If you could introduce a Constitutional Amendment What would it be

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Oh I have a good one: abandon the two thirds majority needed to ratify treaties.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Alternative maximum tax: no citizen may ever be forced to pay more than 40¢ for every dollar he makes in taxes, federal, state, and local combined, including property taxes. Of course, I'd rather have a flat tax, but with that being unrealistic, I'll stick with the maximum.

Also, something to permanently curtail the power of lobbyists and prohibit most tax loopholes.

Strict and clear boundaries for the power of the federal government.

Some type of campaign finance reform but not sure exactly how that'd look.

Balanced-budget amendments are a joke. Illinois has one. See how balanced our budget is?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Oh I have a good one: abandon the two thirds majority needed to ratify treaties.

I could see maybe going to a three-fifths majority, but having a supermajority requirement for treaties is a good idea. Stability in international relations requires a broad consensus.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I'd support an amendment that requires all constitutional amendments to be voted on by referendum, state by state, while keeping the 2/3s clause in place.

[KingDavidIofCokeland]

Abolish the stupidity that is the second amendment.

Heck, no!

[/]

prohibit the murder of sentient organisms

[Seneca]

prohibit the murder of sentient organisms

You're a vegan? That's cool.

...

As to my list, it'd require a constitutional convention to draw up a new constitution, but you get the idea.

RECOGNIZING THAT THE US IS NO LONGER A CONFEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT STATES
* Repeal the 10th Amendment
* Abolish the Electoral College and replace FTP for Presidential elections with IRV
* Abolish the Senate
* Expand the House and create a rule to prevent states with growing populations from losing seats
* Some catch-all amendment to limit the autonomy of states, their ability to waste federal funds and dominate municipalities

RECOGNIZING THAT THE CONSTITUTION GOT A COUPLE THINGS WRONG
* Limit SCOTUS Justices to a single term of 9 years
* Implement the District of Columbia Voting Rights amendment
* Set the age of citizenship at 18, allowing all citizens to hold any office and preventing laws which deprive citizens over 18 of their freedom (e.g. Alcohol and other "controlled substances" laws)

TO PREVENT THE DOMINATION OF ELITES
* Enforce public funding of Presidential and Congressional races
* Limits on the amount of money corporations and non-profit organizations can contribute
* Require all Presidential debates to be hosted by publicly-funded media, to prevent corporate media from tilting elections
* Create an independent commission to draw all congressional, state, and local legislative districts

TO ESTABLISH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS
* Abolish the death penalty
* Establish rights to housing, healthcare, and education
* Mandate the preservation of a clean environment, specifying the implementation of a carbon tax, the proceeds of which to fund a national basic income

[Virginiá]

* Abolish the Senate

That seems a bit harsh, no? Part of the reason we have so much gridlock is because of the 60-vote cloture rule, which is self-imposed. Abolish that, and things start moving more often. Maybe not always favorable things, but still. The Senate used to represent the states, but now it essentially serves as a check on the House, which is a reactionary chamber for the ever-evolving public opinion. It still has a purpose, and abolishing it would probably lead to some constant legislative chaos. Especially given how partisan things have become.

As for my amendment, I liked some of yours, but I would add a Right to Vote amendment, similar to the one Illinois passed, except with added wording regarding no discrimination based on political ideology. If we had this, we wouldn't still be playing the voter suppression game.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

tbh although I dislike bicameralism in general (the US senate is not as egregiously awful as say, the Canadian or Italian Senates or the Seanad or House of Lords), the main problem with the Senate is that it is way too overpowered for a chamber not organised under One Person One Vote.

tbh I share a certain dislike towards federalism, and would prefer powerful and accountable regional governments; but it would most likely be a non-starter in the US.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

Abolish the stupidity that is the second amendment.

Heck, no!

So you revived a thread that hasn't been posted in for over a month, and quoted a three month old post, just to state your disapproval, and you didn't even add any fake amendments yourself?
On a more serious note, the preferential voting system seems pretty cool.

[NeverAgain]

Definitely getting money out of politics or at least limiting it to certain (adjusted for inflation limit).

[The Dowager Mod]

Section 1.The President and Vice President shall be elected jointly by the direct vote of the citizens of the United States, without regard to whether the citizens are residents of a State.
 
Section 2.The persons having the greatest number of votes for President and Vice President shall be elected, so long as such persons have a majority of the votes cast.

A good start.
 

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Section 1. In the interest of the protection of pregnant mothers and their unborn children from criminal offenses and neglect and wrongful acts, the words "person" and "child" in the fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States must include unborn human beings.

Section 2. Nothing in this Constitution secures the right to an abortion or funding of an abortion.  Congress and the states retain the right to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, with the exception of circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or when necessary to save the life of the mother.

Section 3. All provisions of this article are self-executing and are severable.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Section 1. In the interest of the protection of pregnant mothers and their unborn children from criminal offenses and neglect and wrongful acts, the words "person" and "child" in the fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States must include unborn human beings.

