Thanks for the feedback, Virginia. For the record, you have every right to participate in Congressional debates if you so choose; in years past, it was something of a taboo for non-congresspersons to post on the AFG board, but those days are thankfully over.
I see what you're getting at, but I'm wary of wading too deep into the weeds of bureaucratic regulations with a Constitutional amendment, and I'm not sure how to be more direct without creating structural insufficiencies that would need to be addressed for further amendments. Perhaps the best way to go about it would be to strike the term "activity" entirely and replace it with "frequency of posting."
The first sentence clearly states that a citizen's right to vote may be rescinded "as punishment for crimes of which the accused has been duly convicted," thus granting the courts power to restrict voting rights in accordance with federal law (as such a penalty would necessarily be imposed by the judiciary). If you mean that the court would be unable to restrict the voting rights of citizens who have
not been convicted of a crime, then yes, you are correct; generally speaking, I think it bad policy to allow an unelected institution to rescind constitutional rights willy nilly.
This, at least, can be easily addressed by adding a clause defining all posts made in the Voting Booth as ballots and invalidating the vote of any citizen who posts multiple ballots in the Voting Booth.
Upon reading through the amendment a second time, it strikes me that it would also be advisable to add a clause to the second sentence stating "or having been edited more than twenty minutes after its posting in the voting booth."
