I envision Constitution 2.0 to be composed of Articles. If an Article must be split into parts, each part is a Section. If a Section must be split into parts, each part is a Paragraph. For instance, 1.3.5 would be Article 1, Section 3, Paragraph 5. Maybe 1:3:5 to go for the chapter and verse connotation?
Anyhow, here are the Articles as I envision them:
Article 1: Philosophy, Authority, Amendment procedure, et cetera. a.k.a., the meta stuff.
Article 2: Citizenship, Civil Rights, Federal Voting
Article 3: Legislative Branch
Article 4: Executive Branch
Article 5: Judiciary Branch
Article 6: Relation to States
I think that everything can fit into one of those articles. If you think of something you would like that you don’t think fits in those articles, let me know! Also, think about what you would want to see in each. I’ll be doing posts on each article as time goes on.
I’ve been vaguely aware of this project here and at other blogs (and re: the Harvard conference), but I can’t remember the overall rationale exactly. What is it?
Courts pushing things (especially under FDR and his successors, but probably even before that), and the federal government doing a lot of things that it looks like the constitution doesn’t give them the power to do.
So…what are ways to try and fix it? Prof. Reynolds thinks that 9th and 10th Amendments need to be strengthened in modern jurisprudence, and I agree.
Xenon-133 and 135 noted in a survey of reactors at Fukushima. Doesn’t say which reactor(s).
Tepco officials saying it was a temporary event and not indicative of an ongoing thing.
Of course, Tepco officials have not established what I would characterize as an outstanding reputation for accuracy and reliability . . .
Article.Section.Paragraph is a good outline. I would add that each Article and perhaps each Section should have a “Summary of Intent”, “Executive Summary”, “Overview” or whatever you want to call it, which states in clear plain language the essence, quick overview, of the article/section’s purpose and result.
Also, I would follow-up each Article with some Use Cases (Scenarios), which describes a situation generally involving one or more characters, one of the characters may be a local or federal government, or department. Then it is stated whether a character’s behavior described in the scenario is constitutionally protected or not, and why. This leaves less wiggle room for interpretations.
Both of those are very good suggestions. Putting actual scenarios in the constitution would make those official, but perhaps take away from the tone of the document. On the other hand, perhaps the less formal it is the better, in some ways. Putting things in commentary would have a distinct air of secrecy, or at least lack of transparency, which would not be a good thing.
Pingback: Article 1: Executive Summary | World's Only Rational Man
Pingback: Article I: Executive Summary | World's Only Rational Man