Some of it I don't have time to debate right now, but here are a few points on a few of the topics.
It's the Supreme Court's job to interpret such things, which they have done many times over the past 200 years. You may not like the results, but there you go.
But to assume that the Supreme Court can never err, and we should just go with whatever crazy BS they turn out (like
Plessy v. Ferguson or the
Dred Scott case), totally ignores the concept of checks and balances. Why, of the three branches of government, should the Supreme Court be treated as omnipotent and omniscient? If something in the Constitution is so ridiculous that it results in intolerable verdicts, that's what the amendment process is for. If enough people don't like the results, then they'll plug the "leak."
Well, you can't have it both ways. A concise, vague document will be open to interpretation. The only way to leave no wiggle room is to have a massive, overly-specific document that covers every possible eventuality. It's a tradeoff either way.
There is an appropriate balance, yes--but if the thing gets too bloated, there is no way it can be debated appropriately by the American people, who have a right to be involved in the process since it would be a fundamental change.
You're right, you would need an Amendment to deal with that, because as far as the current Constitution goes it is a settled matter--people born here are citizens, period.
I am sure something could be appropriately written to ensure that all current born and naturalized citizens are protected, and that those who are caught here illegally are treated appropriately during deportation proceedings (i.e. no brutality, and assurance of basic medical treatment, etc...no reason to be cruel even if someone has broken the law).
We also need to acknowledge that there is no feasible way to deport ~14 million people. We can deport some of them, but when you get down to what's realistic in terms of manpower and budget, we're never going to make more than a small dent in those numbers. Best to just find ways to accommodate people who are already here and provide appealing avenues for legal immigration or even temporary work visas.
I actually thought that the immigration reform proposal during the Bush administration was a good start since it would have included a path to citizenship for those who have been here and do not have a criminal record, and was not happy with the far right for trying to take it down. (I consider myself conservative, but am not a total hardliner on all issues.) The trick is to couple a path to citizenship with
real enforcement of immigration laws, and disincentivizing people from going around the proper, legal process rather than claiming to be against illegal immigration on one hand but giving out all sorts of free services (beyond emergency medical treatment--if someone's at risk of death or disability, they MUST be treated) to illegals. (Add to that streamlining of the legal immigration process to make sure people are better served, who do follow the rules.)
This is one of those ideas that always gets trotted out but is a horrible concept in practice. All term limits do is rotate people in and out of office. Government is a complicated business, and having novices take over every few years just means the people doing the job won't have any idea how government actually functions. It also means that those who know their time is about up will spend their term trying to secure future employment, which is spelled c-o-r-r-u-p-t-i-o-n. Not that our current legislators aren't corrupt, but term limits are likely to make it worse, not better.
Our current career legislators are VERY corrupt. I am not sure you'd have any system that would eliminate corruption, but shaking the system up every so often, getting new eyes on what's going on, would help to keep some more "daylight" on things. (Though of course we do still need to make sure the feds keep an eye on any possible corruption.)
As to how the government actually functions...I am of the mind that the general principle of it is not that hard to understand, and that there are a lot of "how it's always been done" traditions that are so
ridiculous they just need to be swept out.
A "read the bill" amendment. All bills should have to be released in their entirety for public comment, criticism, and debate for a certain period of time proportionate to its length. No more passing the bill to find out what's in it. OK, so what if it's an emergency? Well, given the abuses that could happen if we allowed Congress to determine willy-nilly what's an emergency and what should be rammed down people's throats without the proper debate time, I would say
don't provide an emergency power to go around that amendment. In fact--if it IS an emergency, that should be a clue that there isn't any time to go loading the bill with your loopholes and pet projects, then, shouldn't it?
Congresspeople have staffs to read bills for them and boil it down. I really don't want my Senators and Representatives spending every waking hour holed up in their office reading legislation. They pay staff members to do this and bring to their attention anything that needs it.
I agree that a bill should have a minimum "cooling off" period between its introduction and a vote, to ensure everyone has had time to review it.
I'm not saying that staff can't assist with the process, since Congress
does debate more than one bill at a time (not to mention what each representative has in committee versus what's actually on the floor). But a reasonable time has to be allowed so that they can have a much, much stronger, more comprehensive idea of what's going on.
But since the American people have a right to be in on the process,
their ability to thoroughly read and review each bill is also a concern. And if Congress is going to try to load a bill full of pet projects...then the review period should extend proportionately.
