I think one of the most important things the Constitution has left out was an amendment concerning Ethics. It is because of a lack of ethical Constitutional Amendments that this country has become so warped and maligned...IMO

if you are making a COnstitution for a project please...please...PLEASe.. for the love of god include an "ETHICS" amendment.

I also keep a copy of the Constitution and Bill or Rights in my sig...so I never forget it.

Originally posted by TONE23
if you are making a COnstitution for a project please...please...PLEASe.. for the love of god include an "ETHICS" amendment.

What exactly would ethics be comprised of?
I'm not a big believer in morals and ethics, so I'm not sure what
ethics would be considered.

Ok, thanks, I'll hceck out the link.

Hope the sotrm does'nt do any damage to you or any
of your property.

[edit on 8/28/2006 by iori_komei]

Hi iori_komei,

I have started reading your Constitution. So far its not bad.

The first thing I liked was the term limits defined clearly for the House of Representatives. But, one the other side of that is my only criticism so far. I didnt see term limits clearly defined for the Senate. Maybe just copy the line for the house(I liked it as it stood alone) and just add Senate instead of H.O.R.(for the Senate sect.)

As I read more, I will continue to add my input.

thanks for your time,

tone 23.

Why re-write the constitution? what not add amendments to it? isnt that the point of the admendments?

posted by iori_komei

“ . . over the last few months been working on a project that's a mix of creating a nation, and I early on needed a constitution for the governing system in said project . . seeing how I agree with the majority of the United States constitution, I decided to use it as the basis for the one I created for my project.

What I'd really like to know from this is what people think of it, what suggestions you have for it, ways you think could make it better. [Edited by Don W]

Before I go to your link, i_k, I want do some “rambling” on the same topic. I would start with laying out items or areas I am dissatisfied with. Then I’d work from there to produce changes in the current document that would enable solutions to my dislikes.

Complaint #1. Fixed terms for our president. In a parliamentary system, it is likely Bush43 would have lost a vote of confidence after Katrina. That would have resulted in the ruling party replacing him, unless within the ruling party there was no consensus, in which case, there would be an election. In most parliamentary countries, elections are to be set between 30 and 60 days after the no confidence vote.

Complaint #2. Our Congress has always been an “ad hoc” legislative body. That is, we pass mostly patch-work laws. Consider our health care system. It has a mix of public and private involvement. In part what kind of health care you get depends on how old, how poor and how rich your are. And not on how sick you are. I regard health care to be a human right. As a practical person, I want to provide everyone with access to health care that we, as a country, can afford. I want one ID card that gives access to all needed medical, dental, optical and psychological care indicated in the individual cases. Individuals should contribute to the cost according to their income.

Immigration. We need one law with one standard and one enforcement agency. It must be adjustable to meet our own needs first. Then it ought to give consideration to the needs of others who want to immigrate here. If we can’t pick people honestly - fairly - then we can use a computerized random choice program.

We must devise some way to require Congress to make BIG decisions and let bureaucrats make the little one. A good bureaucracy is essential to a good country.

Complaint #3. The lifetime appointment of Federal judges served us well especially in the early 1800s when the separation of powers doctrine was being developed. Now that it is well entrenched in American democracy, we need to limit judges to one fixed term, 15 years if under age 50 when taking the bench, or 10 years if 50 or older.

Mr i_k, what do you think of this?

Originally posted by TONE23
...
The first thing I liked was the term limits defined clearly for the
House of Representatives. But, one the other side of that is my
only criticism so far. I didnt see term limits clearly defined for
the Senate. Maybe just copy the line for the house(I liked it as
it stood alone) and just add Senate instead of H.O.R.(for the
Senate sect.)
...

Thanks for pointing that out, I must have accidentally erased it from
my first draft, it's added now.

Sub Section 2: Each Senator shall only be chosen a maximum of three
terms of three years.

[edit on 9/17/2006 by iori_komei]

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
Why re-write the constitution? what not add amendments to it? isnt that the point of the admendments?

Because entire parts have been rewritten, some have been
taken out and some have been removed.

Originally posted by donwhite
Complaint #1. Fixed terms for our president. In a parliamentary
system, it is likely Bush43 would have lost a vote of confidence
after Katrina. That would have resulted in the ruling party repla-
cing him, unless within the ruling party there was no consensus,
in which case, there would be an election.
In most parliamentary countries, elections are to be set between
30 and 60 days after the no confidence vote.

