I’m on board with most of that.

I’m not sure about the 2/3 majority for confirmation of judges – it basically allows a small group of extremists to block nominations, and, as we’ve seen from the GOP, they may choose to do so for an entire Presidential term in order to fill the positions themselves after the following election.

An explicit privacy right – meaning both a right to control personal information, and a right of personal autonomy, though they could be worded differently – would be good. But you could come up with a list of other personal rights that are also important: a strict public/private distinction, maybe, or a right of children to decent food, minimal education standards, and freedom from religious indoctrination, for instance. Hard to make a complete list; tempting to add more and more stuff to it.

Regarding the autonomy issue, I would like to see a clause explicitly guaranteeing personal authority over one’s mind and body in all respects not directly and materially impinging on someone else’s similar right. Call it the anti-paternalism amendment.

I suppose we need an explicit definition-of-personhood amendment, including sentient conscious beings and none other, just to put that bullshit to rest.

I’d eliminate or explicitly proscribe the 2nd Amendment entirely. I’m not actually strongly anti-gun, but I’m strongly pro-good-public policy, and it’s clear which way that lies on this issue. I’m not indifferent as to “one way or the other”.

I would explicitly guarantee the social safety net – define the political-economic system of the country to include explicit and fairly substantial welfare guarantees, and possibly define welfare issues as off-limits to the free market.

I don’t see the need for overcompensation on takings, but some limitations on its scope might be in order.

I used to favor the Electoral College on grounds of balance of influence. Now it seems that that has become far more distorting to the system than would direct elections. And to the extent it has been, it’s been a complete disaster.

I suppose we should change that bit about jury trials over $20 disputes, too. The right to jury is paramount, but maybe some sort of mandatory arbitration mechanism, or small claims court, for minor issues would unclog things somewhat.

We need an absolute proscription on the death penalty, as well as some sort of articulated standard for the penal system generally – that it is intended to be compensatory and rehabilitative, not retributive, and some sort of guarantee of strict, substantive due process.

We apparently need a guarantee that the Constitution is binding on all officers or agents of the United States, of whatever type or level, and protects all who fall under their authority under any circumstances. We didn’t used to need that, because the existing Constitution itself says so, but the Republicans made it necessary.

We also need explicit prohibitions on torture, invasion of privacy, coercion or blackmail, murder or assassination or bombings – at home and overseas, kidnapping, or the use of foreign associates to perform any of these acts, under any circumstances whatsoever, by the United States government or its agents. We also didn’t used to need that, but that’s just another gift to us of the Republican Party and their appointed judicial activists.

However, all that being said, I don’t advocate overhauling the Constitution. Anyone can come up with their own list of wants, and everybody’s would be different. I strongly suspect that if we threw the issue up in the air today, most Americans wouldn’t support even what’s in the current Constitution. I see little reason to be sure we’d get one that’s better.

The current Constitution is deeply flawed, and has been both badly misused and too often ignored. But it has gotten us this far. For all the flaws both of the country and the Constitution, it is no accident that America has made the considerable – greatly lacking, but still considerable – strides that it has. The Constitution is a subtly progressive document – a fact that I suspect would be the first thing lost in a revision.

There is much to regret in our history, and much evil has been done under the protection of the Constitution, both by those who distorted it and those who took it at face value. But it has brought us much of the good we have achieved, too, and, again, that is no accident. I see nobody today I would like to put in the place of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin, or Thomas Jefferson and John Jay. Considering many of the people who would likely be significant in any formal attempt to reconvene a Constitutional Convention is an incredibly frightening exercise.

The Constitution needs explicit language stating that all humans have a basic right to life, from conception to the grave. We didn’t used to need that, but that’s just another gift to us of the Democratic Party and their appointed judicial activists.

KTK:

On the 2/3 majority for judicial appointments, I don’t think it would be as debilitating as you think. Over 90% of judicial appointments sail through with unanimous or near-unanimous approval. What it would do is prevent either party from getting a bare majority in the Senate and the presidency at the same time, and using that opportunity to ram through ideologues. *Cough* Alito *cough* By requiring a 2/3 majority, you essentially take highly divisive candidates from either end of the spectrum off the table. By my estimation, a justice that makes neither party completely happy, but who is acceptable on some level to both parties, is probably exactly the type of justice we want, especially as you get up to higher courts. (One could argue that we need to replace two conservative activist SCOTUS justices with liberal activist SCOTUS justices for a couple of decades, just to undo the damage they’ve done, but that’s another matter entirely. I’m talking about shaking the Etch-A-Sketch here…)

bob:

When did you not used to need that? At no point in American history, even before Roe v. Wade, was abortion completely illegal nationwide.

