How do YOU think the Constitution needs changing?

[redneckgaijin]

Over the years I've thought of several ways that, given the backing and political support, I'd like to see the US Constitution amended. Some proposals parallel or overlap those of other people, others not. Here's what I currently believe should be changed in our Constitution, beyond all question:


THE BUSH AMENDMENT

Section 1. The President of the United States acts as the Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the United States of America; but the President shall have no power to take offensive action against any nation, or against belligerents outside the United States (except for pirates on the high seas) except in time of war as explicitly declared by both houses of Congress, or under provisions of treaties with foreign nations as ratified by the Senate.

Congress shall have sole and exclusive power to declare war, which it may not delegate or devolve to any other agency, officer, or other branch of government. Congress shall also have power to order, by joint declaration of a majority of each house, the President to cease offensive operations and withdraw armed forces back to the sovereign territory of the United States. Refusal by the President to obey the will of Congress expressed in this manner shall constitute an impeachable offense.

The President of the United States retains the power to respond to invasion, revolt and insurrection within the territory and jurisdiction of the United States.

Section 2. The opinions of the President on the intent of any law, or its compliance with the Constitution, shall bear no weight in law, nor shall they be regarded by any officer or employee of the Federal government of the United States.

Section 3. The executive powers of pardon, commutation and clemency exercised by the President of the United States shall not extend to himself or herself, the Vice President, any member of Congress, or any person serving within the executive branch of the Federal government of the United States under that President, or for any acts committed by such persons or on the orders of such persons during the period in which such persons held office.

Section 4. The right of habeas corpus shall not be denied to any person held prisoner by the Federal government of the United States or any department within that government, regardless of the prisoner’s citizenship or the nature of the jurisdiction in which the prisoner shall be held.

Section 5. Torture, defined as the infliction of pain, degradation, or other cruel and unusual treatment of prisoners, shall be a Federal crime punishable by such sentence as Congress shall establish; but no sentence shall carry less penalty than ten years of imprisonment without parole or early release, forfeiture of any office of trust, and loss of all benefits and privileges of that office.

Any person who authorizes or orders other persons subordinate to them to employ torture shall themselves be considered guilty of torture.

Torture shall constitute an impeachable crime under this Constitution.

Section 6. The President and Vice President, being citizens of the United States and members of the executive branch of the Federal government of the United States, may not exempt themselves from any law, regulation, executive order, or other ordinance or instrument applicable to all citizens of the United States or all members of the executive branch.



THE GONZALES AMENDMENT

Section 1. Congress shall establish a Department of Justice, the senior officer of which shall be entitled the Attorney General of the United States. The Attorney General shall be an American citizen of at least thirty years of age, shall have been resident in the United States without interruption for five years prior to his or her term of office, and shall not concurrently hold any elected office or other office of trust within the Federal government or any lesser government body within the jurisdiction of the United States.

The Attorney General shall be elected for a term of two years on the first Tuesday in November of odd-numbered years by majority vote of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, said term to begin January 1 of the year following election.

No Attorney General, having been elected by the Supreme Court, shall again be eligible to serve as Attorney General after the expiration of his or her full term.

Section 2. The Department of Justice shall organize, operate, and oversee any and all law enforcement organizations instituted by the Federal government to enforce the laws of that government. The Attorney General shall have power to appoint, with the advice and consent of the Senate, any and all lesser officers in such agencies; but on no account shall any person’s race, gender, creed, religion, or partisan affiliation be considered or questioned as a condition of or qualification for appointment or employment within the Department of Justice.

The Department of Justice shall have power to order and carry out the investigation of any officer within the federal government, including members of Congress, the President, the Vice President, and any seated justice of any Federal court, including the power to convene grand juries of inquest and to issue and enforce subpoenas of witnesses to testify before grand juries convened by the Department of Justice. In aid of such investigations, the Attorney General or such lesser officer as he or she may designate shall show probable cause to any justice of the Supreme Court and, with the justice’s consent, obtain warrants for search and seizure of evidence. No declaration of legislative or executive privilege shall have power to stay or challenge the execution of any subpoena or warrant issued by the Department of Justice.

Section 3. The President of the United States shall appoint, with the advice and consent of the Senate, a Solicitor General to act as the representative and advocate for the Federal government of the United States in any and all cases at law in which that government shall be a party. The Solicitor General shall have no law enforcement powers, nor any power of subpoena except in regard to active disputes before the court at law, and shall not be considered a member or officer within the Department of Justice.

Both the Attorney General and the Solicitor General shall be considered advisors to the President of Cabinet rank; however, the President shall have no authority over the Attorney General or the Department of Justice, nor may the President terminate the term of the Attorney General in office.



