Suggested Amendments to the U.S. Constitution for 2011

[Joanne98]

It has become clear that our nation has a severely crippled political system where the will of the majority and the best interests of the nation are being ignored so a very few obscenely wealthy individuals and many international corporations can reap absurd profits. Our American democracy and way of life are under serious attack by elite, powerful forces exploiting grave weaknesses in our system of government.



In my opinion, we need to start serious discussions about how to amend our Constitution in an effort to both correct institutional weaknesses and reduce to power of excessive wealth to undermine our nation. I am suggesting that we start introducing Constitutional Amendments in our state legislatures and in Congress to encourage public debate about these problems and how to best address them.

Below the reader will find some suggestions and It is hoped by this writer that others will suggest additional ways of strengthening American democracy, restraining excessive corporate power and making our government better able to deal with the modern problems facing us in the first half of the 21st Century:



(1) Corporations shall not have the right to spend shareholder money to influence elections. Executives who are convicted of using corporate funds to influence elections shall be barred from serving as corporate officers for life and be punished as felons.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Suggested-Amendments-to-th-by-Stephen-Crockett-101230-799.html

[LiberalFighter]

1. My responses

(1) Corporations influencing elections. --- Rather than that the amendment should be that businesses or organizations of any type shall not be considered citizens or individuals.

(2) Corporations serve the public good. --- Best way to encourage that would be to add additional tax brackets for both individuals and corporations.


(3) Congressional districts --- It should be drawn up by an independent group not controlled by the state legislative, executive, or judicial body. And any data that includes political affiliation or may suggest a possible political outcome must not be used.

(4) Counting the votes. --- They should either have the election sooner. Like maybe the first Tuesday in October or the 2nd weekend in October (to allow more people to participate). Or have the swearing in of the President on February 20th. That would allow more time for votes to be counted and procedures to be followed that were rushed back in 2000.

(5) Trade agreements ratified by citizens instead of Congress. --- Absolutely not!! It's bad enough that there are elected members that don't have a clue. But with over 300 million and more than half of them don't have a clue about life. To suggest that they have a say is suicide.

(6) Tax imported goods. ---

(7) All citizens shall be entitled to basic healthcare at public expense. --- We need a SC ruling that states that the Constitution already allows for it. Getting businesses and any type of organizations declared not to be individuals would go a long way in reducing lobbying by them. Because they would be severely limited in campaigning.

(8) Rights of American workers to organize. --- Again. Businesses and organizations are not individuals amendment. Maybe we should demand that businesses must have elections before they can join the Chamber or any other organization. We really need to stress over and over that union elections should never be interfered with by companies under any circumstances as it is an organization just for the employees. And stress that the union leaders are not union bosses as they are elected by the members. While company bosses are hired by their boards or owners.


(9) All citizens have the right to gainful employment, at hourly rates at least equal to the established minimum wage, by the federal government, if able and willing to work, during periods of excessively high periods of unemployment, unless fired by the federal government for good cause or while serving a criminal sentence. Congress shall establish a reasonable definition of excessively high unemployment rate at a level of no more than 8 percent of the total available domestic workforce. --- I don't know how feasible this is but for sure when there is high unemployment jobs should be created that will put money back into the economy. And those jobs should be such as what they did during FDR times.

(10) Corporate officer elections. --- This would probably create a very big Commerce Department. I would be against this amendment. It would be better to restrict the level of pay and benefits they can receive and add additional higher tax brackets to reduce the incentive of paying them outrageous salaries.


FOR THE MOST PART... I would be against any of them as amendments. And seriously doubt any of them would receive the necessary ratification. And most of them would generally be enacted as laws instead. Also, the amendments are (were) intended to provide rights not take them away. But if we are to include one that takes a right away I would support the restriction that no descendant of Prescott Bush or Richard Cheney ever be allowed to be elected or appointed to any federal office.

[Demeter]

2. Separation of Corporation, Religion and State

and no revolving door. Permanent retirement from everything else when attaining public office..or working in govt. Once in, in until the end.

[some guy]

13. While I agree with the intent

I think this is a bad idea.

If someone at age 25 gets elected to the US House of Representatives, serves two years, and loses re-election, they're what? Screwed for life? Unable to be voted out of office? Never able to go to work for a private business?

I do understand the intent of wanting to eliminate the Rubin-types who go from GS (?) to the executive, then on to Citi and that sort of crap.

[skepticscott]

3. While perhaps well intended

and in some cases desirable policy goals, these are poorly written and thought out as amendments to the Constitution, and in many cases are not even "amendments", in that they do not change anything already explicitly written in the Constitution or established as settled Constitutional law by a Supreme Court interpretation and decision.

Take the very first as an example. "influence elections" is so broad a notion that all sorts of things could be banned that shouldn't be. And the first sentence merely says that the right to do certain things is not guaranteed, while the second implies that doing them would be illegal. And does the writer also intend that corporations like environmental and peace groups be banned from trying to influence any person's voting behavior in any way whatsoever? Foolishness.

If you want a really useful amendment to consider, how about one that requires every bill passed by Congress to have a single purpose?

