Let's write a new constitution for our new country

Back in 2016 when Trump was elected, I said right here on ATS that Trump would either save the US, or he would prove the country is beyond salvation. Right now, it's looking like the later, with most Democrats and half the Republicans being hopelessly corrupt, and unfit to be in charge of a sidewalk lemonade stand, much less a country.

So, I'm inclined to follow the suggestion of the head of the GOP in Texas: to secede and form a new country with the states that are actually interested in following the law.

My working name for our new country is the Republic of America. Let's work on what the constitution of our new country needs to include.

The basic structure of the Republic of America would be similar to the United States of America, but with some important differences that would hopefully help to fight off corruption. There would be a Congress with a House of Representatives and a Senate, the House being apportioned by population and the Senate with two members per state, regardless of population. There would be a president and Supreme Court. Some of the differences I think we'd need to include would be:

* There must be a heavy emphasis on fighting corruption in office, with a dedicated agency whose purpose is to watch for evidence of corrupt officials, investigate when signs are found, and indict officials when necessary. However, it's now abundantly clear that we cannot expect the government to police itself. Therefore, this agency will not be part of the executive branch. It will be governed by a board of overseers chosen by the state legislatures, meaning it ultimately answers to the states and not to the federal government. The board of overseers would hire the head of the anti-corruption agency, and would have the power to fire him/her if they fail to be effective, or show evidence of partisan favoritism.

* Term limits on all elected offices. We need to discourage career politicians. Perhaps a limit of 2 terms in any elected position. Maybe 3 terms for a House member if we keep the 2-year term (6 years total) before they have to give up the seat.

* An emphasis on election security is a must, for obvious reasons. Federal elections will be the duty of the federal government, because allowing states to use different methods of counting the vote has lead to way too much trouble. It will be the duty of the government (not the right) to make sure only eligible citizens can vote, to guard against all forms of election fraud or intimidation as much as possible, and to ensure that the rule of One Person One Vote is followed.

* The presidency will still be decided based on a system similar to the electoral college, except there won't be any physical electors, just a point system. (Supposedly, the electors are a final safeguard, but in practice they never seem to have done anything useful.) Any sort of interstate compact regarding voting will be prohibited; states must award their elector points based on the popular vote of the citizens of that state only. I know that abolishing the electoral college is trendy among liberals right now, but in truth it was one of the key reasons the United States of America lasted as long as it did: It and the senate keep the large states from have too much power. Without them, there is simply no reason for the smaller states to be part of the country. States would still be able to decide if they want to award elector points on a winner-take-all basis or proportionally.

* We need to get rid of birthright citizenship. No anchor babies. My idea is that initially citizenship will be given to anyone who was a citizen of the United States of America on January 1st, 2020, and was a legal resident of the state when it ratified the constitution of the Republic of America. Afterwards, citizenship will be bestowed to the biological children of citizens, and to people who become naturalized citizens in accordance with the law. Congress would need to make laws to deal with expatriates, foundlings, or other unusual situations.

* The number of Supreme Court justices should be defined in the constitution. Let's put it at 7 justices. This heads off any potential court-packing schemes.

* Also, while the Supreme Court is still the highest court in the land, it will be clearly defined that the purpose of the federal courts is to interpret federal law. They do not exist to overrule state or local courts, except when there are federal laws in play that require this.

* We need to tweak freedom of the press a bit. Having an informed electorate requires that the public have access to a diversity of opinions. Therefore, it will be essential that the government ensure that media companies do not form monopolies or exhibit cartel-like behavior.

* In order to have a functioning government, we need to be able to respectfully discuss issues. Therefore, freedom of speech is a must. People must be free to express their opinions without being afraid they'll lose their job, school, access to services, or other basic needs.

* Other rights will be basically what he have now. Freedom to provide for your defense (including keeping & bearing arms), because recent events in places like Portland have shown that law & order can break down even in supposedly civilized places, and sometimes you may not be able to count on law enforcement for help. Freedom of religion, including the right to gather for celebrations without penalty or any kind of official stigma. The right to equal treatment under the law, without discrimination due to race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation.

* Whatever intelligence agency we create (because in the real world, we'll need one) will be absolutely forbidden from conducting any propaganda operations against citizens of the Republic of America. Anyone who authorizes any such operation, even if they are members or Congress or the president, will be guilty of conspiracy to commit sedition.

What do you think? A good start? What else do we need to include?

Property rights.

I didn't see anything about the castle doctrine in there.

Nobody, not even government, should have free reign over private property.

Eliminate eminent domain.

Freedom of privacy- spying on citizens is treason.

I'll have more...

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Back in 2016 when Trump was elected, I said right here on ATS that Trump would either save the US, or he would prove the country is beyond salvation. Right now, it's looking like the later, with most Democrats and half the Republicans being hopelessly corrupt, and unfit to be in charge of a sidewalk lemonade stand, much less a country.

With a Preamble like this, there is nowhere to go but off into hyperbolic grandiosity.

"Rewriting" the Constitution, and retrading the deal that was the original government vs citizen 'contract' the US Constitution codified, is EXACTLY the progressive agenda.

This is a Pandora's Box of the highest magnitude, one to me that is anathema.

We must either carry on with the "deal" we've prospered under for 200+ years, or everything, all this, will be ashes and flames.

