Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 20, 2019, 04:57:42 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Predictions are now active

  Atlas Forum
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: True Federalist)
  If you could introduce a Constitutional Amendment What would it be
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 Print
Author Topic: If you could introduce a Constitutional Amendment What would it be  (Read 43906 times)
Sentor MAINEiac4434 of Lincoln
MAINEiac4434
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,325
France


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -8.78

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #225 on: August 01, 2018, 01:41:11 pm »

Repeal Article II, Clauses 2 & 3.
Logged
Goldmember
Singletxguyforfun
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,272
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #226 on: August 01, 2018, 02:09:08 pm »

A 2/3 majority needed to raise any taxes
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,582


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #227 on: August 01, 2018, 02:22:58 pm »

- Mandate supermajority votes in Senate for all judicial candidates

3/5ths or 2/3rds (like most Constitutional supermajorities)? If 2/3rds, you can pretty much guarantee that the federal judiciary will end up pretty much completely vacant.
Logged
KingSweden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,285
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #228 on: August 01, 2018, 07:52:55 pm »

- Mandate supermajority votes in Senate for all judicial candidates

3/5ths or 2/3rds (like most Constitutional supermajorities)? If 2/3rds, you can pretty much guarantee that the federal judiciary will end up pretty much completely vacant.

2/3rds. Obviously that would go in hand with my other proposed reforms, the idea being towards guaranteeing consensus nominees
Logged
Alabama_Indy10
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,349
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #229 on: August 01, 2018, 08:39:01 pm »

- Mandate supermajority votes in Senate for all judicial candidates

3/5ths or 2/3rds (like most Constitutional supermajorities)? If 2/3rds, you can pretty much guarantee that the federal judiciary will end up pretty much completely vacant.

2/3rds. Obviously that would go in hand with my other proposed reforms, the idea being towards guaranteeing consensus nominees
How do guarantee consensus nominees? Just curious...
Logged
KingSweden
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,285
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #230 on: August 01, 2018, 10:33:49 pm »

- Mandate supermajority votes in Senate for all judicial candidates

3/5ths or 2/3rds (like most Constitutional supermajorities)? If 2/3rds, you can pretty much guarantee that the federal judiciary will end up pretty much completely vacant.

2/3rds. Obviously that would go in hand with my other proposed reforms, the idea being towards guaranteeing consensus nominees
How do guarantee consensus nominees? Just curious...

Well, nothing is ever guaranteed. But having a higher threshold for confirmation would presumably shift one away from more controversial/ideological candidates. Thereíd still be conservative or liberal judges, sure, but it wouldnít be the kind of rubber stamp stuff we see now
Logged
darklordoftech
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,360
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #231 on: August 10, 2018, 02:06:49 pm »
« Edited: August 10, 2018, 02:22:29 pm by darklordoftech »

- Amend the 2nd amendment so that it only applies to the federal government. State and municipality governments should be free to allow or ban guns to their hearts' content.

- Add things involving student rights.

- Strengthen the equal protection clause when it comes to sex/gender, LGBT, and age
Logged
RoboWop
AMB1996
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,386
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: 5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #232 on: August 10, 2018, 09:31:05 pm »

- Amend the 2nd amendment so that it only applies to the federal government. State and municipality governments should be free to allow or ban guns to their hearts' content.

- Add things involving student rights.

- Strengthen the equal protection clause when it comes to sex/gender, LGBT, and age

You can't do both. Your first proposal would effectively repeal the Fourteenth Amendment and especially void the equal protection clause. Interesting choice to reverse over 100 years of civil rights jurisprudence.
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,706


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #233 on: August 11, 2018, 09:23:18 am »

- Amend the 2nd amendment so that it only applies to the federal government. State and municipality governments should be free to allow or ban guns to their hearts' content.

- Add things involving student rights.

- Strengthen the equal protection clause when it comes to sex/gender, LGBT, and age

You can't do both. Your first proposal would effectively repeal the Fourteenth Amendment and especially void the equal protection clause. Interesting choice to reverse over 100 years of civil rights jurisprudence.
I donít think thatís true
Logged
MarkD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,604
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #234 on: August 11, 2018, 01:56:31 pm »
« Edited: August 11, 2018, 02:17:43 pm by MarkD »

- Amend the 2nd amendment so that it only applies to the federal government. State and municipality governments should be free to allow or ban guns to their hearts' content.

