It has occurred to me that many times, people have to be protected against themselves. Correcting the problems I discussed above should…..and probably will…..take care a lot of the problem. Until then, changes need to be made in our Constitution to help insure that some of the problems we face today will be alleviated to some degree.

When our Constitution was adopted back in 1789, the people who wrote it and approved it had no idea…..not even a faint premonition….of the society in which we find ourselves living today. And, how could they?

I am going to attempt to explain what I would do if I were in charge of writing a new Constitution. I will explain changes I would make and hopefully, make sense of them. I know what I am going to say may seem radical…..a definite departure of the way things have been done. These are my thoughts and vision. And, I am quite sure they would not be changes that will….or would….ever be made by our existing government.

But…. Here goes.

The first part of the Constitution I would change would be Article 3, the article that deals with the Supreme Court. Let’s face it, the Supreme Court is, for all practical purposes, is the most powerful branch of the government. Yes, the Constitution give the power and authority to make laws to the legislative branch. It gives the power to enforce those laws to the executive branch. All of that sounds good….but: The Supreme Court has an almost absolute power….at least, they have taken the power…..to declare any law passed by Congress to be unconstitutional. They have the power….at least, they have assumed the power…..to declare any action the President makes as being unconstitutional. And, they have also assumed the power to make final decisions of social and moral issues….on medical and “personal” choice issues…..that have not been specifically given, or even implied, to them by our Constitution.

In 1789 when the Constitution was written, the men who wrote it visualized the Supreme Court as being a group of legal experts who were impartial, honest and with no ulterior motives or self-interest in the decisions they made in interpreting the laws. They were given protection against outside influences and forces by being granted lifetime appointments…..with a guarantee that their salary could not be decreased. These two articles were intended to assure they would, to the best of their ability, render a strict and impartial and independent interpretation of the law with no fear of losing their job or having their salary cut because of their objectivity and honesty.

The intentions of the writers of the Constitution were admirable. Leave political philosophy and pressure and interference of special interests outside the judicial process. Free the justices from any threat of punishment or retaliation. Make it possible to arrive at a just and equitable decision according to the laws and the Constitution. Of course, from the very beginning, human emotions and values were bound to play some part in the decisions the Supreme Court justices made. It probably cannot be avoided. After all they are human.

In more recent years, the Supreme Court has been transformed into a division of the party which controls the Congress as a political tool. Justices are approved or rejected by Congress according to their political philosophy….the probability of “interpreting” laws in favor of the party which is in power to appoint them. Since the decisions they hand down are more or less permanent until a later version of the Supreme Court rescinds them, the justices of the Supreme Court are, for all practical purposes, assume legislative and executive powers by imposing their will on the country. And, once the Supreme Court has ruled, there is very little recourse, aside from amending the Constitution, to change it. This places almost supreme power in the hands of nine non-elected individuals.

The Supreme Court has no constitutional power to enforce its decisions. However, up until this point, the executive branch has been honorable enough to recognize and enforce them.

To me it is obvious that this branch of our government….the Supreme Court….would be the obvious place to start when writing a new Constitution. Here are some of the provisions I would include.

First of all, the President should not have a major role in appointing members of the Supreme Court…..or any other federal court. This, alone, will help guarantee that it will not become a political arm of the government…..not responsible to…or favoring….or representing….any political philosophy or group.

There may be equally good ways to select Supreme Court members. However, one method that perhaps would work very well is to have a constitutionally authorized committee of highly trained and skilled law professionals….attorneys, law professors, former judges, law enforcement officials, etc….. choose a limited number of qualified candidates….three, let’s say….from which the President is constitutionally required to select a candidate.

It is important that the selection committee NOT be selected by current politicians….nor former politicians, either. But, rather, they be selected by some mutually agreed upon independent method. These committee members will serve a constitutionally number of years. It is also important that the committee be composed of an equal number of members. The winning candidates must each receive at least a simple majority of votes. In case of a tie vote, no candidate will win. But, if the selection committee is composed of non-political members, the chances of this happening are probably going to be greatly diminished…..and impartial, highly qualified candidates will be agreed upon. The President will be required to make his selection from these three choices of the committee. There should be no restriction of candidates appearing on subsequent lists of possible candidates.

Second: Members of the Supreme Court will have a constitutionally imposed term limit. To me, ten or twelve years seems fair and sufficient. After completing a term, no justice will be permitted to serve a second term.

Third: A very strict Code of Ethics should be established for member of the Supreme Court….. Indeed, for all judges in all federal courts. Judges should be held to the highest of standards. This Code of Ethics should be written by perhaps the same committee which appoints the possible nominees…..with no input from any political sources. As stated before, this committee should be selected from highly recognized legal authorities such as The American Bar Association, university law professors, law enforcement officials. In any event, it should contain no members of a political organization or political philosophy. If written thoughtfully, the Code of Ethics should be a “one time event”…..and it should endure throughout the years.

The power to enforce the provisions of the Code of Ethics should be placed in the hands of a constitutionally authorized committee who will make final decisions. If a federal judge on any level should be removed for misconduct, that judge should never be allowed to serve as a judge at any future time.

There may be a variety of methods to choose the various nominating and oversight commissions. However, the important thing is, I think….. In order to insure fairness and impartiality, there should be no political involvement. This will no doubt be the only branch of our government where politics is not involved.

Fourth: There should be definite and clear guidelines and criteria on the types of issues the Supreme Court and other federal courts can consider and hand down decisions. In all fairness and in all reality and in all common sense, it seems true that the only issues a group of highly trained experts in law should consider will be…..well, laws! This seems like a good time to update or modernize our judicial system. In the two hundred or so years since the Constitution was written, society and circumstances have changed radically. The society and the atmosphere we live in today would be totally foreign….totally unrecognizable…..to the framers of the Constitution.

In my opinion, a better solution would be to have multiple “Supreme Courts” which would deal with different kinds of problems, different phases of society as we know it today:

One Supreme Court that would deal with interpreting laws as enumerated in the Constitution or have been duly ratified by Congress.

One Supreme Court which would handle only cases arising from social issues, not specifically covered by laws.

One Supreme Court which deals only with medical problems….matters that only trained professionals have the knowledge, training and expertise to deal with.

These are only three examples, and there are surely others. There is really no reason to have only one Supreme Court. In fact, there are probably more valid reasons against it than there is for it. Not only will having multiple “Supreme Courts” result in more informed and equitable decisions, it will also diffuse the power that that has for too long been centralized in an un-elected group that is no longer respected by our citizens and has frequently abused its power for personal and political reasons…..and with no readily available recourse.

There are probably other changes that should be made to the Supreme Court and the judicial system to insure that it better reflects justice and fairness and equity, but let’s leave it for now and move on to the legislative branch of our government…. Congress.

Oh, Congress. This should probably be the most important branch of the government. It is the branch that represents the people directly. No electoral college here. They are elected outright by the voters. They are mandated to make the laws of the land, within the structure of the Constitution. They are the branch that serves designated populations. It is the branch that is most in touch with the people and reflects the will of the people. This is the branch which makes us a democratic republic.

At least, this is the ideal which was envisioned by the men who wrote the Constitution.

But, through the years a gradual erosion of democratic intent has virtually transformed the Congress into a body of men and women who have used it to promote their own selfish agendas, to build a power base to satisfy over-sized egos, and to ingratiate themselves to outside influences for their own financial gain. The Congress itself may be one of the most undemocratic institutions in our country. The concepts of seniority, lobbying, and politics over the good of the nation, internal self-enrichment and lack of accountability at times have rendered Congress into a “club” of its own.

