ideas-listOfConstitutionalIdeas

INTRO

it seems to many of us that although the drafters of the U.S. constitution attempted to create a government with limited power and to protect civil rights absolutely, eventually those restrictions on government became eroded. Could they have done better? If you could write a "constitution 2.0" what additional safeguards would it include?

PRINCIPALS

(i think there's another file around with more of this..)

Anyone who violates this section is a felony. Evading the intent of this section by spawning a multitude of organizations, each one of which can then spend less than X, is a felony.

For votes about issues instead of candidates, this section applies in full, with "candidate" replaced by "issue".

(todo: this is unclear; what don't they have to include?)

No occupation shall be considered "specialized" if more than 10% of the population have done it. Laws which apply to "business in general" such as laws against conning people are not considered to apply to a "specialized occupation".

    but how to allow "deals"? maybe special composite acts are allowed

This whole Roe vs. Wade stuff shows up a fundamental problem in our political system.

The constitution is pretty old and could use a new release. However, it's usually politically infeasible to change it (I mean, heck, our constitution still doesn't even have a simple gender equality amendment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment).

Hence, sometimes the judiciary changes it (evidence available upon request) (not that i blame them; they are just trying to faithfully adapt the spirit of the law to circumstances which couldn't have been imagined by its writers; also, the law is flat out ambiguous in some cases). But this sucks because it's not really fair for a handful of unelected people to change the law.

People know this is unfair and there is often a lot of dissent in those opposed to the change. But once an issue is decided by the judiciary, there is less pressure on the legislature to address that issue. So the issue just lives on, seeming forever "unsettled".

Ironically, often the judiciary changes the law in a way that a clear majority of the people support anyway (example: Roe vs. Wade; I think the majority of US citizens would support a right to have an abortion with certain limitations). If the legislature would just amend the constitution in the way that the people support anyway, it would be clear to everyone what the score is. But there is no pressure to do so since the change would just confirm what is already being done. The result is what we see now with Roe vs. Wade; the minority still thinks the issue is unsettled and so keeps fighting.

I propose a constitutional amendment that says that the judiciary can, if they choose, settle a case and at the same time create a "suggested constitutional amendment" that would clarify whatever issue the case was based on. The legislature is forced to vote on this amendment with a majority vote (not the usual 2/3s) within 2 years. If they fail to pass it or fail to bring the issue to a vote, the amendment stands. (this gives a lot of power to the judiciary so maybe you would want to give the president the power to veto the "suggestion" too, at the time when it is made (not 1.5 years later, right before the final vote)).

This formalizes the power that the judiciary already effectively exercises to change the constitution; but instead of making them have the last word, it allows the judiciary to force the legislature to consider crucial issues and to make a decision one way or the other.

A stronger variant of the proposal would have the legislature forced to vote for one of two amendments, which are the logical negation of each other (so that they can't dodge the issue by just voting "no" to any amendment). A weaker variant wouldn't force a special simple majority vote, but would rather only allow the supreme court to initiate a normal constitutional convention, whatever that means.

-- bayle


seems like New Jersey already does one of my recommendations, namely, let the Supreme Court (of NJ) force the legislature to rule on some issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/nyregion/26trenton.html