- Add things involving student rights.

- Strengthen the equal protection clause when it comes to sex/gender, LGBT, and age

You can't do both. Your first proposal would effectively repeal the Fourteenth Amendment and especially void the equal protection clause. Interesting choice to reverse over 100 years of civil rights jurisprudence.
I donít think thatís true

Me either.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment is based on the Due Process Clause, not the Equal Protection Clause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
And it is a serious slippery slope fallacy to say that when someone advocates that one right in the Bill of Rights should not be incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, that person is advocating for repeal of the entire Fourteenth Amendment.

On the other hand, I disagree with darklordoftech that students' rights and a regulation on age discrimination ought to be elevated into constitutional law. As Prof. John Hart Ely wrote, "[C]onstitutional law appropriately exists for those situations where representative government cannot be trusted, not those where we know it can." (From "Democracy and Distrust," published in 1980.) I don't see any need to elevate students' rights and age discrimination into the Constitution.

(I DO see a need to rewrite Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment. See my signature and, on this thread, page 7, reply #162.)
Logged
libertpaulian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,583
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #235 on: August 11, 2018, 07:21:41 pm »

An amendment modifying the Second Amendment to simply read: "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed."
Logged
RoboWop
AMB1996
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,386
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: 5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #236 on: August 11, 2018, 09:14:43 pm »
« Edited: May 05, 2019, 10:14:53 pm by 习近平 2020 »

- Amend the 2nd amendment so that it only applies to the federal government. State and municipality governments should be free to allow or ban guns to their hearts' content.

- Add things involving student rights.

- Strengthen the equal protection clause when it comes to sex/gender, LGBT, and age

You can't do both. Your first proposal would effectively repeal the Fourteenth Amendment and especially void the equal protection clause. Interesting choice to reverse over 100 years of civil rights jurisprudence.
I don’t think that’s true
Me either.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment is based on the Due Process Clause, not the Equal Protection Clause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

And it is a serious slippery slope fallacy to say that when someone advocates that one right in the Bill of Rights should not be incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, that person is advocating for repeal of the entire Fourteenth Amendment...

I'm a believer that the key to incorporation is actually the privileges and immunities clause; equal protection is only in force against discrimination, not broad rights violations like the one being proposed. (I'll backtrack a little for clarity – it's at least ironic that someone is directly attacking the Fourteenth Amendment while extolling the equal protection clause. It might not be impossible to come up with some linguistic contrivance whereby "nor" needs no antecedent, but it sure is doubtful.)

Section 1 in full reads: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You can't re-read the Amendment with a strikethrough to simply say "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." And then to say that the equal protection clause could survive (at all, let alone as applied to the states) in a sentence that is clearly unconstitutional? It seems ridiculous on its face.

It's specious to say that an Amendment allowing states to make laws abridging one of the enumerated privileges and immunities (at least in 1868) would not explicitly overturn the Fourteenth Amendment. If a State can now make and enforce such a law, Section 1 collapses.

It's not a slippery slope; it's a house of cards. You just knocked out the entire bottom floor.

edit: But this is all for fun, so I don't mean to rain on the parade too hard.
Logged
JacksonHitchcock
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,059
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #237 on: August 12, 2018, 09:36:08 am »

repeal the 22nd amendment, and add an amendment that named me President for Life, and my eldest son as the Vice President for Life until my death in which he would assume the Presidency
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,760
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #238 on: August 12, 2018, 12:05:16 pm »

repeal the 22nd amendment, and add an amendment that named me President for Life, and my eldest son as the Vice President for Life until my death in which he would assume the Presidency
So when did you start having fantasies of being assassinated by your son?
Logged
The love that set me free
BRTD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 86,305
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #239 on: August 12, 2018, 12:43:28 pm »

Establishing some form of IRV or STV for Congressional elections and abolishing the Electoral College and replacing it with an IRV popular vote election.
Logged
MarkD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,604
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #240 on: August 12, 2018, 05:17:26 pm »

- Amend the 2nd amendment so that it only applies to the federal government. State and municipality governments should be free to allow or ban guns to their hearts' content.

- Add things involving student rights.

