How would you amend the Constitution?

[swansont]

I think we should have a Constitution 2.0, it is long overdue, but it ain't happening anytime soon. I think it has been obviously established that we don't read the constitution like Bubba reads the bible(if he could read). If you did that, the document would be obsolete the day after it was written. So there is always wiggle room, but I think we all agree that as it stands, we cannot ban all guns in the US without a change to the constitution.

 

I think part of the problem is that too many people read the Bible like they read the Constitution or vice-versa. If one were to amend it, it has to be because there's a problem with what's there or not there, rather than the distorted view people have of what's there and not there.

[EdEarl]

Eliminate the electorial college.

 

Term limits for congressmen.

 

Alternate voting.

 

The people should vote on tax changes and Supreme Court nominees.

 

The people should be able to veto line items on any bill. Generally line items are unknown to people, because bills are too big and complex. However, some people do read them, and occassionally, a line item gets into the news. Concerned citizens could log in to vote.gov and veto a line item, if a majority of registered voters reject it, it's gone.

[Moontanman]

I would take steps to remove the influence of money, our elected officials are nothing more than tools of the people who give them the most money. Corporations are not people either....

[iNow]

The people should vote on tax changes and...

In which case, most people would only vote yes on changes that lowered their taxes and very few would ever vote to increase them... It would result in us rapidly returning to something akin to medieval times or at least the movie Idiocracy.

The people should be able to veto line items on any bill. Generally line items are unknown to people, because bills are too big and complex. However, some people do read them, and occassionally, a line item gets into the news. Concerned citizens could log in to vote.gov and veto a line item, if a majority of registered voters reject it, it's gone.

I think some level of knowledge should have to be demonstrated before any random citizen could "veto line items on any bill." That's a level of authority we don't even currently grant to the president, a person who studies daily and knows about exactly these things. Many individuals in our populace are just too pig ignorant and led around like sheep IMO to be given that level of power or authority.

[overtone]

It would take a professional staff and a day's study of their findings by a well-educated voter to make an intelligent line item veto in a typical US budget.

 

Terrm limits give more power to entrenched bureaucratic interests and corporate money: It takes a couple of years for the average competent federal legislator to figure out what's going on (the bureaucrats are very familiar), and being a temp employee would motivate even more of the financial maneuvering and angling for corporate favor that so corrodes Congress now.

 

The changes I would make to the Constitution would be mostly clarifications of matters already present that have proved vulnerable to corruption and rhetorica fog - including explicit definitions of key terms, such as "people" and "punishment", that resemble their traditional and standard meanings.

 

I would also include an amendment establishing automatic triggers for impeachment proceedings of the high officials of all three branches of government - the Court, the Presidency, and the Congress. Committing the military to combat beyond a few months without a formal, explicit declaration of war by Congress would be one for the President; sponsoring legislation actually written by private interests and paid lobbyists would be one for Congress; failure to recuse oneself in cases involving family, friend, or financial interest would be one for the Court. An "opt out" provision for impeachment rather than the current "opt in" setup, in certain flagrancies, would be the goal. (The grounds for removal and conviction would not be changed).