Essay talk:Needed Constitutional Amendments (Stabby the Misanthrope)

(Note: Most of this talk page was written while this was still a mainspace "mob" article) human  19:43, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Equal Rights
"The last bit just states the whenever the Constitution uses the word 'he', 'him', or 'his', it really means 'everybody'."

I'd put this in a preamble or definition of terms, rather than enshrining it right off. If this is just a "wish list" it's fine where it is. If you're going to take "real world" into consideration preamble it. CЯacke ®


 * WOAH WOAH WOAH! "Any Personhood" includes corporations. Remember, the 14th Amendment was exploited more by corporations than the African Americans! --Eira yay!  16:26, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * That's covered in one of the other amendments, I think. human  16:55, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * I'm wondering if it's a little wordy. This is really part of a definition of "personhood".  Given that blacks were originally not full persons (politically) and needed to be explicitly "rehumanized", perhaps a "defining" amendment, such as "all humans are to be treated equally under the law.  All rights enumerated apply to all people, and no persons shall be denied rights not enumerated"--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 20:05, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Freedom of expression
"Similar to the 'lifestyle choices' amendment above, this would guarantee the right of every individual to express themselves in any way they see fit as long as that expression would not harm another person in a demonstrable fashion. This would both prevent a drunk driver from claiming freedom of expression, and would likewise prevent someone from claiming that another person's rights should be restricted because that person's lifestyle is offensive." This is actually redundant; the first amendment as construed has those limitations.- 19:11, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Requirement for Compulsory voting
This would however be entirely unenforceable, even as a constitutional amendment.


 * It seems to work fine in many countries: . Stile4aly 17:13, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Even more serious Unwise version
A user made it "stupid" but I think we were able to compromise on "unwise". Though it really was stupid. CЯacke ® 15:11, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * I changed it to "radical". But if these names give offense lets just number them 1, 2, 3 etc and then do a vote.--Bobbing up 15:31, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * I agree, numbering is better. human  15:37, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Conditions for Impeachment
"Basically, this would formally expand impeachable offenses to include, say, bungling a war, failing to act properly in the service of his country, etc." Such acts are not criminal, and therefore useless to provide impeachment for. Impeachment is a granting of the congress to investigate criminal claims against the president. Without it breaking the law, there's nothing to investigate, and the impeachment is dead, and meant nothing at all. The better approach would be to make the necessary parts explicitly illegal for the president to do, then impeachment could be made, and tried for those situations. --Eira yay! 16:53, 26 December 2007 (EST)


 * Then Congress should have the option to take up a vote of no confidence against a president which would trigger an immediate nationwide referendum. Stile4aly 17:08, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * How about getting rid of the quadrennial circus and letting Congress call for presidential elections, with a minimum and maximum elapsed time between them? (Still leaving the two-term limit in place) human  17:16, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * I'm really unseasy on that. The US system is set up to keep the President mostly independent from Congress for a reason.  While Parliamentary systems work well, I think this would be too radical a change for the US to accept, and I think it would throw up more problems that it would solve.  Researcher 19:37, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Enshrinement of the Courts' Powers
This formally gives the Judicial branch the power of Judicial Review, which as anyone who took US Government class knows, was never actually in the Constitution—it's more tradition than law. This would also give it the force and backing of the law. The last part is there specifically to prevent the President from purposely defying the Court's orders, like Andrew Jackson did.

How about a way for Supreme Court (at least) review of a law without requiring someone be accused of breaking it and working through the lower courts?


