# Think Tank > U.S. Constitution >  What if you had a chance to re-write the Constitution?

## pahs1994

I thought this might be a fun topic... If there ever was to be a Con-Con or a chance to get a total re-do on the Constitution, What revisions would delegates from the RPF community submit? this topic can be on any issue in or not currently in the document. A few examples:
would you add provisions to break up the possibility of a two party system? what would they be?
Should there be changes to the electoral college? 
Would you propose an alternate way of selecting the Supreme court?

The original intent of the first document has been greatly perverted over the last 200+ years, what would you change in the constitution or our way of governing knowing what we know now to prevent that from happening again?

----------


## fisharmor

In similar past conversations I've advised that it is instructive to read a historical example where this happened.
The confederacy indeed scrapped the 1789 constitution and wrote their own.

http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html

Sorry about the link, usconstitution.net has gotten pretty ad-ridden.
Of course you need to look past all the stuff about negro slaves.  When you read it through, though, I think it's clear that the authors knew what the original intent of the US Constitution was, because they kept most of it.

But in particular you should note that the commerce clause in the confederate constitution contains extra caveats.  Also, their RTKBA statement doesn't include the infamous comma.

And my favorite part of it is that the Article 5 convention was changed so that it it requires the petition of *three* states.  Not two-thirds... *three*.
So yeah, there's all that negative stuff in there about negro slaves... and a virtual guarantee that slavery would be written out of their constitution within 30 years or so, as soon as the industrialization of the North made it down there.  Sure, some states would probably have seceded and maybe held out through the 1920s or so... but there wouldn't have been a pile of ~750,000 bodies as a result.


Of course, if I was rewriting it, it would probably say only this:

1) Employment of all federal law enforcement officers and their supporting employees shall be terminated by January 1 2015.  All assets owned by their employing agency shall be auctioned by this date.  Revenues from these auctions shall be divided equally among terminated employees and offered as severance.

2) Employment of all other federal agents and their supporting employees shall be terminated by January 1 2018.  All assets owned by their employing agency shall be auctioned by this date.   Revenues from these auctions shall be divided equally among terminated  employees and offered as severance.

3) The US Constitution of 1789 shall be inoperable as of January 1 2018.

That would do nicely.

----------


## PierzStyx

Nothing. As it was written with just the original ten amendments it was the most inspired and well conceived government documents ever. The problem is not the document but the people. No amount of ink on paper can protect liberty when the people beg for shackles.

----------


## Icymudpuppy

Amendment 2... Rewritten:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms as a means to defend themselves against criminals, foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and tyranny in government shall not be infringed.

Commerce clause rewritten:
 Congress shall have power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and with the Indian Tribes.  Congress shall have power to eliminate trade barriers among the states.

New Amendment:  All federal elected officials shall be paid the average hourly rate of their district constituency.  They will clock in for official duties such as managing their office, attendance in committee, attendance on floor, and meetings with diplomats and constituents.  Campaigning must be done on their own time.  Travel to and from places of work including overseas diplomatic trips is not paid, but transport expenses are reimbursable with receipt.  All federal bureaucrats and office staff will be paid no more than 90% of the average hourly rate of their immediate superiors; Thus an agency head will receive 90% of the average hourly pay of the elected members of his or her overseeing committee.

(this amendment should seriously cut down on greedy people looking to join government service.)

----------


## Bruehound

Simple. Resubmit the 9th and 10th amendments exactly as written with a final sentence added to each..."*And we mean it!*"

----------


## thoughtomator

I would put in a Constitutional referendum every 19 years, as Thomas Jefferson suggested

----------


## erowe1

> Nothing. As it was written with just the original ten amendments it was the most inspired and well conceived government documents ever. The problem is not the document but the people. No amount of ink on paper can protect liberty when the people beg for shackles.


So you think they should put this part back in it?



> No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

----------


## erowe1

> Simple. Resubmit the 9th and 10th amendments exactly as written with a final sentence added to each..."*And we mean it!*"


I would prefer that they just whittle down the whole Constitution to the 10th Amendment, with nothing else that could be construed as an enumerated power, along with an article about how to add enumerated powers, by no means other than unanimous explicit consent of the whole population, to be renewed each time a person is added to the population with their consent, or else abolished.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

Almost all powers enjoyed by the FedGov would be returned to the states, and absurd things like creating new federal agencies would require a super majority in both houses of congress.  There's other things, but that's what springs to mind right now, plus secession/nullification rights, of course.

----------


## angelatc

I'd define limits on what SCOTUS is allowed to do, as in not allowing unconstitutional laws to stand.

I'd eliminate the commerce clause entirely.  Let markets work.

I'd make federal welfare unconstitutional.  I'd make federal standing armies unconstitutional.   I'd sunset all Congressional legislation after 10 years, max.

----------


## Acala

1. The complete right of secession at every level
2. Specific prohibition on government involvement in education at any level
3. Ten years of banishment for any representative who supports any bill that exceeds the enumerated powers or violates any of the specific prohibitions, to be determined by a council chosen by the States.
4. Specific prohibition on legal tender laws or laws inhibiting use of alternate currency

----------


## pahs1994

A lot of good stuff here! keep it coming guys1 





> New Amendment:  All federal elected officials shall be paid the average hourly rate of their district constituency.  They will clock in for official duties such as managing their office, attendance in committee, attendance on floor, and meetings with diplomats and constituents.  Campaigning must be done on their own time.  Travel to and from places of work including overseas diplomatic trips is not paid, but transport expenses are reimbursable with receipt.  All federal bureaucrats and office staff will be paid no more than 90% of the average hourly rate of their immediate superiors; Thus an agency head will receive 90% of the average hourly pay of the elected members of his or her overseeing committee.
> 
> (this amendment should seriously cut down on greedy people looking to join government service.)


