If you could introduce a Constitutional Amendment What would it be

[RightBehind]

1. No war unless the U.S. is directly attacked or barring a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress. This includes the wars that haven't actually been wars, like Afghanistan and Iraq.

2. Abolish judicial elections

3. Addition of Puerto Rico (providing they democratically allow for it) and the District of Columbia as states, with the congressional representation therein implied.

4.(This will never, ever, happen, but it's on my wishlist) Removal of the 2nd amendment.

5. Ending the death penalty.

6. Healthcare as a right.

7. Automatic registration of all citizens to vote

8. Term limits of 16 years for Supreme Court justices. In the event of a justice's death he/she is replaced by a nominee from the judiciary committee members of the party of whoever the president was who nominated the deceased justice. The replacement justice serves out the remainder of the deceased justice's term

9. Abolishing gerrymandering through impartial redistricting committees

10. Ending the standards by which treaties are U.S. law.

11. Corporate personhood is over, SuperPACs are illegal, and maximum contribution to a political campaign is $100 for the primary, and $100 for the general election. Every citizen gets a $100 tax credit for political donations, like they have in Oregon.

12. Minimum mandatory tax rate of 70% on marginal tax rates.

13. Maximum wages, although what amount I can't be certain of off the top of my head.

14. Abolition of the electoral college.

15. Abolish caucuses in primary elections, have mail in ballots in both the primaries and general in all states.

16. Mandatory voting in general election with a penalty of a small fine.

17. Instant-runoff voting in all elections, both statewide and federal.

1. I'm fine with this.
2. Not sure
3. Yes for Puerto Rico, DC returned to Maryland
4. Not gonna happen.
5. Both Old and New Testament give clear credence to the death penalty.
6. Keep government out of it
7. I'm open to this. But allow for ID to protect sanctity of the vote
8. There are similarities to the Liberty Amendments in this. Let's talk
9. If VRA districts are abolished as well. VRA districts are often the source of gerrymandering
10. Need to research this
11. Make the max 1,000$ and I'd support it
12.NO Income TAX
13. Market decides wages not government
14. NO!!! The Electoral College is part of preserving our Republic against absolute democracy (America is a Repubic)
15. Absolutely not. Let the states decide. (I'd go caucuses)
16. Government shouldn't be using financial threats to make citizens vote or having health insurance
17. Competition is good.

This is the problem with you. You are a dominionist. You think because the Old Testament and New Testament gives way to the death penalty that it should be legal? That's not how it's supposed to be. I also agree the second amendment should be abolished and that healthcare should be a right. The government in healthcare can't be worse than the way things are now. Simply put, healthcare is, and should be, a right.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

1. No war unless the U.S. is directly attacked or barring a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress. This includes the wars that haven't actually been wars, like Afghanistan and Iraq.

2. Abolish judicial elections

3. Addition of Puerto Rico (providing they democratically allow for it) and the District of Columbia as states, with the congressional representation therein implied.

4.(This will never, ever, happen, but it's on my wishlist) Removal of the 2nd amendment.

5. Ending the death penalty.

6. Healthcare as a right.

7. Automatic registration of all citizens to vote

8. Term limits of 16 years for Supreme Court justices. In the event of a justice's death he/she is replaced by a nominee from the judiciary committee members of the party of whoever the president was who nominated the deceased justice. The replacement justice serves out the remainder of the deceased justice's term

9. Abolishing gerrymandering through impartial redistricting committees

10. Ending the standards by which treaties are U.S. law.

11. Corporate personhood is over, SuperPACs are illegal, and maximum contribution to a political campaign is $100 for the primary, and $100 for the general election. Every citizen gets a $100 tax credit for political donations, like they have in Oregon.

12. Minimum mandatory tax rate of 70% on marginal tax rates.

13. Maximum wages, although what amount I can't be certain of off the top of my head.

14. Abolition of the electoral college.

15. Abolish caucuses in primary elections, have mail in ballots in both the primaries and general in all states.

16. Mandatory voting in general election with a penalty of a small fine.

17. Instant-runoff voting in all elections, both statewide and federal.

1. I'm fine with this.
2. Not sure
3. Yes for Puerto Rico, DC returned to Maryland
4. Not gonna happen.
5. Both Old and New Testament give clear credence to the death penalty.
6. Keep government out of it
7. I'm open to this. But allow for ID to protect sanctity of the vote
8. There are similarities to the Liberty Amendments in this. Let's talk
9. If VRA districts are abolished as well. VRA districts are often the source of gerrymandering
10. Need to research this
11. Make the max 1,000$ and I'd support it
12.NO Income TAX
13. Market decides wages not government
14. NO!!! The Electoral College is part of preserving our Republic against absolute democracy (America is a Repubic)
15. Absolutely not. Let the states decide. (I'd go caucuses)
16. Government shouldn't be using financial threats to make citizens vote or having health insurance
17. Competition is good.