Let’s take a look at some of the changes that I would make to ensure that the Congress is more responsive to the voters than it is to itself.

First and foremost the constitution should mandate limits of the number of terms any person can serve in either of the houses of Congress. And, this total should include the total or collective number of years a person can serve in either or both houses Congress. In other words, there needs to be a constitutionally imposed limit. For example: I would set the limit at a total of 12 years. A person can serve all 12 years in the Senate. Or, they can serve 6 years in the House of Representatives and 6 years in the Senate. After serving these 12 years…. They are finished and will no longer be seek an elective federal legislative office. This will also solve the ancient policy and problems that the matter of “seniority” has often caused.

In fact, in order to have a truly representative Congress, I would propose choosing members of Congress that same way we choose juries. A lottery with the names of all citizens who are above the age of 25 would be used. Names would be generated randomly by a computer selecting names which match a variety of socioeconomic factors, as well as racial and ethnic backgrounds.

The “winners” would be temporarily moved to Washington, D. C. where they would live in more than adequate government provided housing during their stays there. They would be well compensated for their service, and their jobs at home would be constitutionally protected during their term of service.

This would solve some of the inequities which exist in the process of running for election. Maybe first and foremost would be the fact that the person would not be held hostage by special interest groups, by lobbyists, or even an extreme political group. In order to help insure this objectivity and partiality, they would be specifically prohibited from accepting gifts of any sort from anybody. They will not be obligated to any political or special interest group.

Except for the restrictions enumerated, they would function in a similar manner to our present day Congress, but with the freedom to function without the influence and interference of external pressures or distractions.

Yes….. I know. This is a rather far fetched proposal…..and I am not naive enough to think it will happen. But…. It is an alternative!

OK…. Let’s move on with some more realistic reforms…..and, these are not fantasy or ideal ideas. They are important to the reform of the legislative branch….Congress.

Next to term limits, the next most important reform is to abolish “gerrymandering”. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defined gerrymandering like this: To divide or arrange a territorial unit into election districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage.” In other words to draw electoral district lines in such a way that would exclude or include certain political philosophies or racial groups or ethnic groups. Actually, it can include any segment of the population that may favor or hinder a certain political party. You can easily look up some “gerrymandered” districts. It becomes immediately obvious that district lines were intentionally drawn to favor a political party. Some of these maps are indeed strange with boundaries so contorted that it defies imagination how they could be considered anything except deliberate and obvious plans to, for all practical purposes, disenfranchise large groups of voters.

The Constitution should clearly and specifically define how various voting districts can be delineated. They should be based strictly on population. The shape of the electoral districts should be a recognized geometric figure…..preferably a square. Furthermore, each side should be approximately the same length. In any case, it should be always constructed so it has four equal parallel sides.

If the sides are constructed to the above specifications, they will in all probability more accurately reflect population…..and not special interests.

Today it is a common practice to “bundle” bills. For some purposes, this may be acceptable, especially it bills contain the same or similar subject matter. The practice of attaching a “popular” bill, in the opinion of a political party, to one that is not popular, only to insure that the perceived “unpopular” bill will more likely pass should be prohibited. And conversely….attaching an “unpopular” bill to a “popular” bill only to prevent the more popular bill from passing should likewise be prohibited.

This procedure of “bundling” bills, it can be argued, helps keep the consideration of legislation moving. And, this is probably correct. But, every bill before the Congress should have an equal chance of being considered on its own merits. Whoever has presented a bill before Congress should have the right to demand that his/her legislation should have fair and equal consideration on its own merits…..and not buried in a bill that either is headed for passage…..or defeat.

To this end, if one-fourth of the total legislative body demands that a bill be considered separately and on its own merits, nothing should prevent it from being considered independently. And, this should also be the policy in removing a bill from a “package”.

It is ironic that in our democratic republic form of government…..our government of the people, by the people and for the people…..that one man, either the Speaker of the House or the Majority Leader in the Senate, should have the power to prevent our elected representatives from voting on a bill. That he alone, in effect, has the power to determine what will become a law and what will not. There are one hundred elected members of the Senate and four hundred thirty five elected members of the House of Representatives. They…..and they alone…..have been elected….who have the Constitutional power…..to make the laws of our country. One man should not have the power to bottle up a bill.

Because the people of the United States hold supreme power, it should be made easier for voters to become involved in the process of determining and deciding the laws that will govern their lives. Today the people have no option to vote directly on measures that affect the lives of all Americans equally…. Laws that govern such issues as abortion, legalization of marijuana, matters dealing with gender choice or sex preference……emotional issues which affects all citizens equally, but on which they have little or no voice and even less control. Matters such as these…..matters which are usually politically explosive….matters on which most legislators are too cowardly to deal with….should be be decided directly by citizens. After all, in a democracy the people are supposed to hold supreme power. And, it is far more democratic and logical to simply let the people decide what they want. In the end, the people are accountable….and cowardly legislators will not be held accountable. Contrary to the belief of many members of Congress, the people are far better judges of what they want and what is best for them.

Thus…. If a nation-wide petition is circulated, and let’s say, 10% of eligible voters of the entire United States sign it…..even 5%…..then the proposed law will be placed on a ballot and the entire country can vote whether to accept or reject it. And…. Stop to think, in 2024 there were approximately 245 million eligible voters in the USA. This means that if 5% of voters demanded that a measure be submitted to the people for a vote, the number would be approximately 12 million voters. That is a significant number of people, no matter how a person looks at it!

Another good things about passing a law in this manner is that it will be free of money from special interests who are willing to pay legislators for voting for their selfish gain. And, like it or not, this is what gets laws passed in more cases that we like to admit or realize.

Continuing along in a similar scenario, the Constitution should contains provisions that deal with the behavior and conduct of members of Congress. It is recognized that lobbyists play can play a useful role in the legislative process by providing valuable factual information to members of Congress. But, this service should only consist in offering information, either in person or in written form. In all cases, any payment in the form of money or gifts to a Congress person should be deemed illegal and an act of misconduct. The common practice of presenting gifts to Congress persons in order to gain or influence a vote is all too common in today’s Congress. In effect, and in most cases, in reality, the Congress person is casting a vote for a special interest and not for the voters who elected him or her. It should be grounds for removing that person from Congress. Common courtesies such as buying a Congress person lunch should be excepted and not classified as “gifts”.

Just like the Supreme Court, a strict Code of Ethics should be enforced by a special panel which is independent of Congressional control. Since Congress has been empowered to make the laws for the nation, they should be held to rigidly high standards. If they are, or have been, found guilty of a felony, they will not be allowed to serve as a member of Congress. Again, it is ironic that Congress has enacted laws that prevent felons from voting, when all too many of them are guilty of the same kind of crimes.

Members of Congress are elected by the people…..and there should be a Constitutional provision whereby they can also be removed by the people for reasons of serious misconduct. Again if a Constitutionally specified number of citizens legally sign a formal petition demanding it……a special election will be conducted to determine if the people wish to retain that person as a member of Congress.

Elections are the means by which people exert their power and superiority in a democracy. The people should always have the ultimate power.

Constitutional provisions should enumerate very clearly the benefits, salary, retirement, insurance and other financial considerations for members of Congress. Members of Congress should clearly be well compensated for their service, even quite possibly be given a housing allowance or perhaps a living allowance. Living in Washington, D. C. is expensive, and there is no reason they should have to make undue sacrifices in order to serve. However, if a person ran for….and was elected to Congress….only for the purpose of getting rich, they are seriously misguided.