One big problem I see in this is that the states that would secede would still retain many (we are very much divided everywhere) people who do not want to secede.

So, would they have to just live by the new rules and have no say if they decided to stay in their state of residence? Or would they still have the right to vote and change things and everything would just end up as it is now?

I agree with many of the changes you listed above. Especially term limits. But dividing the United States is a bad bad idea.

ETA: Also, states that would possibly secede would be scattered, could we still travel amongst the "others"?

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

If we just had people and politicians OBEY the ACTUAL Constitution, we wouldn't need a new one.

The old one is just fine, thank you.

a reply to: Gnawledge

I think the states right now that would secede would be less scattered than the ones that would remain. You basically have the blue coasts and the red middle.

originally posted by: a325nt
Property rights.

I didn't see anything about the castle doctrine in there.

Nobody, not even government, should have free reign over private property.

Eliminate eminent domain.

Freedom of privacy- spying on citizens is treason.

I'll have more...

I totally support these so far. Keep it up.

Not gonna happen. Worst idea evah.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

If we just had people and politicians OBEY the ACTUAL Constitution, we wouldn't need a new one.

The old one is just fine, thank you.

The old one has confusing and imprecise language and omits many of the things that we would now regard as human rights.

For instance, what is the stance on electronic rights, communications, commerce, and surveillance?

This works fine
Just return to the view that the Constitution is 100% a code of restrictions against the government alongside the sole enumeration of that government's responsibility. A good government is a government that confines itself fully to remain within those restrictions and responsibilities rather than striving to find as many ways to go outside those lines as possible as the US government has tried to do incessantly for the past 150 years.

Also add an amendment that anyone found to be attempting to move outside those lines while in an elected position is promptly removed from office and barred from any future government position. Finally, add an amendment that bars elected officials from holding stocks outside of the standard 401k.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

You can change the constitution, change gov. change or secede
from and start a new country. Strive for a new world order and
a one world gov. with one religion. You change nothing if men's
hearts remain the same. The heart of man must change. When
that happens we get a new everything.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

If we just had people and politicians OBEY the ACTUAL Constitution, we wouldn't need a new one.

The old one is just fine, thank you.

The old one has confusing and imprecise language and omits many of the things that we would now regard as human rights.

For instance, what is the stance on electronic rights, communications, commerce, and surveillance?

The Constitution speaks very clearly on what the government shall not infringe upon.

People are always trying to redefine what it says and what it means.

I think current constitution is fine....the system needs tweaking though

1) Term limits for congress and senate. Two terms for Senate. Four terms for Congress.

2) Senate and Congress only meet for 3 months total out of the year. Need to be part time positions. If people can serve on a Board of Directors for a f500 company part time, these idiots can get what they need done 3 months.

3) Line item veto so any amendments and pork can be struck by President when he signs. Rules on bill length and any amendments must be owned by a congress/senator. In other words, if you slip in $10 million for LBZGT studies in Pakistan, that part of the bill must have an INDIVIDUAL sponsor so we know who is putting in this bullsh*t. Every bill must be made public at least two weeks prior to vote and no changes at last minute.

4) No ID, No Vote. Voting a national holiday. Must vote in person

5) All states must follow same voting procedures / rules.

6) Voter test. I believe voters need to demonstrate knowledge of our system and country. Should be the same test we give to people applying for citizenship. Take test in high school.

7) All regulations should have a 10 year sunset and need to be voted on again.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

If we just had people and politicians OBEY the ACTUAL Constitution, we wouldn't need a new one.

The old one is just fine, thank you.

The old one has confusing and imprecise language and omits many of the things that we would now regard as human rights.

For instance, what is the stance on electronic rights, communications, commerce, and surveillance?

It actually isn't all that confusing.

Most of the issues really should be handled at the state level.

Since the Progressive Liberals now own the future of this country , the new "constitution" will be blank.

I see nothing about making lobbying illegal in any way shape or form, that would be the big one for me. Probably would be a subsection of the corruption clause, but still needs to be codified.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Seems like, (to me that is) that all the rats are deserting the sinking ship, while the, 'nicer' Lemmings will think of, and attempt a way out of the obvious doom, by being selective.

If you have a written constitution, you can't be selective, while you could change it in the courts in the order of, 'amendments' So obviously, the constitution can be changed.

However, when you say, "the later", (latter) you are stll glorifying Trump, and calling the country ungovernable when the real truth is that Trump was never fit to govern anything much, is likely more corrupt than those under him, and indeed that remark may be an insult to many of those who had to work under Trump, as is the insinuation that US people are beyond salvation.

That's real arrogance from you.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

If we just had people and politicians OBEY the ACTUAL Constitution, we wouldn't need a new one.

The old one is just fine, thank you.

The old one has confusing and imprecise language and omits many of the things that we would now regard as human rights.

For instance, what is the stance on electronic rights, communications, commerce, and surveillance?

It actually isn't all that confusing.

Most of the issues really should be handled at the state level.

There are Federal agencies overreaching their mandate, such as the NSA and CIA and as the recent spate of cyber breaches have shown, they aren't really doing their assumed jobs of defending America properly.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan
You don't have a new country and if a new country was to form you probably wouldn't have any say in the writing of its constitution.

Just saying.