This is the problem with you. You are a dominionist. You think because the Old Testament and New Testament gives way to the death penalty that it should be legal? That's not how it's supposed to be. I also agree the second amendment should be abolished and that healthcare should be a right. The government in healthcare can't be worse than the way things are now. Simply put, healthcare is, and should be, a right.

Where do you think the Founders based their support for the death penalty? The Bible. My reasoning is based in history not what you call do dominionist theology.  Let's have a debate about that. Are you up for it?

[Santander]

Where do you think the Founders based their support for the death penalty? The Bible. My reasoning is based in history not what you call do dominionist theology.  Let's have a debate about that. Are you up for it?

Liberals refuse to accept that even secular countries are usually built upon religious morality.

[Mr. Jew]

A reminder that the First Amendment protects Freedom of Speech and Separation of Church and State, even if it makes white religious fundamentalists uncomfortable.  Also, clarification that America is not a "white nation" and that the 14th Amendment protects non-white immigration and birthright citizenship.

[Hammy]

a few amendments that come to mind at the moment, without delving into repealing existing ones:
-abolish electoral college and establish popular vote with IRV voting
-change senate terms to four years instead of six, giving each state the ability to vote in the senate every election (Class I in presidential years in all states, Class II in off years for all states--its always bugged me that in any given year 17 states have no say)
-abolish caucuses and fully closed primaries
-change the House to proportional representation (abolishing actual districts and just allocating that number of representatives to each state)

14. NO!!! The Electoral College is part of preserving our Republic against absolute democracy (America is a Repubic)

I never understood the "we're not a democracy, we're a republic" argument as any country with a president is a republic, be it a federal, direct democracy, dictatorship, etc. Democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive.

[hurricanehink]

The Children's Rights Amendment

1) Lowering voting age to 14
2) Guaranteeing the highest quality education and health insurance for every person under age 18.

Doing these two will guarantee having the healthiest, smartest, and most engaged work force, so we can truly compete with any body.

[Del Tachi]

-change senate terms to four years instead of six, giving each state the ability to vote in the senate every election (Class I in presidential years in all states, Class II in off years for all states--its always bugged me that in any given year 17 states have no say)

Wut?  With that kind of reasoning, I guess you're similarly upset the 38 states that aren't getting to elect a governor this year "have no say"?  

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Eh, single-member districts preserve a sort of inherent geographic equality in legislative bodies.  It would be terrible if all 14 Congressmen from Georgia were from Metro Atlanta (or any other part of the state), single-member districts prevent this kind of issue from arising.    

[Del Tachi]

I'd like to see a Constitutional amendment to require 60 or even 66 votes to evoke cloture in the U.S. Senate.  Nix the nuclear option. 

[Slander and/or Libel]

-change senate terms to four years instead of six, giving each state the ability to vote in the senate every election (Class I in presidential years in all states, Class II in off years for all states--its always bugged me that in any given year 17 states have no say)

Wut?  With that kind of reasoning, I guess you're similarly upset the 38 states that aren't getting to elect a governor this year "have no say"? 

This argument doesn't really make any sense. States operate on their own timetable. If there's a swing in public opinion in a specific state, if it happens during the year they don't have a Senate election, then that swing in opinion doesn't get registered in the Senate, or at least not until another two years have passed.

My personal preference would be to just give each state one more senator so that each state has one senator up for re-election every 6 years.

[Del Tachi]

-change senate terms to four years instead of six, giving each state the ability to vote in the senate every election (Class I in presidential years in all states, Class II in off years for all states--its always bugged me that in any given year 17 states have no say)

Wut?  With that kind of reasoning, I guess you're similarly upset the 38 states that aren't getting to elect a governor this year "have no say"? 

