Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 17, 2019, 06:34:03 pm
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  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 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] Print
Author Topic: If you could introduce a Constitutional Amendment What would it be  (Read 43854 times)
Mikestone8
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 84
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #250 on: December 05, 2018, 12:36:01 pm »

My proposed amendments would clarify the bounds in which contested elections and presidential  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.

It's not all that open. The Constitution required a majority of the total number of Electors to choose the POTUS. So if a state fails to choose nay, then a majority of the ones who have been chosen is sufficient.
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,754
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #251 on: December 05, 2018, 03:22:43 pm »

My proposed amendments would clarify the bounds in which contested elections and presidential  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.

It's not all that open. The Constitution required a majority of the total number of Electors to choose the POTUS. So if a state fails to choose nay, then a majority of the ones who have been chosen is sufficient.

I think what Figs was getting at was what if there is a dispute over whether Electors have been appointed or as in 1876, which Electors were appointed. Unlike Article I Section 5 Clause 1 which explicitly grants each House of Congress the right to judge whether prospective members have actually been elected and are qualified to be a Senator or a Representative, there is no explicit Constitutional grant of authority for the Electors to be so judged by anyone. That said, there is statutory law setting out what to do in such cases and in the absence of any other provision there is the Necessary and Proper clause to justify that law.
Logged
Figs
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,819


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #252 on: December 06, 2018, 08:57:11 am »

My proposed amendments would clarify the bounds in which contested elections and presidential  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.

It's not all that open. The Constitution required a majority of the total number of Electors to choose the POTUS. So if a state fails to choose nay, then a majority of the ones who have been chosen is sufficient.

I think what Figs was getting at was what if there is a dispute over whether Electors have been appointed or as in 1876, which Electors were appointed. Unlike Article I Section 5 Clause 1 which explicitly grants each House of Congress the right to judge whether prospective members have actually been elected and are qualified to be a Senator or a Representative, there is no explicit Constitutional grant of authority for the Electors to be so judged by anyone. That said, there is statutory law setting out what to do in such cases and in the absence of any other provision there is the Necessary and Proper clause to justify that law.

There's this dispute, for sure; but there's also arguments, never quite resolved, over whether the denominator for determination of a majority is of electors chosen, or of electors assigned to states. That is, if California failed to certify a slate of electors, then while there are 538 electors assigned, there are only 483 chosen. Is a majority sufficient to win the presidency calculated based on 538 (270), or based on 483 (242)?
Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,754
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #253 on: December 06, 2018, 05:55:36 pm »

My proposed amendments would clarify the bounds in which contested elections and presidential  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.

It's not all that open. The Constitution required a majority of the total number of Electors to choose the POTUS. So if a state fails to choose nay, then a majority of the ones who have been chosen is sufficient.

I think what Figs was getting at was what if there is a dispute over whether Electors have been appointed or as in 1876, which Electors were appointed. Unlike Article I Section 5 Clause 1 which explicitly grants each House of Congress the right to judge whether prospective members have actually been elected and are qualified to be a Senator or a Representative, there is no explicit Constitutional grant of authority for the Electors to be so judged by anyone. That said, there is statutory law setting out what to do in such cases and in the absence of any other provision there is the Necessary and Proper clause to justify that law.

There's this dispute, for sure; but there's also arguments, never quite resolved, over whether the denominator for determination of a majority is of electors chosen, or of electors assigned to states. That is, if California failed to certify a slate of electors, then while there are 538 electors assigned, there are only 483 chosen. Is a majority sufficient to win the presidency calculated based on 538 (270), or based on 483 (242)?

If they weren't certified, they obviously weren't appointed and the text of the Constitution states Ēa majority of the whole number of Electors appointed", so it would in your example be 242 out of 483.
Logged
Figs
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,819


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #254 on: December 06, 2018, 06:50:42 pm »

My proposed amendments would clarify the bounds in which contested elections and presidential  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.

It's not all that open. The Constitution required a majority of the total number of Electors to choose the POTUS. So if a state fails to choose nay, then a majority of the ones who have been chosen is sufficient.

I think what Figs was getting at was what if there is a dispute over whether Electors have been appointed or as in 1876, which Electors were appointed. Unlike Article I Section 5 Clause 1 which explicitly grants each House of Congress the right to judge whether prospective members have actually been elected and are qualified to be a Senator or a Representative, there is no explicit Constitutional grant of authority for the Electors to be so judged by anyone. That said, there is statutory law setting out what to do in such cases and in the absence of any other provision there is the Necessary and Proper clause to justify that law.

There's this dispute, for sure; but there's also arguments, never quite resolved, over whether the denominator for determination of a majority is of electors chosen, or of electors assigned to states. That is, if California failed to certify a slate of electors, then while there are 538 electors assigned, there are only 483 chosen. Is a majority sufficient to win the presidency calculated based on 538 (270), or based on 483 (242)?

If they weren't certified, they obviously weren't appointed and the text of the Constitution states Ēa majority of the whole number of Electors appointed", so it would in your example be 242 out of 483.

I donít have it at hand, so Iíll have to go digging, but much of what Iíd read indicated that at the time of some debate, this was an open, unsettled question with proponents on both sides.
Logged
Orser67
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,087
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #255 on: December 08, 2018, 01:43:28 am »

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

I'm strongly in favor of this idea (including the 3-term eligibility for the president). I really think we'd benefit a lot from holding elections every 3 years instead of every 2. Way too much time is spent on electioneering instead of governing.
Logged
Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,188
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #256 on: December 08, 2018, 03:40:30 pm »

I'm contemplating an amendment making the Attorney General more independent of the White House who cannot be fired by the President except with the consent of Congress, and then only by a vote by both houses. 
Logged
MarkD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,595
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #257 on: December 08, 2018, 03:50:18 pm »

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]

What's nonsense about it? Some ideas are timeless and are just as relevant when they were proposed 200 years ago as now. If an idea is NOT timeless and only pertains to the era when proposed, then the proposers should add a section that their proposal must be ratified within X number of years or else it is not validly ratified. Let the people who do the drafting decide whether their proposal needs to be ratified within some certain number of years.
Logged
brucejoel99
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,856
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #258 on: December 23, 2018, 09:53:20 am »

Just one? An amendment to overturn the Seventeenth Amendment.

