How shall we amend the Constitution and gov to prevent another Bush?

[JailBush]

I don't know enough about how the government works to make any specific suggestions, but we obviously need some new rules. Here are some suggestions:

1. Special rules should apply to any presidential candidate who has a relative who's a former or current President or Governor.

2. Special rules are needed for cases where close elections are decided in partisan states, or states governed by the relative of a presidential candidate.

3. Special rules are needed to prevent presidents from launching illegal wars, like Gulf War II.

4. Special rules are needed to outlaw awarding no-bid contracts to corporations that profit from war.

5. Corporations with close ties to government officials (e.g. Haliburton and Dick Cheney) should not be allowed to profit from war except by a special vote of Congress.

7. Secret military tribunals should be allowed only by a special vote of Congress.

8. Presidents and other top officials should not be allowed to hide or destroy government records the way Bush does.

9. Government officials should be required to make themselves available to the press and the public for a certain amount of time. they should not be allowed to hide for weeks or months at a time.

10. No one related to George H.W. Bush should ever be allowed to occupy ANY public office except by a special vote of Congress.

[many a good man]

1. Forbid Republicans from holding public office

That should take care of it all in one simple amendment!

[DinkyDem]

16. Or better yet, install a totalitarian State Party...

Not!
:eyes:

[many a good man]

27. Sorry, I was just being sarcastic...

JailBush brings it out in me.;-)

Our Constitution was not designed to promote a two party system. We need more voices represented, not less.

None of the points JailBush mentioned would require a Constitutional amendment; all (except 1 and 10) could be achieved by enacting laws or establishing traditions. In fact, most are actually already on the books. They're just not honored or enforced.

Election laws are under the purview of the states; there are only a few overarching civil rights issues that they must adhere to.

If you don't like the laws, elect new congressmen. If you don't like the way laws are enforced, elect a new chief executive (president or governor). I'm all for both of these things!

[ldoolin]

30. Oh, I don't know

In Germany, the Nazi party is illegal. In Italy, the Fascisti party is banned. The Communist party is banned in some of the former Soviet bloc.

It's not that outrageous a suggestion.

[many a good man]

31. LOL! You know you're right...

The "normal" conservatives would first have to recognize that their party has been taken over by neo-cons. Then we can probably get a concensus. Its pretty severe, but they threaten our Constitution and much more...

[Emillereid]

2. Firstly we should direct. popular vote for the presidency

2. The Congress cannot abdicate it's powers -- e.g. no giving up war powers. etc.

3. Get rid of winner take all elections -- the congress should reflect the diversity of American political opinion

4. Need amendments that guarantee livable wage, health care, etc.

Generally if the executive, legislative and judicial branches were held to constitutional standards and the balance of powers made to work -- no goose stepping, party repuke allegiance politics allowed.

[DinkyDem]

12. That's a really bad idea

Then candidates would only tailor their message for a handful of large cities and never campaign anywhere else. The vast majority of the country would be without representation, and it would ultimately lead to a one party system that cuts the People out completely and becomes Absolutely Corrupted (as opposed to now where it is just *mostly* corrupted but still has hope.)

LONG LIVE THE ELECTORIAL COLLEGE!

[thehonesttruth]

24. glad you're...

..up early and thinking. go DinkyDem.

[many a good man]

28. Electoral college is an anachronism that must go

It subverts the will of the people. Its a relic of the special problems that existed at the founding of this nation. Its designed to promote the appearance of stability by giving the electoral college winner a greater percentage of the votes than he actually received. Sometimes it gives the popular loser a greater percentage.

Majority rules and the rights of the minority are protected by the Constitution. People outside of big cities will still have an EQUAL proportion of their interests represented. Why should the special interests of a minority thwart progress that benefits the majority? It promotes the increased parochialization and backwardness of our society as we fall further and further behind other advanced countries.

Your contention that its abolition would lead to a one party system is totally unfounded. Our founding fathers were totally opposed to factionalism, or party politics as its called today. Lawmakers have snuck in parliamentary rules and enacted state election laws that have created and cemented two party rule. It doesn't have to be that way.

Thomas Jefferson thought we should have a constitutional convention once every generation to update our framework of government to better serve the needs of the people. After 200 years we are seriously overdue. We need amendments that will lead to fair elections, proportional representation, and multiple parties so all voices can be heard and debated. The power of the monied classes have weakened over time the power of the people to self-rule. Its time now for democracy to be reestablished before the greedy classes destroy our great experiment.

[INTELBYTES]

19. Not good.

Number 2 means gridlock. Not to mention, I don't want to have to balance out our party when it's in the majority with a bunch of rethugs.

Number 3 is just crazy. How do you plan to handle that without giving 100% of your check to the goverment? If you lived in the 50's and said you wanted a minimum wage of $5.50 an hour that would be pretty high for those days. Well, look what it has gotten us today. We have that minimum wage and prices followed it upward. Higher minimum wage only means thats every thing else will become more expensive to pay for it.

[DinkyDem]

21. It's called inflation

and it makes long-term savings lose their value.

But that could be good because it would drain the idle rich sitting on family fortunes and make long-term loans a hell of a lot easier for the working class to pay off.

It could also bring down the Banking and Finance industry which would be a substantial victory.
But it would destroy Social Security and force the elderly into going back to work.

It's really a toss up.

[HuckleB]

3. If we had a regular "The President's Questions,"

like Britain has "The Prime Minister's Questions," then a man like Bush could never get elected.