I've gotten rid of some of the problems associated with having a
single president by having an executive council of five individuals
instead.

These coucilmembers would do the exact same thing the president
does, except they'd have to agree, say to veto a bill, atleast three
would have to agree to do so.

Complaint #2. Our Congress has always been an “ad hoc” legislative body. That is, we pass mostly patch-work laws. Consider our health care system. It has a mix of public and private involvement. In part what kind of health care you get depends on how old, how poor and how rich your are. And not on how sick you are. I regard health care to be a human right. As a practical person, I want to provide everyone with access to health care that we, as a country, can afford. I want one ID card that gives access to all needed medical, dental, optical and psychological care indicated in the individual cases. Individuals should contribute to the cost according to their income.

I've made it where congress would have to meet in full three
times a year instead of one, and added term limits, in my opinion
it's because of those not being present that things like healthcare
and such are left to linger.

When it comes to healthcare, it's not something that can or should
be provided in the constitution, it's something that should exist,
but must be either created by the legislature, or voted into law by
a populace vote, ala direct democracy.

Immigration. We need one law with one standard and one enforcement agency. It must be adjustable to meet our own needs first. Then it ought to give consideration to the needs of others who want to immigrate here. If we can’t pick people honestly - fairly - then we can use a computerized random choice program.

I agree with that.
And one way my version deals with the immigration problem is
intensely heavy restrictions on corporations, thusly not allowing
them any control of the government, and not allowing them to
hire illeagal immigrants that only worsens the proble.

NOTE:
The corporate rules are not in the constitution, but in a seperate document entitled "Croporate Laws".

We must devise some way to require Congress to make BIG decisions
and let bureaucrats make the little one.
A good bureaucracy is essential to a good country.

Exactly why they have term limits, and the populace can actually
force the congress to do things.

Complaint #3. The lifetime appointment of Federal judges served
us well especially in the early 1800s when the separation of powers
doctrine was being developed. Now that it is well entrenched in
American democracy, we need to limit judges to one fixed term,
15 years if under age 50 when taking the bench, or 10 years if 50
or older.

I agree with term limits on Supreme Court justices, and that's
why this part exists;

Sub Section 4: Supreme court justices shall be voted for by the people.
Sub Section 5: Supreme court justicers may serve for only one term of twenty years.

As for lower judjes, well that's for the individual states to decide upon.

Mr i_k, what do you think of this?

I think those were all good, relavent and well thought out
questions, of which I've tryed to answer to my best degree.

This will end up being our constitution if Liberals continue to thwart our efforts to fight for our freedom:

Article I
All Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Powers will be held by an Islamic Ayatollah elected to a life term by a High Council of Imams.

And that's all folks...

[edit on 9/17/2006 by djohnsto77]

Oy, dj don't group all of us liberals in the same category.

I may be a liberal, I may not support the war in Iraq,
but I do see the certain countries in the area as a
potential threat.

posted by djohnsto77
This will be our constitution if Liberals continue to thwart our efforts to fight for freedom: Article I
All Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Powers will be held by an Islamic Ayatollah elected to a life term by a High Council of Imams. [Edited by Don W]

It is beyond argument that George Washington envisioned "his" new American government as a strong central government. Indeed, his political party was called the Federalist Party. Alexander Hamilton was their theorist. He developed the early precursor to our own essential Federal Reserve System.

One can make a good argument that Abraham Lincoln fits well today’s neo con definition of what are liberals. Woodrow Wilson was a far seeing internationalist, albeit very short sighted - wrong sighted - on race and gender policies at home.

And then, there is that giant, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the one man who led the county through the Great Depression, reformed its government and then led America to victory in both the Atlantic and Pacific campaigns - really waging two wars at one time - the watershed event of the 20th century, the Second World War, truly one liberal man!

So, relax D77, your fears are misplaced. It is the lack of liberals in our government that causes me alarm. Maybe we can fix that this November 7?