I like this idea, i would also address it further in Article 1 by imposing term limits and also would take a look at the 1 representative for every 30,000 people. Somehow the congress froze their number at 435 which comes out to 1 in 700,000 representation. in this day and age i would not go for the 1:30,000 ratio but i feel that should be addressed with more representation (maybe cap it at 1,773 members) as long as their pay and term limits are in place.

I feel that the supreme court is something we should change the way it is selected, i am just having a hard time coming up with an alternative on my own. Obviously i would like to return the Senate to being elected by the state assembly's who would in turn confirm the presidents supreme court appointees. I doubt we will ever see the election of the senate returned to the original intent because everyday people just don't understand how this is supposed to work and will cry that we are stealing their "democracy". But perhaps we just take that power away from the senate and give it directly to each states assembly to select the supreme court would be a better option?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Add an amendment about the separation of business and state.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of business, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

----------


## Icymudpuppy

> Add an amendment about the separation of business and state.
> 
> "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of business, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."


That's essentially Ayn Rand's galt amendment

----------


## FindLiberty

Re-write project ideas:

This is an interesting exercise to clarify and put some teeth in the
contractual terms and consequences of exceeding the constitutional framework
for the federal government:

Make it clear the amendments are to limit the size, power and reach of the
federal government and its employees and/or sub-contractors. 

Add an automatic re-boot and/or simple voting procedure to roll back any/all
future federal powers that exceed this constitution. e.g., congress was
supposed to have exclusive lawmaking power, but POTUS and numerous ABCD fed
agencies regulate/rule however they wish without limits. Today they can come
into your home and kill you if you posses the wrong kind of flower or if you
happen to have picked up a feather from the ground that once belonged to the
wrong kind of bird, etc.

Taxes to run the beast need to be tiny and expressly limited, maybe 5% of a
citizens annual income (15% if the person works for the government) as a suggested
minimum contribution.

Money must not be fiat or counterfeit(able) by people, computers or governments.
Would you like to contribute a dollar to the: Re-election campaign fund? Hillary's new
glasses? Obama's family vacation? Hollow point ammo for the department of...
(wait, they no longer exist)? 
Maybe a contribution form should be made available: 
Yes, I want more fedgov! Heres my contribution of $_________________________
to be used for* (leave blank for the general fund, fill in the blank, attach
additional pages if desired.)
 ______EXAMPLE________Oilpainting portrait of Pres Obama_______________  
*WARNING: Fedgov cannot overreach its constitutional limits.
 You may be held responsible if this contribution/directive results
 in the initiation of force or fraud upon others.

Incorporate the "initiation of force or fraud" and Victim restitution
and victimless crime concepts. Spell out the jury has supreme power in court
trials to determine the outcome and punishment. 

Clarify many of the amendments that are being trashed today: no law may restrict
citizen's possession or use of "Arms" i.e., guns, bombs, tanks, laser
death ray, etc, that include whatever power and force necessary to prevent,
resist, repel or overthrow OUR OWN or any government intrusion into the lives
of citizens that oversteps its enumerated constitutional power i.e., tyranny
and/or gun grabber psychopaths in elected office, etc. 

The 9th and 10th need to be spelled out for idiots. Maybe
listing a few bad examples would be helpful. (Insert acronym list of all
federal agencies here). Repeat 9th and 10th amendments again, and note: 
_These are only a few examples of things not to allow the fedgov to attempt, undoubtedly,
 there are countless others. CLARIFY the US Constitution and these Amendments
 are the ONLY areas the people give some of their individual rights and powers up
to the fedgov. The rights that the states and the people retain are nearly infinite.
_
Of the first 10 original amendments, only the 3rd is left pretty much intact.
The rest need some serious re-write clarifications or sumptin'.

----------


## Pericles

Include nullification. Whenever a majority of the state legislatures declare an act void, it shall be repealed throughout the United States as if it had never been passed by the Congress and signed by the President.

----------


## Weston White

Interesting.  I have been working on something similar to this, although as a bill proposal; it is still mostly in first-draft form:

Lucid Accountability and Responsible Restraint on Union Powers Act (LARRUP ACT)

----------


## Confederate

I'd eliminate it and go back to the Articles of Confederation.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> I'd eliminate it and go back to the Articles of Confederation.


The Articles didn't work the first time around, and there's no indication they'd work now.

----------


## Confederate

> The Articles didn't work the first time around, and there's no indication they'd work now.


Didn't work for who? The Federalists who wanted a centralized government or those who believed that the nation was founded by sovereign states?

----------


## erowe1

> The Articles didn't work the first time around, and there's no indication they'd work now.


They didn't work to accomplish what?

----------


## osan

> I thought this might be a fun topic... If there ever was to be a Con-Con or a chance to get a total re-do on the Constitution, What revisions would delegates from the RPF community submit? this topic can be on any issue in or not currently in the document. A few examples:
> would you add provisions to break up the possibility of a two party system? what would they be?
> Should there be changes to the electoral college? 
> Would you propose an alternate way of selecting the Supreme court?
> 
> The original intent of the first document has been greatly perverted over the last 200+ years, what would you change in the constitution or our way of governing knowing what we know now to prevent that from happening again?


I did that over 20 years ago.  A whole new Constitution - radically different from what we have and enormously improved in terms of eliminating easy reinterpretation of what has been written.  In the course of the exercise it became clear to me that without right-minded people a constitution is worth less than the paper upon which it is penned.

----------


## osan

> Nothing. As it was written with just the original ten amendments it was the most inspired and well conceived government documents ever.