Other than the fact that they elected to serve their country for a fixed number of years, there is nothing special about members of Congress. They are no better or worse than the citizens they serve……and which will once were…..and will become again.

There is no logical reason that a member of Congress should have any special financial privileges (or any other kind) once they have left office. After all, unless they are extremely old, they will return to their former job when the leave Congress. The Constitution should clearly define their financial rewards….i. e. salary, insurance, retirement…..and they should mirror the financial rewards of any working citizen. If this matter is left to the members of Congress, like it is now, they are free to reward themselves with almost unlimited benefits which are not enjoyed by the people they represent.

Part of their Code of Ethics should strictly forbid members of Congress from receiving any sort of financial assistance or gifts from outsiders or from accepting any gifts or rewards. Such a provision will eliminate the possibility of a member of Congress, in effect, from accepting a bribe to vote for bills which favor or benefit a particular special interest group.

Now, let’s take a look at the Executive Branch. In the eyes of many people….indeed, many nations….this is the most visible of the three branches of government. Its function in our democratic republic is to “execute” or carry out the will of the people as determined by the Constitution and through free elections of our representatives. Back in 1789, the founders of our nation never intended for the President to be a power in his own right. Instead, he (and back in those days, it was definitely a “he”) his job was primarily to do the bidding of the Congress. He could veto laws which they passed, but, in turn, they had the power to “override” his veto by a convincing number of votes.

In loose and general terms, Congress was always envisioned as the “powerhouse” of the three branches because they represented the people directly. The people would elected their representatives; their elected representatives would enact laws which would benefit them and the nation at large; The Supreme Court was established to ensure that these laws were carried out legally and fairly and people rights were not violated by either by unfair laws or the unfair execution of the laws. In reality, each branch of government was assigned distinct, specific roles to play in the government. The power was “divided”…..thus the expression “division of power”. And, it also established the three branches of government as a system of checks and balances so that no branch of government would become too powerful.

So….. Here are some changes to the Constitution that I think will more closely define the power, the functions and the limitations of the office of the President.

First and foremost…. The Electoral College needs to be abolished. The concept and the actual practice of the Electoral College is undemocratic and is counter to the principles upon which our nation was founded.

For you history buffs, you will admit immediately that the reason an Electoral College was established was the fact that nobody except a privileged few had any idea who the guys running for president were. And, why would they? Newspapers for practically non-existent. And this was more than a century before the first commercial radio station in the U.S.A. (1920); more than a century and a half before the first commercial TV station in the U.S.A. was licensed; and almost two centuries (1969) before the Internet was first introduced.

For the most part, people who did not live in the few big cities which existed at the time had no clue what was going on, sometimes for weeks or even months after the fact. They didn’t know the men running for office, because they had no way of finding out. So…. The “founding fathers”, the men who wrote the Constitution, logically reasoned that it was far “safer” and more logical to let people who were better informed and who knew the candidates actually choose the candidates who were running for office of President. It was assumed that they could make a more intelligent and informed decision on who the candidates would be. And, of course, when our first President was elected, there were no political parties.

OK….. Why hasn’t it changed? Today we are subjected to a massive amount of information. We are bombarded with it. There is no good reason every person in the USA should not know each candidate and what they stand for.

In today society, the Electoral College is the complete opposite of representative democracy. We preach to the rest of the world….. “One person…..one vote.” It is time….after more than 230 years we need to start practicing what we preach. The Electoral College is not democracy.

Second: To create fairness and equity, all Presidential elections should be funded strictly and exclusively with public (government) funding. A strict limit should be set on the amount of money each candidate can spend…..and that money should be furnished by the government…..”us”….the people….the voters. When this happens, if effect, every voter is taking part in funding the elections…..not a few super-rich individuals or organizations….who are seeking to promote or perpetuate their own narrow and self-serving agenda. The agenda for any Presidential candidate should be the good welfare and well being of the people and the nation, and it is only fitting that all the people in the nation should contribute. This is another measure to put the ultimate power back into the hands of our citizens and take it out of the hands of the few….the super-wealthy.

It probably would not be a bad idea to establish this practice for people running for any federal elective office.

The original Constitution clearly intended that the President’s function was that of a Chief Executive. He was empowered to carry out the wishes of his “employer”….the citizens of the nation. And, like many other large corporations or businesses, “the employer” also elects a “Boards of Directors”…..the Congress…..to make rules, that is, to adopt rules and guidelines for the good of that business or organization. He does only what the Board approves and instructs him to do. (This is a general analogy, of course!) The President does not make the rules….. He carries them out.

Over the years, however, the President….(let’s make that plural)…. has gradually usurped legislative power, especially in “gray” areas, assuming powers that were not given to him in the Constitution…..nor were they intended for him. In some cases, a President has refused to carry out or execute lawfully enacted measures because he disagrees with them, mostly on political grounds. Just like the Chief Executive of a company, he is bound to abide with what his Board of Directors instructs him to do.

Thus….. There should be a provision in the Constitution which clearly mandates that the President carry out all legally passed legislation, whether he agrees with it or not, and whether or not it will further his own personal agenda or the agenda of a political party. Further, if a President refused to fairly and faithfully enforce such laws, this will be reason to remove him from office.

And, the Congress (and the courts) shall have the power and the obligation to prevent the President from assuming power for himself.

It is a sensitive issue, but it seems logical and wise to establish minimum Constitutional standards or qualifications for a member of the President’s Cabinet. Each cabinet secretary is responsible for administering a department which affects the lives of large segments of our population. They should possess a high degree of training and expertise and understanding in the area of the particular cabinet department and the population it serves. Nobody wants a non-pilot, or even an inexperienced pilot, flying their aircraft. We expect the pilot to be highly trained and possess the understanding of aircraft. We should also expect the same degree of training, experience and understanding from our cabinet officers.

Finally, it is becoming increasingly apparent that a strict Code of Ethics should be set into place to govern the conduct of the President. Our President’s job is to uphold and enforce the laws of our nation. He, above all our government officials, should be held to the very highest of standards and behavior. The President should lead by setting the highest of standards of ethical and moral behavior. The Code of Ethics should be written by citizens representing a wide variety of socioeconomic backgrounds, as well as people representing different religions and ethnic and racial backgrounds. And, would be administered by a Constitutionally defined body of people who will have the authority to take Constitutionally mandated measures to make sure the Code of Ethics is enforced.

That about wraps up my suggestions for changes that need to be included in a newly written Constitution in regards to the President. Now let’s move on to some odds and ins which need to be addressed in a new Constitution.

Before we do that, though, you are surely aware that these suggestions are only a few changes that need to be made in a new Constitution. Obviously, this is not a new Constitution….only changes that should be incorporated into the new document.

A new Constitution…..a new document which should start with the old Preamble…. “We the People……” will undoubtedly be very similar to our present Constitution, but it will be updated to reflect today’s conditions and needs, and it will be no longer necessary to include such clauses and amendments such as the ones like each Black person will count as 3/5 of a person….or that women have the right to vote…..or that alcohol is legal…..or the clause about quartering of soldiers in private homes….

In fact, the new Constitution will have no amendments at all. All of what are amendments (changes or additions) will simply be incorporated into the body of the document. In effect, we will be giving ourselves a fresh start with a document that more fairly and accurately reflects our country in today’s society and provides for and takes into account our future as a people and as a nation.

