# How would you rewrite the Constitution?

## Recommended Posts

Not a big fan of "one man, one vote", I see.

The thing is, there is no strong correlation of population with federal money received under the current system — NY is break-even, California gets $1.09 per$1 in taxes, Delaware is $0.71 and RI$1.15. (A much stronger indicator of taking more than getting is having 2 Republican senators — the only one bucking the trend is Texas).

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/02/is-your-state-a-net-giver-or-taker-of-federal-taxes/

And, the correlation with population density is just as striking and exactly the opposite as Rigney claims. Rural states with low population density are more likely to get more federal money than they give in taxes.

Rigney, when you say "ultimately the big pigs or those who squeal the loudest won't always get the top slop portions" you seem to think that the most populated areas of the country (which do have a lot of representatives) get a lot of pork compared to the more rural states (which don't have many representatives). It is, in fact, the other way 'round.

Red states are more likely to be rural, and rural states were more likely to receive more federal spending than they paid in taxes in 2010. Among predominantly rural states, 81 percent received more federal spending than they paid in taxes. In contrast, 44 percent of urban states received more federal spending than they paid in taxes. Rural states, on average, received $1.40 in federal spending for every tax dollar paid; urban states, on average, received$1.10.

EDIT:

I meant to add that an amendment for the right of privacy might be a good change. The framers maybe couldn't foresee the government's ability to know so much about people without having to ask. In other words, maybe the right not to be forced to testify against oneself doesn't go far enough anymore.

Edited by Iggy
##### Share on other sites

That doesn't answer my question. Why are you against 1 man 1 vote for representatives in the house? Why should a small state get 1 rep per 50,000 people while a more populous state gets 1 per 100,000? Someone is still going to be in control of congress and there's every reason to think there will still be pork, so you haven't solved that. But this gets rid of one of the "checks and balances" that's in the system.

No doubt you're right about 1 man 1 vote. So let each state have 6 congressmen and 2 senators, but all non-partisan. These people are supposedly sent to Washington as a means of protecting and building our nation as a whole, not to subsidize one political party or specific area.

##### Share on other sites

No doubt you're right about 1 man 1 vote. So let each state have 6 congressmen and 2 senators, but all non-partisan. These people are supposedly sent to Washington as a means of protecting and building our nation as a whole, not to subsidize one political party or specific area.

Non-partisan? How do you accomplish that?

##### Share on other sites

Non-partisan? How do you accomplish that?

Likely never. But because of what would then be true state equality, it wouldn't be long before each of the congressmen were giving their cohorts haircuts and shining each others shoes.

Edited by rigney
##### Share on other sites

No doubt you're right about 1 man 1 vote. So let each state have 6 congressmen and 2 senators, but all non-partisan. These people are supposedly sent to Washington as a means of protecting and building our nation as a whole, not to subsidize one political party or specific area.

Uh, no. These people are supposedly sent to Washington to represent the will of the people. Specifically, the House of Representatives are meant to be the voice of a swath of people, while the Senate was meant to be the voice of the sovereign State. Then we let politics and popularism take the State's voice away and passed the 17th Amendment so that Senators could merely be another tier of the people's voice, no longer insulated from politics and the dangers of populism. We have since gone further down that path with the popular election of the executive (in each state), so that we now have essentially 3 tiers of public representation, none of them insulated from the whims and fleeting wishes of a democratic public.

That's why we can't pass a budget, pay our bills, or fight honest wars. The parts of the government that were designed to be buffered from our ridiculousness were undermined by our ridiculousness, so now we suffer from the loud and proud ignorance of populism. Democracy, losing its checks. It's quite predictable, really.

##### Share on other sites

Paranoia: That's why we can't pass a budget, pay our bills, or fight honest wars. The parts of the government that were designed to be buffered from our ridiculousness were undermined by our ridiculousness, so now we suffer from the loud and proud ignorance of populism. Democracy, losing its checks. It's quite predictable, really.

My thoughts exactly. Pork barreling, collusion and just "plain old dishonesty" is destroying us as a nation, regardless of whose foot is on the gas pedal.

Edited by rigney
##### Share on other sites

As far as rewriting the Constitution, I would take a lesson from the kinds of reasoning we've been seeing from the likes of Antonin Scalia, and include a short glosary of key terms. The word "People", for example, would be defined as referring to corporeal human beings, biologically classified as Homo sapiens.

My thoughts exactly. Pork barreling, collusion and just "plain old dishonesty" is destroying us as a nation, regardless of whose foot is on the gas pedal.

It has made a huge difference whose foot was on the gas pedal, because it also determined whose hands were on the wheel.

