# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  What would you strike from the Constitution?

## April1775

What would you strike from the Constitution / Bill of Rights / later amendments if you could do it by waving a wand? 

And what would you add? 

(If the "waving a wand" idea seems tyrannical somehow, lol...rephrase as "What would you suggest different in the Constitution if you'd been one of the Framers"?

----------


## Acala

I would strike the part where it says the Federal government can do anything it wants.  I forget where exactly that is in the document.

----------


## One Last Battle!

I would have probably struck the "General Welfare" clause. It wasn't meant for any bad in 1776, but it is a VERY open ended statement.

Otherwise, I might have added "unanimous" to the beginning of "consent of the governed". Would certainly prevent the government from stretching outside of extremely basic functions.

----------


## JK/SEA

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, and sell, and manufacture,  shall not be
infringed.

----------


## April1775

I like 'em all so far. A lot. 

In addition:

-I'd have an even stronger 2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, so the right of the people to keep, bear, sell, and manufacture any damn weapon they want that can specifically target one aggressor at a time, shall not be infringed. If it is infringed, since it's the only Amendment that allows itself to protect itself, the arms may be legally used on anyone who attempts to violate it." 

-I'd give the 10th Amendment some teeth. Like "...and if its violated, a state may leave." 

-I'd add a "Freedom of Ingestion" amendment: "Anyone may put any damn food, drug, herb or chemical into their own body as long as they pay for it themselves. Anyone may also possess, manufacture or sell any damn food, drug, herb or chemical, any place, any time."

-I'd also add this: "The Federal Government shall never be in the business of marriage.  And no state Government shall be in the business of marriage. Any adult can marry any consenting adult or combination of consenting adult they wish, and they're married when all consenting parties say they are. Marriage shall mean what ever any consenting adult wants to mean, with blessings with any religious or social group, or without."

----------


## muzzled dogg

dump the post office

----------


## April1775

> dump the post office


I think that comes under "I would strike the part where it says the Federal government can do anything it wants."

But it does remind me of something....there is a law that says no one can deliver mail for less than the post office charges. I'd eliminate that (and a whole lot of other crap) with something like "anyone can go into competition with anyone or any entity, including any government entity, without regulation, as long as there is no initiation of aggression."

----------


## muzzled dogg

congress shall have power to...establish post offices and post roads

----------


## Grubb556

Remove the 12th ammendment, and elect 2 simultaneous presidents who can veto each other.

----------


## erowe1

Include in the Bill of Rights the right for any state, or any subgroup of people, or any individual to secede from the union without punishment.

Get rid of the general welfare clause.

Get rid of the supremacy clause.

Get rid of every amendment that has been ratified since the Civil War.

Remove the entire legislative branch. The only laws that should have any authority should be those that actually do exist, that come from the Creator, and cannot be legislated by the arbitrary whims of any people.
Edit: I'm not sure what powers in Article I, Section 8 would stay after doing this, and remain as powers for the executive branch, but needless to say, a lot would be gone (taxing, post office, intellectual property stuff...I guess I don't want to go through the list and pick at each specific item).
Remove all means of collecting revenue involuntarily.

Remove all means of compelling service of any kind from anyone in any form, including military, jury duty, etc.

----------


## April1775

There shall be no compulsory education.

----------


## Pericles

16th and 17th Amendments

----------


## Bryan

Sadly, there is a lot. 

One item that I have noted is that the internal affairs of Congress is set up to basically act as a democracy, where the majority of Congressmen can strip away elements from others in Congress. In effect, the Speaker of the House can strip away these things on their own, in some cases. It would be better if each member of Congress had a "Bill of Rights" so to speak.

... and then there is the 4th branch of government that is desperately needed.

----------


## April1775

Remove Eminent Domain. 

We're getting some good answers here. Maybe after a few dozen more pages, we should put them all in one post, have a poll where you can pick as many as you want, and type up the winners. Just for kicks.

----------


## April1775

Term limits. President and congress one four-year term each. 
President and congress no health care and pension for life. 
No overseas intervention unless attacked. 
No going to war without Congress declaring war. 
No draft. (Though, Heinlein said something good along the lines of "any nation that cannot be defended by a voluntary military is not worth defending.")

----------


## erowe1

> There shall be no compulsory education.


You mean for the states?

I wouldn't be for that change.