THE PELOSI AMENDMENT

Section 1. Any two Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, upon being presented evidence of treason or other impeachable crimes, shall have power to impeach any officer within the Federal government, including any member of Congress, the President, the Vice President, and any head of any department or agency established by Congress, excepting justices seated in Federal courts.

The Supreme Court of the United States shall have sole power to try impeachments, except in cases against Federal justices appointed by the President, a vote of two-thirds of all the justices of the Supreme Court being necessary for conviction.

Congress shall retain power to impeach and try justices seated in Federal courts.

Section 2. Impeachment and conviction shall carry no penalty beyond immediate removal from office, permanent disqualification for any future office of trust within the United States or any body of government within it, and the forfeiture of any and all privileges held by former holders of the office held when impeached; but any person impeached and convicted shall remain liable to indictment, trial, and punishment according to law.

Section 3. The following shall be considered impeachable crimes:
• Treason;
• Abuse of power, defined as the use of the powers of an office to violate the rights of others unjustly or to violate the Constitution of the United States, or the use of the powers of an office for personal gain other than financial profit;
• Corruption, defined as the use of the powers of an office for the enrichment of oneself or of one’s friends and family through bribery, graft, or other illegitimate means;
• Obstruction of justice;
• Perjury;
• Deception of Congress, defined as deliberately lying to or otherwise misleading Congress in order to influence its deliberations and votes;
• And any crime designated a felony by Congress or the legislature of any State.



THE KENNEDY-CLINTON AMENDMENT

Section 1: For any person elected President of the United States, Vice President of the United States, Senator, or Representative in Congress, or appointed to any office requiring Presidential appointment and the advice and consent of the Senate, once that person begins his or her term of office, any and all parents, children, grandchildren, siblings, siblings by marriage, and children of siblings or siblings by marriage shall be permanently ineligible for election or appointment to any office of public trust within the jurisdiction of the United States of America.

Section 2: The spouse of any person elected or appointed as per Section 1 shall be eligible for public office solely to complete that person's term of office when in cases of death or disability that person becomes unable to serve to the conclusion of their term. In all other cases the spouse of any person elected or appointed as per Section 1 shall likewise become permanently ineligible for election or appointment to any office of public trust within the jurisdiction of the United States of America.

Section 3: This amendment shall not apply to those related by marriage, or blood as outlined in Section 1 who are concurrently holding offices of public trust at the time of the enactment of this amendment.

Section 4: This amendment shall enter into effect the day after the first federal election day following the ratification of this amendment.



THE GOLDMAN-SACHS AMENDMENT

Corporations, being chartered by governments and therefore creations of government, shall not be considered as natural persons for any purpose of law or invention. Congress shall have full power and authority to regulate corporations, to grant and revoke liberties for such corporations, and to abolish corporations which have demonstrated a systematic disregard for the laws and regulations of the United States.

Regulations on corporations shall be uniform and universal, with no favor or onus shown any particular corporation except as a punishment for crimes or torts committed by the corporation or by officers or employees of that corporation.



THE DEMINT AMENDMENT

If, a period of thirty days having lapsed following the appointment of any officer whose appointment requires the advice and consent of the Senate, the Senate shall not have acted upon the appointment, then the person in question shall be considered as having been approved by silent consent until such a time as the Senate shall vote or until the term of office is completed.

Once the Senate has voted to confirm the appointment of such an officer, that confirmation may not be revoked by the Senate except in the case of impeachment.


Comments? What other ways do you think the Constitution should be changed?

Comments

[hugh_mannity]

Term limits and retirement ages. Politics is a civic duty, not a career. Term limits across all branches of state and local government and have a lifetime length of service cap. (e.g. 10 years total, no matter whether it's state rep, senator, governor, or pres.)


Link representatives pay to their state's median wage.

No pension plans -- if there are term limits they won't be in office long enough to earn a pension.

No fancy health care plans - they can have Medicaid or Medicare (depending on their age and health status)

They're supposed to be public servants, not our lords and masters, and should be treated that way.

[transmitte]

Bravo on that! I've been of that mindset for years, just not as well put.

I have had the idea that public office should be treated similar to jury duty. Your name is picked, you're given 18-24 months lead time for you to go take appropriate education for you to do the job while you are there(and paid for by the gov't as well) and are there for 2-6 years depending on office. You get gov't backed housing(decent, not lavish) while there, if you go to say, DC, or you get to live in your own house if you're local. Pensions & medical are pretty much the same as you noted in your response.

I realize it's not the most sound thing but it would damn sure put the actual public in charge and keep out the career politicians and mitigate things like lobbyists and special interest.

