For one thing, I imagine state lines would be all sorts of whacky re-drawn. With the huge population differences in place, the compromise of the house (representation based on population) and senate (representation based on being a state) would be unacceptable as the balance of power is all out of whack. So that's one thing.
Another obvious thing is that the language of the constitution would probably be more inclusive, at least with women (fun fact: national constitutions drawn up in this century have, by and large, been more fair in their treatment of women then older ones.)
What else do people think would change? Would we actually end up with one nation? Multiple nations? More broad powers for the federal government? More explicit "hands off" langauge as far as federal/state separation?
Other thoughts?
You could just as well see the dissolution of Mainland States and the formation of a Single Mainland State. Without the Factionalism of States, the Continental Congress would make a bid for Canada so that it doesnt lose Alaska as an isolated Territory.
A State where every vote has an equal Value.
It would no longer be called the USA, rather you might expect a name like the Union of America (U. A.). So the UA would need a single City where the entire Population Lived (population limit: 1 billion). Lets call it UTOPIA CITY.
So the UA would need a single City where the entire Population Lived (population limit: 1 billion). Lets call it UTOPIA CITY.
That reminds me...
If you take the population of the USA (roughly 300 million) and the population density of Manhattan (roughly 71,000 people per square mile) you could fit the entire pop of the USA into 4,250 square miles, which is about a thousand square miles smaller then Connecticut.
I find it more likely we'll have a bloodbath until one comes to the fore, and the seizure of power in a new American Empire, or everyone will take arms as the Convention started bowing to pressure from SIGs and lobbyists.
A sealed Convention might cut that down a little, but expect anyone that was a part of it to find their Careers destroyed. Oh, and figure the Financial Centers will be even worse off, as they change to new Currency
-Sarena
You could just as well see the dissolution of Mainland States and the formation of a Single Mainland State. Without the Factionalism of States, the Continental Congress would make a bid for Canada so that it doesnt lose Alaska as an isolated Territory.
You can take my maple leaf when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers, thanks all the same.
You could just as well see the dissolution of Mainland States and the formation of a Single Mainland State. Without the Factionalism of States, the Continental Congress would make a bid for Canada so that it doesnt lose Alaska as an isolated Territory.
You can take my maple leaf when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers, thanks all the same.
I suggest you check out the footage from Fallout 1. They invade and Occupy Canada while your own government betrayed you to them.
Fallout, Shmallout. The beaver's a rodent, and nothing can get rid of rodents for good.
Duly noted and will be taken into account.
…complete anarchy and civil war that ends with the dissolution of the United States as it's known.
This. When an attempt to give all Americans affordable healthcare than cannot be taken away inspires hateful rhetoric, threats and violencethere is nowhere to go but down.
A lot of folks treat the US Constitution like it is a holy scripture, a new Bible sent down by God himself. Any attempt to change, revise or replace it would be met with violence and murder largely, I suspect, by people who probably have never even read the damned thing.
I'm a Canadian and I've read it - and not just cursorily, but in-depth seeking full comprehension - and that is the absolute least that should be expected of every American. People who claim the document is practically sacrosanct should be required to both read and understand it.
People who claim the document is practically sacrosanct should be required to both read and understand it.
You know that applies to alot of different documents, not just the constitution.
But i suppose it's human nature to worship things we don't understand.
-Sarena
If you take the population of the USA (roughly 300 million) and the population density of Manhattan (roughly 71,000 people per square mile) you could fit the entire pop of the USA into 4,250 square miles, which is about a thousand square miles smaller then Connecticut.
That means a lot of farm land which means lots of food.
Starvation solved. ;)When an attempt to give all Americans affordable healthcare than cannot be taken away inspires hateful rhetoric, threats and violence there is nowhere to go but down.
There is a difference between providing affordable healthcare options and making healthcare mandatory. It's usually taking out the choice that gets most americans mad. ;)
A lot of folks treat the US Constitution like it is a holy scripture, a new Bible sent down by God himself. Any attempt to change, revise or replace it would be met with violence and murder largely, I suspect, by people who probably have never even read the damned thing.
pretty much yep.
As for the topic.
With the way things have been shifting in US history i'd say that any new constitution would be designed for federal government with as much power as we see ours with today or with more. The executive branch would probably be quite powerful. I don't see the redrawing of state lines happening as EE seems to. Well not unless a document supporting an uber strong federal government is passed by the states. Also likely states rights will likely get shat on. That would likely cause states like Texas to leave the union. Probably followed closely there after by several other southern states. They may or may not form their own nation(s) and the north may or may not invade. Likely would though. A bill for a strong national government would also likely have in there something about having national healthcare and for it to be mandatory.
Now iirc we have an amendment guaranteeing rights and such for minorities/colored people but there has not been one made for women. My guess is that a new constitution might include women in its speech but if it didn't the probably only way i'd see them to be included would be with the south leaving the union. i say this because iirc it is mainly southern states that didn't allow the amendment to get passed. Also i see wash DC fighting to have their own voting representatives in congress but under the new document my guess is that congress wont be as powerful as it is now.
hmmm. I guess I'll say that the country would fracture a bit forming some smaller independent countries in the south with the rest of it becoming a power hungry soon to become a tyrannical big brother government. Then i'll go and say the big government would reconquer the south. Then maybe followed by tons of war parades.
People who claim the document is practically sacrosanct should be required to both read and understand it.
You know that applies to alot of different documents, not just the constitution.
Of course. To hold something as truth one must understand that truth. That's the reason I've read so much about evolution - starting with Darwin and working both forwards and backwards through those who built upon his work and those upon whose work he built. Acceptance without knowledge and understanding is merely faith and leaves a lot of room for misunderstanding and error.
But i suppose it's human nature to worship things we don't understand.
Worship things we don't understanding is the basis for all religion.