[MineralMan]

4. Pretty silly, really.

Constitutional amendments are a very, very difficult thing to accomplish, and these you mention are impossible. Constitutional amendments, even if successful, take years to ratify, and should only be used to general changes that affect virtually the entire population. Misconstrued amendments, such as the Prohibition Amendment, can cause far more problems than they fix.

The Constitution is for describing how government operates and to limit the role of government. The founders wisely did not inject much more than that into the document. To do so today would weaken the Constitution and turn it into something like the state constitution of states like California, where the document has grown so large with minor amendments that it is no longer comprehendable by the citizenry.

Remember the Equal Rights Amendment? It failed during the ratification process. If such a sensible amendment that affects half the population cannot be ratified, the amendments in the article you posted have zero chance. It is better to institute changes in other ways, almost all the time.

Sorry, but I have to unrecommend your post.

[rasputin1952]

7. Sorry, but you didn't "have" to unrec, you could have read and moved on

Just a point of order.

[MineralMan]

8. Are you suggesting that I not comment on the post?

Is that an official suggestion? My understanding is that DUers can reply to posts freely, as long as they do not attack the poster. It is also my understanding that recommendations and unrecommendations are also part of DU's feature list. I prefer to say why I unrecommend a particular post, since I think that is a more honest approach.

I'm a little confused. When a moderator makes a suggestion like this one, should I consider that to be an official suggestion, or just a personal one? Can you explain?

Yes, I could have read the post and not commented at all. But, I chose to comment. If that's a problem, then I'll have to adjust my participation at DU.

I guess I don't understand the reason for your reply to my comment.

[rasputin1952]

9. No, not at all...

I just don't see why you posted you "had" to unrec.

I have never "Unrecommended" any thread, if it's something I don't agree with, (or do agree with), I just post, (or not), then move on. I don't make a "thing" out of making sure others see my rec/unrec.

The point I was making is that you didn't "Have" to unrec the OP, do it or not is your right....but how it comes down to "having" to rec/unrec is a bit egocentric to me.

Edit: typo.

[treestar]

11. How many times have people said they rec'd or unrec'd a post?

In their post? Many. And in fact there are often comments complaining about unreccers who don't explain why. Though that too is allowed.

[rasputin1952]

14. There is a distinct diffeence in, "I'm unreccing this...

and I "have" to unrec this.

[MineralMan]

15. You're making an artificial distinction there, I think.

"Having to" do something is just a figure of speech. Why did I "have to" unrec this? Because, despite the OP's disclaimer at the end of the post, I feel very strongly about constitutional amendments. So, the unrec was despite the poster's disclaimer regarding the original material, which I read.

Sometimes people "have to" do many things that aren't really mandatory. In the morning, I "have to" have a couple of cups of coffee. I don't really "have to," but I feel better when I do. The expression means a lot of things, and is used in a lot of ways.

You think it's "egocentric" of me to use that word. Who cares, really? It's what I wrote. You're quibbling with minutiae, for whatever reason you have for doing so. Whatever...as long as you're not chiding me officially, it matters not.

[rasputin1952]

17. For the record, I am not chiding you "officially"...

I don't do that.

[MineralMan]

19. Then I will edit my post in ATA.

[MineralMan]

12. Your point was unclear.

When a DUer who is a moderator cites Robert's Rules of Order in a post, I get a little confused, you see.

As for my wording, I did "have to" unrec the post. I feel strongly that the Constitution should not be amended in any way other than to correct issues with the document as it stands. None of the suggested amendments fit that criterion.

Whether you, personally, feel that my post was "egocentric" or not is irrelevant. I post what I post here because it is what I think. All posts here are "egocentric" to some degree.

Personally, I think that it is very important that moderators on DU make it clear when they are acting individually, rather than as moderators. A simple disclaimer, such as "Speaking personally," or "In my personal opinion" would go a long way toward clarifying which hat you have on when you reply to someone's post here.

Whether you, personally, have ever unrecommended a post is also irrelevant. The feature exists on DU, and may be used by any DUer in good standing, as I understand the rules. I don't really care whether you use the feature or not. I use it from time to time. After reading many, many posts complaining about people who just click "unrec" and move on, I've made it a practice to explain my unrecs. I actually find it a more honest approach to the feature.

The point I was making in replying to your suggestion is that it was in no way clear what your intent was in chiding me. That's a problem. If your comments cause another DUer to contribute less to DU or to not reply to posts, then I believe that causes confusion. Again, a simple clause in your posts when you chide someone for something that makes it clear that you are not speaking officially would seem to be a good idea.

You may not approve of some of my posts. That's not a problem. If it is unclear to me that you are speaking on a personal level, then I am naturally confused at the reason for your attempt to correct me. I broke no rules here. I attacked nobody. I simply replied to the OP with my objections to the material used for the original post. You chose to chide me. When a moderator does that, I respond.

I could, I suppose, consider your characterization of my post as "egocentric" as a personal attack. I will not do that. Hereafter, I will treat all of your replies to me within threads as your personal opinion and give them all the consideration I give anyone else's personal opinion.

Edit to correct errors.

[rasputin1952]

16. The use of the word "have", implies that there is no other alternative...

That is the only reason I posted at all.

