-(Guns) Changing the Second Amendment to make clear that only a state's militia, not its citizens, has a constitutional right to bear arms.
• (Death Penalty) Changing the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against "cruel and unusual punishments" by specifically including the death penalty.
• (Campaign Contribution Limits) Removing from First Amendment protection any "reasonable limits" on campaign spending enacted by Congress or the states.
•(Gerrymandering) Requiring that congressional and state legislative districts be "compact and composed of contiguous territory" to stop both parties from carving out safe seats.
•(States Liability) Eliminating states' sovereign immunity from liability for violating the Constitution or an act of Congress, which he calls a "manifest injustice."
•(State Rights in Emergencies) Allowing Congress to require states to perform federal duties in emergencies, in order to reduce "the risk of a national catastrophe."
From what I've read on the subject, many of these are historical interpretations of the original intent of the founding fathers. There's always a raging argument over the right to bear arms, but if you read the historical documentation on the development of the bill of rights, the militia was exactly why that provision was put in. The death penalty was used by the British crown as a means of keeping order, so the term "cruel and unusual punishment" was put in to place limits on what could be done. Congress has, on several occasions, dealt with gerrymandering, and if you look at maps of congressional districts in any state, you can see that the principle of "compact and contiguous territory" is almost not applied anywhere. Looks like some good reading.
The gerrymandering issue is particularly bothersome, because it is a matter of enforcement, and the state courts in charge of doing that aren't enforcing it. It's an important issue, because it dilutes the power of individual voters. We're at a point now, though, where large cities and sprawling suburbs create concentrated power bases. But the bottom line is that representatives are elected by voters, not by territory.
I'm not sure what his campaign spending proposal would do, but I'm in favor of anything which restricts the amount of money that can be spent on campaigns, and especially on how much money can be contributed. I'd like to see PAC's declared unconstitutional, and force everyone to the principle of one person, one vote, and a limit of $100 in contributions to a single candidate or political party per election cycle.