Not even close.  It is a poor execution of a good fundamental idea.  It is vaguely written and there is NO ironclad protection of ANYTHING due to the built-in power to amend everything.  It is not quite a dismal failure, but it really is not very good either.  The right intentions and ideas of the framers went off the rails in execution - possibly not their faults because after all, they were attempting to peddle a set of radically different ideas to a bunch of crooked bastards who most likely would not have signed on had the vagaries not been present, which of course paved their ways forward for the current tyrannies under which we suffer.




> The problem is not the document but the people. No amount of ink on paper can protect liberty when the people beg for shackles.


And here you are right on the money. 

I would, however, submit that a greatly improved document would make our rights easier to defend.

----------


## Henry Rogue

Separation of All Money and State.
Separation of All Education and State.
Separation of All Media and State.

----------


## FindLiberty

Be sure to read through the (last) USSR Constitution from the late 70's and the Dec-1988 amendments.
*Lot's of bad stuff to avoid!
*But there was some good stuff in there too; _it appears that their secession option actually was used!

_http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1977_Soviet_Constitution

----------


## otherone

Hard to write something that the serpents won't wriggle around.
How about all federal expenditure has to be approved unanimously by every state legislature.  Outta suck the life right outta the beast.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

I would make violation of one's oath of office a death penalty offense.

----------


## FindLiberty

I bet the death penalty would keep all but the most determined psychopaths from seeking to hold office. We only need the very best.

----------


## Confederate

> I would make violation of one's oath of office a death penalty offense.


And who determines whether the oath was upheld? Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan?

----------


## FindLiberty

USSR: (from Wiki)   _[It sounds so good on paper... what could go wrong?]

_Constitutional rightsThe Soviet Constitution included a series of civil and political rights. *Among these were the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom of assembly and the right to religious belief and worship. In addition, the Constitution provided for freedom of artistic work, protection of the family, inviolability of the person and home, and the right to privacy.* In line with the Marxist-Leninist ideology of the government, _the Constitution also granted social and economic rights_ not provided by constitutions in capitalist nations. Among these were the _rights to work, rest and leisure, health protection, care in old age and sickness, housing, education, and cultural benefits._
Unlike Western constitutions, the Soviet Constitution outlined limitations on political rights, whereas in democratic countries these limitations are usually left up to the legislative and/or judicial institutions. Article 6 effectively eliminated partisan opposition and division within government by *granting to the CPSU the power to lead and guide society*. Article 39 enabled the government to prohibit any activities it considered detrimental by stating that "Enjoyment of the rights and freedoms of citizens must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state." Article 59 obliged citizens to obey the laws and comply with the standards of socialist society as determined by the party. The government did not treat as inalienable those political and socioeconomic rights the Constitution granted to the people. Citizens enjoyed rights only when the exercise of those rights did not interfere with the interests of the state, and the CPSU alone had the power and authority to determine policies for the government and society. For example, the right to freedom of expression contained in Article 52 could be suspended if the exercise of that freedom failed to be in accord with party policies. Until the era of glasnost, freedom of expression did not entail the right to criticize the government. _The constitution did provide a "freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda." It prohibited incitement of hatred or hostility on religious grounds._

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> And who determines whether the oath was upheld? Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan?


Sure why not?  It doesn't matter.  You will have a crap-ton of elected officials afraid to blow their flipping nose without explicit permission, and everyone looking to find violations in their political enemies.  Fewer people will be willing to run on account of the price of power.  The ones who do are either pure-grade psychopaths and we get to demonstrate our resolve on the death penalty, or actual people who mean to uphold the oath anyway and don't really care so much about the penalty.

The nature of the Constitution says that an elected official has to do something to violate it.  There is very little in the way of violation by inaction, and that applies exclusively to the President.  Having judges like Sotomykagan simply makes it more likely that they will find mercy rather than a hangman's noose.  Because of the nature of the Constitution it would seem hard to unjustly indict an innocent elected person of violating it.

On the other hand, some of my political opponents are adamant and certain that I violated my own oath to the NC State Constitution (Article 1 Sec 5) by introducing 10th Amendment bills in NC in 2011.  I happen to disagree, of course.

----------


## Pericles

> Didn't work for who? The Federalists who wanted a centralized government or those who believed that the nation was founded by sovereign states?


The 1780 was a period of severe economic depression. Things were not working for loads of people.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> They didn't work to accomplish what?


To accomplish what the framers of the Articles intended.  The primary reason the Articles failed was that the central government didn't have the power to tax but had to rely instead on requisitions from the states.  Many times, states wouldn't pay their share, leaving the central government unable to pay for things that the Articles specifically left to the central government (conducting foreign affairs, waging war, maintaining an army, and paying the Revolutionary War debt).

If the Articles were in force today, and if Congress asked for money, say, to stop illegal immigration, the odds are that the southern border states would bear the brunt of the cost.  Why in the world would Maine or North Dakota care about illegals coming over the border -- they don't have a problem with illegal Canadiens.  Conversely, if Congress needed cash to implement a treaty with Canada, what reason would New Mexico or Florida have to pony up their share?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> USSR: (from Wiki)   _[It sounds so good on paper... what could go wrong?]
> 
> _Constitutional rightsThe Soviet Constitution included a series of civil and political rights. *Among these were the rights to freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom of assembly and the right to religious belief and worship. In addition, the Constitution provided for freedom of artistic work, protection of the family, inviolability of the person and home, and the right to privacy.* In line with the Marxist-Leninist ideology of the government, _the Constitution also granted social and economic rights_ not provided by constitutions in capitalist nations. Among these were the _rights to work, rest and leisure, health protection, care in old age and sickness, housing, education, and cultural benefits._
> Unlike Western constitutions, the Soviet Constitution outlined limitations on political rights, whereas in democratic countries these limitations are usually left up to the legislative and/or judicial institutions. Article 6 effectively eliminated partisan opposition and division within government by *granting to the CPSU the power to lead and guide society*. Article 39 enabled the government to prohibit any activities it considered detrimental by stating that "Enjoyment of the rights and freedoms of citizens must not be to the detriment of the interests of society or the state." Article 59 obliged citizens to obey the laws and comply with the standards of socialist society as determined by the party. The government did not treat as inalienable those political and socioeconomic rights the Constitution granted to the people. Citizens enjoyed rights only when the exercise of those rights did not interfere with the interests of the state, and the CPSU alone had the power and authority to determine policies for the government and society. For example, the right to freedom of expression contained in Article 52 could be suspended if the exercise of that freedom failed to be in accord with party policies. Until the era of glasnost, freedom of expression did not entail the right to criticize the government. _The constitution did provide a "freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda." It prohibited incitement of hatred or hostility on religious grounds._


