Topic: Libertarians... if you could change 1 thing in the US constitution.... (Read 2036 times)

You can leave by moving out of the country, but are you allowed to leave the country by declaring the area in which you live no longer part of the country?

I think it comes down to the basic human right to change deplorable conditions. If you are unhappy about your leaders, you can speak out and try to change it (first amendment), leave it, or fight it (second amendment). Leave it is a peaceful alternative when peaceful change is futile.

This is an interesting idea. The Constitution has a mechanism for adding states, but it does not have any mechanism for removing states. Either something has to change or eventually the whole world will be part of the US (would that be a bad thing? Sometimes I think some problems would be solved if the US were to annex Mexico?).

Looking back at history, the Civil War could have been avoided along with all its bloodshed and destruction if Lincoln had been more open-minded about secession. The Confederacy would eventually have changed its tune on slavery because of cultural pressure or violent revolt of the downtrodden majority, and the Southern States would have rejoined the Union.

Word. If I could change one thing, I'd repeal it. The Articles of Confederation were more than good enough.

"The Constitution either gives us the type of government we have or is powerless to prevent it." --Lysander Spooner

All valid points, but there has to be something we could do to limit these greedy career politicians and there families, like Jesse and Jesse Jr. Are they both in prison yet? Because they should be.

Here in Michigan we added term limits for our state legislature. It did not seem to make things much better.

Two things happen: the experienced legislators are forced out, so there are lots of rookie mistakes (like when they passed a law which they thought would force the governor to do something, but she signed it and then pointed out that she could interpret what they wrote to let her do what she wanted instead), and you get "dynasties" which take over districts.

My parents' state representative has been somebody with the same last name for decades (not as long as there has been a John Dingle in congress, but you would have to back to 1933 for that) First there was Sal, then his wife Sue was elected, then their son Tory was elected.

But Dynasties form even without having relatives taking over the office. When one person is term-limited out, they just have their favorite staffer run for the job and they keep all the same policies and such. Look at how many of the top officers are retained from one president to the next, even if Bush II had not been Bush I's son, they had people like Cheny connecting the administrations.

Term limits for ALL elected officials, 8 years then goodbye.  Or how about, "if an immediate family member has been president, then you are excluded from running" sorry Clintons and Bush's that's called a dynasty and should not be an option.

The constitution is already effectively null and void, as it is violated with impunity.

Wouldn't that then negate the constitution so nobody would have to follow it? I think you just entered to United States into an endless existential feedback loop.

But the 17th amendment does not give power to the Federal government, it gives power to the states. The States in this case being the individual people in those states, rather than the government of the states. So from a libertarian perspective this was a good amendment since it gives more power to individuals rather than corrupt governments.

The house of Representatives is the people's legislative body of federal government.  The Senate is the states' representative in the federal government. This way, states' rights would be defended by people chosen by the states themselves. 10th amendment has been shat on ever since passage of the 17th amendment.

The other great fucking of this nation is when they limited the size of the house of Representatives to 435. We should actually have about 3500 congressmen right now if the original plan was kept. Much harder to corrupt,  easier for the people to recall, and easier to be influenced by the people as it should be.

Why would you want to get rid of the 17th admendment? Instead of having the people of a state elect their representative, you want to go back to having the politicians pick? This is a horrible idea.

These guys want to add an amendment to the constitution to remove money out of politics: http://www.wolf-pac.com/.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/341894/repeal-17th-amendment-charles-c-w-cooke

changes need to focus on the root of problems. Part of the problem with government is that over time it gets bigger. To prevent that you need to limit it's funding. So the two areas you need to focus on are limiting the funding of government and also making the elected representatives honest. You can limit funding by not allowing the government to borrow. It would then be forced to either tax or create it's own money. Tax is fine since it is a very visible thing and if it got crazy people would revolt.. unlike how they are taxing now through their mutually beneficial relationship with the fed and how they create money. So if they are forced to create their money then you can do a couple of things.... you can make it so that they have to tax back what they create in the same year. Or you could simply let them create at will and have that currency be a government currency and it would compete against public currencies (fairly) in the free market. If they inflated it then it would just hurt themselves and their workers.

For accountability you need open source voting systems... preferably using something like the bitcoin blockchain idea. You also need representatives who are willing to be audited financially by the public at any time. You need to get the money out by stopping lobbying.

Putting people first before corporations is a nice thing to say, but what could you do to make that happen? What changes would you want to make to the way things are run that would result in that goal being met?

Have a new item added - Put the people before big corporations, and abolish the federal reserve.

There is a big difference between direct democracy and a popularly elected president. A popular vote for president still keeps the republic. For governor we do not elect delegates by county, we have a state-wide popular vote. Why should the national election be any different?

On another note, I think the budget should be balanced, but I do not think we need an amendment for that, we just need to have the congress agree to not pass any budget which is not balanced.

I take it you don't know the difference betwee a democracy and a republic.

Popular vote is just majority rules and majority rule is just two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

Remove the states from the idea; just let every American individual have an equal vote on who the president will be.  Not every New Yorker and Californian is going to be the same fellow.

The electoral college is a thing of beauty. Otherwise cali and ny would pick the president every election. Think of the electoral college as the World Series. You have 50 contests instead of 7. Each contest though is still weighted by the number of people in each state.

I would get rid of the electoral college. Just have a popular vote for president.

Not at all.

That's a bit extreme isn't it?

The USA isn't allowed to exist.
The end.

Who gives a fuck?

I know but I'm talking about the majority.

I wouldn't change anything; if we can't even follow the constitution as-is, then it's a failed concept: a piece of paper cannot defend your rights, only you can.

I'm 23 there are actually younger people out there who know far more than most adults do about this sort of thing and many of them have access to the internet so they aren't as likely to fall for propaganda anymore, Bitcoin and any other technology is a classic example where the adults are always coming to them for help on it.

All U.S. citizens who are not currently, nor have ever received a salary or aid from the government, are hereby empowered to abolish every totalitarian unit of government with extreme prejudice, and liquidate its assets. The government is absolutely forbidden to resist in any way whatsoever (only fleeing the country into permanent exile will be accepted), and any violent resistance shall be returned legally a thousand fold.

You're kidding right? A lot of 18 year olds don't know anything about the people running for president except for baseless rumours and "facts" fed by the media and political opponents.

I would have added a secession amendment to the bill of rights.

"The right to secede from the union shall be preserved for all states and persons."

I would make it so that you could be president at 18 or maybe even lower, that's actually one of the only things I disagree with what was written in the U.S constitution, otherwise it's a very good document.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The End

what would it be?


I think that is pretty good but it might allow for loopholes. I think a better approach would be make sure that the government had to actually tax money before it could spend it. in this way they couldn't borrow money and they also couldn't just create it themselves.

I think it would be possible to let government create their own money on the condition that it was all taxed back from circulation.