liberty, you would suggest emposing a lifetime monetary award to be paid by that company to that person? So essentially, as I read this, you would force a company to shut down.

Your ani discrimination law based around the perception of American freedom part is truely confusing to me, and maybe only me so please help me out. Whose perception, and does this change with time? My mind is too simplistic to follow the rest of the quote above, I guess. I think I need help understanding your position. Who knows, maybe I would agree, if I could only understand.


I think you are saying that you would enact laws requiring the education of environmental issues; as well as require industries to use tools around environmentally sound strategies. In other words, you would require private industries to use specific protocals and equipment to conduct business. Who pays for the change-over?


So, as I understand your thoughts here, you would require that in public education and private education, everyone must learn at least a second language? Also, you would require adults to continue their education for life? How would this work, and what is the punishment if private schools refused and adults refused?


By this theory, input from the U.N. would be required for the governing of our own country? Again, not exactly sure what you are saying here.


Now you have really lost me. "Requiring this to be compulsorily and open to constant definition of what is actually regard to sustain a healthy life in contemporary America." Is this meant to mean that education and what is required for education to be defined by what one person or even a panel of people deam necessary? Who get's that job, and what are the qualifications? Your proposed tax code is more confusing than the current one. Please expand on your explination as to what the taxes are supposed to be for.


And the token Iraq War crack, thanks! We need at least one per thread, and you jumped all over it!

Scubatim- what you hit on is this: This administration, possibly more than any in US history, has shown us the double whammy of extreme incompetancy and a naked grab for power combined with demagoguery of fear, forces us to re-evaluate how much power and oversite we entrust to the office of the presidency. Looks like WAY too much.

That is why I would try to restrict the evil triumvurate of big business, religious demagoaguery, and an incompetant in every way except for appealing to those two former entities

So, all amendments that needed from a constitutional convention to limit those powers the most. Those powers are obviously biggest threats to freedom in our country.

I would also probably force more public access and limit media sizes again as well, force them to be smaller, and into smaller market competitions. Since so much of the "triumvurate of evil" 's power is derived from the media, I would not allow big business access to any part of it. They would be only allowed to have one or two radio stations in an area, and none outside that area, same with TV and such- networks would have to purchase time on smaller stations instead of the other direction. Syndication will be through demand of the small stations, instead of big business dictating program direction on a national level. Also, I would amend into the constitution net -neutrality for the same reason.

As for dropping Afirmative Action- I have to ask "why?" I think those that ask for that have a fundamental misunderstanding of how AA works. There is due process, redress for harm etc- not the "quota" some right wingers would have you believe.

I would leave it intact as is.

I would not allow one race to use their economic might to squelch another race's opportunities or attempts at finding economic success.

Let's not isolate just one administration or one congress. The slow downfall of our liberties have been ongoing for decades. I know you are referring to the Patriot Act among others, however, the many beuracracies that now make up our beloved federal government that dip their fingers and controls into most aspects of your life have been building for much longer than the last seven years.

I can definately understand the basis for limiting media size, however I don't agree that the government needs to limit the size of any business.

As far as affirmative action is concerned, I might need some education on it. At it's most basic level, as I understand it, if I were in line for a particular job, and let's say a black woman is also in line for the job, if we are equally qualified, affirmative action would dictate that the black woman gets the job, and I am sent packing. Correct me if I am wrong.

I am not talking about limiting business per se'- I am just talking about the media and use of public airwaves. That is a limited pubic resource, and big business has too much of it.

AA- in a word = NO- if all things are equal, and the boss likes you more for your personality- NO youdon't have to take the black woman. Nor even if she was more qualified than you, if your reason is you had a better "chemistry" with the boss than her- but where you get into trouble is if your ONLY reason for hiring YOU over HER is that you don't like blacks- pretty hard to prove, until you have a pretty good track record of doing just that. Since it is hard to prove, and before any remedy can be forced on the business, they have to prove in a court of law that you are hiring strictly on race, religion, sex.

On top of that- you are only forced to have "quotas" in the business setting when you have a PROVEN and CONVICTED record of discriminating SOLELY on race.

There is no law against discriminating by giving your stupid in-law an affirmative action hire for dummies, "affirmative" action happens all the time. For instance- GW got into school via his "Affirmative action for white rich dummies"- he was a legacy enrollee. Meaning, there could have been HUNDREDS of more qualified blacks, jews or women that were passed over because of who your daddie's were.

No one seems to really be working on that particular unfairness here though.

AA is just a whipping boy for closet racists, in the end.

BTW- it does NOT mean companies MUST hire less qualified black poeple over more qualified white poeple- if the company can prove the white person is more qualified- then the EEOC will have no case, which is a lynch pin of one of the major myths and lies by the right dealing with this issue.

I thought of another biggie though, that actually be my #1 real goal, if I were "queenie, for a day"- - I would probably nationalize all legal practises. Capitalism doesn't work nor belong in the justice system. I would not allow private practise of law- legal aide firms that give for-fee consultations to individual citizens or lawyers- I am cool with that- but I wouild end the legal proffesion as we know it today.