Our Constitution was written in 1789…..a long time ago. 1789 we faced vastly a vastly different environment and vastly different conditions. By and large, it has served as well. The United States of America is the oldest and longest lasting democratic republic in the world, so the Founding Fathers must have done something right. Our job is to strengthen and adapt the Constitution to it will continue to live and serve as well for many years into the future.

Before I wrap this up, I am going to point out a few changes that I think need to be made to the original Constitution that have presented problems and are not clearly defined in the document.

The first first subject which needs to be clearly defined is that of citizenship. The Constitution already guarantees that all people who are born in the U.S.A. are automatically citizens. This provision should be emphasized and stated more unequivocally so there is no question of its meaning. Citizenship is not a matter to be decided by the whim of a political group or an individual. It should be unchangeable. Under ethically leadership this has never been a problem until recent years when some government officials have attempted to circumvent the Constitution and make decisions that suit their own preferences or desires.

The Constitution also guarantees that any child born to parents who are citizens of the U.S.A. while not on the soil of the U.S.A. is also automatically a citizen. This applies to citizens who may be serving in the U. S. A. military, or in the diplomatic corps, and also to those parents who may be studying abroad or who may be vacationing abroad or holding a job in a foreign country.

The United States is made up almost 100% of immigrants…..unless you are of 100% Native American origin. And, even our Native Americans are thought to have immigrated across the Bering Strait at some point in our distant past history. So…. Let’s be honest. You are an immigrant or at some point your ancestors were immigrants.

Once a person from another country has fulfilled all the legal requirements and has become a legal citizen through the provisions set forth in statutory law, that citizenship should be permanent and not subject to political pressure or political expediency. The only way this type of citizenship can be revoked is by duly passed legislation which enumerates reasons for withdrawing citizenship. Such legislation can not include ex post facto reasons. The only reasons citizenship could be revoked are being convicted of a felony in a federal or state court. But revoking citizenship must be done on an individual, case-by-case basis.

As I remarked previously, in a new Constitution, there will be no “Bill of Rights”. All the provisions contained in the Bill of Rights will be incorporated into the body of the Constitution. However, there are a couple areas that I feel should be further explained and clarified.

One of these provisions is part of the First Amendment. It concerns the freedoms of speech and the freedom of press. The framers of the Constitution had no way of knowing how society and technology would develop. To them today’s society and way of life would have been pure science fiction with our present-day forms of communication…..and actually probably not even to that stage. In our newly developed country, the main concern was maintaining our newly won freedom and protecting themselves from returning to the dictatorship they had fled to escape.

I suppose, in a way, we are still attempting to achieve this very goal. Except this time, we are not fleeing a dictatorship, but working to make sure we do not fall prey to such a dictatorship of our own making.

The matter of freedom of speech and freedom of press should be protected and guarded closely. These two freedoms (along with all our other freedoms) should not be taken from us by would-be dictators of today. Therefore, a further and more definite description of what these two terms actually mean….and especially what they should exclude….is necessary.

For example….. Should it be freedom of speech for a person…..any person…..to knowingly, deliberately and with malicious intent….to spread lies, mis-truths, misinformation, and falsehoods…..against anybody, at any time, in any form, at any place, for any reason?

Stop and ask yourself if a person should have the right to do this to you? Your family? Your friends? I am going to venture a guess. No, it would not. It simply is not right for somebody to willingly, knowingly and intentionally to spread such information, either in speech or in writing.

This applied to everybody….from the most powerful to the common citizen….and in any setting. Violations of this Constitutional provision should be severely punished. And, as I said, this Constitutional clause will apply to everybody…..no exceptions.

Another amendment that has caused tons of problems is the 2nd Amendment…..and the vague words concerning “the right to bear arms”. In a new Constitution, that phrase should be clearly defined and explained. Definite guidelines should be established so there is no longer confusion to its interpretation. It should not be left to the Supreme Court to decide. The people should have that power, since it affect millions of people directly.

Currently, as of 2024, there are more than 500 million privately owned firearms in the U.S.A. This is about 1.93 firearms per adult. About 46% of households own firearms. As you can easily figure out….the other 54% must own multiple number of firearms. As you may also have figured out or at least assumed, it is too late to consider starting over on the matter of weapon ownership. That train left the station long ago. The goal for the future will be to determine how to keep firearms out of the possession of people who are not qualified to possess them. For example……Is is reasonable to assume that people with a record of mental illness should be denied the privilege of owning one? Or is it reasonable to set a limit on how many firearms an individual can own? Or it it reasonable to define the type of firearms that private individuals can own? Or is it reasonable to deny access of ownership to individuals with a record of criminal violence? Is it reasonable to require any and all people who own a firearm to successfully complete a weapons safety training course?

The problem has never….and I repeat never….been that the government wants to take weapons away from citizens. And, I challenge anybody to come up with any bill that was ever introduced into Congress in the past one hundred years that would do this, The goal always has been…..and always should center around safety and common sense.

And, I think that his issue is such national importance that it should be addressed in the Constitution……and not left to each individual state governments.

The final issues that needs to be addressed is that of voting….who is eligible to vote. In a democracy it seems ironic and counterproductive that we should spend so much time trying to figure out ways to prevent people from voting. The goal and intent of a democracy should be to entice the greatest number of people possible to vote.

This is another case in point of a matter that should have uniform national standards…..and not left for each state to determine. There should be one standard only for voting qualifications and eligibility. Voting is a basic right, and it should be uniform nationwide. Voting qualifications should be determined solely on a set of standards that are free of political considerations….free of racial and ethnic bias….free of economic bias….free of religious bias. In other words, anybody and everybody who is qualified under a single set of eligibility requirements should not only be permitted to vote….but encouraged to vote. These qualifications and standards should be written in clear, concise, easy to understand, easy to interpret language.

A uniform means of identification should also be Constitutionally established…..and not left up to the individual states to determine. When there are 50 different sets of identification requirements…. There are 50 sets of voting requirements. In a democracy this should not be allowed to occur. Voting, especially in national elections, is not a matter for each state to decide. So, what should this uniform means of identification look like? Finger printing each child born in the USA at birth is one way to prove citizenship. This is a common practice, and it could be used for voter identification. When citizenship is granted to new citizens…..fingerprint them. Many countries….democratic countries….issue identity cards to its citizens when they are born. That number stays with them for a lifetime. Identity cards, which are duly recorded, can also be issued to new citizens. Valid driver’s licenses which contain a certified name and address, a recent photo and possibly a fingerprint, is another possibility.

I can’t leave this controversial subject without adding that voter fraud is a political lie. It is a fictitious issue that is used by dishonest and unethical politicians. It is not a valid issue. Out of 100 million votes cast in a recent election, there were 39 certified cases of voter fraud. In another study, conducted in the last election there were two studies of voter fraud. One study found that voter fraud was 0.0003%. The second study found 0.0025%. (If we already had an enforceable Code of Ethics for public officials, this would certainly would qualify as a deliberate lie….and attempt to deceive the voters.)

Well…. That’s about it. As I said before, these are my thoughts and suggestions on how our Constitution can be changed to better fit our present day society and way of live and hopefully serve as an avenue to eliminate some of the uncertainties of meaning of the Constitution and make them more definite and well-defined. Some, if not all, of the subjects I have written about are highly emotional issues. If they are written in more precise and less unambiguous language…..less open to multiple interpretations by courts or by Congress or by the President……or by the citizens of our nation, it will become more effective and more distinct and more practical and more reliable and more trustworthy and will serve our nation long into the future.

