• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

How would you amend the constitution?

F

FallingPianos

I think the constitution needs some serious amending. A lot of things have happened that the founding fathers just could not have anticipated, and it was very much a social experiment to form our government the way they did anyway.

now that we've seen what actually happens with a government like ours, how would you restructure it?
 
F

FallingPianos

I think the government needs to be restructured so that the federal government, rather than the states, has the most power.

today, people identify with the country much more than with their own state. information travels so efficiently, that people hear about what happens in other states as quickly as in their own. people simply no longer have the attitude that what happens in other states is none of their business.

the government needs to be restructured so that the federal government has the most power, but in a controlled fashion. unlike today, where the federal government has the most power but in an uncontrolled fashion.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I think we need to change our entire electoral system. Having the Senate directly accountable to the people was a good first step, but I think we should do the same for the executive. As for the Supreme Court, I don't think they should be elected but maybe we should set term limits of 15-25 years.

As for actual government powers, I'd be willing to give the government a few more enumerated powers in exchange for them strictly following the Constitution and not taking any other powers onto themselves. The federal government has no right to federalize education, to establish social security or medicare, to pass gun control laws, to pass campaign finance laws, to wage a war on drugs, etc.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
star2589 said:
I think the government needs to be restructured so that the federal government, rather than the states, has the most power.

today, people identify with the country much more than with their own state. information travels so efficiently, that people hear about what happens in other states as quickly as in their own. people simply no longer have the attitude that what happens in other states is none of their business.

the government needs to be restructured so that the federal government has the most power, but in a controlled fashion. unlike today, where the federal government has the most power but in an uncontrolled fashion.
What's wrong with federalism? It's precisely BECAUSE information from one state quickly travels to another, that we should let the states do as they please. If there was minimal interference from the federal government, states could experiment with various policies and would quickly undergo Darwinian selection. If one state adopts a policy that clearly helps the state, other states will soon adopt similar policies. If one state adopts a policy that harms it, other states will avoid similar policies.

If policies are nationalized, there is very little to compare them to. People would have no idea whether a policy is working; it simply is what it is. Other countries provide less valid comparisons than one state to another, because the other differences between countries are a lot greater than the differences between states.

Federalism is great. Fifty social experiments that can readily be compared to each other.
 
F

FallingPianos

Kandahar said:
What's wrong with federalism? It's precisely BECAUSE information from one state quickly travels to another, that we should let the states do as they please. If there was minimal interference from the federal government, states could experiment with various policies and would quickly undergo Darwinian selection. If one state adopts a policy that clearly helps the state, other states will soon adopt similar policies. If one state adopts a policy that harms it, other states will avoid similar policies.
we already have federalism, and the corruption we see today is the result.

Kandahar said:
If policies are nationalized, there is very little to compare them to. People would have no idea whether a policy is working; it simply is what it is. Other countries provide less valid comparisons than one state to another, because the other differences between countries are a lot greater than the differences between states.
maybe, but as things are today, the states are so similar to eachother that using other countries for comparison is more useful.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
star2589 said:
we already have federalism, and the corruption we see today is the result.
How so?

star2589 said:
maybe, but as things are today, the states are so similar to eachother that using other countries for comparison is more useful.
No, similarity is GOOD when comparing policies. If I'm comparing how effective certain policies are in New Hampshire and Vermont, which have similar histories, similar cultures, similar demographics, and similar government systems, the comparison is a lot more valid because there is a lot less that needs to be controlled for. If I was to compare, say, certain policies of the United States versus France, the comparison would be much less valid since the two have different histories, different cultures, different demographics, different forms of government, and are located in different parts of the world. That's not to say that such comparisons would be totally invalid, but they would be much less valid than comparisons between more similar entities.

It is because the states are similar to each other that makes the comparisons valid. If Oregon and Washington implement radically different policies toward, say, crime, then we can compare the crime rates in the two states in a few years and see which policy was more effective.
 
Last edited:
F

FallingPianos

Kandahar said:
there are countless laws and programs that the congress created, even though the constitution does not grant the congress the power to create them.