Section 2. Nothing in this Constitution secures the right to an abortion or funding of an abortion.  Congress and the states retain the right to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, with the exception of circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or when necessary to save the life of the mother.

Section 3. All provisions of this article are self-executing and are severable.

I know your preamble addresses it in section 1, but "unborn human beings" does not exclusively refer to conceived-but-not-yet-born human beings. Seems dangerously broad.

EDIT: In a way beyond how dangerously broad the amendment already is.

[NerdyBohemian]

Abolish "right to work" laws and guarantee workers' right to a union.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Section 1. In the interest of the protection of pregnant mothers and their unborn children from criminal offenses and neglect and wrongful acts, the words "person" and "child" in the fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States must include unborn human beings.

Section 2. Nothing in this Constitution secures the right to an abortion or funding of an abortion.  Congress and the states retain the right to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, with the exception of circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or when necessary to save the life of the mother.

Section 3. All provisions of this article are self-executing and are severable.

Did you pretty much take Section 2 directly from the Tennessee Constitution?

[DS0816]

No. 1 would be getting rid of Citizens United.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I wouldn't introduce one. I'd introduce all of the amendments from the book The Liberty Amendments by Mark Levin.

I like Oldies pro-life one too.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I wouldn't introduce one. I'd introduce all of the amendments from the book The Liberty Amendments by Mark Levin.

How does an amendment restricting early voting count as a liberty amendment? The rest of that conservative laundry list, I can see how they could claim the title, even when I think they're not good amendments. But limiting voting opportunity is the very antithesis of liberty. It also goes against the general theme of that set, of giving more power to the States.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

I wouldn't introduce one. I'd introduce all of the amendments from the book The Liberty Amendments by Mark Levin.

How does an amendment restricting early voting count as a liberty amendment? The rest of that conservative laundry list, I can see how they could claim the title, even when I think they're not good amendments. But limiting voting opportunity is the very antithesis of liberty. It also goes against the general theme of that set, of giving more power to the States.

A lot of the authors concerns about early voting are about preventing fraud. Why wouldn't you want to vote the day after your taxes are due? Or let the states veto a Supreme Court decision, or a balanced budget amendment?

[Virginiá]

A lot of the authors concerns about early voting are about preventing fraud. Why wouldn't you want to vote the day after your taxes are due? Or let the states veto a Supreme Court decision, or a balanced budget amendment?

That reminds me of the aging boomers who have been told all their life that restarting their computer will fix everything. Likewise, conservatives willing to believe have been told all their lives that virtually anything that makes voting more inconvenient will help fight fraud. Unless the reasoning is that the more time available to vote, the more time for fraud (which would be a terribly stupid thought), then cutting early voting does absolutely nothing to fight fraud - Which is practically non-existent to begin with. For a guy who wrote a book about all this, you would think he would actually research whether or not it would help anything at all. He's either just ignorant about the topic or he's willfully furthering the GOP's case for voting restrictions simply to boost their electoral prospects by making it harder/more annoying for Democratic-leaning groups to vote.

[SteveRogers]

I wouldn't introduce one. I'd introduce all of the amendments from the book The Liberty Amendments by Mark Levin.

How does an amendment restricting early voting count as a liberty amendment? The rest of that conservative laundry list, I can see how they could claim the title, even when I think they're not good amendments. But limiting voting opportunity is the very antithesis of liberty. It also goes against the general theme of that set, of giving more power to the States.

A lot of the authors concerns about early voting are about preventing fraud. Why wouldn't you want to vote the day after your taxes are due? Or let the states veto a Supreme Court decision, or a balanced budget amendment?

What on Earth does curtailing early voting have to do with preventing fraud?

As for letting the states veto a Supreme Court decision, that's just nonsense. Court opinions aren't actually binary yes-or-no decisions. They're not toggle switches that you can flip on and off. If you want to overturn the legal reasoning of the Court on an issue, you have to replace it with something. Are 2/3 of the state legislatures going to write a new opinion or what?

[RightBehind]

LGBT is a protected class

We are not a Christian nation

No death penalty

No second amendment

Healthcare is a right

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Healthcare is a right

No one is preventing anyone from seeing any health care professional they can afford.  While I do think that the provision of what some refer to as "positive rights" by the government is generally a good thing, imbuing them with the status of unlimited obligation that historically has been associated with "rights" is not.  It doesn't cost the government anything to respect the so-called "negative rights" that have historically been granted that designation.  The public fisc is not infinite, so it can't provide for every desire concerning education, health care, employment, etc.  Beyond ensuring equal opportunity to all to access what people can afford as well as equal access to any government provision of such services, I can't see marking them as rights.  The impossibility of government fully satisfying the demand for them would encourage people to see the traditional rights as something to not be fully achievable either, which is a definite bad thing in my opinion.

[RightBehind]

Are you insinuating that universal healthcare for all people is a bad thing while other countries have them? Yeah, I realize healthcare for all means higher taxes, but I'd rather have to pay higher taxes for healthcare and education than for another war or for corporate welfare, which we spend more on than social welfare.