TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

I would like those who choose to participate, to wirte a New Constitution for the United States to address the current issues at hand.

The current issues today such as abortion, guns, marijuana, racism, voting, the inability for the three branches of government to work together is costing the US trillions of dollars in unnecessary spending. I would like your input on what you would do to change the Constitution.
I will go out there and say that the American Constitution is flawed and extremely outdated and fails to address many of the issues today.
With the left and the right at each others throats, where can we find the middle ground to resolve these disputes? Each one of you at TED.com do not have the financial influences seen by the politicos being put on you to impact change in your nation for the better.
I am going to ask that if someone does come up with a suggestion that you do not agree with , that you do not ridicule but instead engage in a sensible conversation offering counter-points to back up your claims. As I always tell people, the only stupid question is the one that is not asked. The same goes with ideas.

Topics: constitution
Share:
  • thumb
    Apr 15 2013: Political parties are an unintended byproduct of our first-past-the-post voting system. I would change that to a ranked voting system.

    I would also impose term limits on all elected officials.
  • Apr 15 2013: Sorry, I should ask. If you repeal the 16th amendment how does the government pay their bills? And what do you put in place for the 17th?
    • thumb
      Apr 15 2013: Before 1913 the U.S. was funded by import tariffs. Not recommended now. I would reduce the size of government so it would be less onerous. I would fund the smaller government with a state sales tax of which the state would forward some portion of the money to the fed, but it would not go to the fed first, this would help keep the fed lean.

      The constitution would revert to what it was where the SOTUS was appointed by the states in this way it is more of a republic rather than the tyranny of a democracy.
  • Apr 15 2013: So let me ask you. The 2nd Amendment has drawn a lot of flack from both sides based in the varying interpretations of the law. Do you not feel that it needs to be discussed?
    • thumb
      Apr 15 2013: It is organic to an individual to defend himself, I don't understand why anyone would want it any other way, save those who would want to enslave.
  • thumb
    Apr 15 2013: It is fine the way it is save

    repeal the 17th and the 16th and repeal McCulloch v. Maryland on the 10th