Exactly how our Marxist-Lincolnist-Leninist politicians want it to be in the USSA...

----------


## VIDEODROME

There would be a Peace-Time Constitution and a War-Time contingency Constitution.  War time would have different rules for things like how government is funded and for things like Income Taxes to pay for the war.  I mean it recognizes the State itself as under dire threat.  

However, the rules would explicitly demand a roll back to the Peace-Time Constitution which would include undoing the Income Taxes and scaling back the military.  I would set it up so if the Government does a police action to another country like Yugoslavia than it legally activates the WarTime constitution.  

I suppose one way I would like to see this work is if the President or Congress Drone strikes any place or sends military assests to Mexico over the drug war, it triggers the WarTime Contitution and everyone's paycheck sees a new deduction "War Tax".  It's an attempt to make citizens feel like the own the cost and consequences of these things.  

Or after WW2 if the government seemed to want to stay on the War-Time Constitution would people be like wtf are you guys doing?  It's time to shift from bombing to building. 

This is a crude description that needs a lot of detail filled in, but I like that people could look at these two documents and more easily see a government like our's today trying to stay in a perpetual state of war.  The Peace-Time Constitution would be geared toward behavior described Ron Paul's books.  Leave behind militarism in favor of commerce and trade.  Show the two paths of acting like Belligerents or Businessmen.

----------


## Weston White

> To accomplish what the framers of the Articles intended.  The primary reason the Articles failed was that the central government didn't have the power to tax but had to rely instead on requisitions from the states.  Many times, states wouldn't pay their share, leaving the central government unable to pay for things that the Articles specifically left to the central government (conducting foreign affairs, waging war, maintaining an army, and paying the Revolutionary War debt).
> 
> If the Articles were in force today, and if Congress asked for money, say, to stop illegal immigration, the odds are that the southern border states would bear the brunt of the cost.  Why in the world would Maine or North Dakota care about illegals coming over the border -- they don't have a problem with illegal Canadiens.  Conversely, if Congress needed cash to implement a treaty with Canada, what reason would New Mexico or Florida have to pony up their share?


Simply for that fact that "And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State"; also the Articles of Confederation did in fact have an Amendment clause, Article XIII.  In many respects the U.S. Constitution is really a nuance of the Articles of Confederation; as upon the principles of the Magna Carta.

----------


## Weston White

"[It sounds so good on paper... what could go wrong?]"

No means of redress or due process are provided, so it is effectively a pipe-dream with the government always on tap.


Which is really what our own government is wanting for us all, oh certainly you have "rights", well so long as we say so that is; anybody ever heard of the Constitution for the Newstates of America?

----------


## sailingaway

There is no way in hell I would trust adoption of our Constitution to the slime currently in power.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Simply for that fact that "And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State"


That didn't stop some of the original states from refusing to pay requisitions, did it?

----------


## erowe1

> The 1780 was a period of severe economic depression. Things were not working for loads of people.


1) Was the cause of that really too small of a federal government?
2) Is the economy any of government's business?

----------


## erowe1

> To accomplish what the framers of the Articles intended.  The primary reason the Articles failed was that the central government didn't have the power to tax but had to rely instead on requisitions from the states.  Many times, states wouldn't pay their share, leaving the central government unable to pay for things that the Articles specifically left to the central government (conducting foreign affairs, waging war, maintaining an army, and paying the Revolutionary War debt).
> 
> If the Articles were in force today, and if Congress asked for money, say, to stop illegal immigration, the odds are that the southern border states would bear the brunt of the cost.  Why in the world would Maine or North Dakota care about illegals coming over the border -- they don't have a problem with illegal Canadiens.  Conversely, if Congress needed cash to implement a treaty with Canada, what reason would New Mexico or Florida have to pony up their share?


It sounds like you're saying the Articles didn't work as well at taking away our freedom as the Constitution does.

Starving the regime of funding and preventing it from getting us into treaties would be great things.

----------


## The Gold Standard

There are a lot of things that could be changed, but at the end one simple sentence would have to be added.

"Any and all powers not expressly and specifically delegated to the federal government in this constitution are permanently denied it."

----------


## Weston White

> That didn't stop some of the original states from refusing to pay requisitions, did it?


Actually, that logic avoids the cold reality that during this period of time the states really had little to no means to pay, regardless.  Also, as you had already pointed out, the way the Articles of Confederation were crafted, it served to ensure a just balance of power between the states and the national government; ergo, if the states did not feel the Confederacy was serving the Union’s best interests then they could simply provide financial resistance, which is a fairly convenient and effective tool to possess.  For nothing puts an end to infringements by the government quicker than to defund it.  Moreover, they could have just as easily ratified a new Article/Amendment for powers to lay and collect duties and imposts, for example.