----------


## eduardo89

*Remove:*

*16th*	Allows the federal government to collect income tax
*17th*	Requires senators to be directly elected

*Add*

Balanced budget, federal government may not account for more than 18% of GDP
Tax increases require 2/3 majority
Human Life Amendment
Federal Term Limits (6 terms in House, 2 terms in Senate max)
Repeal Amendment giving two-thirds of the states the power to repeal any federal law or regulation

----------


## April1775

> You mean for the states?
> 
> I wouldn't be for that change.


Not sure what you're asking. Are you saying "the federal government should have no role in education, but any of the Several States may choose to initiate compulsory education."?

----------


## erowe1

> Not sure what you're asking. Are you saying "the federal government should have no role in education, but the several states may choose to initiate compulsory education."?


The Constitution doesn't need to say, "the federal government should have no role in education." The Constitution only delegates powers to the federal government positively. It doesn't need to explicitly exclude anything from it--what it doesn't mention is automatically excluded.

That being the case, there's no reason for the Constitution to say anything positive or negative about what the states can or can't do. Once you say they can't have compulsory education, you have to follow that up with something like "Congress shall have the power to pass appropriate legislation for the execution of this." (cf. 13th and 14th Amendments), so it would end up making the federal government more, not less powerful than it would be without such a clause.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Strike out any part that gives the FedGov supremacy over states at all, add an amendment allowing individuals to secede from Federal, state, and/or local government authority, strike out the part that gives the fedgov the power to raise a standing army and return the milita duty to states.  Lots more, but gtg right now.

----------


## randolphfuller

"All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States" should come out.

----------


## nobody's_hero

commerce clause

Maybe put in there that states cannot levy tariffs on one another, which was the original intent of the commerce clause.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Originally posted by *erowe1*
> 
> Get rid of every amendment that has been ratified since the Civil War


This^^^

And there are still some people here who want a new amendment in this modern age....

----------


## Expatriate

> Otherwise, I might have added "unanimous" to the beginning of "consent of the governed". Would certainly prevent the government from stretching outside of extremely basic functions.


Did you by any chance ever read _The Probability Broach?_ That was a major part of the story in the alternate universe of the book.

----------


## April1775

> Did you by any chance ever read _The Probability Broach?_ That was a major part of the story in the alternate universe of the book.


Good to see a fan here. Added you as a friend. I LOVE that hard-boiled libertarian comic book. Folks can read all of it online here:
http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn

----------


## Son of Detroit

> Good to see a fan here. Added you as a friend. I LOVE that hard-boiled libertarian comic book. Folks can read all of it online here:
> http://www.bigheadpress.com/tpbtgn


That might be the most unfunny comic I have ever seen...

----------


## April1775

Well, that's sort of a non-funny history lesson in the middle of it. It's pretty funny overall. It's a book length comic.

----------


## osan

> What would you strike from the Constitution / Bill of Rights / later amendments if you could do it by waving a wand? 
> 
> And what would you add? 
> 
> (If the "waving a wand" idea seems tyrannical somehow, lol...rephrase as "What would you suggest different in the Constitution if you'd been one of the Framers"?


I would strike every amendment after the 10th.  They are extraneous and answer no questions that the first 10 do not address.

I would strike or at least rewrite the Commerce Clause.  The role of the Senate would be to draft legislation.  The role of the House would be to determine constitutionality.  Enactment would come only through the legislatures of the states, 3/4 of them having to vote "yay" to enact.  I would consider eliminating presidential veto.  All legislation would have a yearly sunset and would have to be reinstated by verbal polling only.  No written ballots, no electronics and a 3/4 majority for another year.  This would obviate the vast and overwhelming majority of written law.

Each state would have to toe the line of the Constitution in all ways.  For example, no state could in any way whatsoever enact legislation in violation of our Second Amendment RKBA.  Every citizen fit for being free on the streets would be able to carry whatever weapons they pleased in what manner they pleased.  Onus would rest with them to do so responsibly, but would be callable to account only a posterori.

I would make it a governmental crime of the first degree, punishable up to life in prison for enacting or enforcing any law of prior restraint.

Police forces would be dissolved nationwide.  Sheriffs would have to do things the old fashioned way, including calling up posses when a job got too big for their department to handle.  Any violation of human rights would be met with severe punishment.  Not rehabilitation, but sheer, intolerant retribution.

All taxes would go the way of the dodo.  Government would initially run on contributions, i.e. charity, or loans.  They would be allowed to build investment funds that would grow in time, but never allowed to go beyond 1% of GDP or some other reasonable measure.  This would keep them righteously small.  These funds would be under the direct control of the states and not the feds.