 * All of this already exists by Common Law with as much legal force as codified law. There is absolutely no need to codify this, as there is no dispute legal challenge of their powers to do so. --Eira yay!  16:54, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * Well, except for Bush v. Gore, the Court has never taken a case that did not start at a lower level with accusation of a crime. This results in some strange politics at lower levels, with states, for instance, not appealing a case involving a dubious law out of state-level court.  human  17:04, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Vote?
We need to make a way to vote on these. human  01:03, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * Just on RationalWiki, or in the United States? -- 03:02, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * Both :) human  03:06, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Instant Runoff Voting
I don't care how we elect our officials via popular vote. I don't feel the Constitution should delve into the nitty-gritty. That's one its charms. Shouldn't the Constitution leave this out, and by implication let Congress and/or the states decide? -- 03:30, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * But the C does do nitty gritty details as well as broad concepts. It specificies certain supermajorities, for instance.  Anyway, I do care how the popular vote is mechanized, and would like to see IRV in the "main instructions".  Anyway, to amend it, Congress and the States have to "decide". The Bill of Rights was enacted because they realized they needed to get specific about a few things rather than leave them "implied". Several amendments have been fine-tuned repairs (or damage). <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  14:21, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Second Amendment
This: ''The right of the people to keep and bear arms for the purpose of sport or self-defense shall be guaranteed. The right to bear arms for aggressive purposes shall not be recognized.'' would certainly be a gift to lawyers. You can carry guns for self protection but not for aggressive purposes! And how, in practical terms, would one easily demonstrate the difference? This is the same as saying "everybody can bear arms". The second part changes that in no way and simply confuses the issue. --Bobbing up 03:56, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * Sorry 'bout that. I was just desperate for a way to differentiate between holding guns for recreational purposes and stockpiling guns for an assumed revolution (like all the ultra-right-wing militant organizations do, or mass murderers).  I'll change it again.  -- 04:00, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Comment on new version: ''The right of the people to keep and bear arms for the purpose of sport or self-defense shall be guaranteed. No such arms may be beared by the Public that are of inordinate power or designed for mass murder.'' It depends on your objectives. This version gives people the explicit right to carry arms (presumably in public). No "if's" or "but's", so it's a far more explicit right than the existing one, which people who want gun control complain about. The caveat is now a bit clearer, but I wonder how many people in the US are killed by weapons designed for mass murder anyway. The thing is, that the US is the only western democracy (as far as I am aware) that gives people the right to bear arms in public. Why do you wish to give them this right?--Bobbing up 05:27, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * I suppose I could rewrite it to simply repeal the second amendment. I, too, don't see a need for it.  Blame the current version of whoever first put the section there, not me.  -- 05:33, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * That's what I'd do. Changing it to remove the ambiguity by clearly allowing people to carry weapons doesn't seem the best way to go. Removing the ambiguity by removing the right would seem to be a better idea.  :-)  --Bobbing up 07:30, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * Just as long as my so-called by someone else "sarcastic version" there. I see no problem with us having several contradictory versions, as long as they represent editors' views. 14:26, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * Yey. And then we can vote on the one we like best.  Can we link this to the forum voting system which is a bit better at these things?--Bobbing up 14:36, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Essay much?
...

...

...

Actually I made such a perfect headline I can't think of anything else to say. Lurker 16:56, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * Haha, well, originally it might have belonged there (as an RA joint), but the mob has jumped in and edited all over it, so now it's more likely to end up at "fun". Anyway, the phrase "essay" has two meanings on RW - one, is that our normal articles are essaylike, not encyclopedic.  The other is for single-author pieces and they go in the essay namespace.  Are you using "essay" perhaps as a snarl word to indicate you disagree with some fo the ideas laid out here? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  17:00, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * Ah, ok. I never really got the namespaces thing. But yes, the reason I called said it was an essay is because it's entirely opinion, but I wasn't doing it as a snarl. I don't care if the authors of this don't agree with me, but the fact that it's opinion means that, by definition, only some users agree with it, and that's not appropriate for the mainspace. Even the GW and ID/YEC stuff is opinion based on data (large amounts, in some cases) so you can present "both sides" of each issue. But in the case of "needed constitutional amendments" it's just not possible, because it's opinion which is largely based on ideology, morals, ethics, values and beliefs. Lurker 17:12, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * Heck, the authors don't even egree with each other. I suspect in the end this will end up as essays and the main piece in "fun", since, as you say, there's no way to make it a real mob-generated mainspace RW article in the end. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  18:05, 26 December 2007 (EST)

Parliamentary system
Can anyone figure out a way to amend it to change to a parliamentary system, with the PM being the head of government, and elections held any time from, say, two to six years apart depending on who calls them and why? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  17:01, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * No! Absolutely not!  -- 17:22, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * Why not? If you wanted to own this (or a version of it), you'd need to put it in "essay:" ... as you originally suspected.  That way it's your piece, with comments only in "talk". As it is, this version is pretty much a mob prject now.  Perhaps we should all make our own "essay:" versions at some point?! (Like "NCA Human", "NCA Radioactive afikomen", etc? <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  18:04, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * I didn't mean "stop interfering with my page" I meant "I find the idea so abhorrent I will fight you to stop it." -- 18:06, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * Without discussion? What is wrong with the idea?  PS, I copied the raw stuff over to what will be "my" essay version, I think we should all do that and reduce this to a directory of them.  And all steal what we like from each others. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  18:11, 26 December 2007 (EST)

