Well, yes of course we do, but of course we can’t have one because a shockingly large percentage of our population is tone deaf to rationality. They are out there, in states spread across the South largely, talking about whether the only answer to America’s perceived woes is SECESSION.
Yes, they actually talk about it. Threaten it, as Bud Lite dribbles down their chins followed by a hearty belch. Yep, best just cut them heathen atheistic commie lovers off at the knees. See how they fare without old Alabama to carry their weight!
Surely I jest.
Given our political climate, a constitutional convention would be a farce and more likely to produce a new installment of Dr. Seuss than a working framework for governance, but hey a woman can dream can’t she?
Like Lennon said,
You may say I’m a dreamer
But I’m not the only one
The truth is though, that while a number of folks (nobody has original thoughts any more remember? The last original thought was either René and his “I think therefore. . . .” or Julius Caesar, “et tu, brute?”, I can’t remember which) think that a rewrite would be useful, damn few of us would agree on what that should be. But if limited to only rational people (as I define them), heck, it could be pretty good exercise in self-governance.
Now such a notion verily causes the blood pressure of some folks to skyrocket to Orion’s Belt, (which as you know is only an “appearance” of location given our planetary view and would look way difference say from Arcturus where that configuration of stars appears as a lady giving birth to a kangaroo), but hey, nobody ever didn’t say that I don’t like to rile the sensibilities of all those I love and don’t respect much.
If we can just for a second think of the Founding Men (the women never do count do they?), as human beings and not godlets from
Olympus God’s holy throne room, then it would seem obvious that from time to time a new one is in order. Seriously, do you think a bunch of rather rich men who were pissed at being treated like country bumpkins and decided they could do a damn good job of running the show alone, REALLY thought their bit of parchment would one day rule over 350 millions of folk across a land that spread to the Pacific and then some?
Did they contemplate nuclear energy, moon-landings or coco puffs? How about plastics and rubber? Who the hell could predict a haircap Donald Trump for lordly sakes, or that we would call eating as many hotdogs as you can stuff in your craw in 3 minutes as a sport?
Of course not.
So, it seems prudent (people actually named their daughters that at one time–Prudence, come hither and beat the rug!), to revisit the efficacy of some of the words and so forth from time to time, no?
I don’t mean to go word by word or even article by article, for that is stuffy and dusty work indeed, and I’m more of a fly-by artist, so I’ll just hit the high spots of you don’t mind, (and even if you do).
First off, lets get rid of this Federalism stuff. A quaint and I might say quite useful system when a person might walk 20 miles in a day, or a horse run itself into the ground at say 50 miles. Even in the days of the great iron horse that puffed its way up the Rockies and down the other side to visit nirvana (i.e. California otherwise known as THAT SPACE BELONGING TO THE MEXICANS WHO LIVED THERE AND CALLED IT HOME FOR A COUPLE OF HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE WE GOT THERE AND “DISCOVERED” IT).
It made sense when government was so very far away from it’s citizenry to have aN up close and cozy arrangement of local governments which would administer all the basics as only up close and personal can. Since Merika was all new and shiny, why not experiment across the land with methodologies of state legislatures, election cycles, funding for roads and schools, and where to build cemeteries? I mean it made sense.
Along came the telephone, the plane, and the Inter-tubes and well, all that changed. We are all instantly connected, to a degree that some of us find down right too personal. Differing methods for elections, different requirements to matriculate through the state-sponsored good citizen course (public schools), and so forth only serve to piss off travelers and and mobile populations. We after all, more and more of us at least, live in something like ten different places from birth to death, and many of us a lot more, encompassing several states. Change in the sense of how basics are accomplished is just a pain.
I say we retain “states” merely for nostalgia and for college and professional sports reasons. The rest–belongs to centralized government. I still retain the right to say that good grief, at least I live in New Mexico and not Alabama, and I trust that will always be true.
Second, this 2nd amendment thing is has gotten all goofed up. Once upon a time virtually EVERYONE got that the point was a kind of old-fashioned protection against the Crown of England, like the “no housing of troops” which no doubt is just as outdated and quaint. States, particularly those in the South who based their economic success so much on owning humans, wanted to be sure they had the right to raise state militias should the need arise (they pretty much saw the hand-writing on the wall, I’ll give them that). The Feds also, having no good way to pay a standing army, and being a bit nervous about such a beast, wanted to be able to call upon the state’s militias in order to put down any future “revolutionary” upstarts such as they themselves have been.
None of which exists today quite obviously.
Please point out to me in the Federalist Papers where Monroe or Hamilton talked about the right of every individual to maintain the latest in firepower in case he/she/or increasing it/ needed to take up arms against the government for “treading on me” in their wild and crazy minds?
It is plain silly to suggest that a band of chamo-laden drunks with bandolier clips is going to take down the firepower of the US NAVY, US ARMY, US AIR FORCE, US MARINES. Seriously, such “patriots” need Freud more than they need another gun to pet.
In my college days when I was chock full of myself, I remember studying the electoral college and reading all about the pros and cons of such a strange configuration. Because the easy answer was “get rid of it”, I remember making the case for keeping it, because it sounded much more academic and therefore “smart” to me. When I was a child, I spake as a child. So get rid of it. It makes no sense.
We have federal elections. There should be a national federal election day, where EVERYONE gets off. We should make all voting laws FEDERAL. We should make it as easy as possible for as many as possible to exercise their vote. People should be penalized (lightly but real) for not doing their duty.
We could still maintain the House or Representatives, but we would elect all representatives “at large”, based on population within the state. Federal “districts” drawn by independent bodies without regard to political party would be arbitrarily assigned by lot. Those would be your constituents. If you win re-election you would likely get a different group of citizens to represent.
All elections would be limited to 6 months of campaigning and all funding would be federal apportioned equally to all candidates.
Rewrite “reasonable search and seizure” to be specific–spell it out. Same with “high crimes and misdemeanors”, and the same with “cruel and unusual punishment”. All these fuzzy statements take up entirely too much of our court time. Well, except for the high crimes thingie. Just stamp a “just say no” when it comes to Republicans and their pouting.
Reparations to all native peoples, and all those held previously in bondage.
Limit terms for all federal judicial posts, and require that during their tenure in office they may not participate in partisan politics of any sort. Establish commissions that determine when any judge is ineligible to sit on a pending case due to “conflict of interest”.
A definition of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This should include that the government is a compact of the people, by the people and for the people, and includes basic human rights–adequate food, lodging, education, health care, and a living wage. This the government should strive to provide.
Only humans have free speech. Person is defined as a living being capable of survival outside the womb, even with artificial assistance.
Religion is a personal matter and should be sustained by those who desire to engage in organized faith systems.. Churches are not exempt from taxes. Religious opinions should play no part in our political rhetoric, because all humans are free to believe what they wish and not be affected by another persons faith or lack of it.
Before any law discriminates against another group of people, the highest of bars must be met. It is presumed that all are equal and entitled to equality of rights.
All persons defined as human people have full integrity over the use of their own body. Laws may only inhibit one’s control over their own life to the degree that it threatens the integrity of another life as herein defined. Pursuit to this article, one has the legal right to terminate one’s own life, or a life that has not yet reached “person-hood”. People who have reached the age of majority (18) may ingest what they wish, as long as they are not a threat to the well-being of others.
And so forth and so forth.
Let the games begin.