What will be the next Amendment?

[Free Bird]

Curious. We are overdue for a new one. Gun to my head, I'd have to say Balanced Budget.

[pbrower2a]

It depends upon who is in power in 2017.

Democrats -- undoing the effects of Citizens United.

Republicans -- a series of amendments that 'emancipate' giant corporations, cull the vote until it is 'reliable', outlaw welfare, and replace the federal income tax with a sales tax -- all to further consolidate a plutocratic oligarchy.  repealing the Seventeenth Amendment so that state legislatures again appoint Senators.   

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Come now.  While repealing the seventeenth is a pipedream for a few on the right, there's no way it could every get the broad support needed for repeal.  Frankly, I don't see anything getting sent to the states for ratification in the next decade.  The supermajorities needed for passage preclude any partisan measure being so sent, much less approved.

If any amendment gets ratified in the next decade it'll be the Child Labor Amendment.  It's totally superfluous, but it is only ten states short of ratification and the centenary of it being sent to the States will be 2024, so I could see some sort of push to do so in Democratic-leaning States in the centenary year as a way of giving a nod to history and to point out what nasty brutish people Republicans tend to be these day if they oppose it.


Blue: Ratified
Pink: Rejected
Gray: Never considered

The seven states north of the Potomac that haven't ratified it and Hawaii should be able to easily pass the amendment leaving only two more to be picked up which I think would be easily doable if a concerted push in 2024 were made.

[NewYorkExpress]

It depends upon who is in power in 2017.

Democrats -- undoing the effects of Citizens United.

Republicans -- a series of amendments that 'emancipate' giant corporations, cull the vote until it is 'reliable', outlaw welfare, and replace the federal income tax with a sales tax -- all to further consolidate a plutocratic oligarchy.  repealing the Seventeenth Amendment so that state legislatures again appoint Senators.   

You forgot bans on same-sex marriage and abortion

[Representative MJM]

There will be no amendment any point in the near future. The country is entirely too divided to pass polarizing amendments like a balanced budget or "Citizens United" amendment. There are simply no amendments which I could think of that would be able to get a 2/3 majority and 3/4 of the states. D.C. voting rights, or even ERA, are possible, but the ratification periods have ended, and I see no reason for them to bring them back to life right now.
What I would like to see is some sort of electoral reform in the Constitution. For instance:
1) Voting Rights Amendment
2) Replacing the current single-winner, first-past-the-post electoral system in the House of Representatives with a mixed-member proportional system (as a solution to gerrymandering)
3) Abolishing the Electoral College (which is actually gaining quite a bit of support, and actually could be an answer to this forum's initial question: what will be the next Amendment?)
4) An amendment that would allow for instant-runoff voting nationwide to ensure that the winner of an election gets at least 50% of the vote, while eliminating the need to finance an additional day of elections

But again, it seems like we won't be adding a new amendment any time soon.

[IceSpear]

Come now.  While repealing the seventeenth is a pipedream for a few on the right, there's no way it could every get the broad support needed for repeal.  Frankly, I don't see anything getting sent to the states for ratification in the next decade.  The supermajorities needed for passage preclude any partisan measure being so sent, much less approved.

If any amendment gets ratified in the next decade it'll be the Child Labor Amendment.  It's totally superfluous, but it is only ten states short of ratification and the centenary of it being sent to the States will be 2024, so I could see some sort of push to do so in Democratic-leaning States in the centenary year as a way of giving a nod to history and to point out what nasty brutish people Republicans tend to be these day if they oppose it.


Blue: Ratified
Pink: Rejected
Gray: Never considered

The seven states north of the Potomac that haven't ratified it and Hawaii should be able to easily pass the amendment leaving only two more to be picked up which I think would be easily doable if a concerted push in 2024 were made.

Uh, why would anyone vote against this? Particularly a state like Vermont.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

While repealing the seventeenth is a pipedream for a few on the right

We did have a push in our legislature to go around the 17th amendment and have the legislature appoint the US Senate nominees of each party - effectively selecting the Senator.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Come now.  While repealing the seventeenth is a pipedream for a few on the right, there's no way it could every get the broad support needed for repeal.  Frankly, I don't see anything getting sent to the states for ratification in the next decade.  The supermajorities needed for passage preclude any partisan measure being so sent, much less approved.

If any amendment gets ratified in the next decade it'll be the Child Labor Amendment.  It's totally superfluous, but it is only ten states short of ratification and the centenary of it being sent to the States will be 2024, so I could see some sort of push to do so in Democratic-leaning States in the centenary year as a way of giving a nod to history and to point out what nasty brutish people Republicans tend to be these day if they oppose it.


Blue: Ratified
Pink: Rejected
Gray: Never considered

The seven states north of the Potomac that haven't ratified it and Hawaii should be able to easily pass the amendment leaving only two more to be picked up which I think would be easily doable if a concerted push in 2024 were made.

Uh, why would anyone vote against this? Particularly a state like Vermont.

We're talking the 1920's here.  Only five states, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Montana, and Wisconsin ratified this amendment in the 20's.  It was an era in which what was good for business was good for America, and besides, the States could regulate child labor, couldn't they?  By the time Vermont was amenable to ratifying it, the Supreme Court had changed its mind and decided that a lot more things counted as interstate commerce that Congress could regulate and thus made the need for the amendment moot unless the Court were to change its mind again.

[publicunofficial]

Democratic control = Equal marriage, reverse Citizens United, fair redistricting (In my wildest pipe dreams), DC gets congressmembers who actually matter.