[...] has a fun little exercise on re-vamping the constitution. Admits general welfare doesn’t cover specific welfare. We’ve had these thought [...]

I have my own ideas. For one thing, I would return senatorial selection to state legislatures. I would also change the House to multimember districts. That is, each state would be allotted a certain number of House members. The seats would go to the top vote-getters in the state’s election.

I’d like to see the clause about no nobility or titles clarified – that no law should apply to anyone but that it applies to all free people equally.
-No special loopholes for congress to exempt itself from laws
-No special rights for police or mayors to skip speeding tickets and carry weapons where citizens can’t.

I’d like to see an amendment that all political contributions are taxed at no less that the highest tax in the land. Tax them twice – once for the sales tax, and once again as income tax.

If you were emperor for a day, what would YOU change?

Nothing. I’m not that smart. This Constitution has made this country the greatest country in the history of the world. Was I want to change it, I would do it the way it says. Constitutional Convention or Congress and state ratification.

Speaking from Canada and having lived through significant changes due to revamping of a constitution, be careful what you ask for. Because in Canada, the constitution is slowly throwing things into a quagmire on several fronts (most notably the extreme power now in the hands of judges). I realize some things need to be revamped or adjusted but tread very lightly when redoing it. Why? Because it will require political approval and we all know just how willing politicians are to do good things for the general public while ignoring their own desire for power, influence and control.

I actually don’t seriously suggest revamping it. KTK is right on that front: what we’d wind up with would almost certainly be worse than what we have right now. It’s just a fun thought exercise, to see where people’s heads are at.

James H:

I’m not sure the house rule would be any better. If you did things that way, it would make states more homogeneous, and make the representatives less representative. In such a case, you’d likely have no Republican House members from California, and no Democratic ones from Texas, for example.

Now I could see moving to a more parliamentary system, where you vote for parties rather than candidates, and each party gets a number of seats proportionate to its share of the vote. But that would be a dramatic change indeed.

As to the Senate change, I know a lot of small government types are big on that idea, but I’ve never figured out how it would make a significant difference.

nk:

#1, you’re no fun.
#2, “the greatest country in the history of the world?” Watch Hannity often?
#3, If you read the linked article, a Constitutional Convention is precisely what Dr. Levinson calls for.

Ok, I’ll play. Were I delegate at the Convention I would vote for an inalieanable right of one carton of Marlboros and two bottles of Jack Daniels per person per week.

Look, I understand that our Supreme Court, following Marbury v. Madison, has made itself our Supreme Leader with its “interpretations” of the Constitution. Making law. But, I believe, the Constitution was intended to be nothing more than a framework where we would experiment with democracy. Kind of a guideline and kind of a boundary.

I’d make the 2nd Amendment explicit, such that it would guarantee the rights of citizens to possess arms for defense of self (including loved ones) and state (including fellow citizens). I’d also set it so that citizens may own any weapon classification in use by any police force in the state of residence. If cops need Machine Guns, citizens should have access as well.

As for law-making, I’d add one rule. All federal laws automatically get a 5, 10, or 20 year sunset. Major felonies are valid for 20 years, minor crimes for 10 years, and administrative rules for 5. As each law is about to expire, congress must review & vote on each law to extend it (no omnibus lawmaking). We have far too many laws on the books that are no longer valid, or are out of date, but are not dealt with and become legal baggage we all find ourselves stuck with.

multimember districts with some sort of proportional representation would be an absolute must, for me. there’s no reason whatever to keep things the way they are, unless you count “entrenching the current two parties’ shared hegemony unto eternity” as a reason.

Madrocketscientist:

For some laws, we already have an automatic 10-year sunset. That’s part of why the Bush Tax Cuts are set to expire in 2011.

But your “no omnibus lawmaking” reminds me of a big one that I forgot: Single statute reform! No more attaching “poison pill” amendments to unrelated laws, or making unwieldy “compromise” laws that, say, tie a tax cut to a minimum wage increase, or whatever. You’re voting on a statute, up or down, pure and simple.

That also short circuits the misleading campaign ads like “he voted to increase taxes on so-and-so” when that tax increase was just a minor amendment attached to some otherwise broadly-supported and wholly unrelated piece of legislation.

