I agree...a Con-Con is a bad idea.
But, just for the heck of it, if you could make just one change to the Constitution, what would it be?
I think the Commerce Clause is misinterpreted and misused and that this causes a lot of trouble.
I'd like to see a balanced budget mandated.
I'd like to see a property requirement for voting -- if you receive a check from the government for services rendered (ex. military pension) then you can vote. If you receive a check from the government based on need, sorry, no vote for you.
I'd like to see tax withholding made illegal. Once a year, on the first Monday in November, write a big check to Uncle Sam for every bit of tax you owe. Then, the next day, go vote for the politicians of your choice.
Any of these changes would please me.
Probably the only thing that is needed is a further adherence to the Founders’ intents. I have heard that it wasn’t their intent to limit the numbers of congressmen, but had intended the number of congressmen to grow with the population.
It might sound wrong to send even more people to Washington than who currently stand, but try buying the influences of a senator or congressman if he was one of thousands sitting, instead of the approximate 500 that currently sit.
Actually, there was a "Bill of Federalism" site which had 10 (I think) really good proposed amendments. I'll give you my top two. The first is my own idea,
Harpo Speaks wrote:
But, just for the heck of it, if you could make just one change to the Constitution, what would it be?
The “You Represent Us” amendment:
- Congress shall make no law establishing compensation or benefits for United States Represenatives or United States Senators.
- Any law of the United States which provides for compensation or benefits for United States Senators and/or United States Representatives, which is in effect at the time this amendment is ratified by the several states shall be null and void after December 31 of the year of ratification.
- Effective January 1 of the year following ratification of this amendment, United States Representatives and United States Senators shall be employees of the State they are elected to represent. They shall receive compensation and benefits as defined by the legislatures of their state. They shall be subject to all laws which apply to elected officials of their state.
This does a few things. First Congress can't vote to raise their own salary. Second, they get a weekly or semimonthly reminder of who feeds their family and who they really work for. In some ways, this partially mitigates the damage done by the 17th amendment. I'm seriously considering setting up a website and a campaign for that amendent.
My other top priority would have to be the Repeal Amendment. Or something like it. This would allow a supermajority of the states to pass resolutions specifically identifying any law, united states code section or code of federal regulations section. If such a law, code section or regulation is specifically identified by 2/3rds (some versions of this have 3/4ths) of the states as being repealed, it is repealed. No futher action required by the Congress.
This also gives some power back to the states, again mitigating some of the damage of the 17th amendment.
It would never happen, but outright repealing the 17th amendment would also be a great idea.
A 1 six year term for the President..
But, just for the heck of it, if you could make just one change to the Constitution, what would it be?
An amendment proclaiming that no law passed by Congress or signed by the President (regardless of party, c'mon, Republicans can write as many stupid and unconstitutionally-abrogating-our-freedom laws as Democrats when they put their, I hate to use a four letter word, mind to it) shall be considered legal and binding until or unless every member of Congress and the President can prove he or she has read it, in its entirety, at least once.
Repeal all the laws since 1960.
A single amendment repealing the 16th and 17th Amendments. C’mon, what else am I going to say? ;)
Congressional term limits.
Or preventing any organization from creating defacto laws without the approval of both houses of Congress: (EPA, ATF, DEA, etc.)
“But, just for the heck of it, if you could make just one change to the Constitution, what would it be?”
Oh, I’d just change one article.
Article VII
“A majority vote of 75% in support, by the citizens of each and of all States, taken separately and together, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same. Upon ratification, on the same ballot as each federal election, a State shall provide to its citizens the option of removing it and themselves from such establishment, by a majority vote of the population of a State’s citizens. Such removal shall be without encumbrance and total, with the former State and its citizens owing no obligation whatsoever to the federal government, their former fellow States, or any agencies, allies or creations thereof.”
Yep. That would be a disaster for freedom. The global socialist would totally dominate the process.
We just need to restore the constitutional Republic and rights that we already have. We need Hilterly’s “reset” button. However, we might need to spilt the country between a constitutional free Republic and a global socialist utopia.
THIS AMENDMENT SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED OR EDITED, NOR ANY SUBSEQUENT RESTRICTIONS ENACTED,,,,,PERIOD.
The Federalist papers were quite clear, the amendment was created to keep the government AT BAY!!!!!!, not for duck hunting.