The central bank would become history and I would draft the no-central-banking clause that would mandate the death penalty for all legislators voting for the establishment of such a bank.

Fiat money would be history as well.  Precious commodities would comprise all money.  I would be open to other systems, but their controllability would have to be proven apodictically.

I would cut the balls off of the court in terms of activism, particularly where they seek to reinforce morally bereft legislation that violates human rights.

I would have it that all political office holders, whether elected or appointed, would be required to waive large portions of their civil rights including those of privacy.

Any violation of the public trust would earn a minimum term of 1 year in a special prison for government criminals.  A year in such a prison would be like fifty eternities in Hell.  I would have politicians quaking in their boots with such violence that they would $#@! and piss on themselves daily for fear of trespassing upon the rights of those whom they serve.

Career politics as we know it would be eliminated.  Every office would be held by a given person for no more than one term.  If you run for sheriff, one term is all you get, but you could then run for mayor of a town.  Perhaps you could then run in another town.  Senate, House, one term only.  No exceptions ever or for any reason, including "emergencies" and war.

I would cut the political balls off of all corporations.  No contributions of any sort, hard or soft, could be made to any political candidate.  Violation of this rule earns a minimum 10 year sentence, hard labor.  No exceptions.  I would have the large corporate boards quaking in their $5K suits at the thought of even appearing to violate this rule.

There's more, but perhaps this is enough.

----------


## kah13176

I'm surprised.  I don't think anyone has mentioned the eminent domain clause in the 5th amendment.

Also, I'd add a "show me the victim" amendment, making any victimless "crime" legal.

----------


## ssantoro

repeal 16th amendment
repeal 17th amendment
define the commerce clause
outlaw fiat money forever

----------


## heavenlyboy34

didn't read the whole thread, but if it hasn't been mentioned yet-more nullification rights, all the way down to city and individual level.  For example, I should be able to nullify tyrannical national, state, and city laws, and my local reps (city council, etc) should be able to nullify state and national laws.

----------


## qh4dotcom

Strike the general welfare clause, strike the eminent domain part of the 5th amendment.

Also I think the biggest reason for the mess this country is in is that there is no express prohibition for fiat paper money in the Constitution. "The congress shall have the power to coin money" and "no state shall make any thing except gold and silver as legal tender" is not enough, there has to be a paper money prohibition there.

Also remove the 16th and 17th amendment.

----------


## malkusm

Edit the First Amendment by striking everything after "law" and inserting a period.




> *New First Amendment:* Congress shall make no law.

----------


## Carson

> What would you strike from the Constitution?


It is the rules our government is suppose to operate under.

Answer: Those in the government that refuse to.

----------


## Carson

> *I'm surprised.  I don't think anyone has mentioned the eminent domain clause in the 5th amendment.*
> 
> Also, I'd add a "show me the victim" amendment, making any victimless "crime" legal.


Don't be in to much of a hurry with that eminent domain striking. Many times in the last few years has it occurred to me it could come in handy on restoring so much we have lost to criminal activity.

For one with the stroke of a pen we could regain control of the central bank. The vampires have sucked away at all that we own. We could regain possession.



There were other ideas for it but they slipped my mind now.



P.S. I mean really people!!!!! If we're going to print up our own fake money and loan it out shouldn't it be *US* that is collecting the interest on the loaning out of our *OWN* fake money. At least then even  if we weren't paying the capital gains on the creation of it at least when everyone was getting their accounts credited with their share of the interest we would at *LEAST* be getting the income taxes *paid!!!!!*


And how about those capital gains?

----------


## prmd142

> Any violation of human rights would be met with severe
> punishment. Not rehabilitation, but
> sheer, intolerant retribution.


+1776

----------


## showpan

The first thing I would change is the Supreme court. John DeWitt in his paper to Massachusetts, October 27, 1787 stated:

"You must also say, that your present Supreme Judicial Court shall be an Inferior Court to a Continental Court, which is to be inferior to the Supreme Court of the United States: -- that from an undue bias which they are supposed to have for the citizens of their own States, they shall not be competent to determine title to your real estate, disputes which may arise upon a protested Bill of Exchange, a simple note of hand, or book debt, wherein your citizens shall be unfortunately involved with disputes of such or any other kind, with citizens either of other States or foreign States: In all such cases they shall have a right to carry their causes to the Supreme Court of the United States, whether for delay only or vexation; however distant from the place of your abode, or inconsistent with your circumstances: -- *That such appeals shall be extended to matters of fact as well as law, and a trial of the cause by jury you shall not have a right to insist upon*. -- In short, my fellow-citizens, previous to a capacity of giving a compleat answer to these proceedings, you must determine that the Constitution of your Commonwealth, which is instructive, beautiful and consistent in practice, which has been justly admired in Europe, as a model of perfection, and which the present Convention have affected to imitate, a Constitution which is especially calculated for your territory, and is made conformable to your genius, your habits, the mode of holding your estates, and your particular interests, *shall be reduced in its powers to those of a City Corporation: -- The skeleton of it may remain, but its vital principle shall be transferred to the new Government."*


