How would you amend the U.S. constitution?

[Zanza]

You need to return to your roots.  The great experiment has failed.  Become a Parliamentary democracy.

We have no monarchy to act as a figurehead and Germany's parliamentary republic looks stupid.  Going to have to stay a presidential republic.

Plenty of places have a ceremonial President and a functioning parliamentary democracy.  Ireland and Israel come to mind.

To be fair our president doesn't really have much of a point. Why not just set up a parliamentary democracy without a ceremonial president. Switzerland seems to do fine without a head of state.

[garbon]

Add "To do whatever needs to be done in a 21st century state that the founders didn't think about in the 18th century" to Article 1, Section 8.

That sounds dreadfully vague.

[Viking]

You need to return to your roots.  The great experiment has failed.  Become a Parliamentary democracy.

We have no monarchy to act as a figurehead and Germany's parliamentary republic looks stupid.  Going to have to stay a presidential republic.

Look to Finland or Iceland for model Republics. Both have elected Presidents with substantial powers who for the most part choose not to use them acting more like model 19th century enlightened monarchs with the same attitude and powers while having the country run by a parliament interfering from time to time when it is relevant.

I like to think that is the kind of presidency George Washington had allowing Alexander Hamilton to get on with running the country while he opened libraries and hospitals and generally oversaw what was going on.

[Zanza]

Add "To do whatever needs to be done in a 21st century state that the founders didn't think about in the 18th century" to Article 1, Section 8.

That sounds dreadfully vague.

Well yes, it was meant to be vague. I wanted to express that the enumerated powers might need some update to allow for stuff like "To regulate healthcare" or "To regulate environmental protection". The catch-all clauses of "general welfare" or "interstate commerce" seem to be very vague to me and seem to cause a lot of conflicts about what the federal government may and may not legislate. So it would be good to define which issues really are for the federal government to decide upon and which aren't. That would perhaps go to increase the perceived legitimacy of the federal government too.

[garbon]

Gotcha. Didn't see that in what you said.

[Razgovory]

You need to return to your roots.  The great experiment has failed.  Become a Parliamentary democracy.

We have no monarchy to act as a figurehead and Germany's parliamentary republic looks stupid.  Going to have to stay a presidential republic.

Plenty of places have a ceremonial President and a functioning parliamentary democracy.  Ireland and Israel come to mind.

I'm not sure Israel is the best example.  Didn't their President rape someone a few years back?

[MadImmortalMan]

Well yes, it was meant to be vague. I wanted to express that the enumerated powers might need some update to allow for stuff like "To regulate healthcare" or "To regulate environmental protection". The catch-all clauses of "general welfare" or "interstate commerce" seem to be very vague to me and seem to cause a lot of conflicts about what the federal government may and may not legislate. So it would be good to define which issues really are for the federal government to decide upon and which aren't. That would perhaps go to increase the perceived legitimacy of the federal government too.

That's a good idea. I'd rather do it with an amendment on each thing. "Congress shall create Medicare", etc.

[Zanza]

That's a good idea. I'd rather do it with an amendment on each thing. "Congress shall create Medicare", etc.

It should still be a constitution, so only give the general outlines. Saying that Congress has the power to regulate healthcare or social security is okay. Having specific programs in the constitution would in my opinion limit Congress too much in what it can and can not do. And it's not like Congress actually has to use its powers, so even if healthcare was an enumerated power, if there are enough tea party voters, Congress theoretically could just abolish all regulations. If you write "Medicare" into the constitution, you take away that freedom.

[CountDeMoney]

Disagree, Clinton and Carter have been good Ex-Presidents

Now you've got a problem with getting houses built for low income types, too?

Man, you are working straight from the Central Casting script today.

[garbon]

Disagree, Clinton and Carter have been good Ex-Presidents

Now you've got a problem with getting houses built for low income types, too?

Man, you are working straight from the Central Casting script today.

If only he kept his efforts restricted to building homes.

[Valmy]

What did Jimmy do again?  I don't really recall...I know he says mean things about Israel.

[CountDeMoney]

What did Jimmy do again?  I don't really recall...I know he says mean things about Israel.

He still breathes.  Conservatives seem to have a real problem with that.

[MadImmortalMan]

That's a good idea. I'd rather do it with an amendment on each thing. "Congress shall create Medicare", etc.

It should still be a constitution, so only give the general outlines. Saying that Congress has the power to regulate healthcare or social security is okay. Having specific programs in the constitution would in my opinion limit Congress too much in what it can and can not do. And it's not like Congress actually has to use its powers, so even if healthcare was an enumerated power, if there are enough tea party voters, Congress theoretically could just abolish all regulations. If you write "Medicare" into the constitution, you take away that freedom.

What if I want to protect Medicare from that theoretical Tea Party Congress?

[Barrister]

What did Jimmy do again?  I don't really recall...I know he says mean things about Israel.

Lots and lots of mean things about Israel.  "Apartheid" is one of them.

On the contrary he says nice things about Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.  And despite the usual custom of former Presidents not criticizing their successors, Carter went out of his way to criticize Bush 43.

[Neil]

What did Jimmy do again?  I don't really recall...I know he says mean things about Israel.

He still breathes.  Conservatives seem to have a real problem with that.

Man, Seedy the bailbondsman would not have been impressed by your love for Israel-bashing and Castropologism.  You've changed, man.