In effect the negative results of passing total powers of taxation to the national government are clearly observable in our present society.  Governments, when left unrestrained, acquire only the desire to expand without impedance.  In fact it could be well argued that due to advancements in technology (e.g., instant communication and varying mediums of economical or rapid transportation) the vast majority of national government is actually no longer needed and obsolete; for example, the governors for each state could serve on a council (as an ambassador figure) that meets every few months or in times of national emergencies to vote and finalize issues in accordance with the will of  individual state legislatures, that is with concern to national issues, treaties, foreign affairs, etc.; each state could manage its own militia individually and then collectively the militias would serve as the Army National Guard, for example.

Moreover, much of the Executive Branch and even Legislative Branch are now serving in gross conflict with the desires of non-progressive states (which are still in the majority), more and more, we are seeing in the news, references to secession or debates concerning X Amendment protections.  Clearly, the federal government, as a whole, has failed the whole of the United States of America... And of course those on the federal team realize this, which is why the are now pushing for all or nothing--so as to compel through force a new American revolution; meanwhile calling Obama the new "Lincoln" and suddenly Hollywood pimps out Lincoln movie after Lincoln movie.  Plainly, in their absolute desperation they are going to lose on all such fronts.

----------


## Weston White

> There are a lot of things that could be changed, but at the end one simple sentence would have to be added.
> 
> "Any and all powers not expressly and specifically delegated to the federal government in this constitution are permanently denied it."


That language is already included, it is in the Preamble to our Bill of Rights; which is the very reason why the federal government has worked to omit it from common knowledge.

"THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution"

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> In effect the negative results of passing total powers of taxation to the national government are clearly observable in our present society.


But total powers of taxation weren't transferred to Congress; the states retained the authority to tax within their respective jurisdictions.

----------


## Weston White

> But total powers of taxation weren't transferred to Congress; the states retained the authority to tax within their respective jurisdictions.


The states powers of taxation are secondary to the federal governments (i.e., federal supremacy), if the federal government wants to lay a tax upon something, the states cannot say sorry Charlie we are already taxing that, so in such instances the people of that state are effectively doubly taxed.  But yes, Congress does have total powers of taxation within their respective jurisdiction, which in many instances includes the several states and the people thereof; while certain aspects of taxation have been restricted within the states without the explicit authority of Congress.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> if the federal government wants to lay a tax upon something, the states cannot say sorry Charlie we are already taxing that, so in such instances the people of that state are effectively doubly taxed.


True, but you are overlooking the realities.  A state can easily impose property taxes, but the federal government would have to do so via an apportioned tax, which would be a political impossibility due to the different rates that would apply to each state.  So as a practical matter, Congress is foreclosed from this type of tax.

----------


## Weston White

> True, but you are overlooking the realities.  A state can easily impose property taxes, but the federal government would have to do so via an apportioned tax, which would be a political impossibility due to the different rates that would apply to each state.  So as a practical matter, Congress is foreclosed from this type of tax.


Actually, for the states acknowledging within their own State Constitution that the Constitution of the United States is as-fact, the supreme law of the land, are obligated to follow the stipulations as provided within the Constitution (also see the XIV Amendment for certain aspects pertaining to individual rights which are indissoluble), thereby applying to their internal means of taxation; relative to this issue are also historical perspectives and empirical foundations laid through the genius of enlightened economists and jurists centuries ago.  It is wholly improper for states to levy property taxes upon non-productive property (e.g., primary residences), I believe it was Gouverneur Morris that had addressed the immorality or impropriety of this (I can't find the quote right now).  Moreover, the federal government cannot lay direct/apportioned taxes outside of extraordinary exigent circumstances; neither can it tax for any other purpose except to pay its debts, having been incurred in the course of providing for either the common defense and general welfare of only the United States, being so "necessary and proper".

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Actually, for the states acknowledging within their own State Constitution that the Constitution of the United States is as-fact, the supreme law of the land, are obligated to follow the stipulations as provided within the Constitution (also see the XIV Amendment for certain aspects pertaining to individual rights which are indissoluble), thereby applying to their internal means of taxation; relative to this issue are also historical perspectives and empirical foundations laid through the genius of enlightened economists and jurists centuries ago.  It is wholly improper for states to levy property taxes upon non-productive property (e.g., primary residences), I believe it was Gouverneur Morris that had addressed the immorality or impropriety of this (I can't find the quote right now).*  Moreover, the federal government cannot lay direct/apportioned taxes outside of extraordinary exigent circumstances*; neither can it tax for any other purpose except to pay its debts, having been incurred in the course of providing for either the common defense and general welfare of only the United States, being so "necessary and proper".


No.  The FedGov can constitutionally levy apportioned, direct taxes.  It is unapportioned direct taxes that are theoretically prohibited.

----------


## Danke

> No.  The FedGov can constitutionally levy apportioned, direct taxes.  It is unapportioned direct taxes that are theoretically prohibited.


You didn't understand what he wrote.

----------


## Weston White

> No.  The FedGov can constitutionally levy apportioned, direct taxes.  It is unapportioned direct taxes that are theoretically prohibited.


Yes that is a good point as well.  I was only meaning to state that when apportioned taxes are assessed, it must be due to an emergency, all direct taxes are last-resort taxes; this was addressed in the Federalist Papers and was included at length as judicial dictum within the _Pollock_ case.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> I was only meaning to state that when apportioned taxes are assessed, it must be due to an emergency, all direct taxes are last-resort taxes; this was addressed in the Federalist Papers and was included at length as judicial dictum within the _Pollock_ case.


But it wasn't included in the Constitution, and that's what counts.  The plain language of Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 and the 16th Amendment leaves no room for imposing an emergency condition to the exercise of the taxing power.  The decision on what, when, and how much to tax is left up to Congress:




> It is true that the power of congress to tax is a very extensive power. It is given in the constitution, with only one exception and only two qualifications. Congress cannot tax exports, and it must impose direct taxes by the rule of apportionment, and indirect taxes by the rule of uniformity. Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion.  The License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866) (emphasis added)






> Actually, for the states acknowledging within their own State Constitution that the Constitution of the United States is as-fact, the supreme law of the land, are obligated to follow the stipulations as provided within the Constitution (also see the XIV Amendment for certain aspects pertaining to individual rights which are indissoluble), thereby applying to their internal means of taxation.