This man knew what would happen in a court so powerful and without jury, that this country would be reduced to one big corporate state.

----------


## Deborah K

dump:

eminent domain
16th amendment
14th amendment


add:

balanced budget amendment

----------


## awake

The "We" part would read "If you want to participate, here's the deal".

----------


## nayjevin

I'd add explicit definitions in dozens of different languages.

----------


## Matt Collins

The 14th and 16th Amendments were never lawfully ratified.


And "We The People" is a fallacy. The "People" never signed, drafted, or ratified the document, only the State governments did.

----------


## Matt Collins

*"The Constitution either gives us the government we have now, or it is powerless to prevent it.... either way it is unfit to exist" - Lysander Spooner*

----------


## Qdog

The constitution isn't bad as it is... the problem is WE DONT FOLLOW IT!!!!   I agree that probably all the amendments since the civil war could have been done without.

----------


## low preference guy

> The constitution isn't bad as it is... the problem is WE DONT FOLLOW IT!!!!   I agree that probably all the amendments since the civil war could have been done without.


i don't know. i think it has too much text, and thus loopholes. i wish it said that the sole function of the government was national defense. add the bill of rights to that so that they don't violate them during war time. lastly, an explicit prohibition to borrow money. i'd really like that Constitution.

----------


## awake

> *"The Constitution either gives us the government we have now, or it is powerless to prevent it.... either way it is unfit to exist" - Lysander Spooner*



Jeez Matt, I never thought you were a fan of Spooner... He is a powerful mind.

----------


## Matt Collins

> Jeez Matt, I never thought you were a fan of Spooner... He is a powerful mind.


 I'm not an anarchist, but his quote is ironclad logic and cannot be refuted.

----------


## nayjevin

> *"The Constitution either gives us the government we have now, or it is powerless to prevent it.... either way it is unfit to exist" - Lysander Spooner*


But, any group of people bound by any Constitution will result in this government every time it is tried = false.

What if the best changes in this thread were incorporated and a new expiriment began?

Step one being to erect a monument in every state with the wording of the document, for every schoolchild to visit.

Get Ron Paul and Thomas Woods and Thomas DiLorenzo and a dozen more geniuses together with the greatest web developers and video producers and teachers of our time and develop a training system for children which emphasizes, I dunno,

- individualism
- rule of law
- honest money

.... and toothpick kids eyes open until they understand it.

Then would a Constitution work?

----------


## ClayTrainor

> What would you strike from the Constitution / Bill of Rights / later amendments if you could do it by waving a wand? 
> 
> And what would you add?


I think this whole idea that a state will obey rules on paper to be a bit Utopian, but for the hell of it, I would add the tenth principle from Ron Pauls 'Liberty Defined'.




> 10. Government must obey the law that it expects other people to obey and thereby must never use force to mold behavior, manipulate social outcomes, manage the economy, or tell other countries how to behave.


To follow this to it's logical conclusion, renders the state powerless.

----------


## showpan

Our constitution was flawed from the start which is why some of our founding fathers never signed it. If you read the federalist papers written by Hamilton, you will soon realize that he is a corporatist and the constitution advocated much of those wishes in it's vagueness. The anti federalist papers, written by DeWitt pretty much spelled out our doom. Jefferson wrote many speeches forewarning us about the predicament we have found ourselves in today. It would be vary hard to come up with a viable solution given all of the changes that have been made. Jefferson suggested that a new one should be written every 20 years or so. Kind of like a contract that expires. This way, the things that have worked could be kept and the things that didn't be expunged. A 3/4 majority of states vote would be needed to change anything. If the government tried to grab too much power like they have, it was the a right of the people to take that power away. The main problem we face today is that there are not enough people who are passionate enough to demand that their respective spokesperson be held accountable and actually vote for legislation that only a majority approved. If the constituents of a particular representative showed up in mass at the capitol every time a vote was not made on their behalf, this country would not be where it is today.

