Libertarians... if you could change 1 thing in the US constitution....

[notig]

changes need to focus on the root of problems. Part of the problem with government is that over time it gets bigger. To prevent that you need to limit it's funding. So the two areas you need to focus on are limiting the funding of government and also making the elected representatives honest. You can limit funding by not allowing the government to borrow. It would then be forced to either tax or create it's own money. Tax is fine since it is a very visible thing and if it got crazy people would revolt.. unlike how they are taxing now through their mutually beneficial relationship with the fed and how they create money. So if they are forced to create their money then you can do a couple of things.... you can make it so that they have to tax back what they create in the same year. Or you could simply let them create at will and have that currency be a government currency and it would compete against public currencies (fairly) in the free market. If they inflated it then it would just hurt themselves and their workers.

For accountability you need open source voting systems... preferably using something like the bitcoin blockchain idea. You also need representatives who are willing to be audited financially by the public at any time. You need to get the money out by stopping lobbying.

[vokain]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/341894/repeal-17th-amendment-charles-c-w-cooke

[u9y42]

These guys want to add an amendment to the constitution to remove money out of politics: http://www.wolf-pac.com/.

[Peter Lambert]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/341894/repeal-17th-amendment-charles-c-w-cooke

Why would you want to get rid of the 17th admendment? Instead of having the people of a state elect their representative, you want to go back to having the politicians pick? This is a horrible idea.

[vokain]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/341894/repeal-17th-amendment-charles-c-w-cooke

Why would you want to get rid of the 17th admendment? Instead of having the people of a state elect their representative, you want to go back to having the politicians pick? This is a horrible idea.

...

It is clear that the founders’ intent was to always have the states be more powerful than the federal government, which is why the states ratified the Constitution, giving the federal government the authority only to do what they felt was necessary. The 17th amendment does a lot to reverse this.

...

So why did they pass the 17th amendment and change the way senators are elected? It must not have been working the way it was before, right? Well, the problem that they tried to solve with the 17th amendment was that of frequent deadlocks that occurred in the state legislatures when trying to select a senator. When this occurred, that particular state would go without representation in the Senate. But why did these deadlocks occur? Thomas Dilorenzo notes:

…in 1866 a new federal law was passed that mandated for the first time how the states were to appoint senators. First, a voice vote would be taken in each house. If there was no overwhelming choice, then a concurrent vote would be taken. This process revealed information about voting preferences to minority cliques within the legislatures, who then knew who they had to support or oppose. The end result was frequent gridlocks (71 from 1885 to 1912 alone). The deadlocks were inevitably ended by bribery.

So, rather than try to change the way the legislatures selected senators, they threw the federalist system out with the bath water, and took away the power from the states completely. This is a big reason why the federal government has been able to get away with so much. The states are no longer in control. The federal government continues to grow and ignore the Constitution with no one to answer to. If we are to reverse this, one of the first things that must be done is the repeal of the 17th amendment.

[Duane Vick]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/341894/repeal-17th-amendment-charles-c-w-cooke

Why would you want to get rid of the 17th admendment? Instead of having the people of a state elect their representative, you want to go back to having the politicians pick? This is a horrible idea.

The house of Representatives is the people's legislative body of federal government.  The Senate is the states' representative in the federal government. This way, states' rights would be defended by people chosen by the states themselves. 10th amendment has been shat on ever since passage of the 17th amendment.

The other great fucking of this nation is when they limited the size of the house of Representatives to 435. We should actually have about 3500 congressmen right now if the original plan was kept. Much harder to corrupt,  easier for the people to recall, and easier to be influenced by the people as it should be.

[Peter Lambert]

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/341894/repeal-17th-amendment-charles-c-w-cooke

Why would you want to get rid of the 17th admendment? Instead of having the people of a state elect their representative, you want to go back to having the politicians pick? This is a horrible idea.

...

It is clear that the founders’ intent was to always have the states be more powerful than the federal government, which is why the states ratified the Constitution, giving the federal government the authority only to do what they felt was necessary. The 17th amendment does a lot to reverse this.

...

So why did they pass the 17th amendment and change the way senators are elected? It must not have been working the way it was before, right? Well, the problem that they tried to solve with the 17th amendment was that of frequent deadlocks that occurred in the state legislatures when trying to select a senator. When this occurred, that particular state would go without representation in the Senate. But why did these deadlocks occur? Thomas Dilorenzo notes:

…in 1866 a new federal law was passed that mandated for the first time how the states were to appoint senators. First, a voice vote would be taken in each house. If there was no overwhelming choice, then a concurrent vote would be taken. This process revealed information about voting preferences to minority cliques within the legislatures, who then knew who they had to support or oppose. The end result was frequent gridlocks (71 from 1885 to 1912 alone). The deadlocks were inevitably ended by bribery.

So, rather than try to change the way the legislatures selected senators, they threw the federalist system out with the bath water, and took away the power from the states completely. This is a big reason why the federal government has been able to get away with so much. The states are no longer in control. The federal government continues to grow and ignore the Constitution with no one to answer to. If we are to reverse this, one of the first things that must be done is the repeal of the 17th amendment.

But the 17th amendment does not give power to the Federal government, it gives power to the states. The States in this case being the individual people in those states, rather than the government of the states. So from a libertarian perspective this was a good amendment since it gives more power to individuals rather than corrupt governments.

[revjp]

The USA isn't allowed to exist.
The end.

Wouldn't that then negate the constitution so nobody would have to follow it? I think you just entered to United States into an endless existential feedback loop.

[TheButterZone]

The constitution is already effectively null and void, as it is violated with impunity.

[Jeezy911]

Term limits for ALL elected officials, 8 years then goodbye.  Or how about, "if an immediate family member has been president, then you are excluded from running" sorry Clintons and Bush's that's called a dynasty and should not be an option.

[Peter Lambert]

Term limits for ALL elected officials, 8 years then goodbye.  Or how about, "if an immediate family member has been president, then you are excluded from running" sorry Clintons and Bush's that's called a dynasty and should not be an option.

Here in Michigan we added term limits for our state legislature. It did not seem to make things much better.

Two things happen: the experienced legislators are forced out, so there are lots of rookie mistakes (like when they passed a law which they thought would force the governor to do something, but she signed it and then pointed out that she could interpret what they wrote to let her do what she wanted instead), and you get "dynasties" which take over districts.

My parents' state representative has been somebody with the same last name for decades (not as long as there has been a John Dingle in congress, but you would have to back to 1933 for that) First there was Sal, then his wife Sue was elected, then their son Tory was elected.

But Dynasties form even without having relatives taking over the office. When one person is term-limited out, they just have their favorite staffer run for the job and they keep all the same policies and such. Look at how many of the top officers are retained from one president to the next, even if Bush II had not been Bush I's son, they had people like Cheny connecting the administrations.

[Jeezy911]

Term limits for ALL elected officials, 8 years then goodbye.  Or how about, "if an immediate family member has been president, then you are excluded from running" sorry Clintons and Bush's that's called a dynasty and should not be an option.

Here in Michigan we added term limits for our state legislature. It did not seem to make things much better.

Two things happen: the experienced legislators are forced out, so there are lots of rookie mistakes (like when they passed a law which they thought would force the governor to do something, but she signed it and then pointed out that she could interpret what they wrote to let her do what she wanted instead), and you get "dynasties" which take over districts.

My parents' state representative has been somebody with the same last name for decades (not as long as there has been a John Dingle in congress, but you would have to back to 1933 for that) First there was Sal, then his wife Sue was elected, then their son Tory was elected.

But Dynasties form even without having relatives taking over the office. When one person is term-limited out, they just have their favorite staffer run for the job and they keep all the same policies and such. Look at how many of the top officers are retained from one president to the next, even if Bush II had not been Bush I's son, they had people like Cheny connecting the administrations.

All valid points, but there has to be something we could do to limit these greedy career politicians and there families, like Jesse and Jesse Jr. Are they both in prison yet? Because they should be.

[Duane Vick]

"The Constitution either gives us the type of government we have or is powerless to prevent it." --Lysander Spooner

[billyjoeallen]

"The Constitution either gives us the type of government we have or is powerless to prevent it." --Lysander Spooner

Word. If I could change one thing, I'd repeal it. The Articles of Confederation were more than good enough.

[Peter Lambert]

I would have added a secession amendment to the bill of rights.

"The right to secede from the union shall be preserved for all states and persons."

This is an interesting idea. The Constitution has a mechanism for adding states, but it does not have any mechanism for removing states. Either something has to change or eventually the whole world will be part of the US (would that be a bad thing? Sometimes I think some problems would be solved if the US were to annex Mexico?).

Looking back at history, the Civil War could have been avoided along with all its bloodshed and destruction if Lincoln had been more open-minded about secession. The Confederacy would eventually have changed its tune on slavery because of cultural pressure or violent revolt of the downtrodden majority, and the Southern States would have rejoined the Union.

[Duane Vick]

I would have added a secession amendment to the bill of rights.

"The right to secede from the union shall be preserved for all states and persons."

This is an interesting idea. The Constitution has a mechanism for adding states, but it does not have any mechanism for removing states. Either something has to change or eventually the whole world will be part of the US (would that be a bad thing? Sometimes I think some problems would be solved if the US were to annex Mexico?).

Looking back at history, the Civil War could have been avoided along with all its bloodshed and destruction if Lincoln had been more open-minded about secession. The Confederacy would eventually have changed its tune on slavery because of cultural pressure or violent revolt of the downtrodden majority, and the Southern States would have rejoined the Union.

I think it comes down to the basic human right to change deplorable conditions. If you are unhappy about your leaders, you can speak out and try to change it (first amendment), leave it, or fight it (second amendment). Leave it is a peaceful alternative when peaceful change is futile.

[Peter Lambert]

I would have added a secession amendment to the bill of rights.

"The right to secede from the union shall be preserved for all states and persons."

This is an interesting idea. The Constitution has a mechanism for adding states, but it does not have any mechanism for removing states. Either something has to change or eventually the whole world will be part of the US (would that be a bad thing? Sometimes I think some problems would be solved if the US were to annex Mexico?).

Looking back at history, the Civil War could have been avoided along with all its bloodshed and destruction if Lincoln had been more open-minded about secession. The Confederacy would eventually have changed its tune on slavery because of cultural pressure or violent revolt of the downtrodden majority, and the Southern States would have rejoined the Union.

I think it comes down to the basic human right to change deplorable conditions. If you are unhappy about your leaders, you can speak out and try to change it (first amendment), leave it, or fight it (second amendment). Leave it is a peaceful alternative when peaceful change is futile.

You can leave by moving out of the country, but are you allowed to leave the country by declaring the area in which you live no longer part of the country?