The fact that a state constitution recognizes the U.S./ Constitution as the supreme law of the land doesn't mean that its restrictions on federal taxation also apply to state taxation.  If the framers had intended that result, they would certainly have written it into the U.S. Constitution, just as as they explicitly provided, for example, that states can't coin money or enter into treaties.

----------


## Athan

> I thought this might be a fun topic... If there ever was to be a Con-Con or a chance to get a total re-do on the Constitution, What revisions would delegates from the RPF community submit? this topic can be on any issue in or not currently in the document. A few examples:
> would you add provisions to break up the possibility of a two party system? what would they be?
> Should there be changes to the electoral college? 
> Would you propose an alternate way of selecting the Supreme court?
> 
> The original intent of the first document has been greatly perverted over the last 200+ years, what would you change in the constitution or our way of governing knowing what we know now to prevent that from happening again?


I would first add more teeth to the enforcement of provisions on elected officials. The first would be a "writ of amparo" revision. As per wikipedia: 



> The writ of amparo (also called recurso de amparo or juicio de amparo) is a remedy for the protection of constitutional rights, found in certain jurisdictions. In some legal systems, predominantly those of the Spanish-speaking world,[1] the amparo remedy or action is an effective and inexpensive instrument for the protection of individual rights.[2]
> 
> Amparo, generally granted by a supreme or constitutional court, serves a dual protective purpose: it protects the citizen and his basic guarantees, and protects the constitution itself by ensuring that its principles are not violated by statutes or actions of the state that undermine the basic rights enshrined therein. It resembles, in some respects, constitutional remedies such as the writ of security available in Brazil and the constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) procedure found in Germany.
> 
> In many countries, an amparo action is intended to protect all rights other than physical liberty, which may be protected instead by habeas corpus remedies. Thus, in the same way that habeas corpus guarantees physical freedom, amparo protects other basic rights. It may therefore be invoked by any person who believes that any of his rights, implicitly or explicitly protected by the constitution (or by applicable international treaties), is being violated.


I would also make a wording change to the second ammendment to read "cannot be infringed". And adjust it so it can not be construed only to mean militia run and organized by states.

Make it a crime of high treason to infringe on private trade of gold and silver tender, institute a federal income (and state income tax under threat of any penalty), and to make a federal proposal of any form monopolies of federal currency and certificates by banks and private organizations.

----------


## Weston White

> But it wasn't included in the Constitution, and that's what counts.  The plain language of Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 and the 16th Amendment leaves no room for imposing an emergency condition to the exercise of the taxing power.  The decision on what, when, and how much to tax is left up to Congress: 
> ...


No, your progressivist assertions are outright wrong, that is so not “what counts”.  A lot of things were not explicitly included within the U.S. Constitution.  The Federalist Papers are a medium of legislative history (i.e., SCOTUS frequently quotes from and cites to the Federalist Papers), while perhaps the Anti-Federalist Papers do not hold as much influence as the former; hence, they establish definition, as to the intent of federalism.  The Federalist Papers provide at great length the rightful and prudent breadth of the U.S. Constitution, just as does its Preamble, just as does the Preamble to our Bill of Rights, just as does our Declaration of Independence.  Moreover, such are valid as evidence of persuasion within court.

If it were not for the Federalist and Anti-Federalist debates, leading to the creation of our Bill of Rights, there might very well have been a complete dissolution of our Union under the new U.S. Constitution.  Again, the Federalist Papers eloquently argue the whole of intended principles for substantiating federalism.


“_The Federalist is the most important work in political science that has ever been written, or is likely ever to be written, in the United States.  …  It would not be stretching the truth more than a few inches to say that The Federalist stands third only to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself among all the sacred writings of American political history._”
(Clinton Rossiter, The Federalist Papers (New York: New American Library, 1961), vii)

“_The United States has produced three historic documents of major importance: The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and The Federalist._”
(Jacob E. Cooke, The Federalist (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1961), ix. v)


And no the Congress cannot exercise taxation at its discretion (e.g., to influence or inhibit certain activities, behaviors, or purchases, etc.), but only to (1) pay its debts while, (2) providing for the common defense and (3) general welfare of the United States.  Congress only has powers of taxation to generate revenue for purposes that are both necessary and proper to its own grants of empowerment.  That is all, no more and no less.





> The fact that a state constitution recognizes the U.S./ Constitution as the supreme law of the land doesn't mean that its restrictions on federal taxation also apply to state taxation.  If the framers had intended that result, they would certainly have written it into the U.S. Constitution, just as as they explicitly provided, for example, that states can't coin money or enter into treaties.


I wholly disagree.  I believe that it is for the states to serve their residents in a good faith accord as to the sage prescriptions provided by the U.S. Constitution and all such founding documents, to its Union, and to the advancement of our republican form of government.  Let the fixed maxims set forth within the Constitution of the United States serve as a beacon of positive efficacy for all; for: “_Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent.  Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers.  The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding._” – _Olmstead v. United States_, 277 U.S. 438, 478-479 (1928)


Furthermore, _West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette_, 319 U.S. 624, 638 (1943): “_One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections._”  Such is legal precedent.

----------


## TomtheTinker

I'd leave out the executive branch or at least limit its powers  and ban capping the number of representatives

----------


## qh4dotcom

I am surprised no one has said this:

Make central banks and fiat money unconstitutional

----------


## Weston White

> I am surprised no one has said this:
> 
> Make central banks and fiat money unconstitutional


That was one of the issues I tackled, HERE.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> And no the Congress cannot exercise taxation at its discretion (e.g., to influence or inhibit certain activities, behaviors, or purchases, etc.)


Unfortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.  That's why Congress may tax things thay can't otherwise regulate.




> It is beyond serious question that a tax does not cease to be valid merely because it regulates, discourages, or definitely deters the activity taxed. Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506, 513-514, 81 L. Ed. 772, 57 S. Ct. 554 (1937).  The principle applies even though the revenue obtained is obviously neglible, Sonzinsky v. United States, supra, or the revenue purpose of tax may be secondary.   Hampton & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394, 48 S. Ct. 348, 72 L. Ed. 624 (1928).  Nor does a tax statute necessarily fall because it touches on activities which Congress may not otherwise regulate . . .   U.S. v. Sanchez, 340 U.S. 42, 44-45 (1950)


For further proof, see  National Federation of Businesses v. Sebelius, upholding Obamacare's individual mandate as a tax.  Whether you agree with the decision or not, it is currently the law.




> I believe that it is for the states to serve their residents in a good faith accord as to the sage prescriptions provided by the U.S. Constitution and all such founding documents, to its Union, and to the advancement of our republican form of government.


You seem to revere the Federalist Papers, but you missed this part from Federalist No. 33, which clearly provides that the States' power to tax isn't limited by the Constitution (except in cases of imports and exports):




> The inference from the whole is, that the individual States would, under the proposed Constitution, retain an independent and uncontrollable authority to raise revenue to any extent of which they may stand in need, by every kind of taxation, except duties on imports and exports.

----------


## Seraphim

I would have a provision written indicating the Federal Goverment CANNOT levy a single tax on anyone. It's existence must be perpetually regenerated by voluntary contribution and import fees (the sole real service it provides being overseeing imports).

----------


## Weston White

> Unfortunately, the Supreme Court disagrees with you.  That's why Congress may tax things thay can't otherwise regulate.


You are, yet again, misdirecting the argument.  Besides I have already debated you on this issue, so I am not going to again--rather see at: http://www.community.defendindepende...p?p=1047#p1047 (and also: _United States v. Butler_, 297 U.S. 1, 61 (1936): “_… A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the Constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the Government. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another. … The exaction cannot be wrested out of its setting, denominated an excise for raising revenue, and legalized by ignoring its purpose as a mere instrumentality for bringing about a desired end. To do this would be to shut our eyes to what all others than we can see and understand. Child Labor Tax Case, 259 U. S. 20, 259 U. S. 37._”).

However, to clarity even a bit further on this, Congress, for example, could tax the coal industry, though they could not tax it so as to bankrupt it, but only to generate necessary revenue; Congress could tax firearms or churches, but not so as to deny individuals reasonable acquisition of firearms (including ammunition) or to prevent the practicing of one's religion; etc.




> For further proof, see  National Federation of Businesses v. Sebelius, upholding Obamacare's individual mandate as a tax.  Whether you agree with the decision or not, it is currently the law.


That ruling was made in-following the predicates of the socialistic New Deal, for if SCOTUS had dared to strike down the PPACA (in whole) it would have reopened Pandora's Box; as people began to realize the shame of the SSA class of taxes.  Such was just too much of a risk to permit for within our presently fastuous forms of government that is spending itself several trillion dollars into deficit each year.  Much was intentionally ignored by a few questionable Justices within that hearing.





> You seem to revere the Federalist Papers, but you missed this part from Federalist No. 33, which clearly provides that the States' power to tax isn't limited by the Constitution (except in cases of imports and exports):


"You seem to revere the Federalist Papers" ...Well that about sums up the blindness of your logic.  But, yes I do, as do many, many others.  And all that quotation is stating is that the federal government is not be empowered to dictate unto the several states how they should and should not tax their own residents.  Now that is not to mean that the states may act without regard to its citizens and just go unscrupulously hog-wild, however, such matters are to be purely an internal concern, not a national concern.

----------


## erowe1

I don't see why it matters exactly what kind of taxes are constitutional.

Wherever the Constitution says any kind of tax is ever ok, the Constitution is just wrong and should be ignored.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> Wherever the Constitution says any kind of tax is ever ok, the Constitution is just wrong and should be ignored.


Which is what many a tax protester has done before taking up residence in the pen.

----------


## erowe1

> Which is what many a tax protester has done before taking up residence in the pen.


I wasn't speaking about practicality.

As with other thieves who threaten you with violence demanding money from you, it's probably the case that giving some to them is your best alternative. It's also probably the case that any means you may have of holding onto any of your money without their knowledge should be used. As long as you understand that they have no real moral claim to your money.

----------


## Weston White

> Which is what many a tax protester has done before taking up residence in the pen.


"_Finally, there seem to be but three ways for a nation to acquire wealth.  The first is by war as the Romans did in plundering their conquered neighbours.  This is robbery.  The second by commerce which is generally cheating.  The third by agriculture the only honest way; wherein man receives a real increase of the seed thrown into the ground, in a kind of continual miracle wrought by the hand of God in his favour, as a reward for his innocent life, and virtuous industry._"

-- Benjamin Franklin

----------


## beaven

I would put a constitutional limit on taxation.  Specifically, I would prohibit all taxes to the Federal government except a tax on taxes.  You would pay taxes to the State or local government and Congress would set a certain rate where a % of other government bodies would have to forward tax receipts.  So if you paid $1000 in local property tax and the federal tax rate was 2%, that local government would owe the Feds $20, keeping the rest for theirselves.

This would do two things:

1. Keep tax rates low at all levels.  In effort to keep money local, there would be a focus on keeping taxes low because any $ that goes to Washington does leaves the State/county/city.  Plus states would pressure Congress to keep Federal rates low so that the state could keep more of their revenue.