----------


## eduardo89

*Remove:*

*16th*	Allows the federal government to collect income tax
*17th*	Requires senators to be directly elected

*Add*

Balanced budget, federal government may not account for more than 15% of GDP
Tax increases require 2/3 majority
Borrowing requires 4/5 majority
Human Life Amendment
Federal Term Limits (6 terms in House, 2 terms in Senate max)
Repeal Amendment giving two-thirds of the states the power to repeal any federal law or regulation
US Military may not go to war except: if attacked or imminent attack on US
Treaties cannot be ratified if they are not compatible with Bill of Rights
Only those born to legal residents or citizens are natural born citizens
President need not be born in US, just needed to be citizen at time of birth

----------


## matt0611

My changes to the constitution:

-remove 16th and 17th amendments
-make 2nd amendment more clear so that there is no doubt
-get rid of the power of the federal government to take land from people who don't consent to it (eminent domain)
-add an amendment to limit senators to 2 6-year terms, and representatives to 4 2-year terms
-just get rid of the general welfare clause because it adds confusion and leads to the government we have today
-specifically forbid the federal government from making fiat money, specifically say they can only coin gold and silver and thats it, they can only use gold and silver as payments of taxes and salaries
-specifically lay out the rules for states to leave the union if they so wish to
-amendment to limit the borrowing that the federal government can do (but I'm not exactly sure how it would work yet)

----------


## erowe1

> I'm not an anarchist, but his quote is ironclad logic and cannot be refuted.


Of course the first part of the quote can't be refuted. But that's because it's tautological.

It's just another way of saying, "We have the government that we have." regardless of what caused it.

You could replace the word "Constitution" with anything, and it would still be an irrefutable claim.

The big bang either caused the government we had, or was powerless to prevent it.Bert and Ernie either caused the government we have or were powerless to prevent it.The antifederalists either caused the government we have or were powerless to prevent it.Lysander Spooner either caused the government we have or was powerless to prevent it.And so on.

The problem is with Spooner's conclusion. It doesn't follow from the tautological premise that the Constitution (or Bert and Ernie, or Lysander Spooner, etc.) is unfit to exist.

Edit: For the record, I'm not a huge fan of the Constitution. I just don't really care for that Spooner quote either.

----------


## low preference guy

> For the record, I'm not a huge fan of the Constitution. I just don't really care for that Spooner quote either.


+1

----------


## Matt Collins

> Of course the first part of the quote can't be refuted. But that's because it's tautological.
> 
> It's just another way of saying, "We have the government that we have." regardless of what caused it.
> 
> You could replace the word "Constitution" with anything, and it would still be an irrefutable claim.
> 
> The big bang either caused the government we had, or was powerless to prevent it.Bert and Ernie either caused the government we have or were powerless to prevent it.The antifederalists either caused the government we have or were powerless to prevent it.Lysander Spooner either caused the government we have or was powerless to prevent it.And so on.
> 
> The problem is with Spooner's conclusion. It doesn't follow from the tautological premise that the Constitution (or Bert and Ernie, or Lysander Spooner, etc.) is unfit to exist.
> ...


I see what you're saying, except that your examples are flawed because the Constitution *DID* set up the federal government whereas none of the other things did.

----------


## erowe1

> I see what you're saying, except that your examples are flawed because the Constitution *DID* set up the federal government whereas none of the other things did.


No it didn't. It's a piece of parchment. Furthermore, most (albeit not all) of the bad things federal officials do, they can do only by violating their oaths to uphold it.

----------


## Matt Collins

> No it didn't. It's a piece of parchment. Furthermore, most (albeit not all) of the bad things federal officials do, they can do only by violating their oaths to uphold it.


Of course they don't uphold it; the Constitution has no enforcement provisions. 

And yes the Constitution set up the federal government.

----------


## erowe1

> Of course they don't uphold it; the Constitution has no enforcement provisions.


What's an enforcement provision?

----------


## Matt Collins

> What's an enforcement provision?


"If you violate this document, you get removed from office or throw in in jail. "

Of course the enforcement provision would have to itself be enforced :-P

----------


## erowe1

> "If you violate this document, you get removed from office or throw in in jail. "
> 
> Of course the enforcement provision would have to itself be enforced :-P


It is in there (Article I, Sections 2 and 3; Article II, Section 4), and it doesn't get enforced.

----------


## osan

> The constitution isn't bad as it is...


