I’m a fan of the RTBA as well for the reasons you pointed out. I think simple legislation could accomplish the same thing without a constitutional amendment though.

1. Require every bill to include a section at the top referencing which enumerated power in the constitution authorizes it. I realize that nearly every bill would evoke one of only a few powers (interstate commerce, general welfare, necessary and proper, etc), but it would be educational to document that pattern. The way we’ve slid from a constitutional republic toward a pure democracy (with all the latter’s tyrannies) is by allowing sloppy, twisted, and speculative interpretation of what should have been simple limiting language. Let’s document the slide and give ammunition to constitutional advocates.

2. Read the Bill (http://readthebill.org/) is a movement to have congress post all bills 72 hours before a vote so the public can review the contents. I’d go a large step further. Add an amendment where every bill – in its entirety – must be read aloud to the full membership of the house where it’s proposed. I wonder how many 2700 page bills would follow such an amendment.

My favorites so far in no particular order:

-Revise the interstate commerce clause (Phineas)

-Ban unfunded mandates imposed on the states (Phineas)

-Revise the takings clause to better protect property rights (Dgee)

-Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments; balanced budget amendment (Brad)

-Right to privacy amendment (BradCrossedPond)

-Eliminate plurality voting; replace with range voting [is this similar to instant runoff voting?] (BradCrossedPond)

-I’m also a big fan of Robert Heinlein’s idea in “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” (Akston)

You are correct; the 6th Amendment was the amendment I should have referenced rather than the 4th.

This is the part I was referring to:

“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right […] to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

Does having the right to counsel necessarily mean the government has to provide the council or is it up to the accused to pay for his or her own defense? I can see how you can make that argument.

Right or wrong, the case law seems to support the notion of public defenders. The infamous Miranda warning that every criminally accused person receives states “You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.”

If your argument is that the case law is wrong and interprets the 6th Amendment incorrectly then this is all the more reason to pass an amendment like the one I suggested.

I understand why some, especially libertarians, would argue that the sate should not pay for public defenders for those who cannot afford an attorney. My argument is that number 1. the state is trying to take someone’s freedom from him or her, 2. its up to the state to prove that taking away his/her freedom is justified because s/he violated the life, liberty, or property rights of another individual and number 3. I don’t think most libertarians would say that the victim or victim’s family of a crime should have to foot the bill to prosecute someone they accuse of committing the crime.

It seems to me that if the taxpayer is expected to pay all the costs to put someone behind bars, seize his or her property, and/or possibly take his or her life that in the interests of justice for all concerned the taxpayers should also pay an equal amount of costs for the defense of someone accused of a crime.

Justice should not be a luxury reserved only for the rich and famous.

Um, Sixth Amendment. And not to be a Scalia, but the Amendment actually says nothing of the kind. It merely says you have a right to an attorney, not a free attorney. Just saying…

I’d also love to see them implement Robert Heinlein’s idea as voiced by Professor Bernardo de la Paz in “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”:

“I note one proposal to make this Congress a two-house body. Excellent—the more impediments to legislation the better. But, instead of following tradition, I suggest one house legislators, another whose single duty is to repeal laws. Let legislators pass laws only with a two-thirds majority . . . while the repealers are able to cancel any law through a mere one-third minority. Preposterous? Think about it. If a bill is so poor that it cannot command two-thirds of your consents, is it not likely that it would make a poor law? And if a law is disliked by as many as one-third is it not likely that you would be better off without it?”

The ads say “Ken Buck wants to re-write the constitution” and “he wants to take away our right to vote for our senators” There’s absolutely no context, no mention that if Buck could “re-write” the constitution he would only be changing it back to the way it was originally.

Personally, I’m not going to vote for Buck though because I think he’s a prick (and he said that he’s opposed to abortion even in the case of rape or incest). The funny thing is, these negative ads that say he would like to repeal the 17th Amendment, thinks Social Security is unconstitutional, etc. makes him a more attractive candidate. If I had a gun to my head and was forced to choose between Ken Buck (R) and Bill Bennett (D), I would most likely end up choosing the latter. Fortunately, there won’t be a gun to my head and I can vote Libertarian and have a clear conscious.

#3 probably isn’t really in my top three (top 10 for sure) either…I’m so very annoyed at the birthers though.

1. A Right to Privacy amendment.

I DO think that it is already to be found all over the place in the constitution, but only implicitly – I just don’t think it even occurred to the Founders to write that one down, so much is it fundamentally assumed. Unfortunately, it being implicit has created some really horrendous case law as people had to twist and bend plain meaning around to serve the purpose (leading to some terribly reasoned precedents). And it not being explicit has allowed a lot of very weasely go-arounds.

So, make it crystal fucking clear. Cleave it from 4th amendment (which is more due process than privacy), cleave it from said case law. Not sure what the precise language should be, but it should be chiseled into the damn document. Rather than having to spend all our energy even finding a right to privacy, have all our energy being on grappling with it.

2. Election reform.

This would include stuff like the electoral college, and it would include stuff like requiring paper trails and transparency, etc., and it would probably also include a fair few party-fighting measures (say, a federalization of third party requirements in elections to federal office, that kind of stuff), but more than that, I find myself persuaded by the range voting crew. Plurality voting is dumb.

I’m not sold on your #3. Not that I think we need to keep that requirement per se, but that it’s simply nowhere near important enough to be in a top 3 list. Just my humble opinion, of course :-)

My three:

1) Repeal 16th Amendment

2) Repeal 17th Amendment

3) A balanced budget amendment coupled with a hard limit on public debt as a percentage of GDP, say 20%. I.e. it would be written such that a balanced budget and zero/low gov’t debt is always required, except in cases of war or national emergency, and then limiting debt run up to a more reasonable level.