[transmitte]

You seem to have a rather firm grasp on the constitution, much more than I do. Other than what I responded to from Hugh's response, I say you're good.

[hugh_mannity]

Thinking about it some more, while you're on the money with Gonzales, the 3 branches need to be more clearly separated and the balance of power between them needs to be strengthened and protected.

I'd also cut down the amount of time Congress is in session. We need small quantities of high-quality legislation, not the industrial quantities of impenetrable dreck we're getting these days.

I'd be in favour of single-topic bills, too. If you can't say what you want in 2,500 words or less, then you need to rethink what you're trying to do. Look at the original Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and Bill of Rights. Even with the flowery phrasing of the day, these are not long or complicated documents, but they're effective.

TBH -- I'd like to see a lot less government at the federal level and the state governments reined in along the lines we're discussing now: term limits, no lobbyists, no dynasties, no multi-volume soup-to-nuts bills.

An end to deficit spending as the default modus operandi would also be good. Deficits are necessary from time to time, but in general, the government should balance its budget. Deficits would have to be specific in amount, purpose, and duration. We can't allow government to run up so much debt that it has to borrow more money just to pay the interest on what it already owes -- which is the situation we're in now.

I could go on... but it's time to feed the Feline Overlords. If you thought the IRS or TSA were bad, then you haven't been around hungry cats. :)

[redneckgaijin]

Shortening Congressional sessions won't guarantee that Congress will get work done faster; indeed, experience with state legislatures proves the opposite.

Mandating one-subject bills is unenforcable.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights generally set up a system, not the laws themselves. Look at how many times the phrase, "Congress shall have power to pass laws..." appears in the amendments- they AREN'T self-enforcing.

Blame excess and opaque verbiage in laws on lawyers. Everything has to be defined to a fare-thee-well, and everything has to fit in the format of the United States Code of Law (XYZ is added, ABC is deleted, PDQ is amended to read, etc.) When Bill Clinton said, "That depends upon what the definition of 'is' is," he was exercising a standard legal argument- challenging the definition of terms.

Every version of a Balanced Budget Amendment floated to date includes a requirement of a Congressional supermajority (usually 2/3) to raise taxes. California's had that for decades now- it's one of the main reasons, Three Strikes Law being the other, that they're perpetually on the brink of insolvency. Likewise my home state, Texas, has cut poor aid, Medicaid, and education to the point that there are practically no aid services for the poor left apart from overwhelmed private charities- all because "we can't afford to raise taxes." All of this during a time when the proportion of GDP going to government is lower than it's been since 1950, tax rates on the wealthy are lower than since Herbert Hoover was President, EFFECTIVE top tax rates are lower than since TAFT was President, and corporate profits are at all-time highs.
The goal of Balanced Budget Amendments isn't to balance the budget- it's to undo the New Deal and return us to the Guilded Age, which Republicans have very nearly accomplished.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Fixed terms for Supreme Court Justices, probably 10 or 15 years.

This would make the nomination of judges more predictable and less of a political crapshoot. Judges wouldn't hang on when their health is declining because they don't like the current president's likely choices. We wouldn't be a risk of an unduly stable set of judges because medical tech improves. There wouldn't be a bias towards choosing younger judges in order to extend an administration's political influence.

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

I gave this some serious thought.

The reason I came down against it, in the end, was that it makes it all too easy for one party or another to stack the court and keep it that way indefinitely. (And you know which party I have in mind for that, too.)

Also, I personally believe all nine currently seated justices routinely violate the Constitution in their rulings and should be impeached, so I have no real confidence that changing the term from lifetime to fixed would make things any better at all, anyway.

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that the current system makes it all too easy for one party to stack the court, especially if med tech improves.

How would fixed terms make things worse?

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

Your "Kennedy-Clinton" amendment is unconstitutional in itself; it establishes a test for holding office which is outside the control of the people affected by it.

I also find that title ironic and only half-appropriate. Why didn't you call it the Roosevelt-Kennedy-Bush amendment instead? Clinton shows no signs of wanting to establish a political dynasty -- we haven't seen Chelsea or any of his more distant relatives running for office. Is it just that thinking about Hillary Clinton sends you frothing at the mouth?

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

I could also have added:

* Adams
* Harrison
* Lincoln (Robert Lincoln held several appointive offices)
* Taft (for a while, practically Ohio's royal family)
* Pelosi (her grandfather was a Congresscritter too)
* Bono

And there are DOZENS of others. I didn't add Bush because I've already used his name.

