How would you rewrite the US Constitution?

Question

If you had to rewrite the US Constitution, what would you add to it? What would you take out of it? What kind of government would result?

Some knowledge of the US Constitution might help to answer this question, so here it is, if you haven't already read it: http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

Feel free to throw in your general opinions on constitutional design, outside of the US context...

Perhaps some of you should remember that changing the US Constitution has apparently necessary 27 times in our history...

(That was supposed to be "was" not "has" in the last sentence, sorry.)
..........................................

I'm just asking out of general curiosity. My own personal beliefs aside, constitutional design is an interesting topic for me. There are some very big differences between our constitution and the modern constitutions of many other countries, so it's an interesting thing to think about.

My opinion before I close:
If I were to change our constitution, I would make some things a bit more explicit. I do appreciate that the vagueness allows the document to grow with the country, but I think it also leaves some of our basic rights too vulnerable to post hoc interpretations, which can be easily tainted by whims of ideology.

The biggest thing I would change, though, is that I would opt for proportional representation. I think this would make our legislature more representative of our ideas. Plus, this would allow third parties to gain some footing, so we wouldn't be stuck with a two-party system.

Answer 1

You write a very interesting question. If I could rewrite the Constitution the thing I would probably do is move to a Parliamentary system.

The American Founding Fathers were obsessed by the idea that someone would accumulate too much power, and so they created a fragmented systems of checks and balances to ensure that nobody could get too far without being jerked back into line by one or another of the branches.

That was fine when the government was small and really didn't do too much. But it creates a recipe for gridlock in the 21st century. The Congress passes legislation that the president hates, so the President Vetoes, and Congress can't muster enough votes to override. The President Proposes new Policies, and Congress won't enact them. Gridlock.

In addition to createing gridlock, the current systems creates the perfect solution for avoiding responsibility. The President blames Congress, and the Congress blames the President. Sometimes watching the give and take between them is like watching a couple of six-year-olds on a playground. "YOU STARTED IT!" And the other says, "NO I DIDN'T, YOU STARTED IT."

The Founders wanted tension in government because they thought it wsa the surest safeguard against tyranny. But over time, it has created a system that takes away from the people the most important safeguard against tyranny there is -- the ability squarely to fix blame and to take decisive action against the wrongdoer.

In a Parliamentary System, the real power is focused on the legislature (thus it;s more democratic). The Prime Minister is a member of Parliament, and is the Prime Minister because his party commands a working majority of seats in the assembly. Thus, with a working majority, the PM (more or less) gets the policies he/she wants, If the policies work the voters know absolutely who should get the credit; and if the policies fail, we all know who should get the blame. In a Parliamentary System, there's really no way to avoid responsibility, and I'd argue that this is the people's greatest safeguard.

Answer 2

I would clear up the meaning of some phrases that have been disputed for quite a while... "the right to bear arms" comes to mind.

Actually, perhaps I like the vagueness in some cases, because it allows the Constitution to grow with the country. There's no way the authors of the Constitution could have predicted everything that our society would need.

Answer 3

Strengthen the 14th amendment.
Delete the 2nd amendment.
Add an amendment stating that no jobs can be denied or votes disenfranchised by gender, religion, nationality, race, or sexual orientation.
Add an amendment allowing same-sex marriage.
Severly limit Presidential rights to line-item veto, or the enforcement notes he can currenty make on bills he signs.
Allow a president as many terms as he can win - too much irresponsibility in the 2nd term.
Require that a majority of Congress must vote before sending troops to war or any police action.
Find a way to enforce the 4th amendment more.
Add an amendment allowing abortions & suicide.
Tax churches.
Disallow ownership of more than one media outlet in any geographical market.

Answer 4

i ought to re-write 2 sections that continuously reason grief: Article a million, section 8, the position it says "The Congress shall have ability to position and convey mutually Taxes, responsibilities, Imposts and Excises, to pay the costs and grant for the immediately ahead Defence and conventional Welfare of america; yet all responsibilities, Imposts and Excises will be uniform in the time of america;" i believe this section has been bastardized to enable the gov't to do damn close to at least something contained in the call of providing for the overall Welfare. properly less than this fact is a catalogue of the failings the federal gov't is meant to do. i ought to revise that section that begins with grant to study "and implement and perform the applications and commonplace jobs less than:" by technique of doing this, the 10th modification may extremely recommend something back. i ought to also replace the 2d modification. The language is too lofty, yet besides invited confusion. My version ought to study, "All stages of gov't are particularly prohibited from regulating or limiting the right of the persons from possessing and wearing guns and ammunition proper for the protection of self, family individuals and community."

Answer 5

hmm......I guess you have to start back from the basics and work your way up to the present.

Personally, I'd replace the entire constitution with the most basic yet influential books to be published...the Bible, The Quran, Tao Te Ching, The Art of War and The Book of Five Rings.

Unfortunately, any government today is not run by a moral or spiritual compass...governments are run by power, greed and vested interests....sad but true....Peace.

Answer 6

I'd add commentary under the text of each article in the bill of rights to keep everything in context so that 200 years later the government wouldn't be able to "sorta" make unconstitutional laws and start making up stuff and attempt to interperet it so they look like theyre right. all this "seperation of church and state" and "only guns that are good for hunting or owned by the police are allowed" and "probable cause" and "you have to let me search your vehicle" would be thrown away.

Answer 7

I wouldn't. However we might clear things up a bit, like defining the term "all men" to include alll citizens regardless of sex, instead of passing amendments that just complicate matters and do little to change the circumstances of the people or the nation.

Answer 8

I think the Constitution is great the way it is. Perhaps it could clarify more than it does on a few things (i.e. 2nd Amendment). But the goverment, not the Constitution, needs reform (and badly).

Answer 9

There should be a clause in the constitution that states we will not, under any circumstances change ANY of our heritage or our slogans, just because a few immigrants do not agree.

Last I checked, it was "When in Rome do as the Romans" not "When in Rome, change it."

Answer 10

ReWrite the Constitution? Are you INSANE?

I would, however, ADD ONE THING. And here it is:

Whosoever attempts to alter ANYTHING in this document, shall be dragged into the street and beheaded.

Also note: Your Avatar's nose is like, huge.