I would also codify , by amendment- that the death penalty sentence CAN NEVER be called "cruel or unusual" just because it leads to death. - I would also amend it to provide for a new type of sentence- the "economic death penalty" that pauperizes corrupt CEOs and the fraudulent con-artist biz type. The Ken Lay's and the Michael Milkens. They would have to turn over all of thier possesion and money, and would never again be allowed to have more than enough to live in public housing, off of the lowest welfare payment in the nation, no matter what region they live in. Any money past the minimum needed to sustain life will be due back to the victims.

I can see your point, however one of my proposed amendments would eliminate the FCC, and therefore the airwaves would not be public, but any company can own a specified number of frequencies in a given market. This would be regulated by the state, thereby moving the power away from the federal government and towards state government, where we as a people have more oversight and control. Of course this is all off the cuff chit chat, but it is a good starting point.


There is a lot of debate about the rich get off and the not so rich get time, and a lot of validity to it. I am a capitalist at heart, as I own my own business and want nothing to do with Uncle Sam running my business, so I shy away from ideas of nationalizing all legal practices. Again, if states wanted to limit the fee rates that a private practice could charge, that might be something, but it would have to be at the state level. Again, anything that gives the Feds more power, IMHO, is outrightly against the intent of our form of government. If the individual states want to try to enact laws such as this, that is ok, I have more access and influence (as little as it is) in my state government than I do my federal government. State officials actually live and work along side their constituents every day. I can go into my state capitol and stop my elected representatives and talk to them one-on-one much easier than I can my U.S. elected officials.


I think the justice system needs to have some sort of revision to classify the Ken Lay's in a completely different category. Jail time doesn't hurt them all that much. Any money they have tied up in off shore investments will be there, only bigger, when they get out. Those types of criminals need to be hit where it hurts most-the pocket book.

You're right there, I think, but it still rankles that between the Bushes and the Clintons it is perfectly possible for them to hold off all other comers for two straight generations.

Maybe one of the ways to reform campaign financing is to have some kind of minimum limit of money that has to be raised from public campaigning. I don't know what that limit would be, but the idea is that to stand for office you'd have to persuade enough people to donate money specifically to your campaign that you could stand without being a wealthy person - or coming from a wealthy family. This - coupled to the donation ceilings I mentioned earlier - should work in much the same way as my anti-dynasty idea.

We are the strongest nation on earth and for the most part we are very fortunate to have the things we have today. Like it or not we are living better then we have 20 years ago we shouldnt go changing somthing that doesnt need to be fixed. Why fix the country if it still works and is still progressing. That and there is also the fact that politicians cant obey the laws that we already have, why are we going to trust them to rewrite them?

I would have to do some research, and if anyone knows for sure please chime in, but I don't think a Constitutional Convention has to have elected officials present. I would think the states should be able to send whomever they chose as delegates. So, I don't expect politicians to rewrite them at all. As far as your position on not fixing what isn't broken, I think things may not necessarily be broken, but I am sure things can be much better.

This is often accepted as orthodoxy; and I'm not sure why. Sure; people have more things, but there are real challenges to the idea that quality of life has improved. People work longer hours (yes, it's a Canadian study, but American research shows the same), real wages are stagnating or shrinking, stress levels are rising, and people are off dying in a real (versus Cold) war.

To put it plainly, American (and Canadian to an extent) has papered over the increasing pressures on the middle and lower classes with materialism; and financed this grand illusion with debt. As history has recently demonstrated, believing that things are worth more than the economy can justify; and borrowing to pay for them is a perilous game to play.

1.) I believe the people have the power to redress government when it stops working, so what's stopping us here at from just doing it? Naturally, for the survival of the country, it's time we give the Constitution a make-over.

2.) Amendment One: Abolish federal taxes. Put the States back in United States and let the governments of the states decide what kind of provisions are needed to sustain operations in that state. Keep the powers originally outlined to the Congress to regulate coinage, etc. But let the states make their own taxes. Populations may shift, but people will weigh if they want fire and rescue, possible universal healthcare, etc.

Amendment Two: Legalization of same-sex marriage. African Americans got several amendments. We can afford those so desperately fighting for equality the courtesy of one.

Amendment Three: Legalization of drugs. The War on Drugs was lost before it began.

3.) Way too little, it's why we see bogus programs established to circumvent the law. If we just added laws to the supreme document, we'd experience less muck in the legal process.

You and I agree on everything you said, except the above excerpt. Our disagreement isn't about the morality of same sex marriage. The disagreement I have with your position is whether or not we need a Constitutional Amendment. When we legalized something such as this, a moral issue, we are putting our Constitution in other peoples bedroom. By the Constitution not taking a stance on the issue, we leave the federal government out of personal lives. If the states want to establish same sex marriage laws, that is a different issue. From my interpretation of the Constitution, this shouldn't even be a federal discussion, it is an issue left up to the several states. On the same token, the federal government should also not make same sex marriages illegal. There should be no discussion on moral issues at the federal level, and the federal government should not intervene on a state's right to make such laws. Again, like you said, populations may shift, and that is OK. If an issue is so important that a population shift affects a state's ability to raise enough taxes to run, they will get the picture. I say leave the Constitution out of peoples homes and let the states decide the issue.

Loving v. Virginia legalized miscegenation. I would settle for a Supreme Court case that made it as binding as a Constitutional provision.