It has occurred to me that many times, people have to be protected against themselves. Correcting the problems I discussed above should…..and probably will…..take care a lot of the problem. Until then, changes need to be made in our Constitution to help insure that some of the problems we face today will be alleviated to some degree.

When our Constitution was adopted back in 1789, the people who wrote it and approved it had no idea…..not even a faint premonition….of the society in which we find ourselves living today. And, how could they?

I am going to attempt to explain what I would do if I were in charge of writing a new Constitution. I will explain changes I would make and hopefully, make sense of them. I know what I am going to say may seem radical…..a definite departure of the way things have been done. These are my thoughts and vision. And, I am quite sure they would not be changes that will….or would….ever be made by our existing government.

But…. Here goes.

The first part of the Constitution I would change would be Article 3, the article that deals with the Supreme Court. Let’s face it, the Supreme Court is, for all practical purposes, is the most powerful branch of the government. Yes, the Constitution give the power and authority to make laws to the legislative branch. It gives the power to enforce those laws to the executive branch. All of that sounds good….but: The Supreme Court has an almost absolute power….at least, they have taken the power…..to declare any law passed by Congress to be unconstitutional. They have the power….at least, they have assumed the power…..to declare any action the President makes as being unconstitutional. And, they have also assumed the power to make final decisions of social and moral issues….on medical and “personal” choice issues…..that have not been specifically given, or even implied, to them by our Constitution.

In 1789 when the Constitution was written, the men who wrote it visualized the Supreme Court as being a group of legal experts who were impartial, honest and with no ulterior motives or self-interest in the decisions they made in interpreting the laws. They were given protection against outside influences and forces by being granted lifetime appointments…..with a guarantee that their salary could not be decreased. These two articles were intended to assure they would, to the best of their ability, render a strict and impartial and independent interpretation of the law with no fear of losing their job or having their salary cut because of their objectivity and honesty.

The intentions of the writers of the Constitution were admirable. Leave political philosophy and pressure and interference of special interests outside the judicial process. Free the justices from any threat of punishment or retaliation. Make it possible to arrive at a just and equitable decision according to the laws and the Constitution. Of course, from the very beginning, human emotions and values were bound to play some part in the decisions the Supreme Court justices made. It probably cannot be avoided. After all they are human.

In more recent years, the Supreme Court has been transformed into a division of the party which controls the Congress as a political tool. Justices are approved or rejected by Congress according to their political philosophy….the probability of “interpreting” laws in favor of the party which is in power to appoint them. Since the decisions they hand down are more or less permanent until a later version of the Supreme Court rescinds them, the justices of the Supreme Court are, for all practical purposes, assume legislative and executive powers by imposing their will on the country. And, once the Supreme Court has ruled, there is very little recourse, aside from amending the Constitution, to change it. This places almost supreme power in the hands of nine non-elected individuals.

The Supreme Court has no constitutional power to enforce its decisions. However, up until this point, the executive branch has been honorable enough to recognize and enforce them.

To me it is obvious that this branch of our government….the Supreme Court….would be the obvious place to start when writing a new Constitution. Here are some of the provisions I would include.

First of all, the President should not have a major role in appointing members of the Supreme Court…..or any other federal court. This, alone, will help guarantee that it will not become a political arm of the government…..not responsible to…or favoring….or representing….any political philosophy or group.

There may be equally good ways to select Supreme Court members. However, one method that perhaps would work very well is to have a constitutionally authorized committee of highly trained and skilled law professionals….attorneys, law professors, former judges, law enforcement officials, etc….. choose a limited number of qualified candidates….three, let’s say….from which the President is constitutionally required to select a candidate.

It is important that the selection committee NOT be selected by current politicians….nor former politicians, either. But, rather, they be selected by some mutually agreed upon independent method. These committee members will serve a constitutionally number of years. It is also important that the committee be composed of an equal number of members. The winning candidates must each receive at least a simple majority of votes. In case of a tie vote, no candidate will win. But, if the selection committee is composed of non-political members, the chances of this happening are probably going to be greatly diminished…..and impartial, highly qualified candidates will be agreed upon. The President will be required to make his selection from these three choices of the committee. There should be no restriction of candidates appearing on subsequent lists of possible candidates.

Second: Members of the Supreme Court will have a constitutionally imposed term limit. To me, ten or twelve years seems fair and sufficient. After completing a term, no justice will be permitted to serve a second term.

Third: A very strict Code of Ethics should be established for member of the Supreme Court….. Indeed, for all judges in all federal courts. Judges should be held to the highest of standards. This Code of Ethics should be written by perhaps the same committee which appoints the possible nominees…..with no input from any political sources. As stated before, this committee should be selected from highly recognized legal authorities such as The American Bar Association, university law professors, law enforcement officials. In any event, it should contain no members of a political organization or political philosophy. If written thoughtfully, the Code of Ethics should be a “one time event”…..and it should endure throughout the years.

The power to enforce the provisions of the Code of Ethics should be placed in the hands of a constitutionally authorized committee who will make final decisions. If a federal judge on any level should be removed for misconduct, that judge should never be allowed to serve as a judge at any future time.

There may be a variety of methods to choose the various nominating and oversight commissions. However, the important thing is, I think….. In order to insure fairness and impartiality, there should be no political involvement. This will no doubt be the only branch of our government where politics is not involved.

Fourth: There should be definite and clear guidelines and criteria on the types of issues the Supreme Court and other federal courts can consider and hand down decisions. In all fairness and in all reality and in all common sense, it seems true that the only issues a group of highly trained experts in law should consider will be…..well, laws! This seems like a good time to update or modernize our judicial system. In the two hundred or so years since the Constitution was written, society and circumstances have changed radically. The society and the atmosphere we live in today would be totally foreign….totally unrecognizable…..to the framers of the Constitution.

In my opinion, a better solution would be to have multiple “Supreme Courts” which would deal with different kinds of problems, different phases of society as we know it today:

One Supreme Court that would deal with interpreting laws as enumerated in the Constitution or have been duly ratified by Congress.

One Supreme Court which would handle only cases arising from social issues, not specifically covered by laws.

One Supreme Court which deals only with medical problems….matters that only trained professionals have the knowledge, training and expertise to deal with.

These are only three examples, and there are surely others. There is really no reason to have only one Supreme Court. In fact, there are probably more valid reasons against it than there is for it. Not only will having multiple “Supreme Courts” result in more informed and equitable decisions, it will also diffuse the power that that has for too long been centralized in an un-elected group that is no longer respected by our citizens and has frequently abused its power for personal and political reasons…..and with no readily available recourse.

There are probably other changes that should be made to the Supreme Court and the judicial system to insure that it better reflects justice and fairness and equity, but let’s leave it for now and move on to the legislative branch of our government…. Congress.

Oh, Congress. This should probably be the most important branch of the government. It is the branch that represents the people directly. No electoral college here. They are elected outright by the voters. They are mandated to make the laws of the land, within the structure of the Constitution. They are the branch that serves designated populations. It is the branch that is most in touch with the people and reflects the will of the people. This is the branch which makes us a democratic republic.

At least, this is the ideal which was envisioned by the men who wrote the Constitution.

But, through the years a gradual erosion of democratic intent has virtually transformed the Congress into a body of men and women who have used it to promote their own selfish agendas, to build a power base to satisfy over-sized egos, and to ingratiate themselves to outside influences for their own financial gain. The Congress itself may be one of the most undemocratic institutions in our country. The concepts of seniority, lobbying, and politics over the good of the nation, internal self-enrichment and lack of accountability at times have rendered Congress into a “club” of its own.