[edit on 9/18/2006 by donwhite]

Mr i_k, I tried your link but it won’t work for me.

posted by iori_komei

Ok, over the last few months [I’ve] been working on a project that's creating a nation . . during this I need a constitution for the governing system in said project . . I agree with the majority of the United States constitution, I decided to use it as the basis for the one I created for my project. What I'd really like to know from this [thread] is what people think of it, what suggestions you have for it, ways you think could make it better. [Edited by Don W]

Our 1787 Con is so nicely laid out. Article 1, legislative, Article2, executive, Article 3, judicial. Article 4, general powers and on relations between the several states. Article 5, changing or amending the Constitution. Article 6, related to money and declares the supremacy of the US con over state cons.

Article 7, the ratification process. The Con would become effective between the ratifying states when 9 ratified. It would not be imposed on any non-ratifying state. So, you could correctly say unanimous consent was required.

Trivia. The first election in 1789, was held late. It would have been held in 1788 if enough states had ratified. As it was, only 10 states got to vote in the 1789 election. NY, NC and RI were dragging their feet. By the second election in 1792, there were 15 states, VT and KY having been admitted.

This provision - admitting new states on equal standing - is one more of the FFs great achievements. Never before had any government accepted the idea that newcomers would have absolutely equal status as the founders ejoyed. Formerly new territory would have been allotted or apportioned to the old timers. The FFs approach was both innovative and remarkable. One of the most consequential provisions yet barely recognized.

More trivia. Members of Congress were compensated from the beginning. The “Mother of all Parliaments,” the British Parliament, did not begin to compensate its members until 1911. Compensation meant Congress was open to the poor to be Members and not limited to the rich and well-born. Egalitarianism.

More: Washington's salary was set at $25,000 a year, until Lincoln, when it was raised to $50,000. For FDR it was raised to $100,000, then Truman went to $200,000 and for Bush43 was raised to $400,000. Unskilled laborers in 1789 were paid 50 cents or $1 a day. If we try to equate that 50 cents a day to the minimum wage - $5.15 - then GW was paid about $2,500,000 a year, in the 2006 style.



[edit on 9/18/2006 by donwhite]

I_K, you have asked for some critique of your work product. Keeping in mind you asked, and I’m trying to be positive, I offer the following:
1) I assume you know 4 American states have decided to take the label “commonwealths?” Virginia and Kentucky. Massachusetts. Pennsylvania.
2) Bicameral legislature. I much prefer Nebraska’s unicameral style. The Articles of Confederation had the unicameral legislature. For all intents and proposes, the UK’s Parliament is unicameral. The bicameral legislature was a pro-slavery compromise. The Articles had allotted from 3 to 7 members per state based on population, but each state had only one vote. If a states delegation was dead-locked, then it got no vote. The concurrence of 7 states was required for any action to be taken.
3) To get America into the 21st century, we need to reduce the states to mere geographical conveniences or to zip code reference only. States were ok when you were doing 18th century thinking and it took, for example, 2 weeks to travel from Middlesboro or Paducah, to the state’s capital at Frankfort, Ky, but today states are a major hindrance. States create a burden we can barely afford.
4) Your Section 2 seems inconsistent. In subsection 1, you mention an election every fifth year, implying a 5 year term for House members, but in subsection 2, you restrict House members to 2 two year terms. The up side of short terms is no one gets to establish himself or herself as the leading member, but the downside is that a member is unable to really learn how a 300 million people country works at the Federal level, or how the $2.75 trillion annual budget is spent. This in turn means the civil service or bureaucracy is actually running the country, which is not a bad idea. Congress itself has 38,000 employees. All political appointees.

I have advocated a much stronger civil service, which would leave the elected representatives time to seriously debate and to decide the great issues of the day. The implementation would be left fo people who know how, and not to dictates of political expediency and compromises of compromise which predicably means failed policies. Over and over again.
5) My same questions arise in the Senate which you limit to 3 three year terms, perhaps thinking of South Carolina’s Senator Thurmond who served 52 years or of West Virginia’s Senator Byrd, just elected to his 9th term, but yet to live it out.
6) Subsection 6 sets out the Senate shall choose its presiding officer but you also seem to label him or her as the Vice Council. I apologize for not having read further, so the explanation may be in the next section. I’ll get back to that later. I think “Council” should be replaced with “Counsel” or “Consul” if your going Roman style. But again, for me, the better idea would be how to get rid of the Senate.
I hope you find these remarks helpful.


[edit on 11/24/2006 by donwhite]