It is a very weak document with many gaping holes and it fails to address many issues of central importance.  It relies on both common sense and assumes the existence of a minimum standard of decency and knowledge,  both terrible flaws.




> the problem is WE DONT FOLLOW IT!!!!


Agreed.  A nation is only as good as its people, the quality or even the presence of a constitution notwithstanding.  But if a nation is to have a constitution, it should be as explicit, clear, precise, and complete as possible.  The body of proper criminal law pursuant to the ideals and principles of individual liberty is so small as to comprise an article of but a few paragraphs, presenting the slightest burden of added volume to such a document.  Had our constitution been even marginally better structured than it is, those who have so successfully stolen away the protections guaranteed by that flawed document would have had a substantially tougher time of it.

In principle I am all for a concon.  I can and have written a document that far outstrips the extant one in terms of making clear the powers and limitations of so-called "government", as well as the metes and bounds of individual rights.  In reality, however, I would be loathe to see a convention take place.  There are no rules and it is pretty clear that people could and probably would go hogwild.  What remains of our freedoms would be swept away and the people of this nation would be faced with the very unattractive choice of either going to war against the would-be masters or grabbing their ankles.

If perchance it would be agreed that I could write the new constitution, liberty would be assured for one and all.

----------


## lx43

1.  I would have a clause in the constitution prohibiting debt that is issued by the federal govt.  

2.  The 16th and 17th admendment would be removed.

3.  For any taxes or fees to be increased it would require 3/4 majority.

4.  For spending to be increased would require 3/4 majority.

5.  A balanced budget admendment

6.  Restriction on the size spending to no more than 2% of GDP and restriction on the cost of regulation to no more than 1% of GDP.

7.  Anytime expenses exceed debt or spending exceeds 2% of GDP no member of Congress or President can run for re-election, hold any office within the federal govt, or lobby the federal govt.

8.  Have an expiration date for all laws so that no law stays on the book for  more than two years without Congress renewing it.

----------


## osan

Government as such  does not exist.  It is, therefore, 


> The 14th and 16th Amendments were never lawfully ratified.
> 
> 
> And "We The People" is a fallacy. The "People" never signed, drafted, or ratified the document, only the State governments did.


And since "government" is likewise a fallacy insofar as being anything more substantive than mere notion, the truth is that this nation was itself never legitimately established.  A very tiny group of people took it upon themselves to speak for all and this is what we got.  It may have been pretty good for a short while, but that did not  last long at all.

As such, government does not exist in reality and is, therefore, utter fraud insofar as it has been generally tendered to the greater populations of the earth.  In practical terms, "government" is nothing more than small groups of people operating along similar lines of thought, using assumed monopolies on violence and the threats of potentially devastating force to coerce the rest into doing their bidding.  How can this ever be confused with freedom by anyone claiming intelligence greater than that of a boiled turnip?  That so many people fail to grasp this truth about so-called "government" leaves me with a sinking feeling of utter despair with regard to the future prospects of the human race.

----------


## AFPVet

Strike the 16th Amendmentas well as section 2 of Article 21 since no regulation of intoxicants should be enforced by the federal government. I would revise the General Welfare Clause to reflect a more specific function.

----------


## nayjevin

> 7.  Anytime expenses exceed debt or spending exceeds 2% of GDP no member of Congress or President can run for re-election, hold any office within the federal govt, or lobby the federal govt.
> 
> 8.  Have an expiration date for all laws so that no law stays on the book for  more than two years without Congress renewing it.



Interesting ideas I don't think I've heard before.

----------


## mczerone

> But, any group of people bound by any Constitution will result in this government every time it is tried = false.
> 
> What if the best changes in this thread were incorporated and a new expiriment began?
> 
> Step one being to erect a monument in every state with the wording of the document, for every schoolchild to visit.
> 
> Get Ron Paul and Thomas Woods and Thomas DiLorenzo and a dozen more geniuses together with the greatest web developers and video producers and teachers of our time and develop a training system for children which emphasizes, I dunno,
> 
> - individualism
> ...


So tyrannical brainwashing _might_ make a Constitution work?


The only thing that needs to be added to the Constitution is a scope clause: "No persons or States are bound to this Union and may provide for their own welfare and security if they choose to forgo the benefits of membership. Conversely, the Union may not claim any property, tribute, or other form of servitude from its non-member States or persons except where independent arbiters deem such claims as just."

----------


## Lisle16

I would get rid of the Interstate Commerce Clause, the General Welfare Clause, the Supremacy Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Taxing and Spending Clause, and the Sixteenth Amendment.

----------