In the US, a parliamentary system probably wouldn't fly. It's so ingrained into the Constitution that the executive to separate from the legislature that you'd have to completely gut Article 2 and rewrite it for it to work. Researcher 19:40, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * Ah, ok, the "practicality" argument (which is valid in politics). Of course, this version is yours now, so please, feel free to remove it.  I did come up with another idea that I think addresses my idea(s) without gutting the document and confusing schoolchildren. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  19:43, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * I'm pretty happy with the checks and balances, executive, bicameral thingy. Parliamentary systems can be so...Italian.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 20:01, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * Or, even worse, British. :O -- AKjeldsen Godspeed! 20:12, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * Ho Ho. Nothing wrong with the British system.  It's admired by all those who fully understand it.  (All four of them.)--Bobbing up 12:18, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Edits & Arguments
Obviously, RA, you are free to remove things I added that you disagree with here now that it's in "essay" (like that parliamentary thing, for instance). And if I wrote anything you liked, feel free to keep it. I'll be acting similarly on mine. Wheee, free to be a complete loon! <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  19:39, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * And if you're loony enough, you may even end up on the Canadian dollar :) -- 23:15, 26 December 2007 (EST)
 * Wish me luck! <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms">human  02:04, 27 December 2007 (EST)
 * I see this is now an essay, I may have missed that and edited it. Sorry.  Feel free to revert me without rancor. --Bobbing up 12:15, 27 December 2007 (EST)

Annulment of Corporate Personhood
I'd like to see this expanded, because even though I consider myself a liberal virtual personhood helps to underpin much of the economy. It allows companies to sue and be sued (with out having to sue every single shareholder), incur debt and obligations, issue stock, and enter contracts. I agree that there should be some limits to it, but if you were to basically do away with corporations wouldn't that pretty much blow up the economy? I don't think you would be able to run very large companies, such as GE which are extremely big, successfully with out it. Jsonitsac 22:09, 2 April 2009 (EDT)
 * Actually it protects the owners and stockholders from legal chastisement - and certainly from jail. The issue also allows corp.s to avoid obligations via legal loopholes that might "kill" a person.  You might want to look into the history of this - once upon a time (as many stories begin), corporations were formed for specific purposes and for a limited amount of time.  I, personally, don't give a shit if GE survives or not.  They are just a communications conglomerate and arms manufacturer, neither one is a good reason for corporate existence - IMNSO, anyway. But my comment is not intended to negate your comment. <font color="#DD00DD" face="comic sans ms"> ħ uman  05:34, 3 April 2009 (EDT)

Referenda and disenfranchisement?
A) How about a provision for referenda? I know it's not a traditional part of the U.S. political tradition, but since we're playing the ideas game are there any thoughts on the (un)desirability of referenda?

B) What about disenfranchisement (e.g. of those convicted of a crime)? Should that remain? Or should it be widened (e.g. some earlier systems disenfranchised those who were on benefits)? Again, there are arguments for both and since we're toying with a revision of the U.S. Constitution, it's worth a discussion. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

With referendums we run into the problems that California has had, with laws passed by them which impose financial obligations on the state without any way to pay for them. The average person doesn't have the time or the talents to think through the ramifications of proposed laws; that's why we have a republic instead of a democracy. Naiant (talk) 19:14, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Name of the article
I feel like you should rename the article to: "Essay:Needed Constitutional Amendments (Stabby the Misanthrope)". -Bigljbigl (talk/stalk) 08:26, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Electoral College
The Electoral College was originally intended to keep the riff-raff from having a direct role in the selection of the President. Now it serves two purposes:

1. It recognizes that regions have interests as well as people do. The upper states with low populations, like Wyoming and the Dakotas, have interests which might not concern more popular states, but which should be protected or at least paid attention to. Giving them a disproportionate power in the Electoral College helps balance this out.

2. As a related point, if the President was selected by direct popular vote, candidates would campaign in California, New York, and Florida, and hardly appeal to anyone elsewhere. We would end up with someone who was president of a minority of states, those with large populations.

For these reasons, the Electoral College paradoxically protects the democratic nature of the United States, and should be maintained. Naiant (talk) 19:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)