I have it in for the Clintons because Hillary chose, in an era when women were first getting a foothold on the rungs of power, to seek political power not in her own right, but by hitching herself to a marketable male politician-in-training. Until the Secretary of State position, everything Hillary Clinton achieved in politics, she only got because she was Mrs. Bill Clinton. She earned nothing for herself except (possibly) her current position as Secretary of State. Considering how obviously intelligent and talented she is, it's doubly angering.

(The fact that I find the whole Clinton clan, including Chelsea married-to-a-Goldman-Sachs-banker Clinton, corrupt as hell is a biasing factor, I admit.)

And, finally: by definition, an amendment to the Constitution cannot be unconstitutional. If it were, several of the current amendments (including the 13th, 16th and 17th offhand) would be dead letters. I personally believe that particular amendment is justifiable in that it makes it tougher to maintain an aristocracy in this country- and, let's face it, aristocracy is quite alive and well at the moment.

[starcat-jewel.livejournal.com]

Unless you're ready to throw out the 14th Amendment, this thing you're proposing is unconstitutional, period. You're telling me that if my father had gone into politics and reached the Federal level, then I (living in a different state and not having spoken to him in 15 years) should be permanently barred from running for city council here, even after his death. Fuck that shit. Let's tackle this from a legitimate direction, aka campaign finance reform.

Re Hillary Clinton: Oh FFS. Do you have any idea how sexist it is for you, a man, to say that some woman isn't being feminist ENOUGH? It's the flipside of saying she's being an uppity bitch, and no more valid -- you're still claiming the right to make her decisions for her. Being genuinely supportive of women's rights means granting a woman the right to make choices even if you personally disapprove of them.

(Note: I'm not talking about being an enabler for someone in an abusive relationship, so don't even THINK about bringing up that strawman. Being able to make your own choices about what to do with your life is the point.)

several things :

[andreas_schaefer]

Fairly high on my list are: ( wording needs work )


The right to privacy and not having ones data collected and the right to have the content of any database as far as it is related to oneself checked for truth and be corrected by an independant agency.
If Security/courts/law enforcement can make a case that opening a database to the 'public' would endanger security - pending cases investigations then they can get a one time lock up of 2 years on data ( if they can't make a case in 2 years they do not have the grounds for a case to start with )
This should go in the front right along with the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happyness.




Every LEGAL abbrevation of civil liberties ( the right to work, live, walk assemble, marry, have sex with , practice ones own religion, .... ) must name within the body of the law ( or executive decision ) the court where this law/decision can be contested in singular or collective application.
With a an appendable but not abbreviable list of reasons that may not be used to discriminate ( treat different ) [ sex, gender, age, body type, skin-color, race, ... ]


True seperation of state and church ( any church, any religion ) : since the stae by its secular nature cannot understand marrigae it cant perform weddings nor regulate marriage - that remains the puview of the 'religious' assemyblky the respective individuals belong to - however the stae can regulate civil unions which are the sole legal 'cause ' of visitin/decision/inheritance rights . ( get the stupid fight about gay-marriage out of the way once and for all )#


Every law made must begin with a statement what this law is supposed to achieve [ eg speed limit set to 65 m/h : lower the number of traffic-dead ].
And a default date the law will be automaticly abolished unless proven effective. That date should normally not be more than 5 years from the enactment of the law.
Any law not applied anywhere in the union for a period of 10 years assumed to be superfluous and striken from the books unless reintroduced into respective law-giving assembly [ and then tested like any new law for purpose and effectiveness]


Establishment of an independant body for finding the statistics on any law and or ordinance:
then any legal infraction done for profit fined for not less then the profit * (times the detection quota + 1) [ eg: if you park illegally to save 5USD but get caught only every 10 time the fine is no less than 51 USD ]
on top of other reprimands and or penalty.
I call this 'making crime unprofitable'.

Probably I would abolish all 'crimes' where the victim is the perpetrator : suicide or taking drugs should be ok unless others are hurt.

List incomplete

Re: several things :

[omorka.livejournal.com]

since the stae by its secular nature cannot understand marrigae it cant perform weddings nor regulate marriage

This is a peculiarly Christian understanding of marriage - prior to the Church's takeover of marriage as a sacrament in late Roman times, marriage was a solely a matter of legal contract (formal or informal) between two families. It was the state's business because the state enforced contracts and handled inheritance law (and, since it was a legal method of dissolving a contract, divorce). It was firmly not the business of any temple, shrine, abbey, church, or synagogue; at most, you might have an augur perform a divination before the ceremony to make sure it was an auspicious union, and have a priest/priestess/rabbi pronounce a blessing over the couple to ensure their fertility. It didn't lessen the validity of the marriage if you didn't consult any clergy at all.

