What previously proposed constitutional amendments would you support?

[The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow]

Here's a pretty comprehensive list of constitutional amendments that have been under serious consideration in the past but were never ratified: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proposed_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Which previously proposed amendments would you have liked to see added?

Personally:

• Bayh-Celler or Every Vote Counts
• Equal Opportunity to Govern
• People's Rights

...and I would be open to considering or might support with modifications:

• Twenty-Second Amendment Repeal
• Ludlow Amendment
• Death Penalty Abolition (I'm supportive of the sentiment but not sure if it's worthy of an amendment)

[America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗]

Equal Opportunity to Govern and an amendment outlawing the death penalty.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Child Labor Amendment
Equal Rights Amendment
DC Voting Rights Amendment
Blaine Amendment
Ludlow Amendment
Death Penalty Abolition Amendment
Every Vote Counts Amendment
Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment
Peoples Rights Amendment
Saving American Democracy Amendment
Right to Vote Amendment
We the People Amendment
Democracy for All Amendment

[Dr. MB]

Out of those:

Ludlow Amendment
Bricker Amendment
Death Penalty Abolition Amendment
Every Vote Counts Amendment
Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment
Twenty-second Amendment repeal
Right to Vote Amendment
Saving American Democracy Amendment
People's Rights Amendment
D.C. voting rights amendment
We the People Amendment
Democracy For All Amendment

[brucejoel99]

• The Equal Rights Amendment that would've prohibited deprivation of equality of rights by the federal or state governments on account of sex.
• The District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment that would've treated Washington, D.C. as if it were a state regarding representation in Congress (including repealing the 23rd Amendment), representation in the Electoral College & participation in the process by which the Constitution is amended (only b/c D.C. statehood seems unlikely to occur anytime soon).
• Barbara Boxer's 2016 amendment that'd abolish the Electoral College & provide for the direct popular election of the President & Vice President of the United States by the voters in the various states & Washington, D.C.
• The We The People Amendment, to abolish the doctrines of corporate personhood & money equals political speech.
• 22nd Amendment repeal
• The Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment that'd allow naturalized citizens w/ at least 20 years' citizenship to become President.
• The Continuity of Government Amendment that'd allow Congress to temporarily replace members after at least a quarter of either chamber is incapacitated.

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I strongly support the Blaine Amendment and the amendment to overturn Citizens United. I'd also support impeachment of Supreme Court Justices responsible for the Citizens United ruling.

[MarkD]

Repeal the 22nd Amendment
Abolish the Electoral College and have direct, popular vote for President
Overturn Citizens United, but only so far as permitting federal, state, and local governments to regulate campaign expenditures, not the silly business of insisting that corporations are not people and do not have any constitutional rights.

Most importantly, adopt the amendment that I talk about in my signature! (That one is not in the list of ones Congress has considered.)

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Repeal the 22nd Amendment
Abolish the Electoral College and have direct, popular vote for President
Overturn Citizens United, but only so far as permitting federal, state, and local governments to regulate campaign expenditures, not the silly business of insisting that corporations are not people and do not have any constitutional rights.

Most importantly, adopt the amendment that I talk about in my signature! (That one is not in the list of ones Congress has considered.)

You barely describe how you want the amendment in your signature implemented?

Do you have a pastebin of what you want?

[MarkD]

Repeal the 22nd Amendment
Abolish the Electoral College and have direct, popular vote for President
Overturn Citizens United, but only so far as permitting federal, state, and local governments to regulate campaign expenditures, not the silly business of insisting that corporations are not people and do not have any constitutional rights.

Most importantly, adopt the amendment that I talk about in my signature! (That one is not in the list of ones Congress has considered.)

You barely describe how you want the amendment in your signature implemented?

Do you have a pastebin of what you want?

I don't know what a pastebin is. Here is a condensed version of what I have drafted.

