New Constitutional Convention

[elwoodblues]

Assume that, for one reason or another, we are having a new Constitutional Convention (having had the experience of living under the existing Constitution for 200 years.) What would change, what would be the same, what would you like to see (and what chance would your like have)?

<u>Government Structure</u>
I would suspect that the President would be popularly elected, or at least there would be a significant change to how the President was elected. Also, the requirement of a natural born citizen probably wouldn't make it. Two term limits would either be extended or removed.

We would still have 3 branches of government with checks and balances. I suspect that the reach of the judiciary would be limited.

Members of the House wouldn't have to re-run every 2 years. Some sort of campaign finance restrictions would be in place. There would also be restrictions on spending/budgets.

<u>Bill of Rights</u>

We would still have a bill of rights. We would still have the same basic first amendment rights (though I suspect that both the press and free speach would be limited in some way).

Amendment 3 would probably stay, though only because it currently exists. Nobody considers it an issue now.

Amendments 4-6 would be substantially different. Fewer guaranteed rights of criminals. I think an overall frustration with the criminal justice system would lead to some pretty significant changes.

Amendment VII --- the $20 cap would surely be raised; there might even be some sort of loser-pays provision put in because of a perception of an overly litigious society

Amendment VII (cruel and unusual punishment, etc.) --- would be better defined, would probably include something that allowed for contemporary standards to be used.

Amendment IX and X --- wouldn't make the cut (IX would be a closer call than X)

[Poofler]

Elimination of the electoral college. Further standardizing of Federal elections.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
what would you like to see

[/ QUOTE ]

No constitution of any kind. The united states federal government is completely dissolved, and all states are given total sovereignty.

[xorbie]

Much stronger local governments. Almost anything that can be done at a state level should, IMO. That means the gfederal overnment controls foreign affairs, interstate and international trade and the such, but give states much more freedom with respect to education, laws about drugs/marriage/gambling etc

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
what would you like to see
[ QUOTE ]
No constitution of any kind. The united states federal government is completely dissolved, and all states are given total sovereignty.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and what chance would your like have

[/ QUOTE ]
0%

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
what would you like to see
[ QUOTE ]
No constitution of any kind. The united states federal government is completely dissolved, and all states are given total sovereignty.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and what chance would your like have

[/ QUOTE ]
0%

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you suggesting that it is reasonable to support something that I don't want, on the grounds that it is more likely to have an impact?

[[Phill]]

I dont get what you mean by "the President would be popularly elected, or at least there would be a significant change to how the President was elected".

Can you flesh that out a little more?

Oh, and a couple of the problems you seem to have is how you can tack laws into unrelated bills (the anti online gaming one is a great example).

Amendment 2 - the one about right to bear arms. It needs rewording or removing entirely imo. There needs to be tighter regulations on US gun ownership and its use.

Ammendment 7 - this is interesting for the fact that here in the UK there have been cases where people have been prosecuted for shoplifting items costing less than £1 and demanded a jury trial - costing the system thousands.

Limits to sueing people is a step in the right direction - our society is becoming as litigation friendly as yours and its getting out of control.

Extend the courts control and give basic rights to any people held by any US 'group' anywhere in the world - something to remove guantanimo and worded to stop the US from flying people to Egypt to be tortured.

Amendment 9 confuses me - anyone want to word it in modern non legalese.

Amendment 10 seems like a good thing - explain why ten (limiting the powers of central government and distributing control to the states) is wrong. Have i misunderstood it?

Maybe ammendment 4 should be ephasised. Some language defining this as including phone calls, email and web surfing habits could be included.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont get what you mean by "the President would be popularly elected, or at least there would be a significant change to how the President was elected".


[/ QUOTE ]

Currently, the president is elected by an electoral college (not a direct vote from the citizenry.) Each state is granted a number of electors (2 + their number of representatives in the House, for a minimum of 3.) Each state can then decide how their electors will vote. Most states have opted for a system where the candidate who wins the popular election in the state will receive ALL of the electors from their state.



----------

Most of my other comments were NOT what I would like to see, but rather what I suspect we would see.

[BCPVP]

Elwood, how do you gain support from the smaller states for abolishing the electoral college?

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you suggesting that it is reasonable to support something that I don't want, on the grounds that it is more likely to have an impact?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. My original question (perhaps poorly phrased) was not intended to hear what everyone would want, it was more to hear what people think would actually happen. Basically, I wanted to see some political theory mixed with political reality.

I think, unlike the founders, we are exceptionally short-sighted. Myopia coupled with current events would lead to many changes in the Constitution that, in my opinion, would be bad. I'm curious to know what changes people think would be made.