This argument doesn't really make any sense. States operate on their own timetable. If there's a swing in public opinion in a specific state, if it happens during the year they don't have a Senate election, then that swing in opinion doesn't get registered in the Senate, or at least not until another two years have passed.

My personal preference would be to just give each state one more senator so that each state has one senator up for re-election every 6 years.

No that doesn't make any sense.  Swings in public opinion are not confined to only occurring immediately before election dates; even with elections to the House of Representatives, there are certain changes in public opinion that are not recorded through electoral outcomes.  Take for example the Sandy Hook shooting and the large swell of public support for new gun control measures that came as a result of it.  The shootings occurred right after a general election, so the change in public opinion was not reflected in the 2012 election results.  With events like Sandy Hook occurring frequently but irregularly, what's the argument for not having elections every year, month, or week?     

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

One of complaints the Anti-Federalists had about the Constitution was the lengthy terms of the elected officials, including having the House not having a yearly election as most State lower houses did at the time.

If we had to have a change in term length today, I'd like to see the House  and President be elected every three years, with a three term limit on the Presidency.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

One of complaints the Anti-Federalists had about the Constitution was the lengthy terms of the elected officials, including having the House not having a yearly election as most State lower houses did at the time.

If we had to have a change in term length today, I'd like to see the House  and President be elected every three years, with a three term limit on the Presidency.

I prefer the Mexican way: one six years term and that's all you'll ever get.

[Slander and/or Libel]

-change senate terms to four years instead of six, giving each state the ability to vote in the senate every election (Class I in presidential years in all states, Class II in off years for all states--its always bugged me that in any given year 17 states have no say)

Wut?  With that kind of reasoning, I guess you're similarly upset the 38 states that aren't getting to elect a governor this year "have no say"?  

This argument doesn't really make any sense. States operate on their own timetable. If there's a swing in public opinion in a specific state, if it happens during the year they don't have a Senate election, then that swing in opinion doesn't get registered in the Senate, or at least not until another two years have passed.

My personal preference would be to just give each state one more senator so that each state has one senator up for re-election every 6 years.

No that doesn't make any sense.  Swings in public opinion are not confined to only occurring immediately before election dates; even with elections to the House of Representatives, there are certain changes in public opinion that are not recorded through electoral outcomes.  Take for example the Sandy Hook shooting and the large swell of public support for new gun control measures that came as a result of it.  The shootings occurred right after a general election, so the change in public opinion was not reflected in the 2012 election results.  With events like Sandy Hook occurring frequently but irregularly, what's the argument for not having elections every year, month, or week?      

You don't really seem to be engaging with this argument in good faith, so I'm going to check out.

[Del Tachi]

-change senate terms to four years instead of six, giving each state the ability to vote in the senate every election (Class I in presidential years in all states, Class II in off years for all states--its always bugged me that in any given year 17 states have no say)

Wut?  With that kind of reasoning, I guess you're similarly upset the 38 states that aren't getting to elect a governor this year "have no say"? 

This argument doesn't really make any sense. States operate on their own timetable. If there's a swing in public opinion in a specific state, if it happens during the year they don't have a Senate election, then that swing in opinion doesn't get registered in the Senate, or at least not until another two years have passed.

My personal preference would be to just give each state one more senator so that each state has one senator up for re-election every 6 years.

No that doesn't make any sense.  Swings in public opinion are not confined to only occurring immediately before election dates; even with elections to the House of Representatives, there are certain changes in public opinion that are not recorded through electoral outcomes.  Take for example the Sandy Hook shooting and the large swell of public support for new gun control measures that came as a result of it.  The shootings occurred right after a general election, so the change in public opinion was not reflected in the 2012 election results.  With events like Sandy Hook occurring frequently but irregularly, what's the argument for not having elections every year, month, or week?     

You don't really seem to be engaging with this argument in good faith, so I'm going to check out.

No, its a very fundamental question regarding the purpose of elections and the nature of representative democracy.  If the purpose of elections is to produce representation that is acutely aware of every minute change in the body politic (like Hammy seems to imply in his arguments), then a necessary question becomes why aren't we holding elections at laughably short intervals

[Slander and/or Libel]

I wasn't implying that we should hold elections at laughably short intervals. I was questioning why there is an arbitrary gap in senate elections in each state. your characterization was a straw man. I said what I think would be the remedy, for me: simply have each state have three senators, one in each class.

