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.

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.

well Galt, join me. because I left based on the ignoring of the current Constitution-and the last straw for me was the passage of the Affordable Care Act. We do not have rule of law anymore. believe it

I think that you would be voted a seat by your constituents. The American colonists created several compacts and charters before the present Constitution. Read the Albany Plan of Union.

Your specific proposals might not make the final cut, but you have identified some of the issues that would frame such debates.

We ALWAYS had "voter ID." You voted in your precinct where you were known by your neighbors. You had to register to vote first, of course; then you signed your name to validate your registration.

You could be challenged. After 30 years in the same neighborhood, my grandmother was challenged and had to return home for her citizenship papers. That was over 50 years ago. Just sayin... we always had voter ID. Things are just more complicated now.

If you want to re-write the Constitution from scratch - no states, for instance - then that is a deeper discussion. Feel free to propose...

The US was on the gold standard up until 1973. I would like to see us return to that standard. What's wrong with voter ID? The question was a new constitution after the apocalypse. Who is to say we would still have individual states? Why can't the private sector issue the ID's? If we have a new constitution written with the current batch of politicians in Washington then I think I'll go Gault.

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.

Welp...I guess I'm not going to the Constitutional Convention... I'll go unpack...

I need to brush up on the Amendments. I am woefully not ready to take a test. good points above

If you understand what a constitution is and why the US Constitution endures with so few amendments, you realize the challenge in writing any of those proposals into objective language.

This point "No interference with business whatsoever." appears almost verbatim at the end of Atlas Shrugged as Judge Narragansett writes a new constitution. However, that prohibits your call for "The US must be self sustainable and not rely on other countries for any resources."

According to the epistemology of Objectivism, no such entity as "The United States" exists. It is a reification. While you might mean that the US government must always procure all resources only from American citizens living within the USA, that would make it impossible for the military to obtain platinum or nickel.
"Gold backed currency....or go back to gold/silver coins." would contradict the provision that the Congress is empowered to borrow on the credit of the United States. You might argue well against that and insist on gold and/or silver. But therein is a different problem: bimetallism. Moreover, if you understand economics as for instance from F. A. Hayek, you realize that whatever "money" is cannot be left to the power of the government to define but must be left to the open market. You could argue that the government must always and only use gold and/or silver (ignoring the problem of bimetallism) but that would remove the government from the market, which is not a capitalist solution to the problem of government finance in a free society.

A federal mandate "Show ID to vote." would violate the present Constitution which generally leaves to the states to determine who is qualified to vote. And what is ID? Do you really want people to have to register with the STATE POLICE in order to VOTE? How would that not lay the ground work for a police state?

Exactly. See "Unlimited Constitutional Government" here:
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2011/...
and "Another Example of Unlimited Constitutional Government" here:
http://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2011/...

It was a Topic Title here in The Gulch about three months ago but was buried under Thumbs Down by conservatives.

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

Well done LS. I hope you are one of the delegates sent to a Constitutional Convention under Article IV.

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.)