The proposal I have drafted has a Preamble and four sections. The Preamble begins with a two-paragraph-long quotation from Justice James Iredell in the 1798 case of Calder v. Bull, then the Preamble concludes:
"The purpose of this article of the US Constitution is to give three previous amendments greater clarity and precision. The United States government and the respective states should have clear and precise guidelines about their legislative powers. This article will clarify two amendments that are binding on the United States, and it replaces a part of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is binding on the states."
Section 1: The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment shall henceforth be understood to only mean procedural due process, not substantive due process. In other words, government must not punish anyone without affording that person fair procedures, but the courts are not to second-guess the merits of the laws being enforced. But the federal government does have to treat everyone equally, the same way the states have to according to Section 3(b) of my proposal.
Section 2: The Ninth Amendment is only binding on the federal government, not on the states.
Section 3: The second sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and that sentence will be replaced with a new set of rules designed to be narrower and clearer.
3(a) Libertarianism: the states have to obey enumerated rights in the first eight amendments, but the only un-enumerated right that states have to obey is the right to interstate travel. The Supreme Court has twice said "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, ..." but my proposal tells the Court, and the rest of the country, that statement was completely incorrect. The federal judiciary has neither an obligation nor a prerogative to define liberty. The judiciary's obligation is to expound on the rights that are in the Constitution, not to expand them. The federal judiciary is instructed to stop declaring that states have to obey "fundamental rights" and "basic civil rights" that are not in the Constitution (again, with the one exception being the right to interstate travel). Therefore the Court's decisions about abortion, using contraceptives, sodomy, and any other libertarian ideas not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, no matter how controversial or uncontroversial, will all be overturned.
3(b) Egalitarianism: the states are not allowed to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, or disability status (and because of Section 1 above, the same will go for the federal government). Other than those five kinds of discrimination, all other kinds of discrimination are allowed. The rulings made by federal courts in 2013-2015 about same-sex marriage will be preserved. There will be no such thing as a "fundamental right to marry," but bans on interracial marriage and same-sex marriage will still be unconstitutional.
3(c) Another kind of egalitarianism: The states still have to respect voting rights as established in nearly all precedents the Supreme Court has laid down on that subject so far. In order to avoid gerrymandering of congressional or state legislative districts, redistricting must be done by independent redistricting commissions.
Section 4: Bush v. Gore was the worst decision the Supreme Court has ever rendered, and nothing like it must ever occur again.

[catographer]

Repeal the 22nd Amendment
Abolish the Electoral College and have direct, popular vote for President
Overturn Citizens United, but only so far as permitting federal, state, and local governments to regulate campaign expenditures, not the silly business of insisting that corporations are not people and do not have any constitutional rights.

Most importantly, adopt the amendment that I talk about in my signature! (That one is not in the list of ones Congress has considered.)

You barely describe how you want the amendment in your signature implemented?

Do you have a pastebin of what you want?

I don't know what a pastebin is. Here is a condensed version of what I have drafted.

The proposal I have drafted has a Preamble and four sections. The Preamble begins with a two-paragraph-long quotation from Justice James Iredell in the 1798 case of Calder v. Bull, then the Preamble concludes:
"The purpose of this article of the US Constitution is to give three previous amendments greater clarity and precision. The United States government and the respective states should have clear and precise guidelines about their legislative powers. This article will clarify two amendments that are binding on the United States, and it replaces a part of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is binding on the states."
Section 1: The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment shall henceforth be understood to only mean procedural due process, not substantive due process. In other words, government must not punish anyone without affording that person fair procedures, but the courts are not to second-guess the merits of the laws being enforced. But the federal government does have to treat everyone equally, the same way the states have to according to Section 3(b) of my proposal.
Section 2: The Ninth Amendment is only binding on the federal government, not on the states.
Section 3: The second sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and that sentence will be replaced with a new set of rules designed to be narrower and clearer.
3(a) Libertarianism: the states have to obey enumerated rights in the first eight amendments, but the only un-enumerated right that states have to obey is the right to interstate travel. The Supreme Court has twice said "Our obligation is to define the liberty of all, ..." but my proposal tells the Court, and the rest of the country, that statement was completely incorrect. The federal judiciary has neither an obligation nor a prerogative to define liberty. The judiciary's obligation is to expound on the rights that are in the Constitution, not to expand them. The federal judiciary is instructed to stop declaring that states have to obey "fundamental rights" and "basic civil rights" that are not in the Constitution (again, with the one exception being the right to interstate travel). Therefore the Court's decisions about abortion, using contraceptives, sodomy, and any other libertarian ideas not enumerated in the Bill of Rights, no matter how controversial or uncontroversial, will all be overturned.
3(b) Egalitarianism: the states are not allowed to discriminate against anyone on the basis of race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, or disability status (and because of Section 1 above, the same will go for the federal government). Other than those five kinds of discrimination, all other kinds of discrimination are allowed. The rulings made by federal courts in 2013-2015 about same-sex marriage will be preserved. There will be no such thing as a "fundamental right to marry," but bans on interracial marriage and same-sex marriage will still be unconstitutional.
3(c) Another kind of egalitarianism: The states still have to respect voting rights as established in nearly all precedents the Supreme Court has laid down on that subject so far. In order to avoid gerrymandering of congressional or state legislative districts, redistricting must be done by independent redistricting commissions.
Section 4: Bush v. Gore was the worst decision the Supreme Court has ever rendered, and nothing like it must ever occur again.