There are always alternatives. You have every right to unrec an OP you disagree with...whether you make a post to it or not; but I find it difficult to believe that someone ""must", as the term "Have" here implies. A rec or an unrec is an act of preference, not a mandatory act.

I meant nothing against you personally in my post, and as I have stated your unrec was perfectly w/in the rules...I just don't see where where "have" to unrec is a part of the equation.

I will say, openly, that if you are offended, it was not my intent, and I apologize for any affront; nor an I trying to police the English language.

[MineralMan]

18. My only problem was with the difficulty in telling whether

you were speaking officially or not. Whether you want to quibble about the use of a common expression is not even worthy of comment. Nor would I have even bothered to reply at all, except that you wear a moderator's badge. I don't give a damn whether you like the way I phrase my posts or not. If you choose to tell me that you don't think I should have used that phrase, that's your deal, not mine. You said I was being egocentric for using the phrase. Is it not equally egocentric to feel that you should chide me for it? It's silly. I disagreed with the concepts presented in the OP. You chided me for my word choice.

Were you not a moderator, I wouldn't even have replied. You seem to be missing that point here. It's worth thinking about. You criticized the way I posted. When a moderator does that, it's worthy of note. So, I queried you on your post. I don't care whether you think I'm egocentric or not. I'll admit to being so. I post opinions here, so I must regard my opinions highly. Just about everyone here has a high regard for his or her opinion.

Again, you are completely missing the reason I replied to you in the first place. You caused me to be confused about the role you were playing when you chided me for my word usage. You have explained that you were not acting as a moderator. Good. I'll ignore the whole reply as irrelevant to me.

DU is a medium in which people post their opinions. If they are being chided for their opinions by someone who is a moderator, they may hesitate to express those opinions. I do not think that is a good idea. A little clarification on your part when you choose to chide someone would be a good thing. This will be my last post in this subthread. I think I have been clear.

[Kahuna]

21. ^^

:applause:

[skepticscott]

5. And lest we forget

Democratic Underground itself is a corporation. If they were barred from spending money that in any way might influence the outcome of an election, they'd pretty much be out of business.

[Demeter]

23. Does DU lobby?

Direct payments to candidates and campaigns barred only. Information is not a crime.

[skepticscott]

24. Under this person's suggested amendment

it would be. If they had their way, ANY spending of money by a corporation that had the intent or effect of influencing an election in any way whatsoever would subject corporate officers to imprisonment.

Yeah, right... :silly:

[DCKit]

6. The wording is way too tame. nt

[treestar]

10. Constitutional Amendments take a lot of effort

Progressive thought does not seem to tolerate that much effort. For 2011? Any such things takes years. Approaching each state's legislature. Don't make it sound easy.

[jmowreader]

20. I only want two amendments to the Constitution

Amendment 1a. I want the words "separation of church and state" written directly into the Constitution to shut up the fucking teabaggers who claim that because those words are not in there they can establish a state religion.

Amendment 4a. The original Fourth Amendment guarantees a right to privacy--what exactly does "secure in your papers and personal effects" mean if not that?--but the word "privacy" doesn't appear in the Constitution the teabaggers think that means the government can crawl through YOUR shit as much as they want to just so long as the government doesn't crawl through theirs. (Because they are patriotic Americans and you are a filthy hippie, after all.) Put the word "privacy" into the 4th Amendment.

Other than that, leave it alone, it's fine.

[Demeter]

22. And yes to ERA and No to Corporate Personhood

Two glaring big holes in the document from two hundred+ years ago, when neither women nor corporations were powerful enough to reckon with.

[Odin2005]

25. Rec. I think we need to go farther and write up a whole new constitution.

we should use Germany's constitution, since it is another Western federal republic, as a rough draft for a new constitution.

There should be explicit limitations to corporate power and strong privacy protections.

[skepticscott]

26. Well, be careful what you wish for

Assuming that the splintered and contentious political forces in this country could ever agree on anything to be the new supreme law of the land, the final product would probably have a lot of things in it that you'd find even more offensive than what you see now, and would lack many things that you now value. Either that, or there would be so many compromises and so much elaborate wording to try to please everyone that the final document would be nearly useless and actually end up pleasing nobody.

My own guess is that after a year or so of debating every jot and tittle of a new constitution ad nauseum, everyone would just say "fuck it, we're keeping the old one".

[jmowreader]

27. With the Republicans around, this is what a new constitution would look like

1. Abortion banned for all purposes INCLUDING the life of the mother
2. Federal government with no role except to run the army
3. Income tax abolished.
4. Constitutional ban on same-sex marriage

[right2bfree]

28. Need to abolish the second amendment too. No reasons for guns in the hands of nutters. nt

[jmowreader]

29. Republicans LIKE the Second Amendment!

Mine was a Republican Wet Dream Constitution: get rid of taxes, welfare, abortion and gays--and believe me, they'd give the cops the right to shoot gays on sight if they could--and keep guns.

[right2bfree]

31. Thats what I meant. Republicans are the gun nutters we need to control. nt

[Odin2005]

30. Yay, make it easier for the corporate authoritarians to control us!

Fuck that!