Write the 28th Amendment

[7,052,770]

I would abolish the healthcare mandate if I could write an amendment but keep certain parts of Obamacare.

You can't keep guaranteed issue/equal rates for people with PECs without the individual mandate.  If you strike guaranteed issue and equal rates for people with PECs too, then what was the point of all of it?

[Del Tachi]

Fleshing out an idea I had earlier

Section 1.  Any question of final passage put before the Senate shall not be considered in lack of the affirmative vote of two-thirds of Senators duly elected and sworn.

Section 2.  The Senate shall enforce this amendment through appropriate legislation.

Section 3.  Nothing in this amendment or this Constitution may be constructed as to deny the right of any Senator to speak and take the floor on any matter, as long as such is in accordance with the standing rules of the Senate.

[Deus Naturae]

Here's one I particularly like: http://www.libertyamendment.com/.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Here's one I particularly like: http://www.libertyamendment.com/.

Leaving aside the idiotic fourth section, which has absolutely no relation to the rest of the amendment, why do you want the government to sell off the weather service, the agricultural extension service, NIST, etc. ?

[politicallefty]

Section 1. The executive Power shall be transferred from the President and vested in a Prime Minister of the United States, who shall be chosen by a majority vote of the whole membership of the House of Representatives upon its convention. The Prime Minister shall first choose a Cabinet, which shall be established by Law and subject to confirmation by the House of Representatives.

Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every fourth Year by the People of the several States, except upon a majority of Representatives having voted to declare non-confidence in the Prime Minister and Cabinet. If the House of Representatives has voted to declare non-confidence, the House of Representatives shall be dissolved and the Prime Minister shall order Writs of Election for all Representatives to occur no sooner than thirty days and no later than sixty days upon such declaration. The House of Representatives shall convene for its Term no later than thirty days upon its Election.

Section 3. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Representatives shall be prescribed by Congress.

Section 4. Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate shall become Law.

Section 5. This amendment shall take effect upon the next Election of the House of Representatives occurring no sooner than ninety days after the date of ratification.


That's my attempt at adopting a parliamentary system for the US (with the Senate left untouched). I'm not a lawyer, so the language may not be entirely perfect in establishing my intent.

[SPC]

Section 1: The fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 3: The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 4: The second article of the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 5: The third article of the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 6: "...and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" and "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." are hereby removed from the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States.

[SteveRogers]

Section 1: The fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2: The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 3: The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 4: The second article of the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 5: The third article of the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 6: "...and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" and "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." are hereby removed from the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States.

Yeah, don't you hate it when congress provides for the common defense and general welfare of the country? What we need is a congress that will only make wholly unnecessary and wildly improper laws.

Ok, so we're going to let the states deny due process and equal protection at their whim, we're going to stop electing Senators, and the government will have no money. So far so good. Who gets the executive power though? Like, for commanding the army and enforcing the laws and so on? Are you intending a parliamentary system? Is the Speaker of the House the head of state now? If so that should probably be mentioned somewhere. Also, are there just going to be no courts at all now?

[SPC]

Yeah, don't you hate it when congress provides for the common defense and general welfare of the country?

I don't take issue to provision of the common defense. However, the general welfare clause served more as an excuse to justify the constitutionality of literally anything that Congress passes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

See above

You must be logged in to read this quote.

My issue with the Fourteenth Amendment stems more from the granting of birthright citizenship, which I believe to be a usurpation of the power of the states to determine who should have citizenship.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you seriously have no knowledge of American history from 1788-1913? Hint: Senators were elected, and the government had adequate funding.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It isn't strictly necessary to have law enforcement be a function of a federal executive; most of the legitimate powers of the federal government could be devolved to the states for enforcement. As for commanding the armed forces, I don't see why Congress could not temporarily delegate a narrow set of objectives if and when it is needed. The modern presidency has essentially evolved into an elective dictatorship, and thus to paraphrase Lysander Spooner, either Article II as it stands delegates too much power to the executive or is powerless to stop the executive from usurping such power. Better to prevent the vesting of so much power in one man

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Much like Article II, Article III has been tainted since Marbury vs. Madison allowed the Court to give itself the power of judicial review, which has essentially allowed the Court to assume legislative powers while giving Congress license to ignore constitutional objections to the laws they pass (which are typically rubber-stamped by said Court.) Most cases could be handled by state courts, and in fact it makes little sense for a Court appointed by the federal government to exist as an arbiter for cases involving the federal government.