- Strengthen the equal protection clause when it comes to sex/gender, LGBT, and age

You can't do both. Your first proposal would effectively repeal the Fourteenth Amendment and especially void the equal protection clause. Interesting choice to reverse over 100 years of civil rights jurisprudence.
I donít think thatís true
Me either.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment is based on the Due Process Clause, not the Equal Protection Clause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

And it is a serious slippery slope fallacy to say that when someone advocates that one right in the Bill of Rights should not be incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, that person is advocating for repeal of the entire Fourteenth Amendment...

I'm a believer that the key to incorporation is actually the privileges and immunities clause; equal protection is only in force against discrimination, not broad rights violations like the one being proposed. (I'll backtrack a little for clarity Ė it's at least ironic that someone is directly attacking the Fourteenth Amendment while extolling the equal protection clause. It might not be impossible to come up with some linguistic contrivance whereby "nor" needs no antecedent, but it sure is doubtful.)

Section 1 in full reads: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You can't re-read the Amendment with a strikethrough to simply say "Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." And then to say that the equal protection clause could survive (at all, let alone as applied to the states) in a sentence that is clearly unconstitutional? It seems ridiculous on its face.

It's specious to say that an Amendment allowing states to make laws abridging one of the enumerated privileges and immunities (at least in 1868) would not explicitly overturn the Fourteenth Amendment. If a State can now make and enforce such a law, Section 1 collapses.

It's not a slippery slope; it's a house of cards. You just knocked out the entire bottom floor.

edit: But this is all for fun, so I don't mean to rain on the parade to hard.

The only thing you've said I can agree with is that the Privileges or Immunities Clause can be a good source for incorporating the Bill of Rights. On the rest of what you said, we're going to have to just agree to disagree.
Logged
darklordoftech
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,360
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #241 on: August 13, 2018, 01:13:55 am »

- Amend the 2nd amendment so that it only applies to the federal government. State and municipality governments should be free to allow or ban guns to their hearts' content.

- Add things involving student rights.

- Strengthen the equal protection clause when it comes to sex/gender, LGBT, and age

You can't do both. Your first proposal would effectively repeal the Fourteenth Amendment and especially void the equal protection clause. Interesting choice to reverse over 100 years of civil rights jurisprudence.
I donít think thatís true

Me either.
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the Fourteenth Amendment is based on the Due Process Clause, not the Equal Protection Clause.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights
And it is a serious slippery slope fallacy to say that when someone advocates that one right in the Bill of Rights should not be incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, that person is advocating for repeal of the entire Fourteenth Amendment.
I didn't say that guns should be an exception to the 14th amendment, but rather that guns shouldn't be a right in and of themselves at the state and municipality levels. For example, I don't think California should be able to ban blacks from possessing guns, but I do think that California should be able to ban gun possession altogether.
Logged
Figs
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,829


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #242 on: August 16, 2018, 07:24:23 am »

My proposed amendments would clarify the bounds in which contested elections and presidential succession would operate. The Presidential Succession Act of 1947 is a mess, and the fact that it doesn't separate out vacancies resulting from death, impeachment, resignation, etc. is a travesty. The fact that it doesn't call for a special election in the event of at least some vacancies is absurd (for instance, if someone is impeached for having gained office illegitimately, it makes NO SENSE to hand over power to their chosen successor and say that fixes things). It should not be Constitutional to pardon an outgoing resigning or impeached president.

In the absence of a provision to declare the winner of the popular vote the winner of the presidency, I'd like some clarification about what happens in the result of a contested election. Right now a lot of things are completely unclear. If a state doesn't certify its electors, leaving nobody with 270, does the election get kicked to the House, or does the candidate with the majority of certified electors get sworn in? There are compelling arguments on both sides, but this is completely an open question. The method of resolving contested elections, with the House voting as state delegations, is absolutely bonkers and is a time bomb waiting to go off.
Logged
IndustrialJustice
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 543


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #243 on: August 16, 2018, 09:07:34 am »

An amendment modifying the Second Amendment to simply read: "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed."