Let’s take a look at some of the changes that I would make to ensure that the Congress is more responsive to the voters than it is to itself.

First and foremost the constitution should mandate limits of the number of terms any person can serve in either of the houses of Congress. And, this total should include the total or collective number of years a person can serve in either or both houses Congress. In other words, there needs to be a constitutionally imposed limit. For example: I would set the limit at a total of 12 years. A person can serve all 12 years in the Senate. Or, they can serve 6 years in the House of Representatives and 6 years in the Senate. After serving these 12 years…. They are finished and will no longer be seek an elective federal legislative office. This will also solve the ancient policy and problems that the matter of “seniority” has often caused.

In fact, in order to have a truly representative Congress, I would propose choosing members of Congress that same way we choose juries. A lottery with the names of all citizens who are above the age of 25 would be used. Names would be generated randomly by a computer selecting names which match a variety of socioeconomic factors, as well as racial and ethnic backgrounds.

The “winners” would be temporarily moved to Washington, D. C. where they would live in more than adequate government provided housing during their stays there. They would be well compensated for their service, and their jobs at home would be constitutionally protected during their term of service.

This would solve some of the inequities which exist in the process of running for election. Maybe first and foremost would be the fact that the person would not be held hostage by special interest groups, by lobbyists, or even an extreme political group. In order to help insure this objectivity and partiality, they would be specifically prohibited from accepting gifts of any sort from anybody. They will not be obligated to any political or special interest group.

Except for the restrictions enumerated, they would function in a similar manner to our present day Congress, but with the freedom to function without the influence and interference of external pressures or distractions.

Yes….. I know. This is a rather far fetched proposal…..and I am not naive enough to think it will happen. But…. It is an alternative!

OK…. Let’s move on with some more realistic reforms…..and, these are not fantasy or ideal ideas. They are important to the reform of the legislative branch….Congress.

Next to term limits, the next most important reform is to abolish “gerrymandering”. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defined gerrymandering like this: To divide or arrange a territorial unit into election districts in a way that gives one political party an unfair advantage.” In other words to draw electoral district lines in such a way that would exclude or include certain political philosophies or racial groups or ethnic groups. Actually, it can include any segment of the population that may favor or hinder a certain political party. You can easily look up some “gerrymandered” districts. It becomes immediately obvious that district lines were intentionally drawn to favor a political party. Some of these maps are indeed strange with boundaries so contorted that it defies imagination how they could be considered anything except deliberate and obvious plans to, for all practical purposes, disenfranchise large groups of voters.

The Constitution should clearly and specifically define how various voting districts can be delineated. They should be based strictly on population. The shape of the electoral districts should be a recognized geometric figure…..preferably a square. Furthermore, each side should be approximately the same length. In any case, it should be always constructed so it has four equal parallel sides.

If the sides are constructed to the above specifications, they will in all probability more accurately reflect population…..and not special interests.

Today it is a common practice to “bundle” bills. For some purposes, this may be acceptable, especially it bills contain the same or similar subject matter. The practice of attaching a “popular” bill, in the opinion of a political party, to one that is not popular, only to insure that the perceived “unpopular” bill will more likely pass should be prohibited. And conversely….attaching an “unpopular” bill to a “popular” bill only to prevent the more popular bill from passing should likewise be prohibited.

This procedure of “bundling” bills, it can be argued, helps keep the consideration of legislation moving. And, this is probably correct. But, every bill before the Congress should have an equal chance of being considered on its own merits. Whoever has presented a bill before Congress should have the right to demand that his/her legislation should have fair and equal consideration on its own merits…..and not buried in a bill that either is headed for passage…..or defeat.

To this end, if one-fourth of the total legislative body demands that a bill be considered separately and on its own merits, nothing should prevent it from being considered independently. And, this should also be the policy in removing a bill from a “package”.

It is ironic that in our democratic republic form of government…..our government of the people, by the people and for the people…..that one man, either the Speaker of the House or the Majority Leader in the Senate, should have the power to prevent our elected representatives from voting on a bill. That he alone, in effect, has the power to determine what will become a law and what will not. There are one hundred elected members of the Senate and four hundred thirty five elected members of the House of Representatives. They…..and they alone…..have been elected….who have the Constitutional power…..to make the laws of our country. One man should not have the power to bottle up a bill.

Because the people of the United States hold supreme power, it should be made easier for voters to become involved in the process of determining and deciding the laws that will govern their lives. Today the people have no option to vote directly on measures that affect the lives of all Americans equally…. Laws that govern such issues as abortion, legalization of marijuana, matters dealing with gender choice or sex preference……emotional issues which affects all citizens equally, but on which they have little or no voice and even less control. Matters such as these…..matters which are usually politically explosive….matters on which most legislators are too cowardly to deal with….should be be decided directly by citizens. After all, in a democracy the people are supposed to hold supreme power. And, it is far more democratic and logical to simply let the people decide what they want. In the end, the people are accountable….and cowardly legislators will not be held accountable. Contrary to the belief of many members of Congress, the people are far better judges of what they want and what is best for them.

Thus…. If a nation-wide petition is circulated, and let’s say, 10% of eligible voters of the entire United States sign it…..even 5%…..then the proposed law will be placed on a ballot and the entire country can vote whether to accept or reject it. And…. Stop to think, in 2024 there were approximately 245 million eligible voters in the USA. This means that if 5% of voters demanded that a measure be submitted to the people for a vote, the number would be approximately 12 million voters. That is a significant number of people, no matter how a person looks at it!

Another good things about passing a law in this manner is that it will be free of money from special interests who are willing to pay legislators for voting for their selfish gain. And, like it or not, this is what gets laws passed in more cases that we like to admit or realize.

Continuing along in a similar scenario, the Constitution should contains provisions that deal with the behavior and conduct of members of Congress. It is recognized that lobbyists play can play a useful role in the legislative process by providing valuable factual information to members of Congress. But, this service should only consist in offering information, either in person or in written form. In all cases, any payment in the form of money or gifts to a Congress person should be deemed illegal and an act of misconduct. The common practice of presenting gifts to Congress persons in order to gain or influence a vote is all too common in today’s Congress. In effect, and in most cases, in reality, the Congress person is casting a vote for a special interest and not for the voters who elected him or her. It should be grounds for removing that person from Congress. Common courtesies such as buying a Congress person lunch should be excepted and not classified as “gifts”.

Just like the Supreme Court, a strict Code of Ethics should be enforced by a special panel which is independent of Congressional control. Since Congress has been empowered to make the laws for the nation, they should be held to rigidly high standards. If they are, or have been, found guilty of a felony, they will not be allowed to serve as a member of Congress. Again, it is ironic that Congress has enacted laws that prevent felons from voting, when all too many of them are guilty of the same kind of crimes.

Members of Congress are elected by the people…..and there should be a Constitutional provision whereby they can also be removed by the people for reasons of serious misconduct. Again if a Constitutionally specified number of citizens legally sign a formal petition demanding it……a special election will be conducted to determine if the people wish to retain that person as a member of Congress.

Elections are the means by which people exert their power and superiority in a democracy. The people should always have the ultimate power.

Constitutional provisions should enumerate very clearly the benefits, salary, retirement, insurance and other financial considerations for members of Congress. Members of Congress should clearly be well compensated for their service, even quite possibly be given a housing allowance or perhaps a living allowance. Living in Washington, D. C. is expensive, and there is no reason they should have to make undue sacrifices in order to serve. However, if a person ran for….and was elected to Congress….only for the purpose of getting rich, they are seriously misguided.