[SteveRogers]

My issue with the Fourteenth Amendment stems more from the granting of birthright citizenship, which I believe to be a usurpation of the power of the states to determine who should have citizenship.

You know there's a lot of other important stuff in the 14th amendment though, right?

[Bandit3 the Worker]

I think there's a case to be made for having House elections every 4 years - in a presidential year - instead of every 2 years. More to the point, a lot of people just don't vote in the midterms lately. Why should the Tea Party 1% mob get its way half the time?

[SPC]

My issue with the Fourteenth Amendment stems more from the granting of birthright citizenship, which I believe to be a usurpation of the power of the states to determine who should have citizenship.

You know there's a lot of other important stuff in the 14th amendment though, right?

Most of which are historical relics, grossly misinterpreted in contemporary times to expand the power of the federal government.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

My issue with the Fourteenth Amendment stems more from the granting of birthright citizenship, which I believe to be a usurpation of the power of the states to determine who should have citizenship.

You know there's a lot of other important stuff in the 14th amendment though, right?

Most of which are historical relics, grossly misinterpreted in contemporary times to expand the power of the federal government.

Equal protection of the law is a "historical relic"?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you seriously have no knowledge of American history from 1788-1913? Hint: Senators were elected, and the government had adequate funding.

Senators weren't elected, they were chosen undemocratically by the state legislatures.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I think there's a case to be made for having House elections every 4 years - in a presidential year - instead of every 2 years. More to the point, a lot of people just don't vote in the midterms lately. Why should the Tea Party 1% mob get its way half the time?

My how things change.  Back when the Constitution one of the objections that those we'd consider to be on the left in our current view of politics were upset that the lengthy 2 year term for Representatives would make them unresponsive and unaccountable to the people.

[SPC]

My issue with the Fourteenth Amendment stems more from the granting of birthright citizenship, which I believe to be a usurpation of the power of the states to determine who should have citizenship.

You know there's a lot of other important stuff in the 14th amendment though, right?

Most of which are historical relics, grossly misinterpreted in contemporary times to expand the power of the federal government.

Equal protection of the law is a "historical relic"?

State-enforced legal codes mandating unequal protection under the law certainly are, unless there has been a recent movement to reinstate Black Codes or Jim Crow that I have missed. The due process clause has been used by later Courts as a vehicle for judicial usurpation of legislative authority.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you seriously have no knowledge of American history from 1788-1913? Hint: Senators were elected, and the government had adequate funding.
[/quote]

Senators weren't elected, they were chosen undemocratically by the state legislatures.
[/quote]

And state legislatures were not elected? Are the President, Vice-President and Speaker of the House not elected by your definition?

[Del Tachi]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Much like Article II, Article III has been tainted since Marbury vs. Madison allowed the Court to give itself the power of judicial review, which has essentially allowed the Court to assume legislative powers while giving Congress license to ignore constitutional objections to the laws they pass (which are typically rubber-stamped by said Court.) Most cases could be handled by state courts, and in fact it makes little sense for a Court appointed by the federal government to exist as an arbiter for cases involving the federal government.

Eliminating federal courts would be the quickest way to establish a confederal government in the United States.  State courts would interpret federal laws in various ways, and it would basically render all federal law moot.  The Congress would be able to pass measure for their "symbolic" value - but state governments would be in charge of interpreting and executing federal law.

Of course, this would be preposterous in the United States that we know today. But its not that difficult to imagine a "young" United States under such a system. 

[bedstuy]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Much like Article II, Article III has been tainted since Marbury vs. Madison allowed the Court to give itself the power of judicial review, which has essentially allowed the Court to assume legislative powers while giving Congress license to ignore constitutional objections to the laws they pass (which are typically rubber-stamped by said Court.) Most cases could be handled by state courts, and in fact it makes little sense for a Court appointed by the federal government to exist as an arbiter for cases involving the federal government.

