The incomparable Steven Den Beste has a Hot Air post up about how he would change the Constitution, given the chance. It’s not really radical, for the most part. I mean, it is, in the sense that the statists we’ve cultivated and let take over everything would find it dangerous, shocking and potentially even racist. (Not even kidding about the racist part.)
But mostly, it boils down to, “This Constitution means what it says. No, really.” Point one reins in the Interstate Commerce clause, so that it only applies to, you know, inter-freaking-state commerce. Point two says the Second Amendment means what it says.
Point three specifically allows hanging, i.e., says it’s not cruel and unusual punishment. I’m not big on execution, but the constant redefinition of everything as cruel and unusual strikes me as an end-run.
Point four insists that international law can’t be used as precedent. I’m sure the Founding Fathers would’ve nodded and said, “Wait, what? Do we really have to write that down?”
Point five is term limits. I’m sort of against term limits, in the sense that I think we should be allowed to vote for whomever we choose. What really needs to happen is for these political jobs to go back to being the menial sort of janitorial work that no one really wants to do, but that they do any way because they’re patriots. And even then, a term or two is more than enough to satisfy any civic requirements.
Point six says you can’t agree to an international treaty that will compromise individual rights. Again, James Madison says, “WTF?”
Point seven says you can’t be taxed or regulated based on carbon output. At this point, the Founding Fathers roll over in their graves and go back to their eternal rest, having concluded that we’re not really serious people, worthy of their time.
Point eight is sort-of tort reform. Maybe a little too detailed for a Constitution?
Point nine says the fifth amendment means what it says, and point 10 says the 14th amendment means what it says.
A lot of the points actually reaffirm the Ninth and Tenth Amendments as well, which seem to be unpopular with the elites these past hundred years or so.
Conclusion: If you have to pass a document that says the preceding document that was agreed to is what it is, all the subsequent documents meant to affirm that will have no significance.