Flaws in the Constitution

Believe it or not, I find the Constitution to be flawed and if a New Republic were to be formed, I would suggest several alterations.

First, and foremost, the “Bill of Rights” was attached as amendments to the Constitution and seem to many people to be just ‘another add-on’ to be treated as lightly as other ‘amendments’. The rights outlined in the first ten amendments should be included in a preamble statement to the Constitution and made un-amendable so that no one in the future could even think of infringing on the rights of the citizenry.

Currently, the Bill of Rights have been trampled and maimed almost to the point of unrecognizability. The freedom of speech has been infringed in many ways, such as outlawing nudity as “indecent exposure”. The “indecent” was added by ‘Christians’ and in the strict separation of church and state should never have been put into law. Freedom of religion is great but needs to be reminded to keep it OUT OF LEGISLATION. Period!

Many people proclaim we are a Christian nation… WRONG! We are a free religious nation. Besides, about half of what the so-called Christian majority espouse would be repugnant to the Christ they worship. But don’t let me get off on a different rant here…

The right to bears arms meant citizenry could keep a musket handy if case of insurrection (whether stopping one or starting one), but I don’t think the founding fathers meant to include pistols. But times have changed and pistols are handier today than before – but especially so for criminals. Still, I think they should be allowed. But, I would stand with the founding fathers in the right to bear automatic and semi-automatic weapons, grenades, howitzers, cannon, mortars, and rocket launchers. I guess it’s what you define as the arms we can rightfully bear. Automatic weapons are good for one thing only, and that would be mayhem. Many sportsmen claim their right to own them for sport, such as target shooting. And I can see some logic in that and think there should be places to go and have fun with those toys. But I cannot see extending that right to allowing them in neighborhoods. (But I could be wrong on this and someone may have some logical reasons why they should be allowed to own them – and I will show you that would lead to people owning WMDs, which I certainly don’t want on my block!)

Part of the rights should be expanded to allow people to be of different age, race, religion, culture, creed, social stature, intelligence level, and sexual preference without any prejudice allowed, nor infringement permitted. (Let me know if I left something out.)

Part of the Constitution originally had the President and Vice-President elected separately but this was altered when political parties were established to create a leveraged advantage in the Senate for the President’s political party. I would like to see it returned to the original setup. Not all the head stooges should be from the same party, to my mind.

Originally, the President was elected by a College of Electors and amendments were given several years to be ratified by the states. These parts were designed in an era when transportation was by horseback and the transference of data communications was extremely slow (although the Post Office seemed to work faster then than now). The Electoral College should be eliminated and the time for the ratification of amendments by the states should be reduced.

Representation in the House was by population, but that was later changed to freeze the number of representatives (otherwise it would keep going up and up as the population grew… and they would have to enlarge the Representative Hall in the Capitol Building). But the representation was supposed to keep growing, that was the purpose of designing it that way. Someone seemed to have forgotten what that provision was for. I think the founding fathers would have preferred enlarging the building rather than trimming the representation!!

As for allowing the party in power in state legislatures to reapportion districts to give them political advantage, the practice is illegal, immoral, and a travesty of the purpose of the division of representation. Shame!

The age limitation and birthplace limitation should both be abolished. This has tended to make people a little elitist. There is no special aura that attaches itself to being native born… many of the most patriotic people in America were not born here. I see no reason to exclude them for the accident of birthplace.

Any voting apparatus used had better have a verifiable paper trail.

The Middle Ages had their courtiers and courtesans, hangers-on at court who would peddle influence and offer gifts and sexual favors to those in power in return for benefits. Today we have lobbyists. They are not mentioned in the Constitution but should be: as outlawed!

There are no term limits mentioned in the document, but I do not think the Founding Fathers envisioned livelong politicians – statesmen, yes, politicians, no. And the continuing rise in their salaries is ridiculous! Politics is not supposed to be a “fastrack to wealth” but rather a ‘public service’ and should returned to that status. There should be some remuneration, but not for lifelong tenure. Limit the terms to one, or two at the max.

Electioneering has to be changed and included in the document. As it now stands, usually only the wealthy can run for office. I don’t know about you but I feel that the wealthy are NOT the “natural leaders” of the masses. Likewise I do not think allowing the intelligensia rule is a good idea either – I’ve been to mensa meetings and I would not want those people organizing a block party much less running the country. I would prefer more open elections (and would like to see political parties bite the dust – or increase the number to a helluva lot more than two).

Our capitalistic society is a good thing, but does anyone really need fifty billion dollars? That is more wealth than many countries of the world. About the only thing you can really use that sort of riches is political – which I would not like to see continued. People should have the avenues open to make a profit from their ideas and talent, but where would you draw the line? The wealthy should be footing more of the governmental bill rather than less than the middle class. Equal representation should be the law, not some convenience.

The court system should be changed and Justices of the Supreme Court rotated OUT, not seated for life. And they should be publicly elected positions, not the spoils of the ruling executive.

And the Executive Branch! Talk about needing a change! 98% of the government is under the Executive Branch. The fat needs to be trimmed here the most. The vast amounts of fiduciary waste can be laid at the steps of the Executive Branch and most of the trouble we are currently in. I don’t think the Founding Fathers envisioned such a massive Federal Structure; they were building a ‘republic’ after all.

And, by the way, in a republic, the separate contracting parties have a legal right to secede from the union any time they want, contrary to what the dictator Lincoln said. That was the form of government the states agreed to; had there been a clause saying “once signed, you cannot back out” would have ensured that not one state would have ratified the document. Why, that would be tantamount to signing away their citizenry into perpetual slavery to the federal government.

After two hundred thirty years of usage (and abusage) of the Constitution, we can see where it was a little rough in the operation, and we have seen the weak spots where the really, really bad people could get their feet in the door. We can remedy the flaws which have surfaced and get the country back on its original path.

I am certain that two hundred years from now there will be more changes found that need adjustment, but at least there would still be a United States and a Constitution that needed changing. At the rate we’re going now, on this present course, it will be completely gone before the next two hundred years pass.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , ,

3 Responses to “Flaws in the Constitution”

  1. Health care bill opposed by second S.C. panel Says:

    […] Flaws in the Constitution « For What It's Worth […]

  2. mvymvy Says:

    The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

    The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

    The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

    The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,707 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

    In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska – 70%, DC – 76%, Delaware –75%, Maine — 77%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 74% , Massachusetts — 73%, Minnesota – 75%, New York — 79%, Washington — 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.

    The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

    See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

    • carltonwelsh Says:

      Direct popular election of the President is a good start.

      The electoral college has long outlived its usefulness. It is a small step to making a saner country but the process is going to have to be made by small steps – a bunch of them! – as large steps might topple the infrastructure.

      Every little bit helps.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: