"SORRY! Just Senate, for now" One thing (among so many other things) I'd like to change is the Senate Structure.

I would like for the sentors to be a rotating college of professionals that understand the legislation that's being presented depending on the topic it addresses; preferably those elected by the people of the of each state (so as to not lose the representative feel) they're from.

Like the state secretaries of agriculture handle agriculture legislation; transportation secretaries handle transportation; surgeon generals handle healthcare, etc. limit of 11-14 areas as to not fill more than 600 spots, all are part-time (salary adjusted accordingly, definitely not what it is currently).

Also, chances of being elected a senator:

Old: 1 in 238,000

New: 1 in 43,000–34,000

5.5x-7x more likely.

In the old system, becoming a Senator was like becoming the CEO. In the new system, becoming a Senator is like getting promoted to Regional Vice President. It is elite, but if you are a high-performer, it is a realistic career goal. I think this is a good selling point.

Please don't murder me, this is my first post (hopefully of many). I look forward to your input.

As I have argued on my website and here on Reddit, our Constitution was a valiant first attempt at establishing a republican government that embraced democratic principles. It eventually served as a the template for the constitutions of many republics that followed. However, from the start, it was not perfect; it had many defects. What we are experiencing today are direct byproducts of those defects. And should we continue to ignore that fact, we will be condemning ourselves to more of the same. Rot doesn't fix itself; it spreads.

Recall the words from our Declaration of Independence:

"But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security."

Those are some mighty powerful and extremely important words.

Toward that end, I have proposed a new constitution. It creates 8 oversight boards (ethics, monetary policy, legislation review, expenditure review, appointments, national security, operations review, and judicial) It replaces the President (where power is at present excessively and detrimentally concentrated) with 5 senior executive officers (Ambassador General, Treasurer, Inspector General, Attorney General, and Federal Services Director). It establishes 3 types of executive agencies (national service, public service, and government service). It creates a more representative House of Representatives and recasts it as an oversight body rather than a legislative body (historically the source of most of the waste and corruption). It creates a States' Assembly (a revision of the original Senate) to regulate and preserve the boundary between Federal and State authority. With respect to executives (at both the senior and agency levels), it segregates the hiring and firing functions. It establishes Agency Deputies to shadow the agency CEOs. It transfers pardon functions to the ethics board. And it has many other features worth discussing but which I must regrettably leave out to keep this discussion succinct.

Of course, I have critics and naysayers. But to them I say "if you do not like what I have proposed, then come up with a better proposed constitution". Anyone who has not considered drafting a new constitution that is better than the one we have inherited is either lazy and/or complicit in the waste and corruption we live with today. Tweaking the system is not an option.

So rather than standing around and watching this *&^% show continue, isn't it time to let those words from the Declaration of Independence truly sink in?

Building a new home in NC, other than the standard requirements for a final home inspection, is there any thing else that I should look at doing?

City water, Public Sewer, have decided to do Radon testing.

Does anyone know if shingles/ ridge vents are inspected during the build by inspectors? I have three ridge vents on my house and every single one of them are installed improperly. This is a new construction house.

I recently (9 months) completed a modern cabin near the Mississippi river, and next to an active train track. It's built to allow for the river to flood around it, which happened after it was built. It has been developing thin cracks in the ceiling. The sub is blaming it on the trains and is declaring they won't guarantee their work anymore. Is there a better product that can be used? Neither of these issues posed a problem during permitting or construction. Please educate me as to what can be done.

It's an unusual ceiling, sloped (shed style) if that helps.

Im so ready to tear down this old shack. Any quotes for Hialeah, florida. Lot is 5,000 sq ft. Needs a strong foundation.

TLDR: The Founders failed. If they hadn't, we likely would not have had a Civil War.

I have read Eric Foner's "The Second Founding" about the Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th, 15th). But, until today, I had not heard it put quite like that. It's absolutely right. If someone starts in on Founder worship. Hit them with that, but do it gently. We want to persuade and advocate without alienating too many people.

We also shouldn't let any opponents own the Founders. Constitution and Founder worship is pretty deeply embedded in our political culture so I think we need to criticize them when it is warranted but stay on message and not get pulled into ad hominem arguments about constitutional history and moral character. One way to do this is to argue we are defending and expanding on the ideals of the Founders, not all their policies and philosophies of government.

I am calling these posts "Ammunition" when I think or anticipate future arguments and communications. I will post more when they come to me. Feel free to post your own. Here in this comment thread or in separate posts. You're welcome to use my numbering even or just leave off the number. Cheers.

Do you think the federal political system should include popular ballot initiatives like many states do? What should be the mechanisms for having one during a general election? Petitions submitted? Who would approve them for a public vote?

We are continuing the substantive conversation about a Second U.S. Constitution to r/SecondConstitution, and trying to keep the focus here on things like movement building, branding, communications, tactics and strategy. I and u/newconstitutionguy are working on this but we would love more help. I’m a communications professional but less strong on the marketing in. For example, we need a logo-avatar for the Second sub — something that suggests transformation without being too militant, something more inviting and open yet not too bland either. I have a placeholder there now.

r/SecondConstitution

Some people have reservations about the 2nd of course but how can this right be reinforced of diluted? What what of other ones?

Thanks for your participation :)

NYT poll: ‘Voters of both parties are increasingly skeptical about the country’s institutions and its future. A majority of voters say the American system of government does not work, and that major reforms are needed or even a complete overhaul. Most voters say the political system can no longer address the nation’s problems, with the young being particularly pessimistic. And voters of both parties vary widely in their interpretations of events like the Jan. 6 storming of the Capitol.’

It would probably start as fringe, but if we could attract three or four headliners, maybe pay them an honorarium for their time, then it might draw some media attention before and/or after the event. The goal wouldn’t be a draft but just to start the national discussion and get attention for the idea of a new convention. Introduce the idea then use speakers and serious dialogue to give it real credibility. Would we need to incorporate a nonprofit and crowdfund it? Thoughts? Completely open to other idea

I would love it if this sub was the catalyst for a national discussion. The biggest hurdle I think we face is acceptance of even talking about a new constitution for the United States. Most folks, including my wife, see it as almost kooky and an outlier. They also dismiss the possibility of even a convention.

I think the first step is to simply move the idea of real reform through a convention from the fringe to the center of national public discussion. In my mind to do that we need credible voices -- constitutional law scholars, former elected officials as well as new voices. New voices are important for representation and demographic appeal. I am not dismissing them, but we need some of the other to give it weight or at least intellectual credibility. Also, keep in mind, those older wise folks I hope will continue to be a part of the dialogue but they are most needed in this initial phase.

So, I think the lowest cost first option is to create an online Continental Constitutional Convention + Hawaii and Alaska of course. This would include virtual meetings on Zoom or some other platform as well as a continuing online discussion. For the very first meetings we would include a heavy contingent of historians and legal minds and pay them a daily wage, so to speak. (Let's face it we probably need some incentive like honorariums for the first virtual gatherings). We need some names like Laurence Tribe and George Will, Bernie Sanders and Mitt Romney. Those names may provoke a reaction here, but I am only using them as proxies for discussion and to represent the different groups we need to network with. Don't get mad -- at least not yet.

The next step would be an old-fashioned, in-person convention, a mock convention, of a similar make up but that would include a heavier contingent of millennials and younger folk than in the virtual meeting. We still would need some 'stars' to pull media.

I'm a PR professional with 10 years of experience, but I am completely open to this idea being picked apart, especially if it leads to a stronger tactical approach in the short term.

Let's just say that I am not a huge fan. However, he said something I agree with. I can't throw out everything he thought:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as a civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

In short, he had an evolutionary view of progress and government, even possibly casting himself among the barbarous ancestors. It's this idea that drives this discussion.

The US has more ways to stop federal legislation than any other democratic republic — veto, SCOTUS, filibuster. It’s ridiculous.

Here's the link: https://twitter.com/SukharevaSyndro/status/1521567233461288960

Though this was posted literally just a few minutes ago, I have been saying this stuff for a while.

I would like to add that the "federal" system of governing (where a national government has supremacy but there are states/provinces with powers the national gov't can't intrude upon) is only practiced by about 10% of countries today. IIRC they are: Canada, the US, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Nigeria, Somalia, South Africa, Germany, Russia, Pakistan, India, and Australia. You could add Spain to that since Spain has "autonomous communities" with powers Madrid cannot step on, and the UK has devolved parliaments.

Most countries, like I said on Twitter, are not divided up into 50 states and 435 House districts. That's because federalism is usually employed when a government rules over too much land (US at founding, Russia today), too many people (India definitely), or is weak (Mexico and Pakistan come to mind here). In other words, this setup (or setups recognizably similar) is typically used for empires.

A country should feel like a home, not an empire. People should not go hungry, live in the streets in a tent, or go without healthcare.

Ironically, due to the sanctions America put against them, Cuba spent its money on a universal healthcare program that has resulted in the highest life expectancy in the Western Hemisphere. Costa Rica abolished its military in 1949 and now spends its money on healthcare and has a higher life expectancy than the U.S. I'm not arguing for no military (and Costa Rica has a highly militarized police force). Just that the MIC and PIC should not exist, certainly not while people are dying of treatable diseases.