That would certainly be the best way around Scalia's ridiculous reading of the Amendment in Heller.
Logged
Former President Weatherboy1102
weatherboy1102
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,819
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.61, S: -7.83

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #244 on: August 17, 2018, 06:35:42 pm »

Establishing some form of IRV or STV for Congressional elections and abolishing the Electoral College and replacing it with an IRV popular vote election.

probably this, but maybe something else
Logged
Galletito
cookiedamage
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,631


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #245 on: August 23, 2018, 01:10:50 pm »

Making "Touch It" by Ariana Grande the National Anthem and decreeing that all Confederate monuments to be torn down and liquefied immediately and be reconstructed as roomba parts.
Logged
mathstatman
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,443
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #246 on: August 23, 2018, 02:30:50 pm »

Making "Touch It" by Ariana Grande the National Anthem and decreeing that all Confederate monuments to be torn down and liquefied immediately and be reconstructed as roomba parts.
LOL! I like Ariana Grande, too. (At the urging of a karaoke host, I once made up a dance to "Bang Bang").

My improv teacher told me she (Grande) had a connection with anti-Semitism, but I have been unable to find any evidence for this. (As a progressive Catholic, I want nothing to do with anti-Semitism).
Logged
Mikestone8
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 84
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #247 on: November 19, 2018, 03:44:59 am »

Off the top of my head, three

1) a) The Supreme Court of the United State shall consist of a Chief Justice and not more than eight Associate Justices.

b) If, in the opinion of three-fourths of the Justices, any Justice shall through age or infirmity be no longer able to carry out the duties of his office, the Justices so affirming shall so inform the Senate and House of Representatives in writing under their signatures, and any Justices dissenting from this shall have thirty days in which to similarly notify the Senate and House of Representatives of their dissent. In the event that the Senate and House shall, by two-thirds of votes cast, concur with such opinion, the Justice shall cease to hold office and a successor be appointed as in the case of his death or retirement, but if such majorities be not obtained he shall continue in office.

[no packing allowed, but a provision to remove Justices who go senile]



2) Amendments to this Constitution shall have affect upon their ratification, not more than seven years after their submission to the States, by three-fourths thereof. But no ratification shall be made after the expiry of seven years from said submission, any such ratifications being held illegal and void.


[no more nonsense about Amendments getting resurrected 200 years after they were proposed]


3) No law of the United States or of any State shall take effect until the legislative body enacting it shall have also enacted how the revenue shall be raised for any expenditure necessary for its execution, which monies shall be paid by the United States in the case of a United States Law, and by the State in the case of a State Law.


[no "unfunded mandates". Whichever level of government mandates the expenditure also pays the bill for it]
Logged
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,645


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #248 on: December 04, 2018, 09:23:38 am »
« Edited: December 04, 2018, 09:52:22 am by StateBoiler »

-Formalize the rules and procedure for holding an Article V Convention.
-Revise the Order of Succession to remove the Speaker of the House and the Senate Pro Tempore from the list.
-Revise the Order of Succession so that in the event of the vice presidency becoming vacant, it just remains vacant, and the Secretary of State who was already approved by Congress in that role, is de facto vice president.
-Provide for if the Order of Succession in an obviously catastrophic event is exhausted, the governors of all states come together and select the new president.
-If House seats become vacant (resignation/death/taking other office/federal appointment), instead of holding a new election for the seat delayed by many months, it becomes a party caucus/primary that elects the new officeholder.
-Increase the size of the House of Representatives. Not sure what number, but it'd be a kind of deal where you increase their size say 20% while declining their pay and their staff budgets 20% or somewhere thereabouts. The idea is it becomes more representative of the national population distribution which helps the Electoral College while also reducing committee assignments per representative.
-In light of how much shenanigans the federal government has had lately on Supreme Court confirmations, allow for a list over time of pre-packaged approvals by the Senate of say 10 to 15 individuals, and the president if he wants can choose from that list and the nominee is automatically seated on the Supreme Court, therefore no confirmation hearings or political grandstanding. If the president wants to choose from outside the list, he can, but there'd be confirmation hearings. I'm not saying there'd be no confirmation hearings at all, but they would be held before the candidate on the list is selected by the president.

I've been mulling whether I like this and changing elections to every 3 years:

-president - 3-year term, eligible to serve 3 terms (so nine years)
-House - up every 3 years
-Senate - still a 6-year term, but you alternate who is up for election between the 2 seats each time
Logged
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,645


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #249 on: December 05, 2018, 12:11:41 pm »

One more I forgot, provide that the vice-president can have the opportunity as a "day job" be a cabinet-level secretary or run a government agency. (Still has to be approved by the legislature of course.) It'd have to be thought about to ensure no double dipping, but I think it would be an improvement to the VP position.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC