How would you like to change the United States Constitution?

After the election of 2000, you would think at least the Electoral voting process would have been looked at. But as far as I know neither party wanted to address it.

 

Public funding for campaigns(good politicians shouldn't have to be rich). I remember a time(long ago) when McCain supported this, and I respected him for it. Oh wells.

Oh, and we need to get rid of the winner take all system. It majorly handicaps any chance that a third party might have.

Oh, and I think we should start trying to make our country more of a direct democracy. More people voting on individual issues. With technology I don't see this being too hard to put in place, especially when our current "representative" system is hardly that. You can't divide all the opinions of all the people into two groups, it's utterly ridiculous.

 

This thread reminds me of a passage in Ron Paul's new book, The Revolution: A Manifesto.

Since I agree with Dr. Paul on his point, I'll just type it out like it is in the book.

" Now, isn't our Constitution a 'living' document that evolves in accordance with experience and changing times, as we're so often told?
NO- a thousand times no.
If we feel the need to change our Constitution, we are free to amend it. In 1817, James Madison reminded Congress that the Framers had "marked out in the Constitution itself a safe and practicable mode of improving it as experience might suggest"-- a reference to the amendment process. But that is not what advocates of a so- called living Constitution have in mind. They favor a system in which the federal government, and in particular, the federal courts, are at liberty- even in the absence of any amendment- to interpret the Constitution altogether differently from how it was understood by those who drafted it and those who voted to ratify it.
Leave aside the alleged problem of determining exactly what the Framers intended by this or that constitutional clause- supporters of a living Constitution must be able to figure out the original intent well enough if they are so sure we need to evolve away from it. If the people agreed to a particular understanding of the Constitution, and over the course of the intervening years they have performed no official act (such as amending the Constitution in accordance with their evolved ideas) reversing that original understanding , by what right may government unilaterally change the terms of its contract with the people, interpreting its words to mean something very different from what the American people had all along been told they meant?
A 'living' Constitution is just the thing any government would be delighted to have, for whenever the people complain that their Constitution has been violated, the government can trot out its judges to inform the people that they've simply misunderstood: the Constitution, you see, has merely evolved with the times. Thus, in George Orwell's Animal Farm, 'no animal shall sleep in a bed' becomes ' no animal shall sleep in a bed with sheets', ' no animal shall drink alcohol" becomes ' no animal shall drink alcohol in excess' and 'no animal shall kill any other animal" becomes ' no animal shall kill another animal without cause.'
That's why, on this issue, I agree with historian Kevin Gutzman, who says that those who would give us a 'living' Constitution are actually giving us a dead Constitution, since such a thing is completely unable to protect us against the encroachmentsof government power."


There are MANY on the Hill and in the White House that have pushed or have tried to push this country into the direction of a less restrictive, "living" or "new" Constitution.

... And as long as we act like the sheep and dogs in George Orwell's Animal Farm, the government will get its way.

And as the government burns the Constitution to ashes, nobody seems to notice, and nobody seems to care... George Carlin said it best.

If you want to change the Constitution, then fine. Run for Congress, win, introduce a ballot, and let Congress vote on it. If it makes it past the veto pen, you have your amendment. But don't think a change is a good change if it comes any other way. Be it through Presidential Signing Statements, Executive Orders, or through some politician's idea of a "living" Constitution, any change that is made in the Federal Government that isn't passed through as prescribed to our Constitution is never a good change.

 

the people must petition for a constitutional convention . this , of course , begins locally . citizens sign-on , then a city council can honor this intent and draft statement of resolution . then a county . then a state - at the state level a people may cancel membership in the union if this reasonable grievence is not addressed . it could be fun .

 

I don't think that would be the solution. How about letting the people elect the judges? That's the point of a democracy.

 

That defeats the point of a judge. It's not about democracy, it's about liberty. As Franklin said, "Democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep deciding on what to have for dinner. Liberty is 2 wolves and a well armed sheep deciding what to have for dinner"

 

Right on Syd! Checks and balances! And a full accounting of both.