Eliminating federal courts would be the quickest way to establish a confederal government in the United States.  State courts would interpret federal laws in various ways, and it would basically render all federal law moot.  The Congress would be able to pass measure for their "symbolic" value - but state governments would be in charge of interpreting and executing federal law.

Of course, this would be preposterous in the United States that we know today. But its not that difficult to imagine a "young" United States under such a system. 

You don't have to imagine it, we tried it under the Articles of Confederation and it didn't work at all, even in ye olden times.

[Illuminati Blood Drinker]

1. The right to freedom of speech guaranteed in the 1st Amendment shall not, in any way, be construed to prohibit Congress, or the individual states and the governments thereof, from exercising limits upon monetary donations from corporate groups to candidates for political office.

2. The House of Representatives is hereby doubled in size to 870 members. Half of these members shall be chosen from single-member districts in the fifty states, while the other half of these members shall be allocated by proportion of vote received by each party in the most recent election.

3. The Electoral College is hereby abolished. The President shall be instead elected by a nationwide popular vote.

4. Equal airtime access shall be guaranteed to every candidate in every election.

5. Every citizen is guaranteed the right to vote.

6. A federal voter registry is to be constructed, which shall grant every registered voter a card or other form of identification, free of charge, so all citizens may exercise their right to vote guaranteed in Section 5; and every citizen shall be added to the registry at birth as "inactive voters", without the right to vote in elections, until they attain the age of majority, hereby defined as 18 years of age, at which point they will be declared "active voters" and gain the right to vote in elections.

[SPC]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Much like Article II, Article III has been tainted since Marbury vs. Madison allowed the Court to give itself the power of judicial review, which has essentially allowed the Court to assume legislative powers while giving Congress license to ignore constitutional objections to the laws they pass (which are typically rubber-stamped by said Court.) Most cases could be handled by state courts, and in fact it makes little sense for a Court appointed by the federal government to exist as an arbiter for cases involving the federal government.

Eliminating federal courts would be the quickest way to establish a confederal government in the United States.  State courts would interpret federal laws in various ways, and it would basically render all federal law moot.  The Congress would be able to pass measure for their "symbolic" value - but state governments would be in charge of interpreting and executing federal law.

You say this as if it were a flaw rather than a feature. I fail to see any reason that 310 million people need to be ruled by an army of bureaucrats taking orders from Washington, rather than having law enforcement be under the purview of a body more directly accountable to the citizenry.

You don't have to imagine it, we tried it under the Articles of Confederation and it didn't work at all, even in ye olden times.

The main flaw of the Critical Period was widespread use of debased paper money by the state governments (sound familiar?), not the absence of a dictatorial executive branch. Even if there were merit to the idea that the Constitution was preferable to the Articles, such a comparison is irrelevant in today's world, given that the United States of the 1780s had a much smaller and more geographically compact population than today. Given that several states would be among the largest economies in the world if they were to secede tomorrow, it is nonsensical to suggest that devolution back to a confederation is inherently unworkable.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Much like Article II, Article III has been tainted since Marbury vs. Madison allowed the Court to give itself the power of judicial review, which has essentially allowed the Court to assume legislative powers while giving Congress license to ignore constitutional objections to the laws they pass (which are typically rubber-stamped by said Court.) Most cases could be handled by state courts, and in fact it makes little sense for a Court appointed by the federal government to exist as an arbiter for cases involving the federal government.

Eliminating federal courts would be the quickest way to establish a confederal government in the United States.  State courts would interpret federal laws in various ways, and it would basically render all federal law moot.  The Congress would be able to pass measure for their "symbolic" value - but state governments would be in charge of interpreting and executing federal law.

You say this as if it were a flaw rather than a feature. I fail to see any reason that 310 million people need to be ruled by an army of bureaucrats taking orders from Washington, rather than having law enforcement be under the purview of a body more directly accountable to the citizenry.

You don't have to imagine it, we tried it under the Articles of Confederation and it didn't work at all, even in ye olden times.