In the area of the RKBA, I’d do MadRocketScientist one better (since the 14th Amendment has made all rights federal) and explicitly extend the right to include any man-portable weapons in use by the armed forces of the United States. Yes, that includes guided anti-tank rockets.

Taxes: payment for all taxes levied, of any type, shall be rendered on Election Day, or on the day that the election would be held in off-years. Withholding would be banned.

Voting: the right to vote and hold public office must be earned (Enter Heinlein) through a period of voluntary service, but nobody who, having attained the age of majority, so volunteers may be barred from performing that service for any reason. (This does not preclude them from being kicked out before completing the service for failure to do so satisfactorily, and such service is not required to be miltiary, but it should be difficult, if not dangerous. Furthermore, anyone who receives income from the government would be barred from voting.

Any form of social welfare, if not actually banned, would be limited in scope to minimum subsistence levels.

All forms of ‘positive’ rights, i.e. the right to receive or have any form of goods or services from others (and the government, being composed of the people, counts as ‘others’) would be explicitly renounced, as any recognition of such right would result in the denial of the rights of those others.

Right, but sunset laws only work if they are universal. What good is it for anyone but the government if a tax cut can sunset before it even takes full effect while tax itself never does? As for the Second Amendment, I’d clarify it by nixing the militia clause, and maybe adding a limiting clause to clarify that convicted violent felons can’t possess weapons until 10 years after their sentence has been completed in full – or maybe even that one can be sentenced to life without guns, but only if that is actually part of the sentence under the law in effect at the time of the offense. I’d probably add a narrow exception to the ex post facto clause stating that if a crime is punishable by X under a constitutional law in effect today, and the person was originally sentenced to X under a law that was ultimately held unconstitutional but was reasonably believed by the legislature to be constitutional at the time of enactment, then the person can be punished by X today. Yes, I really would do that just to see Charles Manson fry.

Establishment clause? I’d ditch it in favor of a clause stating that government policy can neither deliberately inhibit nor deliberately advance religion in general, or single out any particular religion for special treatment. If a neutral policy happens to help or hurt religion, tough tittie.

I’d probably add a narrow exception to the ex post facto clause stating that if a crime is punishable by X under a constitutional law in effect today, and the person was originally sentenced to X under a law that was ultimately held unconstitutional but was reasonably believed by the legislature to be constitutional at the time of enactment, then the person can be punished by X today. Yes, I really would do that just to see Charles Manson fry.

That is actually the law in cases not involving the death penalty. The defendant gets a new sentencing hearing under the corrected procedure. SCOTUS death penalty rulings are a very big departure from American criminal jurisprudence.

Ok, ok, not to be too hard on the SCOTUS, let’s just say that Furman v. Georgia, invalidating a substantive law on the basis of procedure, but later validating it, in Gregg v. Georgia, because the proper procedure was followed, just proves what a bunch of suckasses we appoint to the Supreme Court.

When did you not used to need that? At no point in American history, even before Roe v. Wade, was abortion completely illegal nationwide.

Various anti-abortion statutes began to appear in the 1820s. In 1821, Connecticut passed a statute targeting apothecaries who sold poisons to women for purposes of abortion, and New York made post-quickening abortions a felony and pre-quickening abortions a misdemeanor eight years later. It is sometimes argued that the early American abortion statutes were motivated not by ethical concerns about abortion but by worry about the safety of the procedure, but some legal theorists believe that this theory is inconsistent with the fact that abortion was punishable regardless of whether any harm befell the pregnant woman and that many of the early statutes punished not only the doctors or abortionists, but also punished the women who hired them.

Many early feminists, including Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, argued against abortion for a variety of reasons. The former wrote:
“ Guilty? Yes, no matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; but oh! thrice guilty is he who, for selfish gratification, heedless of her prayers, indifferent to her fate, drove her to the desperation which impels her to the crime.

The criminalization movement accelerated during the 1860s, and by 1900 abortion was largely illegal in every state. Some states did include provisions allowing for abortion in limited circumstances, generally to protect the woman’s life or pregnancies due to rape or incest.

Wow, he can copy and paste from Wikipedia. I’m impressed.

Wow, bob. It looks like you need to got get some schooling. The real professionals know to omit contradictory evidence (I’ll let you do your own search for the definition of “largely”.) when quote-mining.