We need a new constitution. Wealth concentration must be addressed.

[RadiationTherapy]

Our original constitution helped us move away from government of the 'divine' (monarchical) to government by/for/of the general populace. It has been an amazing run and we have evolved as a nation. Our constitution is now the template for a free, democratic society, and justifiably so. In order to continue our evolution, a new agreement must be created.

We have learned, painfully, that aristocracy is not always comprised of those of 'noble and divine' birth. It is now possible to become an aristocrat - with a corresponding permanent underclass - through the accumulation of wealth. Furthermore, the nature of our economy is such that not only does it 'take money to make money', but 'the more you have the more you make'. This second point is being demonstrated today by an ever increasing spiral of wealth that is sucking up the remaining economy.

A new constitution must establish, somehow, checks and balances on the accumulation of power - whether by wealth, control of utilities, private armies, or any other means. We must forbid the very existence of power concentration, establish a means to break it up, and find ways to keep it distributed appropriately. I do not mean extreme socialism, communism, or anything else and I do not want everyone in gray smocks riding gray buses. Our new constitution must land us somewhere between the absurd of USA 2011 and the absurd of '1984'. I hope our future luminaries have the courage - and education - to sort this out and save our nation.

[Scuba]

1. Actually, and Ammendment can solve this problem....

...namely on that says Money Does NOT Equal Free Speech.

[Romulox]

2. It won't happen. I could never agree to have low population states have disproportionate

representation under a new Constitution, and the residents of those states would never agree to give up same. :shrug:

[MicaelS]

3. Three Amendments would help

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/political_reform/proposed_constitutional_amendments.html

[Blue Meany]

4. Personally, I think there should be an upper limit on individual

wealth. Even if the rich didn't control public policy--and I think they would find a way around any legal restrictions as long as they had the money to do so--they still have too much control over the economy and run it without regard to the impact on the population.

[FLPanhandle]

5. Changing the tax rates doesn't require a new constitution or even an amendment.

All that is required is changing the tax rates and pressuring Congress to do it.

[shraby]

6. The Sherman Anti-Trust Law would probably go a long way

to doing the trick. Run AT&T through it again, too as they are amassing a monopoly again.

[RadiationTherapy]

7. How can 'Sherman' protect us against coordinated attempts to concentrate power?

(these days, it is usually in the form of wealth)

Are you suggesting that monopolies are the main method of concentrating extreme amounts of wealth?

[shraby]

12. One of the ways. Just one of the ways, but it's very effective.

[The Nexus]

8. I agree, we need a constitution convention.

There are some amendments that are either outdated or have been misinterpreted many times through the years. What I like to see it a marriage rights amendment, constitutionally make sexual preference a class (that would make deadly hate crimes against LGBTs a capitol offense), and the majority of the constitution upgrade to a modern setting. Plus, have a constitution convent every 50 years so it can keep up with future generation's society.

[Locrian]

9. without enforcement...

For instance, there are plenty of laws and slam dunk evidence to convict and imprison a lot of the people at Goldman's etc responsible for the trillions of dollars stolen. But they are above the law.

Without the will to enforce, any "laws" are just a sham.

[zacherystaylor]

10. Agreed, election process should be controlled by the public.

The original constitution was never ratified by the public; we need election reform that may include a new constitution that is understood and ratified by the public.

the election process should be controlled by the public and the candidates, or job applicants, should be required to fill out an application controlled by the public and attend interviews controlled by the public.

[Initech]

11. Bad idea. Very very bad idea.

Because you know who is gonna get a hold of a new constitution? The Christian right. And they will install the fascist theocratic government they've been salivating over since Reagan got elected.