[Fuzzy Bear]

I would propose an amendment to where one Senate seat from each state will be held by a male, and the other seat will be held by a female.

[Hammy]

No, its a very fundamental question regarding the purpose of elections and the nature of representative democracy.  If the purpose of elections is to produce representation that is acutely aware of every minute change in the body politic (like Hammy seems to imply in his arguments), then a necessary question becomes why aren't we holding elections at laughably short intervals

House elections are every two years--and everybody is up for reelection. Should we then start staggering the house seats to where 1/3 of voters have no say in any given election? The idea is to simply regulate the Senate in a similar manner as the House, giving each state a say in each elections. Simply reduce the terms by two years and hold all 50 states at intervals. I don't quite see how this is "laughably short"--simply giving each voter a say in the legislative process each election.

[Del Tachi]

No, its a very fundamental question regarding the purpose of elections and the nature of representative democracy.  If the purpose of elections is to produce representation that is acutely aware of every minute change in the body politic (like Hammy seems to imply in his arguments), then a necessary question becomes why aren't we holding elections at laughably short intervals

House elections are every two years--and everybody is up for reelection. Should we then start staggering the house seats to where 1/3 of voters have no say in any given election? The idea is to simply regulate the Senate in a similar manner as the House, giving each state a say in each elections. Simply reduce the terms by two years and hold all 50 states at intervals. I don't quite see how this is "laughably short"--simply giving each voter a say in the legislative process each election.

It produces the unfavorable outcome that half of the Senate will always be elected in a Presidential year while the other half will always be elected in a midterm year.  Ideally, Senators should have to run under both conditions.

[Slander and/or Libel]

No, its a very fundamental question regarding the purpose of elections and the nature of representative democracy.  If the purpose of elections is to produce representation that is acutely aware of every minute change in the body politic (like Hammy seems to imply in his arguments), then a necessary question becomes why aren't we holding elections at laughably short intervals

House elections are every two years--and everybody is up for reelection. Should we then start staggering the house seats to where 1/3 of voters have no say in any given election? The idea is to simply regulate the Senate in a similar manner as the House, giving each state a say in each elections. Simply reduce the terms by two years and hold all 50 states at intervals. I don't quite see how this is "laughably short"--simply giving each voter a say in the legislative process each election.

It produces the unfavorable outcome that half of the Senate will always be elected in a Presidential year while the other half will always be elected in a midterm year.  Ideally, Senators should have to run under both conditions.

So add a third senator to each state.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Another good one would be a constitutional amendment to ban political parties.

That's typically something that only weird dictatorships and absolute monarchies do. Parties are, at the very least, important to democracy because they give voters some broad sense of what sorts of nationwide policies they're voting for, rather than just voting in some clientelistic clique of local notables. They have many other important functions as well.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Another good one would be a constitutional amendment to ban political parties.

That's typically something that only weird dictatorships and absolute monarchies do. Parties are, at the very least, important to democracy because they give voters some broad sense of what sorts of nationwide policies they're voting for, rather than just voting in some clientelistic clique of local notables. They have many other important functions as well.

Altho, the Framers were disdainful of parties as they saw them as leading to partisanship rather than people considering each issue on its own merits. That's why we ended up needing the 12th Amendment and why our constitution contains no recognition of the role parties play in our system. They weren't entirely wrong, yet I do agree that on balance parties are more of a help than a hindrance overall.

[Santander]

- Abolish birthright citizenship for those who are not born to at least one citizen or resident alien parent
- Abolish worldwide taxation and long-time expat voting
- 4-year terms for Representatives
- Abolish term limits
- Non-partisan drawing of districts
- Abolish publicly-run/funded primary elections
- Universal voting laws in federal elections (voter ID, same-day registration)
- Ban Sharia law
- Ban euthanasia/abortion

[heatcharger]

- Abolish birthright citizenship for those who are not born to at least one citizen or resident alien parent
- Abolish worldwide taxation and long-time expat voting
- 4-year terms for Representatives
- Abolish term limits
- Non-partisan drawing of districts
- Abolish publicly-run/funded primary elections
- Universal voting laws in federal elections (voter ID, same-day registration)
- Ban Sharia law
- Ban euthanasia/abortion

Most of these are terrible ideas, but this one would literally never work.

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

Instant runoff voting in all federal races.

[Enduro]

An end to the electoral college, a ban on selective service, and term limits for congress.