The Constitution stands....but add:
Terms limits
Clearer 2nd Amendment (It's clear now, but I'd like it to say the citizens can own whatever the military has access too. Fighting tyranny, equal weaponry.)
Secure borders and property rights.
There shall be no taxation on property.
No taxing human existence.
No government influence (monetarily or curriculum) in schooling of children. Parents are responsible to make sure their kids are educated.
No social programs.
No interference with business whatsoever. Free to success, free to fail.
No monetary help for other countries.
The US must be self sustainable and not rely on other countries for any resources.
Gold backed currency....or go back to gold/silver coins.
Show ID to vote.
(Okay...I'm tired.)

The constitution is fine the way it is. It works great when it is followed. I think I would see to it that everyone understood it so that a President like this one would be removed for so often violating it.

Limit voting rights back to just taxpayers. Would cure almost all the current problems.

We have strayed so far away from the original intent of the founders of this country. The constitution was never intended to turn this country into a welfare state.

First, as to the Necessary and Proper clause, a clarification would be in order: that this applies ONLY to the enumerated powers of the Constitution, and to any Section of any Amendment saying, "Congress shall have the power to enforce this article through appropriate legislation."

Beyond that:

I believe Judge Narragansett, toward the end of AS, proposed a new Amendment: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and trade."

I would strike the enumerated power "to establish post offices and post roads."

I would strike Amendments XVI and XVII.

I would add a section to let States or their electorates recall their Congressional or Senate delegations, or any member(s) thereof, for any good reason, bad reason, or no reason.

I would put in an explicit set of Amendments to authorize the creation of air and space forces, and then declare that the Congress shall have NO POWER to raise any other kind of military force without amending the Constitution further.

I would in that connection reform Clause 17 to state positively WHAT CONSTITUTES THE NEEDFUL BUILDINGS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The original Constitution said: FORTS, MAGAZINES, ARSENALS, AND DOCKYARDS. It was NEVER supposed to include reserving vast tracts of land for federal management. It's time for an enumerated list of "needful buildings" and a declaration that Congress shall not purchase any lands for the construction of any other sort of building.

I would establish an office of National Sheriff, to be elected separately and apart from the President, with full authority to serve Writs of Quo Warranto and other such common-law writs. Including writs of expulsion for passing unconstitutional laws. AND: vetting the Natural Born Citizenship qualifications of candidates for the offices of President and Vice-President. And with regard to this last, I would define a Natural Born Citizen strictly, according to Emmerich de Vattel's definition: one born in-country to TWO, count them, TWQ citizen parents.

I am open to any other suggestions.

You could argue, the commerce clause and welfare clause need to be clarified; but it wouldn’t matter; the rub is when politicians interpret the constitution in an unintended way; rationalizing words to justify an agenda. The constitution should be interpreted by the definition if it’s words at the time it was written. “Promote the general welfare” had to be rationalized to include free cell phones for example.

Paper doesn't stop people from being evil and corrupt.

Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title
I call this the no pork amendment. This was actually part of the Confederate Constitution.

Eliminate the "commerce clause"

richrobinson wrote:"The US was on the gold standard up until 1973. I would like to see us return to that standard."

That is why I pointed to the earlier discussion on "Contradictions in the Constitution." Do you mean that the US Government should be on a gold standard? Or do you mean that ONLY the US Government should be on the gold standard? Or that no one should be allowed to make any money that is not on the gold standard? And what do you mean by "standard"?

The question is what, whether, and to what extent ONLY the federal government should do things like make treaties with foreign nations or whether the government is ALSO empowered to do things that PRIVATE entities or other governments do, such as establish weights and measures or publish a Congressional journal. (Private parties have always reported the business of the US Senate.)

The Constitution gives Congress the power to define weights and measures. But anyone can create their own - and NIST is a non-regulatory agency of the Department of Commerce.

See, we have a deeper problem than just declaring this or that to be in the Constitution.

As for the gold standard of 1973 it only applied to FOREIGN holders of US dollars: US citizens could not get gold for US dollars between 1933 and 1983. Today the US Mint sells gold bullion coins in return for FRNs, so the US Government does have a de facto market-price gold standard.

A previous discussion in the Gulch here:
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/95...