If you were to give the founding fathers some words of advice...

[MaC]

...when writing the Constitution, what would you say?

[Gabu]

...when writing the Constitution, what would you say?

"You're screwed."

[Cashcow]

Ban Philip

[Frodo]

If you want to keep the southern states onboard the bandwagon of the Constitution when they decide whether or not to ratify it, you would be better off not talking about slavery at all in the document rather than subscribing to the insidious notion that a Negro slave is only 'two-thirds' as much of a man as a white male in the name of compromise. 

[falling apart like the ashes of American flags]

If you want to keep the southern states onboard the bandwagon of the Constitution when they decide whether or not to ratify it, you would be better off not talking about slavery at all in the document rather than subscribing to the insidious notion that a Negro slave is only 'two-thirds' as much of a man as a white male in the name of compromise. 

That was actually a good thing (and it was 3/5s by the way). The Southern states wanted to include their slaves in the population for apportionment purposes so they could have more Congressmen (despite the fact of course that slaves could not vote and were in no way represented). Counting only 3/5 of the slaves in the population was a compromise that actually resulted in less representation for the Southern states, hence less pro-slavery representatives in Congress.

[Emsworth]

That was actually a good thing (and it was 3/5s by the way). The Southern states wanted to include their slaves in the population for apportionment purposes so they could have more Congressmen (despite the fact of course that slaves could not vote and were in no way represented).

Well, it is not really an anomaly that slaves were partially counted. Children were not allowed to vote, and neither were women, but both were counted for apportionment purposes.

Representation is not the only issue, actually. Southern delegates wanted slaves to count as whole persons for representation purposes, but not to count for the apportionment of direct taxes. Northern delegates, on the other hand, wanted slaves not to count for representation purposes, but to count as whole persons for the apportionment of direct taxes.

[AkSaber]

Protect Alaska!!

[John Dibble]

Be more explicit about the meaning of the commerce clause and the general welfare clause, and give Congress the power to buy territory(something to make the LA Purchase constitutional). That should cover the most important things.

[Max Power]

"Be sure to have good handwriting!"

[Emsworth]

[A]nd give Congress the power to buy territory(something to make the LA Purchase constitutional).

Hmm, I'm not too sure that this would be necessary. Louisiana was not acquired by a law passed by Congress, but rather under a treaty ratified by the President. Although the power of Congress to make laws is restricted to those subjects which have been enumerated, the power of the President to make and ratify treaties is plenary.

[DanielX]

Be explicit, follow Dibble's advice, and put in stuff about an air force. And absolutely put in a clause forbidding mandatory government redistribution of wealth. Oh, and banning slavery wouldn't hurt, but I doubt the Southerners would be too happy with that one.

[Platypus]

be aware of the extremes of politics.

[Defarge]

Make the Second Amendment clearer

[KillerPollo]

Write NO GAY MARRIAGE with a crayon.

[A18]

Replace "Commerce ... among the several States" with "Trade ... between the several States," even though they meant the same thing at the time.

[Jake]

Don't put in stuff like the 9th Amendment.

[MaC]

I'd say

1. Hey guys, don't put in that "promote the general welfare" part into your preamble.  Trust me, people will take this the wrong way.

2. Now I know you guys don't want to deal with slavery as an issue, but you have to settle it out.  I know, this'll only make things take longer, but perhaps come up with a comprimise.  Maybe have a sunset provision: No slavery past the year 1840 or something like that.  It'll give the south over fifty years to come up with a solution.

3.Now I know you guys don't have a Sharpie marker, because it's about 200 years in the future.  Tell Ben Franklin, he'll probably be able to invent one up.  Okay the first amendment and the second, I'll want you to underline.

4. Oh, and maybe write a clause somewhere that says if the government gets too powerful we can overthrow it. Make sure to state the necessary conditions for when it has to be done, so we don't get a bunch of loonies trying to overthrow on a whim.  Sorta like what TJ implied in the Declaration of Independence.

5.Yeah, finally.  In the future people will count out votes by hand, but you need some sort of a "tie-breaker rule" for when this popular vote is greater for one candidate and the electoral vote is greater for another.  This will help in the upcoming 1800 election and 200 years later.

yeah, thanks guys.

[PBrunsel]

Hey Hamilton, watch out for Mr. Burr.

[??????????]

Anyone with the last name Roosevelt is banned from running for public office.

[Bono]

Anyone with the last name Roosevelt is banned from running for public office.

LOL

Anyways, my advice would be:
"Keep teh Articles, you statist s."

[MaC]

Don't put in stuff like the 9th Amendment.

Shouldn't be a matter for you anyways, the ninth is always disregarded.

[Emsworth]

Don't put in stuff like the 9th Amendment.

Shouldn't be a matter for you anyways, the ninth is always disregarded.

Of late, yes, the Supreme Court has disregarded the Ninth Amendment. (The Ninth is only a rule of construction, and adds nothing substantive to the Constitution; it is nothing more than a reassurance of what was already the case.) However, some justices (most notably Arthur Goldberg in Griswold v. Connecticut) asserted that it protected a "right to privacy" and other similar "rights." In recent cases, the Supreme Court has taken a different line of reasoning--that the due process clause protects such rights.