Other than the fact that they elected to serve their country for a fixed number of years, there is nothing special about members of Congress. They are no better or worse than the citizens they serve……and which will once were…..and will become again.

There is no logical reason that a member of Congress should have any special financial privileges (or any other kind) once they have left office. After all, unless they are extremely old, they will return to their former job when the leave Congress. The Constitution should clearly define their financial rewards….i. e. salary, insurance, retirement…..and they should mirror the financial rewards of any working citizen. If this matter is left to the members of Congress, like it is now, they are free to reward themselves with almost unlimited benefits which are not enjoyed by the people they represent.

Part of their Code of Ethics should strictly forbid members of Congress from receiving any sort of financial assistance or gifts from outsiders or from accepting any gifts or rewards. Such a provision will eliminate the possibility of a member of Congress, in effect, from accepting a bribe to vote for bills which favor or benefit a particular special interest group.

Now, let’s take a look at the Executive Branch. In the eyes of many people….indeed, many nations….this is the most visible of the three branches of government. Its function in our democratic republic is to “execute” or carry out the will of the people as determined by the Constitution and through free elections of our representatives. Back in 1789, the founders of our nation never intended for the President to be a power in his own right. Instead, he (and back in those days, it was definitely a “he”) his job was primarily to do the bidding of the Congress. He could veto laws which they passed, but, in turn, they had the power to “override” his veto by a convincing number of votes.

In loose and general terms, Congress was always envisioned as the “powerhouse” of the three branches because they represented the people directly. The people would elected their representatives; their elected representatives would enact laws which would benefit them and the nation at large; The Supreme Court was established to ensure that these laws were carried out legally and fairly and people rights were not violated by either by unfair laws or the unfair execution of the laws. In reality, each branch of government was assigned distinct, specific roles to play in the government. The power was “divided”…..thus the expression “division of power”. And, it also established the three branches of government as a system of checks and balances so that no branch of government would become too powerful.

So….. Here are some changes to the Constitution that I think will more closely define the power, the functions and the limitations of the office of the President.

First and foremost…. The Electoral College needs to be abolished. The concept and the actual practice of the Electoral College is undemocratic and is counter to the principles upon which our nation was founded.

For you history buffs, you will admit immediately that the reason an Electoral College was established was the fact that nobody except a privileged few had any idea who the guys running for president were. And, why would they? Newspapers for practically non-existent. And this was more than a century before the first commercial radio station in the U.S.A. (1920); more than a century and a half before the first commercial TV station in the U.S.A. was licensed; and almost two centuries (1969) before the Internet was first introduced.

For the most part, people who did not live in the few big cities which existed at the time had no clue what was going on, sometimes for weeks or even months after the fact. They didn’t know the men running for office, because they had no way of finding out. So…. The “founding fathers”, the men who wrote the Constitution, logically reasoned that it was far “safer” and more logical to let people who were better informed and who knew the candidates actually choose the candidates who were running for office of President. It was assumed that they could make a more intelligent and informed decision on who the candidates would be. And, of course, when our first President was elected, there were no political parties.

OK….. Why hasn’t it changed? Today we are subjected to a massive amount of information. We are bombarded with it. There is no good reason every person in the USA should not know each candidate and what they stand for.

In today society, the Electoral College is the complete opposite of representative democracy. We preach to the rest of the world….. “One person…..one vote.” It is time….after more than 230 years we need to start practicing what we preach. The Electoral College is not democracy.

Second: To create fairness and equity, all Presidential elections should be funded strictly and exclusively with public (government) funding. A strict limit should be set on the amount of money each candidate can spend…..and that money should be furnished by the government…..”us”….the people….the voters. When this happens, if effect, every voter is taking part in funding the elections…..not a few super-rich individuals or organizations….who are seeking to promote or perpetuate their own narrow and self-serving agenda. The agenda for any Presidential candidate should be the good welfare and well being of the people and the nation, and it is only fitting that all the people in the nation should contribute. This is another measure to put the ultimate power back into the hands of our citizens and take it out of the hands of the few….the super-wealthy.

It probably would not be a bad idea to establish this practice for people running for any federal elective office.

The original Constitution clearly intended that the President’s function was that of a Chief Executive. He was empowered to carry out the wishes of his “employer”….the citizens of the nation. And, like many other large corporations or businesses, “the employer” also elects a “Boards of Directors”…..the Congress…..to make rules, that is, to adopt rules and guidelines for the good of that business or organization. He does only what the Board approves and instructs him to do. (This is a general analogy, of course!) The President does not make the rules….. He carries them out.

Over the years, however, the President….(let’s make that plural)…. has gradually usurped legislative power, especially in “gray” areas, assuming powers that were not given to him in the Constitution…..nor were they intended for him. In some cases, a President has refused to carry out or execute lawfully enacted measures because he disagrees with them, mostly on political grounds. Just like the Chief Executive of a company, he is bound to abide with what his Board of Directors instructs him to do.

Thus….. There should be a provision in the Constitution which clearly mandates that the President carry out all legally passed legislation, whether he agrees with it or not, and whether or not it will further his own personal agenda or the agenda of a political party. Further, if a President refused to fairly and faithfully enforce such laws, this will be reason to remove him from office.

And, the Congress (and the courts) shall have the power and the obligation to prevent the President from assuming power for himself.

It is a sensitive issue, but it seems logical and wise to establish minimum Constitutional standards or qualifications for a member of the President’s Cabinet. Each cabinet secretary is responsible for administering a department which affects the lives of large segments of our population. They should possess a high degree of training and expertise and understanding in the area of the particular cabinet department and the population it serves. Nobody wants a non-pilot, or even an inexperienced pilot, flying their aircraft. We expect the pilot to be highly trained and possess the understanding of aircraft. We should also expect the same degree of training, experience and understanding from our cabinet officers.

Finally, it is becoming increasingly apparent that a strict Code of Ethics should be set into place to govern the conduct of the President. Our President’s job is to uphold and enforce the laws of our nation. He, above all our government officials, should be held to the very highest of standards and behavior. The President should lead by setting the highest of standards of ethical and moral behavior. The Code of Ethics should be written by citizens representing a wide variety of socioeconomic backgrounds, as well as people representing different religions and ethnic and racial backgrounds. And, would be administered by a Constitutionally defined body of people who will have the authority to take Constitutionally mandated measures to make sure the Code of Ethics is enforced.

That about wraps up my suggestions for changes that need to be included in a newly written Constitution in regards to the President. Now let’s move on to some odds and ins which need to be addressed in a new Constitution.

Before we do that, though, you are surely aware that these suggestions are only a few changes that need to be made in a new Constitution. Obviously, this is not a new Constitution….only changes that should be incorporated into the new document.

A new Constitution…..a new document which should start with the old Preamble…. “We the People……” will undoubtedly be very similar to our present Constitution, but it will be updated to reflect today’s conditions and needs, and it will be no longer necessary to include such clauses and amendments such as the ones like each Black person will count as 3/5 of a person….or that women have the right to vote…..or that alcohol is legal…..or the clause about quartering of soldiers in private homes….

In fact, the new Constitution will have no amendments at all. All of what are amendments (changes or additions) will simply be incorporated into the body of the document. In effect, we will be giving ourselves a fresh start with a document that more fairly and accurately reflects our country in today’s society and provides for and takes into account our future as a people and as a nation.