The single most damaging political endeavor of post WWII America, and the worst political decision by a group of American politicians since Secession, for example, was a one Party one faction effort - a fairly small group of bad guys who got hold of the wheel.

Corruption and collusion in the construction of a possibly unnecessary national highway system, say, is one thing. At least we get something as a nation out of it. Corruption and collusion in the launching of a full scale land war in Asia Minor is another matter entirely.

And when a Federal administration actively pursues corruption and combats collusion in its administration of some large national project - as Roosevelt did in implementing the New Deal and fighting WWII - that has generally turned out to be better and much more beneficial to the country than when a Federal administration utterly fails to do that - as W in reorganizing the entire Federal bureaucracy and launching an invasion of Iraq.

Dishonesty and pork barreling, even, the most widely distributed of the various political flaws afflicting us (such as incompetence, ignorance, etc) have been obviously and effectively concentrated in some political factions much more than others, for a generation now. Pretending that our current problems are equivalently attributable to "both sides" regardless of who actually did what, is a form of amnesia at best. At best.

##### Share on other sites

Quote overtone: Pretending that our current problems are equivalently attributable to "both sides" regardless of who actually did what, is a form of amnesia at best. At best.

I believe: How to rewrite our Constitution was the original topic, not how to destroy a nations intregrity. When a political party, regardless of which, becomes so drunk on power as to believe that only they know what's best for our nation, we're in trouble. What has happened is that we have left half of our country's people in limbo just waiting for the right numbers to get their guys back in office. What we need in government is common sense, not comic partisan politics as usual.

Edited by rigney
##### Share on other sites

Here's an interesting point about the historical context of the Second:

"The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery"
"The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says 'State' instead of 'Country' (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too."
##### Share on other sites

Here's an interesting point about the historical context of the Second:

"The Second Amendment was Ratified to Preserve Slavery"
"The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says 'State' instead of 'Country' (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too."

You make a good point, but it started long before that. Some interesting information in the below link. While I don't condone such disgusting regulations today, none of us were liviing in the south during that time. But I can understand why plantation overseers or anyone else owning slaves back then wouldn't want such regulations to keep even freed blacks from owning guns. Remember, without the pioneers having guns; the American Indian tribes would have kicked our asses out into the ocean in a heart beat. Given the chance and upper hand, slaves would have done likewise. Today, all we have to worry about are some nuts, a raft of criminals and gang bangers. "WOW" Haven't we turned this land into a beautiful country?

Edited by rigney
##### Share on other sites

When a political party, regardless of which, becomes so drunk on power as to believe that only they know what's best for our nation, we're in trouble. What has happened is that we have left half of our country's people in limbo just waiting for the right numbers to get their guys back in office. What we need in government is common sense, not comic partisan politics as usual.
"Regardless of which"? Maybe - a theoretical possibility for which we have no evidence. A generality, not applicable here.

Fine generalities, carefully phrased to avoid naming the drunken Party at fault for a generation, the benighted fraction of the country's people at fault for two centuries, the financial backing for all that, and therefore the overwhelmingly dominant source of the comic and nonsense-ridden partisan politics that have become "usual".

It's not a theoretical issue. The people who did this in real life have yet to even acknowledge their role, eh?

Which brings us to the topic:

Today, all we have to worry about are some nuts, a raft of criminals and gang bangers.
And the rise of the neo-Confederacy.

And a corrupted Supreme Court, a fascist-damaged system of Executive Branch checks and balances, a Congress hung by a Party petard while trying to refight the Civil War.

So as much as I think an older and wiser wariness could inform a glossary of terms (an "Appendix of Troll Curb" to go with the "Bill of Rights"), maybe a better setup of the electoral college two-step in light of the one man one vote principle, I would not want to see a rewriting of the Constitution under current circumstances. The guys who wrote this one were of a different caliber than the ones circling the prospect these days, methinks.

##### Share on other sites

You make a good point, but it started long before that. Some interesting information in the below link. While I don't condone such disgusting regulations today, none of us were liviing in the south during that time. But I can understand why plantation overseers or anyone else owning slaves back then wouldn't want such regulations to keep even freed blacks from owning guns. Remember, without the pioneers having guns; the American Indian tribes would have kicked our asses out into the ocean in a heart beat. Given the chance and upper hand, slaves would have done likewise. Today, all we have to worry about are some nuts, a raft of criminals and gang bangers. "WOW" Haven't we turned this land into a beautiful country?

That source misses a lot, from Art. 1 Sec. 8 of the Constitution to Shays' Rebellion and the Western Confederacy in light of the first two Militia Acts, the content of the first two Militia Acts, the employment of such via the Whiskey Rebellion, and the three other Militia Acts.

## Create an account

Register a new account