Ahh yes, bringing back the corruption & stagnation of the Gilded Age; what's not to like?
Logged
libertpaulian
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,581
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #259 on: January 26, 2019, 10:58:49 am »

My Top 3 Amendments:

1. Make the Second Amendment clear that it applies to citizens possessing, carrying, and using firearms (including so-called "assault weapons")

2. Repeal the 17th Amendment

3. Make the Hyde Amendment permanent
Logged
Alabama_Indy10
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,349
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #260 on: January 26, 2019, 11:25:37 am »

My Top 3 Amendments:

1. Make the Second Amendment clear that it applies to citizens possessing, carrying, and using firearms (including so-called "assault weapons")

2. Repeal the 17th Amendment

3. Make the Hyde Amendment permanent


What's wrong with the 17th amendment?
Logged
wildviper121
Newbie
*
Posts: 19
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #261 on: January 26, 2019, 12:19:17 pm »

-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.
-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.
-Why even have a VP then? Just abolish the position.
-What if they're independent? The House is big enough that vacancies aren't going to  it up
Logged
Figs
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,819


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #262 on: January 26, 2019, 12:42:22 pm »

My Top 3 Amendments:

1. Make the Second Amendment clear that it applies to citizens possessing, carrying, and using firearms (including so-called "assault weapons")

2. Repeal the 17th Amendment

3. Make the Hyde Amendment permanent


What's wrong with the 17th amendment?

Popular elections of senators means you canít win senate seats by gerrymandering the state legislature, i assume.
Logged
brucejoel99
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,856
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #263 on: January 26, 2019, 06:24:29 pm »

My Top 3 Amendments:

1. Make the Second Amendment clear that it applies to citizens possessing, carrying, and using firearms (including so-called "assault weapons")

2. Repeal the 17th Amendment

3. Make the Hyde Amendment permanent


What's wrong with the 17th amendment?

Popular elections of senators means you canít win senate seats by gerrymandering the state legislature, i assume.

B/c "we want to have the Senate represent the states as states rather than the states as collections of individuals" is code for "we want more power to push our personal agendas & buying off state legislators to pick lackey Senators gives us that power."
Logged
Flyersfan232
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 397


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #264 on: January 27, 2019, 12:11:36 pm »

-Revise the Order of Succession to remove the Speaker of the House and the Senate Pro Tempore from the list.
-banned abortion
-term limits for governor and reps and senators
-remove birth right citizenship
Logged
Flyersfan232
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 397


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #265 on: January 27, 2019, 12:12:15 pm »

-Revise the Order of Succession to remove the Speaker of the House and the Senate Pro Tempore from the list.
-banned abortion
-term limits for governor and reps and senators
-remove birth right citizenship
and add removing the draft
Logged
Councilor Suburban New Jersey Conservative
S019
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,781


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #266 on: March 10, 2019, 11:11:32 pm »

Return government to the states, people, and businesses Amendment

Repeal Obamacare and give healthcare to private companies
Make abortion illegal
Privatize Medicaid
Logged
Councilor Suburban New Jersey Conservative
S019
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,781


Political Matrix
E: 3.48, S: 6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #267 on: March 11, 2019, 06:23:19 am »

All the Constitution needs is one.
"The rights of any state to secede from the union shall not be infringed for any reason."

This is horrific
Logged
Figs
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,819


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #268 on: March 11, 2019, 07:41:22 am »

All the Constitution needs is one.
"The rights of any state to secede from the union shall not be infringed for any reason."

So just abolishing the whole country?
Logged
Left-Libertarian
Xeuma
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 416


Political Matrix
E: -4.19, S: -7.22

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #269 on: March 11, 2019, 11:46:00 am »

All the Constitution needs is one.
"The rights of any state to secede from the union shall not be infringed for any reason."

So just abolishing the whole country?

Unfortunately, this country won't survive much longer no matter which extreme is in charge. Moderates are the only people that can keep this country together. Many individuals in previous posts have proposed radical authoritarian and communists ideas. The United States is intended (and was) to be a capitalist country. You need to walk on your own two feet and provide for yourself in America. If you want a socialist/communist nanny states North Korea, Venezuela, and several countries in Western Europe would be thrilled to have you. Socialism will put the United States into bankruptcy. Socialism also leads to communism. Socialists campaign much different compared to the way they govern. Unless the political tensions are reduced, this country cannot last.

In a vacuum, each of these words has meaning. In the order you put them in, not so much.
Logged
darklordoftech
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,343
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #270 on: April 23, 2019, 02:49:21 am »
« Edited: April 23, 2019, 02:56:28 am by darklordoftech »

- repeal Section 2 of the 21st Amendment
- ban Selective Service
- make Section 230 of the Comunications Decency Act of 1996 part of the Constitution
Logged
darklordoftech
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,343
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #271 on: May 20, 2019, 04:27:09 am »

Amend the Commerce Clause to simply say, "to regulate commerce".
Logged
Left-Libertarian
Xeuma
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 416


Political Matrix
E: -4.19, S: -7.22

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #272 on: May 21, 2019, 08:43:06 pm »

Create a prosecutorial or auditory branch of government separate from the executive to enforce laws.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 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