It was only after the Church started meddling in the affairs of the Empire that marriage became a matter of sacramental religious vows between individuals (with legal implications for legitimacy and inheritance) rather than a legal contract between families. The 'civil union' is much closer to what most Western cultures have meant by a marriage than our current model, although it's far more individualistic than a historical marriage would have been. (Interestingly, one of the few pre-Christian Classical models for a vow-based love-grounded permanent relationship between individuals was the Sacred Band of Thebes and its members - which were all homosexual couples.)

I'm all in favor of separating civil marriage from sacred marriage, but giving the churches exclusive claims to the word "marriage" strikes me as ahistorical and hardly supportive of real religious freedom.

Re: several things :

[andreas_schaefer]

I want to take marriage out of the legal dictionary. Give the term marriage to the people who feel/think [ for some value of think ] that marriage is something holy that has specific conditions [ same race , different sex, undivorced, ...whatever ] - and at least in the US if your congregation does not support your partnership leave and seek a better one : that too is a freedom of religion , the freedom to choose [ does not work everywhere : in Germany employees of the RC might be required to live according to the tenets of the RC or look for a new job ]
If "marriage" is legally meaningless then its meaning is defined solely by the participants and the congrgation they are member of. Which I suspect from the religious viewpoint is not much different from today : One does not expect members of a different church/religion to be wedded by exactly the same ritual or bound by the same vows.
If I could I would also remove all other references to religion from MY countries constituition: [ Germany] I do accept that most of the post war founding fathers were christian and wanted morals COUNTER the NAZI-past integrated there. That for example the sentence " the state protects marriage and family" is now used to refuse marriage to gays is a perversion of the intent. [ the civil union is relatively good I hear]

Re: several things :

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

Every law made must begin with a statement what this law is supposed to achieve [ eg speed limit set to 65 m/h : lower the number of traffic-dead ].
And a default date the law will be automaticly abolished unless proven effective. That date should normally not be more than 5 years from the enactment of the law.
Any law not applied anywhere in the union for a period of 10 years assumed to be superfluous and striken from the books unless reintroduced into respective law-giving assembly [ and then tested like any new law for purpose and effectiveness]

I like the spirit of this proposal, but in practice politicians would make the goals either impossibly vague or non-testable. Example: "National speed limit is now 65 to deter excessive speed." When test time comes, the pols will say, "Well, a lot of people who would have driven too fast changed their habits, because they fear the law. Now let's see you prove they DIDN'T change."

was written and phrased

[andreas_schaefer]

on the spot : ont completely un-premeditated bit typed into the web interface of LJ without much editing or spellchecking.
I am open to alternate suggestions on how to limit laws.
I am very pissed of by laws introduced to gain votes that obviously will not have the claimed effect.
We gae that all the time - every time something happens ( like the recent discovery of that Neo-Nazi gang here ) someone will demand for example to keep all phonerecords [ when, who, where, with whom] of all people for 6 months. The question "could we have caught them earlier if we had that is NEVER asked .]
Also from watching the process of changing law over the last decades I notice that it seems almost as hard to abolish a stupid law as writing a new3 good one.
What I want to to label ALL new ones with a use before date - and in time go through the inventory and check the old ones for need.
I have observed that several times in recent history new laws had the opposite effect intended, resulting in less justice and increased income for some lawyers.

[omorka.livejournal.com]

Re: your Kennedy-Clinton Amendment - Using one person's achievement of office at the federal level to prevent someone else's achievement at the state or local level seems (a) massively unfair to younger siblings, and (b) to be undue federal meddling in other levels of government. Even at the federal level, withholding legitimate election to office to people at more than one level of remove - grandchildren, in-laws, nieces and nephews - seems ridiculously punitive. (Appointive office, maybe.)

I'm pretty much against any test for office that involves an accident of birth, so perhaps I'm unduly biased here, but - you're an only, right? My youngest sibling is 12 years younger than me. It would be entirely possible for me to have gotten elected to a term in the House of Representatives before she was old enough to even vote. She is way, way better at the sorts of social-intelligence things that make one a good local politician. It strikes me as deeply unfair for my potential achievements to curtail hers, especially when she would probably be even better at it.

[redneckgaijin.livejournal.com]

I find nepotism to be one of the most odious forms of corruption. I also find it a direct threat to freedom and democracy to allow a successful politician to pass political power on down the family. That's the core of the "good ol' boy" network in politics- families, and favors owed between families. To my mind there should be absolutely NO possibility allowed of this happening- that's a large part of how we got the political aristocracy we currently have.

[stdharma.livejournal.com]

All of these are good ideas.