Kandahar said:
No, similarity is GOOD when comparing policies. If I'm comparing how effective certain policies are in New Hampshire and Vermont, which have similar histories, similar cultures, similar demographics, and similar government systems, the comparison is a lot more valid because there is a lot less that needs to be controlled for. If I was to compare, say, certain policies of the United States versus France, the comparison would be much less valid since the two have different histories, different cultures, different demographics, different forms of government, and are located in different parts of the world. That's not to say that such comparisons would be totally invalid, but they would be much less valid than comparisons between more similar entities.

It is because the states are similar to each other that makes the comparisons valid. If Oregon and Washington implement radically different policies toward, say, crime, then we can compare the crime rates in the two states in a few years and see which policy was more effective.
ok, i'll accept that.
 

Korimyr the Rat

Baby Eating Monster
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
19,553
Reaction score
15,756
Location
Cheyenne, WY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I would start by clarifying the Second Amendment-- removing the "militia clause" and using a more specific definition of "arms" to make it clear that it specifically covers at least some military arms and that it does not cover nuclear arms or other Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Because, quite frankly, as absolutely intolerable as I find the idea of being disarmed by my own government, I cannot imagine a single person I have ever lived next to that I would trust with the big red button.

I would repeal the 22nd Amendment, and establish impartial third parties to draw Congressional districts. All elections at the Federal level would be calculated using the Condorcet method.

I would also have included Jefferson's proposed 11th Amendment, which would have placed strict limitations on corporate power and avoided the aberration that is "corporate personhood".

Anything beyond that, I would have to sit down and think about for awhile-- and it would probably end up being disastrously ill-conceived regardless.
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
I don't think I would change a thing. Wouldn't that be a constitutional violation within itself?
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Although I do agree, the second Amendment is confusing.
 
F

FallingPianos

alphieb said:
I don't think I would change a thing. Wouldn't that be a constitutional violation within itself?
wouldnt what be a constitutional violation?

amending it isnt so long as you follow the process outlined in the constitution.
 

Synch

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
564
Reaction score
16
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Pass another amendment, where your race is never disclosed, just like policies in France, so there can be no discrimination unless you see the person.
 

MrFungus420

Legend in my own mind!
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
2,018
Reaction score
345
Location
Midland, MI
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
alphieb said:
Although I do agree, the second Amendment is confusing.
Here, try this. It is gammatically identical to the Second Amendment:

A well educated electorate, being necessary to the governance of a free state, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed.

Now, does that say that only the electorate is allowed to keep and read books, or is it a right given to people in general?

I hope that helps... ;)
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
MrFungus420 said:
Here, try this. It is gammatically identical to the Second Amendment:

A well educated electorate, being necessary to the governance of a free state, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed.

Now, does that say that only the electorate is allowed to keep and read books, or is it a right given to people in general?

I hope that helps... ;)
Actually, both your example and the actual 2nd amendment are confusing because the wording is (I'm assuming) archaic. For example, if the right to bear arms applies to people in general, you could eliminate the entire first half of the sentence and have it read simply "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." And what happens if the premise no longer holds? For example, in today's world most people would agree that a well-regulated militia is NOT necessary for the security of a free state. Does that negate the conclusion?

It's just very odd wording, because none of the other amendments offer any justification for their own existence. But I think it is meant to apply to the population in general, rather than just a well-regulated militia.
 

alphieb

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2005
Messages
1,982
Reaction score
31
Location
Vincennes IN
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
star2589 said:
wouldnt what be a constitutional violation?

amending it isnt so long as you follow the process outlined in the constitution.
I stand corrected, actually there is a provision in the constitution that states subject to amendment. That is why the bill of rights was created. I guess I should know what I'm talking about before I go spewing things.
 

XShipRider

Member
Joined
Oct 10, 2005
Messages
144
Reaction score
0
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
alphieb said:
I stand corrected, actually there is a provision in the constitution that states subject to amendment. That is why the bill of rights was created. I guess I should know what I'm talking about before I go spewing things.
Don't beat yourself up, we've all done it on this board from time to time.:doh
 
Top Bottom