Our Constitution was written in 1789…..a long time ago. 1789 we faced vastly a vastly different environment and vastly different conditions. By and large, it has served as well. The United States of America is the oldest and longest lasting democratic republic in the world, so the Founding Fathers must have done something right. Our job is to strengthen and adapt the Constitution to it will continue to live and serve as well for many years into the future.

Before I wrap this up, I am going to point out a few changes that I think need to be made to the original Constitution that have presented problems and are not clearly defined in the document.

The first first subject which needs to be clearly defined is that of citizenship. The Constitution already guarantees that all people who are born in the U.S.A. are automatically citizens. This provision should be emphasized and stated more unequivocally so there is no question of its meaning. Citizenship is not a matter to be decided by the whim of a political group or an individual. It should be unchangeable. Under ethically leadership this has never been a problem until recent years when some government officials have attempted to circumvent the Constitution and make decisions that suit their own preferences or desires.

The Constitution also guarantees that any child born to parents who are citizens of the U.S.A. while not on the soil of the U.S.A. is also automatically a citizen. This applies to citizens who may be serving in the U. S. A. military, or in the diplomatic corps, and also to those parents who may be studying abroad or who may be vacationing abroad or holding a job in a foreign country.

The United States is made up almost 100% of immigrants…..unless you are of 100% Native American origin. And, even our Native Americans are thought to have immigrated across the Bering Strait at some point in our distant past history. So…. Let’s be honest. You are an immigrant or at some point your ancestors were immigrants.

Once a person from another country has fulfilled all the legal requirements and has become a legal citizen through the provisions set forth in statutory law, that citizenship should be permanent and not subject to political pressure or political expediency. The only way this type of citizenship can be revoked is by duly passed legislation which enumerates reasons for withdrawing citizenship. Such legislation can not include ex post facto reasons. The only reasons citizenship could be revoked are being convicted of a felony in a federal or state court. But revoking citizenship must be done on an individual, case-by-case basis.

As I remarked previously, in a new Constitution, there will be no “Bill of Rights”. All the provisions contained in the Bill of Rights will be incorporated into the body of the Constitution. However, there are a couple areas that I feel should be further explained and clarified.

One of these provisions is part of the First Amendment. It concerns the freedoms of speech and the freedom of press. The framers of the Constitution had no way of knowing how society and technology would develop. To them today’s society and way of life would have been pure science fiction with our present-day forms of communication…..and actually probably not even to that stage. In our newly developed country, the main concern was maintaining our newly won freedom and protecting themselves from returning to the dictatorship they had fled to escape.

I suppose, in a way, we are still attempting to achieve this very goal. Except this time, we are not fleeing a dictatorship, but working to make sure we do not fall prey to such a dictatorship of our own making.

The matter of freedom of speech and freedom of press should be protected and guarded closely. These two freedoms (along with all our other freedoms) should not be taken from us by would-be dictators of today. Therefore, a further and more definite description of what these two terms actually mean….and especially what they should exclude….is necessary.

For example….. Should it be freedom of speech for a person…..any person…..to knowingly, deliberately and with malicious intent….to spread lies, mis-truths, misinformation, and falsehoods…..against anybody, at any time, in any form, at any place, for any reason?

Stop and ask yourself if a person should have the right to do this to you? Your family? Your friends? I am going to venture a guess. No, it would not. It simply is not right for somebody to willingly, knowingly and intentionally to spread such information, either in speech or in writing.

This applied to everybody….from the most powerful to the common citizen….and in any setting. Violations of this Constitutional provision should be severely punished. And, as I said, this Constitutional clause will apply to everybody…..no exceptions.

Another amendment that has caused tons of problems is the 2nd Amendment…..and the vague words concerning “the right to bear arms”. In a new Constitution, that phrase should be clearly defined and explained. Definite guidelines should be established so there is no longer confusion to its interpretation. It should not be left to the Supreme Court to decide. The people should have that power, since it affect millions of people directly.

Currently, as of 2024, there are more than 500 million privately owned firearms in the U.S.A. This is about 1.93 firearms per adult. About 46% of households own firearms. As you can easily figure out….the other 54% must own multiple number of firearms. As you may also have figured out or at least assumed, it is too late to consider starting over on the matter of weapon ownership. That train left the station long ago. The goal for the future will be to determine how to keep firearms out of the possession of people who are not qualified to possess them. For example……Is is reasonable to assume that people with a record of mental illness should be denied the privilege of owning one? Or is it reasonable to set a limit on how many firearms an individual can own? Or it it reasonable to define the type of firearms that private individuals can own? Or is it reasonable to deny access of ownership to individuals with a record of criminal violence? Is it reasonable to require any and all people who own a firearm to successfully complete a weapons safety training course?

The problem has never….and I repeat never….been that the government wants to take weapons away from citizens. And, I challenge anybody to come up with any bill that was ever introduced into Congress in the past one hundred years that would do this, The goal always has been…..and always should center around safety and common sense.

And, I think that his issue is such national importance that it should be addressed in the Constitution……and not left to each individual state governments.

The final issues that needs to be addressed is that of voting….who is eligible to vote. In a democracy it seems ironic and counterproductive that we should spend so much time trying to figure out ways to prevent people from voting. The goal and intent of a democracy should be to entice the greatest number of people possible to vote.

This is another case in point of a matter that should have uniform national standards…..and not left for each state to determine. There should be one standard only for voting qualifications and eligibility. Voting is a basic right, and it should be uniform nationwide. Voting qualifications should be determined solely on a set of standards that are free of political considerations….free of racial and ethnic bias….free of economic bias….free of religious bias. In other words, anybody and everybody who is qualified under a single set of eligibility requirements should not only be permitted to vote….but encouraged to vote. These qualifications and standards should be written in clear, concise, easy to understand, easy to interpret language.

A uniform means of identification should also be Constitutionally established…..and not left up to the individual states to determine. When there are 50 different sets of identification requirements…. There are 50 sets of voting requirements. In a democracy this should not be allowed to occur. Voting, especially in national elections, is not a matter for each state to decide. So, what should this uniform means of identification look like? Finger printing each child born in the USA at birth is one way to prove citizenship. This is a common practice, and it could be used for voter identification. When citizenship is granted to new citizens…..fingerprint them. Many countries….democratic countries….issue identity cards to its citizens when they are born. That number stays with them for a lifetime. Identity cards, which are duly recorded, can also be issued to new citizens. Valid driver’s licenses which contain a certified name and address, a recent photo and possibly a fingerprint, is another possibility.

I can’t leave this controversial subject without adding that voter fraud is a political lie. It is a fictitious issue that is used by dishonest and unethical politicians. It is not a valid issue. Out of 100 million votes cast in a recent election, there were 39 certified cases of voter fraud. In another study, conducted in the last election there were two studies of voter fraud. One study found that voter fraud was 0.0003%. The second study found 0.0025%. (If we already had an enforceable Code of Ethics for public officials, this would certainly would qualify as a deliberate lie….and attempt to deceive the voters.)

Well…. That’s about it. As I said before, these are my thoughts and suggestions on how our Constitution can be changed to better fit our present day society and way of live and hopefully serve as an avenue to eliminate some of the uncertainties of meaning of the Constitution and make them more definite and well-defined. Some, if not all, of the subjects I have written about are highly emotional issues. If they are written in more precise and less unambiguous language…..less open to multiple interpretations by courts or by Congress or by the President……or by the citizens of our nation, it will become more effective and more distinct and more practical and more reliable and more trustworthy and will serve our nation long into the future.