The main flaw of the Critical Period was widespread use of debased paper money by the state governments (sound familiar?), not the absence of a dictatorial executive branch. Even if there were merit to the idea that the Constitution was preferable to the Articles, such a comparison is irrelevant in today's world, given that the United States of the 1780s had a much smaller and more geographically compact population than today. Given that several states would be among the largest economies in the world if they were to secede tomorrow, it is nonsensical to suggest that devolution back to a confederation is inherently unworkable.

Geographically, it may have been more compact, but temporally it was far far far less compact.  In 1787, anything other than a Federal government would have been unworkable for America.  A National government could work today, and while not wholly desirable, there are some things currently handled as Federal-State partnerships that would be best done as purely Federal programs with no State government involvement at all.

[Mordecai]

Tie debt ceiling increases to congressional budgets and appropriation bills.

[Fed. Pac. Chairman Devin]

Section 1. No State shall make or enforce any law that is based on religion of any kind. While it is acknowledged that everyone has the right to free exercise of religion, this does not condone discrimination. No law shall be made based on the Christian doctrine, and no law shall be made that allows an employee, public or private, to refuse to serve a member of the public based on that person's sexual orientation because of that person's religious beliefs.

Section 2. In order to protect the rights of all to vote from the Republican Party's constant and unrelenting attacks on the Fifteenth Amendment to this Constitution, no State shall make or enforce any law that requires a picture ID to vote, or any other attempt to make voting lines longer, make it more difficult to vote, or any other law designed to prevent minorities, women, or any other group from voting because of the political party they tend to vote for. However, an IQ test must be passed in order to vote, and anyone holding radical right-wing views, including belief that the President was born in Kenya, George Zimmerman is a saint, reading Ayn Rand, having an intense, burning hatred of Hollywood, or viewing of Fox News shall be ineligible to vote for the rest of his or her life. The above list is not all-inclusive.

Section 3. No state shall make or enforce any law that bans or restricts abortion. Any such laws on the books presently, be it made by the States or the Federal Government, is repealed and considered null and void.

Section 4. Marriage in the United States shall consist of one man and one man, one woman and one woman, or one man and one woman. No couple blood-related closer than second cousins shall be eligible to marry, and only human beings over the age of 18 and legally capable of consenting shall be eligible to marry. Any gay couple shall be given equal treatment in matters of adoption, and religious organizations shall not refuse to place a child with a gay couple simply because the couple is gay.

Section 5. Citizens United is overturned, corporations are not people, and money is not free speech.

Section 6. The President of the United States shall serve a six-year term. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than once, and any person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than three years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be considered to have served his term and therefore ineligible to hold the office again.

Section 7. Both Representatives and Senators shall serve two-year terms. No person shall serve more than one term in Congress for the duration of his or her lifetime.

Section 8. Congress shall set up a universal health care system that is funded by taxpayer dollars. Private insurance companies are hereby illegal, and no hospital may charge more than 15% of the actual cost to deliver the health care service, nor charge the patient any copay.

Section 9. Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito shall be removed from the Supreme Court and replaced by Justices who will rule based on the Constitution and not the GOP Platform.

So basically you want hospitals to go bankrupt? Also its a little hypocritical that you oppose voter ID, but want to ban those who disagree with you from voting.

[TNF]

Section 1. Upon the ratification of this amendment, the Constitution of the United States shall be rendered null and void.

[The Free North]

Something akin to a section of the Swiss constitution that requires all expansions of federal power to be approved by a double majority of citizens and states.

[The Mikado]

Section 1. Effective the 2020 Census, all elections to the House of Representatives and Senate in these United States shall be determined under the preferential voting system.
Section 2: Effective the 2020 Census, all states with more than one congressional district shall have the new boundaries of their districts determined by committees containing equal numbers of delegates from the two parties that achieved the highest vote total in the state's last gubernatorial election.  These delegates will draw up a set of districts that will minimize the splitting of communities of interest and attempt as far as possible to achieve compact districts.

[TNF]

Something akin to a section of the Swiss constitution that requires all expansions of federal power to be approved by a double majority of citizens and states.

So you want to make government even less democratic?