2. It would localize most spending.  If there is going to be government involvement in healthcare, welfare, infrastructure, etc., it will be done on the local level.

A tax on taxes.  That's where it is at.

----------


## Vanilluxe

I would amend the constitution so that everyone in America shall receive millions and millions of dollars and all Americans shall be rich and happy, the end.  Nice story for the constitution eh?

----------


## bolil

I would clarifye that the bill of rights is to be strictly interpreted, and that no law passed shall supersede them.  Then I would inject some competition into the courts.

----------


## Weston White

> I would amend the constitution so that everyone in America shall receive millions and millions of dollars and all Americans shall be rich and happy, the end.  Nice story for the constitution eh?


Great idea, I have expended upon it with this: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post4869742

----------


## Natural Citizen

I'd amend the 14th amendment to clearly define the citizen as "natural citizen". It would change absolutely _everything_ and restore control to the genuine people of, by and for _them_. In it's current states, corporations interpret themseves to be people. As such, they lobby for representation and run the show. If it remains this way, rest assured that repatriation will certainly premise upon growth rather than survival.Obviously there are two entirely different models there.

Will never happen politically though. As it is, these "persons" benefit from representation and as such dictate the rules. Will have to be approached from the technology/science department I'm afraid. But, who say's it already isn't awork in progress?

----------


## presence

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free  state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be  infringed

The restraint of tyranny both foreign and domestic being necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the people to, own, possess, keep, and bear every terrible arms of the soldier shall not be  infringed or regulated by any government or government sanctioned private organization.

(I may want to edit that)

----------


## John of Des Moines

This is just a start:

1) Prohibit the use of Party labels on ballots

2) Make the census count only citizens and those who have declared intent to become citizens.

3) Recognize the original 13th Amendment as ratified.

4) Repeal the 17th and require the legislatures to actually elect their senators.  Prohibit use of rubber stamp election polls (before the 17th progressive states required the legislature rubber stamp voter approved senate candidates). Allow for a plurality of 40% to elect a senator and allow a senator to be recalled by 2/3 of the legislature.  Require legislatures to actually elect a senator (states would sometimes go for years without a two senators, e.g. New Jersey).  Allow for the Congress to convene a state legislature to force them to sit in joint continuous session to elect a senator - No other business would be allowed until the legislature elected a senator - Allow Congress to declare any or all legislative seats vacant if legislators failed to appear at the legislature to elect a senator (and prohibit any such legislator from running for public office for 10 years and taxing the cost of any special election to fill vacant seats to the individual ousted legislator.)  Change the title of "Senator" to that of "Ambassador." 

5) Make the vice-president elected by state Governors who could only elect one of their own or a previous vice-president.  Prohibiting a VP who becomes President from seeking election as President.  If the Governors can't elect a VP then the office goes vacant.  Change the office of Vice President to that of "President of the Senate."  

6) Make election fraud that can influence a federal election punishable by loss of citizenship, loss of all property and death.  (Would prohibit election fraud for state legislative office since it elects senators.)  

7)  Require all Congressional votes based on total authorized membership (No 50% plus one of a quorum.) Thus, the senate would require 51 votes on all legislation (67 for a proposed amendment or treaty) even if there are only 99 or less who have been elected and seated.  Same for the House.

8)  In increase the size of the House to one rep for every 30,000.  (thirty-thousandproject.org)

9)  Create a "Sovereign Jury Grand" (Jail for Judges) who could indict, impeach, and/or allow an aggrieved party to sue the judge without the judge claiming "judicial immunity."   Prohibit any person with a sworn oath of office and appearing before a Sovereign Grand Jury proceeding from claiming the "5th."  Under Master/Servant law the Master is entitled to all the knowledge of the Servant acquired while in the course of duties to the Master. Same applies to judges and others with oaths.  

10) Require all legislation start in the House (even treaties but without 2/3 vote in the house).  Allow for the Senate to submit proposed amendments to a bill but if the House rejects the amendments require the Senate to vote on the bill as proposed by the House (allow the bill to bounce back and forth 3 times before requiring a Senate up or down vote).

11) Prohibit "saving clauses" in legislation - if one part is unconstitutional the whole is unconstitutional.

12) Allow the President to issue pardons, etc, for crimes 5 years after conviction but allow the President to ask Congress for a pardon in other cases - allowing for stays from enforcement of judgments until Congress acts or fails to act.  Except in cases involving the Sovereign Grand Jury - then the President must present his request for a pardon to the SGJ who must give a 2/3 approval.

----------


## DamianTV

I'd add this:

Any attempt to institute a Central Bank of any form shall be considered to be a High Crime and an Act of Sedition or Treason.

----------


## Crager

I saw this thread and couldn't help but point out that you can all re-write the Constitution at the Second Constitutional Convention. It's in Beta testing right now so every one of your ideas and concepts would help debug and make it better.

----------


## pahs1994

It would be great to move out from beta and perfect this, but the problem with the con-con happening in real life is that we are currently outnumbered by Demon-crats and neo con Retard-icans. I would love to go on an Al Gore or Rick Santorum fan page and see what amendments those people would come up with.

----------


## DamianTV

> I saw this thread and couldn't help but point out that you can all re-write the Constitution at the Second Constitutional Convention. It's in Beta testing right now so every one of your ideas and concepts would help debug and make it better.


Would you really trust the $#@!s we have in Congress right now with a Con Con?  

(Con Con = Constitutional Convention)

----------


## TomtheTinker

I'd erase everything the whole document except the Bill of Rights 1-10  and amendment #13

----------


## pahs1994

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_Constitution
here is a list of amendments proposed in the past on wiki

----------