Republican control = Corporate rights, bans on certain taxes, and a ban on anything that looks even remotely like universal healthcare.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It is pretty much impossible for an amendment to come through with support from only one party. The GOP at best have a 2% chance of achieving one, if they put in 2014 wave after 2014 wave after 2014 wave for a few cycles. But the Democrats are locked out of so many state legislatures it borders on impossible for them to even consider their pipe dream amendment, Citizens United repeal (apart from a convention, but come now, let's be reasonable).

It'll be something non-controversial that is rushed through to make it seem as if congress knows what it's doing. A goofy "Privacy Amendment" as a sop for Paulities and proggers? Some kind of restriction on presidential power? who knows. All I know is the socon Amendments that the GOP used to constantly almost pass are dead; and any attempts for Democrats to introduce FDR style prog amendments will be even deader.

[Angel of Death]

An amendment that would allow for instant-runoff voting nationwide to ensure that the winner of an election gets at least 50% of the vote, while eliminating the need to finance an additional day of elections

IRV is a poor choice for a nationwide election method as you would run into the logistical problem of compiling votes of subdivisions such that they can still be aggregated. If you're going to use a preferential voting method, then you might as well go for a summable Condorcet one.

[Mister Mets]

I think the likeliest would be one allowing for a foreign-born President who has been a citizen of the US for a long enough amount of time.

It seems to have wide support among the young, and can appeal to immigrant groups.

[Mister Mets]

An amendment that would allow for instant-runoff voting nationwide to ensure that the winner of an election gets at least 50% of the vote, while eliminating the need to finance an additional day of elections

IRV is a poor choice for a nationwide election method as you would run into the logistical problem of compiling votes of subdivisions such that they can still be aggregated. If you're going to use a preferential voting method, then you might as well go for a summable Condorcet one.

New York allows candidates to run on different tickets. So, Cuomo was the choice of the Democratic party as well as Working Families and Women's Equality.

That would be another example of a logisitics issue.

I like the idea of IRV but it's an unlikely amendment. Voters tend not to care about campaign/ election related laws. Democrats and Republicans are united in their opposition to making things easier for Independents.

[emailking]

IRV is a poor choice for a nationwide election method as you would run into the logistical problem of compiling votes of subdivisions such that they can still be aggregated.

I'm not sure I follow this. Are there actually races with different lists of candidates/options for the same race?

I feel like you may be referring to Presidential elections, but I don't see why we couldn't use IRV for that still. The candidates for a state's electoral votes are the same everywhere within the state. And if we abolish the electoral college the election has to be nationalized anyway, so there would no longer be restricted ballot access by state.

[Likely Voter]

Nothing that is in the party platforms for either party will ever make it. You need serious bipartisan support. If we get a Dem who wins the EV but loses the PV (ala Bush 2000), maybe we could see some kind of amendment that changes the electoral college.

[The Mikado]

I don't think we'll see another amendment for another decade or so, and I doubt the Dems will do what Ernest is suggesting and revive the Child Labor Amendment.

It'll likely be an issue that doesn't even really exist now.

[Angel of Death]

IRV is a poor choice for a nationwide election method as you would run into the logistical problem of compiling votes of subdivisions such that they can still be aggregated.

I'm not sure I follow this.

You need to ask yourself how results from multiple places can be tabulated in such a way that the overall winner can be determined from them. Otherwise you would need to gather all the votes in one place.

[emailking]

You need to ask yourself how results from multiple places can be tabulated in such a way that the overall winner can be determined from them. Otherwise you would need to gather all the votes in one place.

Ahh. Gotcha.

I think it's still doable. Yes, a lot of hard drives have to end up in the same place in the end, but as long as each polling station keeps backups that should be OK. We just have to give up knowing the result on election night in some cases. You could still tally the votes the way we do now, and if it's not close we'd still know the result, even though the official simulation can't be run until all the absentee/military/provisional ballots have been sorted out and read in.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I don't think we'll see another amendment for another decade or so, and I doubt the Dems will do what Ernest is suggesting and revive the Child Labor Amendment.

I doubt it too, but it's the only realistic scenario I can think of for an amendment passing sometime in the next decade.

[Representative MJM]

You need to ask yourself how results from multiple places can be tabulated in such a way that the overall winner can be determined from them. Otherwise you would need to gather all the votes in one place.

Ahh. Gotcha.

I think it's still doable. Yes, a lot of hard drives have to end up in the same place in the end, but as long as each polling station keeps backups that should be OK. We just have to give up knowing the result on election night in some cases. You could still tally the votes the way we do now, and if it's not close we'd still know the result, even though the official simulation can't be run until all the absentee/military/provisional ballots have been sorted out and read in.

Additionally, if a candidate, say for President, does receive over 50% of the vote, there would be no need to bring all of the hard drives to one place, because there were be no reason to even waste the time with the Instant Runoff votes, so we could still find out the winner relatively soon after the polls close.

[The Mikado]

It'd be interesting if the GOP tried to revive the Flag Burning Amendment. With this overwhelmingly Republican a House, I wouldn't be surprised if it had its best chance ever.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I don't think we'll see another amendment for another decade or so, and I doubt the Dems will do what Ernest is suggesting and revive the Child Labor Amendment.

I doubt it too, but it's the only realistic scenario I can think of for an amendment passing sometime in the next decade.

     I agree with this. Anything that is still a point of contest has no chance of passing in 38 states, so the only chance for an amendment in the near future is if something old and now uncontroversial gets resurrected.