[Indiana_Dem]

4. You guys with the ideas should send them to your

primary candidates and maybe it can be utilized in their campaigns!
I mean some of them wouldn't fly but some of them sound pretty good.

Or contact MoveOn or an organization like that to get a petition going to get a bill started!

[Demonaut]

5. DNA check to make sure they have 100 percent human DNA not 99 percent

filter the chimp factor

[AndyTiedye]

8. NO BLACK BOX VOTING!!

If we can't have honest elections,
the rest is all for naught.

[Bucky]

6. Cute. Subjective, Pointless.

[Silverhair]

7. NOT. n/t

[proud patriot]

9. The Constitution was not followed in 2000

The current Constitutional Rules for the election process
are fine IMHO

[DinkyDem]

15. The Constitution WAS followed

once the SCOTUS stepped in to protect the Equal Protections clause.
You can't give SOME votes more consideration than others.

The SCOTUS ruling was for the good of Democracy, even if it didn't go in our favor that time.
Otherwise next time it could be rich all-white counties that Republicans are cherry-picking.

Think about the future, not just the politically expedient.

[Bridget Burke]

20. "cherry-picking"---hmm, where have we heard that term?

Sorry, the SCOTUS ruling was not for the good of Democracy. It reflected the partisan interests of some justices & the retirement plans of one of them. (She hasn't retired--perhaps she regrets her vote.)

All the recommendations in this thread would be unnecessary if election law had actually been followed. Corruption in the State of Florida and unprecedented interference from the Supremes put us in this mess.

Most of us here are focused on the present & the future. But don't advise us to forget the past; we won't.

[DinkyDem]

23. I understand your sentiments but

I believe in the long run they are wrong-headed.

It is We the People vs. the Government. Never lose sight of that.
We cannot ever allow the Government to get into the habit of only counting votes in "prefered" areas.

It would set us back to before the days of the Voting Rights Act.

Leave the machine count where it stands, or count the WHOLE state over by hand.

Rember the mottos was "Count ALL the Votes", and that is what Gore should have done.
But instead he only wanted to count the votes in 4 select counties that were most favorable to him, and that is where he messed up. Big time.

I knew then what he was trying to do, and though I hate to admit it deep down inside I was hoping he would get away with it. Anything to win. But if the tables were turned I would have looked at Bush trying to do the same thing with a lot of suspicion, and so would have you.

2000 is now over and done with, so lets not keep fighting that same battle. We lost it, and we must look now to the Future. It is the Future that is ours to win.

All that we can do now is look at the silver lining.
After all, next time it could have been the Republicans counting only the rich white counties in your state.
So be happy.

[baldguy]

26. The Constitution WAS NOT followed

Certainly, the Bush candidacy was protected by the 14th amendment, but so was Gore's - which the felonious five totally ignored. The Court's role should have limited to determining if FL law conformed to Constitutional requirements and whether or not the law was followed. SCOTUS does NOT have the power to choose the President. That is reserved for the Electoral College and if the College is unable to, the decision rests with Congress.

The fact is that if the votes in FL were counted properly, Gore would be President now. The only reason he's not is that Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O'Conner & Kennedy acted as Republicans first, putting party loyalty ahead of their oaths as Supreme Court Justices and their duty to their fellow citizens.

Read this:
http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~dferstat/misc/bugliosi/bug_1.html

[Kinkistyle]

10. Have a problem with #1.

"1. Special rules should apply to any presidential candidate who has a relative who's a former or current President or Governor."

This one kinda falls hard on the Kennedy's doesn't it? Would love to see another one in office :)

[DinkyDem]

17. That would also rule out Hillary

[Silverhair]

22. FDR was Teddy Roosevelt's cousin. n/t

[Blade]

11. Any future generation related to *....

shouldn't be able to run for public office. Put that one in the Constitution. :)

[DinkyDem]

13. the first 9 words

of this thread sums it up nicely:
"I don't know enough about how the government works"

[jokerman93]

14. The constitution doesn't need to be touched

We can't make laws to make up for something more essential that we've let slip away. Bush and gang got away with it because America has forgotten how to think; how to question authority.

It's a cultural problem. We've become a nation of impotent conformists who follow along with anything that will flatter our grandious 'Murican fantasies of ourselves -- not self-knowledge.

In the land of Franklin, Emerson and Whitman -- how did this come to be?

on edit:
clarification

[dbt]

18. No argument there, jokerman

The Constitution has served us VERY well for a couple of centuries. And nowhere does it say that the Supreme Court gets to elect the president. The ignoring of that fact is what got us into this mess to begin with.

Fuck The Felonious Five Before They Fuck Us Again,
:grr:
dbt

[areschild]

25. The President takes an oath to protect the Constitution.

When a President subverts the Constitution that he/she has sworn to protect, she/he should be impeached.

Haven't had my pot of coffee. Could post more later.

[arendt]

29. Links to earlier DU discussion. You can pick up some theory here.

I now post this to all governnment change threads to avoid
re-inventing the wheel.

This discussion started on DU about a year ago; then
fell apart due to the pressure of events.

Go to:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=174702

The NK Government link on that page takes you to

http://www.voy.com/101333/3.html

At the bottom of this, is an entire thread of discussion and
evolutoion of this topic.

Many thanks to redeye (got kicked off DU a while back in some
flame war) for keeping the VOY site alive.

arendt