Re: Indiana's Right to bear arms law
I don't disagree here...my point was more that the Constitution was never meant to be static.
Though, with technology being what it is, I think that there should be a way to have more people with direct input and a system that can be induced to change more easily...I think that "we the people" should have a way to redress a do-nothing Congress, by making them bring things to the floor.
For example (and this is completely off the cuff)...every 25 years, we could automatically begin the process of new Constitutional Update Committee...people could directly petition the gov't for proposed changes (or areas of change) for a period of time, say 1 year. Those petitions with the most signatures could then go to a bipartisan review board of representatives from the legislature to write up the proposed changes, then to a judicial panel to review it, and to the executive to endorse (or not) it. This process could take, say, another year. Then, when people do the census (only because it kills two birds with one stone--its something we already pay people to do), the notice of proposed changes can be sent out with the census information (and collected by census officials, rather than people going to vote on it...though we could vote for it too, in conjunction with regular elections), and everyone has a say in "yes, vote on this" or "no, don't vote on this" or "I abstain". The proposed changes that a majority of Americans want to be voted upon then *have to* be brought for a vote in congress--rather than them deciding they don't want to bring it to a vote...and then if it passes and is signed, individual states ratify.
...I don't remember *where* I saw it, but I remember reading not to long ago that we are currently in a dry spell for the longest time that has passed without amending the Constitution...and I'm sure most of us can agree that it isn't because it doesn't need to be done.
Originally posted by B. de Corbin
View Post
Though, with technology being what it is, I think that there should be a way to have more people with direct input and a system that can be induced to change more easily...I think that "we the people" should have a way to redress a do-nothing Congress, by making them bring things to the floor.
For example (and this is completely off the cuff)...every 25 years, we could automatically begin the process of new Constitutional Update Committee...people could directly petition the gov't for proposed changes (or areas of change) for a period of time, say 1 year. Those petitions with the most signatures could then go to a bipartisan review board of representatives from the legislature to write up the proposed changes, then to a judicial panel to review it, and to the executive to endorse (or not) it. This process could take, say, another year. Then, when people do the census (only because it kills two birds with one stone--its something we already pay people to do), the notice of proposed changes can be sent out with the census information (and collected by census officials, rather than people going to vote on it...though we could vote for it too, in conjunction with regular elections), and everyone has a say in "yes, vote on this" or "no, don't vote on this" or "I abstain". The proposed changes that a majority of Americans want to be voted upon then *have to* be brought for a vote in congress--rather than them deciding they don't want to bring it to a vote...and then if it passes and is signed, individual states ratify.
...I don't remember *where* I saw it, but I remember reading not to long ago that we are currently in a dry spell for the longest time that has passed without amending the Constitution...and I'm sure most of us can agree that it isn't because it doesn't need to be done.
Comment