Rewriting U.S Bill of Rights

Yeah Fuck smaller states having a voice. No one likes those damn Wyomingians

Apaprently you know nothing about the US Government.
You see, during the Constitutional Convention they had the same issue of big states wanting things to be based on population and smaller states wanting things to be based on existence. They couldn't make much progress, however, because they needed pretty much universal agreement to get things passed.

So they made a compromise. There would be a ("lower") House of Representatives based on population (which is why there's a pretty much random number of Representatives) and an ("upper") Senate based on existence. This way both sides got what they wanted kind of and it worked out pretty well.

It's certainly not a bad system. And wouldn't it suck if all of the Midwest got less representation than the single state of New York?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives

If you guys really want to bitch about disproportional representation and unfair democracy, then I suggest you turn your attention towards the Electoral College system. CGPGrey (<3) did two videos on the subject.

Here:

The electoral college is pretty damn byzantine.

Well what do you mean by Byzantine?

If I want to buy a skyscraper, and plaster my face on the side of it, I should have the right to do so. I'd like to see you filthy commies try to stop me.

It's an adjective/pejorative that means extremely and unnecessarily complex.

Of cource you must have a plan to fix the complexity of the college.

No we wouldn't stop you Matt but only if its a picture of Che and you (Reference to the Che wall building in Cuba)

Just do away with it.

Ah yes the simplest solution, why didn't I think of that?

Well that's kind of the point. The framers of the Constitution valued a slower government, as to keep it from making rash decisions without the ability to stop the wheels in motion.

I understand why it was done originally, but it just doesn't make sense anymore. Post 1830s, there just isn't a need for the electoral college.

I guess, but I feel that we keep it around just for a nice touch.

And the House of Representatives is based off of population. Your point?

The senate can still reject a bill that has already been passed by the congress...

The Senate makes up half of Congress. We have a bicameral legislature in the US (at the federal level, anyway). The House and the Senate collectively make up Congress. They have different rules, responsibilities, and purposes. If the two chambers of Congress do not agree to pass legislation, then it is not passed. The House is not weaker or less important than the Senate, nor is the Senate disadvantaged in comparison to the House. There is in place a system of checks and balances that ensures that both internally and externally the various components of government do not have the ability to become more powerful than any other.

The Senate is part of Congress. The House of Representatives is equal to the Senate in power. The House of Representatives is based off of population. The bigger the state the more representatives it gets in the House. We did this because the little states were bitching and complaining about not having a voice in Congress if it was based off of population, and the bigger states bitching and complaining that it wouldnt be fair for them to have the same amount of votes as a smaller state. Thus we adopted the Bicameral Legislator in the Connecticut plan, otherwise known as the Great Compromise.

Umm... changes?
Off the top of my head [meaning that this can be right or wrong], but I believe that there is a clause in the... 13th? Amendment that basically says that if you are black and not working in the fields that you are a 'vagrent' and can be sent to prison... where you are put in forced labor. This was right after the ACW.
Problem, I think.
But then, I think they may have already dealt with this in a later Amendment... but I'm not sure.