I find a lot of your proposed amendment to be pretty terrible. Mostly tho that's because I disagree about the powers of the judiciary. I like that the Courts have broad discretion to define and expand our rights, so long as they use legal logic and argument (which is what they're good at). It seems harmful to our rights to have them be narrowly limited and defined by the constitution, also making it harder to change them if needed. Also, I believe that the Bill of Rights were intentionally written in a way that was open to interpretation and flexibility, allowing rights to exist that were not explicitly mentioned but implied.
Your Section 1 removing substantive due process goes against so many years of court decisions. You take your disagreement with some legal opinions a step too far, enforcing your viewpoint as the only one.
Your section 2 bizarrely precludes the 9th amendment from the states. If all the others are incorporated, why not this one? Should our constitutional rights be smaller under state law than federal law?
Your section 3 is outrageous. The only unenumerated right is right to interstate travel? Why? Courts have reasonably found other un-enumerated rights in there; why do you preclude those but only leave this one?
Your egalitarianism position is very flawed too. I strongly disagree with limited protected classes so narrowly. Outside of those five types of discrimination, you think the rest are ok??? What about discrimination against transgender people, religious minorities? You're limited legislative powers to define discrimination too.

[catographer]

Proposed amendments:
Equal Rights Amendment (1972)
District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment (1978)
Right to Vote Amendment (2001)
Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment (2003)
Every Vote Counts Amendment (2004)

[MarkD]

I find a lot of your proposed amendment to be pretty terrible. Mostly tho that's because I disagree about the powers of the judiciary. I like that the Courts have broad discretion to define and expand our rights, so long as they use legal logic and argument (which is what they're good at). It seems harmful to our rights to have them be narrowly limited and defined by the constitution, also making it harder to change them if needed. Also, I believe that the Bill of Rights were intentionally written in a way that was open to interpretation and flexibility, allowing rights to exist that were not explicitly mentioned but implied.
Your Section 1 removing substantive due process goes against so many years of court decisions. You take your disagreement with some legal opinions a step too far, enforcing your viewpoint as the only one.
Your section 2 bizarrely precludes the 9th amendment from the states. If all the others are incorporated, why not this one? Should our constitutional rights be smaller under state law than federal law?
Your section 3 is outrageous. The only unenumerated right is right to interstate travel? Why? Courts have reasonably found other un-enumerated rights in there; why do you preclude those but only leave this one?
Your egalitarianism position is very flawed too. I strongly disagree with limited protected classes so narrowly. Outside of those five types of discrimination, you think the rest are ok??? What about discrimination against transgender people, religious minorities? You're limited legislative powers to define discrimination too.

This is an entirely predictable response from someone who trusts the judiciary, particularly the SCOTUS, much more than I do.
The right to interstate travel is the only unenumerated right that I propose we keep in the 14th Amendment because the SCOTUS did a good job of explaining that right's origin in the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th.
The 9th Amendment is only applicable against the states because of the original intent of the entire Bill of Rights, as explained in Barron v. Baltimore.
I'll include transgender people too in my section 3(b). Religious minorities are protected from discrimination because of the Free Exercise Clause.
The judiciary, in my opinion, should not be exercising the power to define liberty (substantive due process) and/or to define equality because those powers are legislative powers. When they exercise those powers they are legislating from the bench. The field of discretion is far too wide.