To me, the founders made two fundamental mistakes when writing the Constitution: 1. The Electoral College. Our voting system was never intended to allow someone with fewer votes to become president. That is really an anathema to the whole system and intent of a democratic Republic. It is like a computer glitch, a coding error. That we have gotten that result now twice in 20 years is proof of that. Electing the "wrong guy" (be they a Republican or Democrat) is just a bad by-product of a poorly-worded clause in the Constitution. 2. The 2nd Amendment: Whatever you say, other countries that don't allow private gun ownership like we do don't have mass killings, just ask Australia. And with technology and killpower getting ever better, these events are only going to get ever worse.
I would add campaign finance reform. I would clearly state that corporations are not people. I'm not taking away guns. Our government is getting more and more dystopian. Sorry. We need them now more than ever.
At this point, do we really need a congress and a senate? They were created because it was impossible to involve the people back before telephones and the internet. You had to have delegates to represent your interests.... but can anyone really say that congress or the senate represent our interests? Does anyone really think they give a shit about us? I would rather have, as you said, national ballot measures. How much worse could it possibly be?
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Muskets, shall not be infringed.” They just needed to be more specific.
Id add death penalty to any politician caught spending tax payer money for personal leisure or gain. Death penalty for getting caught fucking or fondling children. And give all political offices term limits and pay cuts so career politicians would be a thing of the past. Then id make sure the constitution was actually enforced.
[/QUOTE] totally agree with EC. 2nd amendment i agree should be reigned in, but I'm not sure how far to go. I would like an analytical look into what would actually reduce violence verses what would simply feel good to those that hate guns. My guess is certain things like tracking gun sales and making non-registered sales illegal would reduce the amount of guns that get into criminal hands. However, making certain gun handles illegal because they look scary I doubt would make any difference. So, a line by line analytical approach would be what I would like to see. Love the campaign finance reform and corps not people parts. I think the single biggest threat to our nation long term is money in politics. It will keep corruption in place and make laws inevitable that will be in place to support industry to the cost of the people. The people will get fed up and the revolt will happen. As far as taking guns away, I don't think the guns we have will be sufficient against our military anyways, so the argument is outdated. I agree that the govt is fucked, but that doesn't mean your AR is going to be useful in an actual modern war.
id say theres a difference between going somewhere or fighting o your territory. in the case of us vs the military, both sides have home field advantage. so then you look firepower. I do think there would be battles won IF the people actually banded together to fight, but that's not going to happen. A few here or a few there will just be out-numbered and out-gunned. Until the majority of America is having a hard time getting meals, they won't revolt. Not while the Kardashians is still in syndication.
The likelihood that you're fighting troops from your region would be very low. Conventional weapons and soldiers do not fare well against insurgents. It has been proven time and time again.
The problem I see is myself. I would not fight unless the fight were brought to my doorstep. literally. I am a gun owner, I am male, of fighting age, and I believe the govt is fucked. If I am too comfortable to risk my life and the lives of my loved ones, then I believe that would be the case for the vast majority of Americans. So, that brings us back to small uprisings that the full force of the govt would squash with relative ease.
I would add "the political candidate shall submit to fair unbiased psychological testing by means of medical & social media with evidence henceforth submitted to the public prior to the posting of the parties' candidate choice".
I think it's hilarious that this guy thinks he can ever win a war against the government that has tanks drones, and nuclear weapons... People like this are fearful ass snowflakes...
I would change little. Maybe the 14th to apply to women and sexual orientation and anyone else who aren't treated fairly. Even then, we've added numerous layers of civil rights laws along those lines, so it would be mostly symbolic. Maybe update the 4th to explicitly disallow mass surveillance of the population through electronic means. We already know the government is violating the 4th. I'd be good with the gold standard and auditing the fed. Balanced budget, term limits, and line item veto are fair game if we're going to change the rules. Speaking of the 14th... Corporations aren't people - they are made up of people. They have to be Persons for certain purposes of the law; it is one of the most misreported and misunderstood concepts. A corporation is a Person, for example, if it is minority owned and discriminated against for government contracts. I think we all would agree they shouldn't be discriminated against. (that is the famous case where the Court said "corporations are Persons" ... for the purpose of this ruling). A corporation is a Person in the sense you can sue one. A corporation is a Person in the sense that its papers are free from search without warrants. Do you really want to do away with these (and other equally important) things? When the courts have ruled about corporate Personhood, it's always been very narrow rulings about specific issues like those I mentioned. If you believe in the 1st amendment, you cannot believe in campaign finance laws. When you have the government choosing who can speak or who can buy a megaphone (through public financing or laws restricting advertising), the ruling party will get to decide. We don't want any part of it. There will always be a loophole, anyway - like if I want to run 24/7 campaign ads, all I have to do is buy a newspaper or TV station. The best we can do is require the speaker to be identified, so we all can take that into account when forming our opinions. We're not a Democracy. The electoral college is there for a reason, and good reason.
"Equality under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."
