If you could introduce a Constitutional Amendment What would it be
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 07:33:42 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  If you could introduce a Constitutional Amendment What would it be
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14
Author Topic: If you could introduce a Constitutional Amendment What would it be  (Read 69587 times)
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #200 on: November 19, 2017, 10:52:21 PM »

I would do

1} Amendment to ban discrimination based on race so we can finely repeal the civil rights act.


1} I'm not sure what you mean. The last clause in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is the Equal Protection Clause, which has always been interpreted, correctly, as a ban on racial discrimination by state governments. Do you want to adopt an amendment that bans racial discrimination by private enterprise the way the Civil Rights Act does?

As you point out, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 depends not upon the 14th Amendment but upon the Commerce Clause for its Constitutional basis.  I'd guess he wants that placed on a different footing so that the Commerce Clause might be gutted (or reined in depending on your POV.)
Logged
Keep cool-idge
Benjamin Harrison he is w
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,770
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #201 on: November 20, 2017, 03:49:16 AM »

I would do

1} Amendment to ban discrimination based on race so we can finely repeal the civil rights act.


1} I'm not sure what you mean. The last clause in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is the Equal Protection Clause, which has always been interpreted, correctly, as a ban on racial discrimination by state governments. Do you want to adopt an amendment that bans racial discrimination by private enterprise the way the Civil Rights Act does?

As you point out, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 depends not upon the 14th Amendment but upon the Commerce Clause for its Constitutional basis.  I'd guess he wants that placed on a different footing so that the Commerce Clause might be gutted (or reined in depending on your POV.)
Yes mark right now I honestly think the civil rights act is unconstitutional so it needs to be put into the constitution.

Also yes convention of states is great I hope to see it done one day.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #202 on: November 20, 2017, 05:24:06 AM »

The very premise enshrined in the second amendment ”a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, " is demonstrably untrue. The days when a militia could defend us from a foreign adversary are long gone, if they ever existed at all. The statistics about gun violence show they fail to protect us from domestic adversaries.

That said, confiscation wouldn't work. We need to make guns rarer, not drive them underground. We need to make gun ownership be seen as a responsibility. We don't need to repeal the second amendment to do that. Besides, getting rid of the second amendment would do nothing about our culture of gun violence, which is why the various amendments here that attempt social engineering earn my contempt. You'd think we'd have learned from the lesson of the eighteenth amendment.

I'm in general agreement with you, but how do you feel about those on the right that seem to completely disregard the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment? All you ever hear from that is what comes after it. I think that's an absurd interpretation. Whether or not someone agrees with the NRA point-of-view, I think disregarding the actual text disqualifies you from participating in the debate.

I'm not interested in mass gun confiscation or taking guns away from rational hunters and those that want a handgun to protect their person/home. Those people are not the problem. They exist across the industrialized world without issue. What separates us from the rest of the world on guns? I think it's the notion that it's an absolute right without responsibility, general gun culture/fetishization, and the inability of our government leaders to effect even general and common sense change.

It'd be funny if it weren't so sad, but many social conservatives blame gun violence on TV and video games. That'd be something were it not for the fact that both of those exist across the modern industrialized world and yet no other country has a problem with gun violence like this one. It's almost like the independent variable is the ability to control and regulate guns and other weaponry.
Logged
The Undefeatable Debbie Stabenow
slightlyburnttoast
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,050
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.42, S: -5.43

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #203 on: November 25, 2017, 07:37:27 PM »

I admittedly don't have specifics, but the citizens of DC deserve voting representatives in Congress. The fact that they don't, despite being part of a municipality greater in population than multiple states, is outrageous to me. Once again, I'm not sure the best way to make this happen, but I know there are multiple available options.

I would also want the electoral college abolished, although that's not something I feel quite as strongly about.
Logged
Dr. MB
MB
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,813
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #204 on: December 02, 2017, 09:29:24 PM »

I admittedly don't have specifics, but the citizens of DC deserve voting representatives in Congress. The fact that they don't, despite being part of a municipality greater in population than multiple states, is outrageous to me. Once again, I'm not sure the best way to make this happen, but I know there are multiple available options.

I would also want the electoral college abolished, although that's not something I feel quite as strongly about.
Plus Puerto Rico to get representatives and senators, and American Samoa, Virgin Islands, Guam, and NMI to get one representative (they're too small to get two senators).
Logged
junior chįmp
Mondale_was_an_insidejob
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,396
Croatia
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #205 on: December 02, 2017, 10:01:00 PM »
« Edited: December 02, 2017, 10:03:24 PM by Generalissimo Mondale »

I would amend Article V to allow states to propose a Constitutional Amendment via ballot initiative.

1) All 50 states have to provide the means to hold a ballot initiative to call for a Constitutional Amendment if enough signatures are gathered.

2) Once 3/4ths of the states have passed ballot initiatives, the states will send delegates to meet to write up the Constitutional Amendment

3) Once the Amendment is written...it will then be sent to the state legislatures who can choose to ratify it or not

4) Once 38 states have ratified the amendment within the mandatory 5 year time limit then it becomes part of the Constitution
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #206 on: December 10, 2017, 05:31:02 PM »

Yeah so in addition to my amendment amendment, I would:

- repeal the 2nd (I can say this, I'm British)
- abolish the senate, or at least severely curtail its power
- put radical campaign finance restriction
- instate that fancy new bill of rights or whatever, including rights to income, employment, housing, healthcare, basic privacy, education and a healthy environment.
- ensure every citizen over the age of 16 has full voting rights
- introduce single transferable vote in an expanded house; and IRV National vote for President (including territories)
- define natural resources as a public possession.
- abolish Delaware (it's useless)
- I wouldn't oppose some form of balance budget amendment, except in recessions. If it could also oppose surpluses as well, that would be good.



Good to see that people continue to deny the restriction of the Senate.
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,390
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #207 on: December 13, 2017, 10:28:47 PM »

many social conservatives blame gun violence on TV and video games.
The Clintons, the Gores, Lieberman, and Evan Bayh are "social conservatives"? It seems to me that it's the Democrats who are always attacking video games and TV.
Logged
America's Sweetheart ❤/𝕿𝖍𝖊 𝕭𝖔𝖔𝖙𝖞 𝖂𝖆𝖗𝖗𝖎𝖔𝖗
TexArkana
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,385
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #208 on: December 13, 2017, 10:47:31 PM »

many social conservatives blame gun violence on TV and video games.
The Clintons, the Gores, Lieberman, and Evan Bayh are "social conservatives"? It seems to me that it's the Democrats who are always attacking video games and TV.
That is a conservative viewpoint no matter who it's coming from.
Logged
Dr. MB
MB
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,813
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #209 on: December 13, 2017, 11:10:10 PM »

many social conservatives blame gun violence on TV and video games.
The Clintons, the Gores, Lieberman, and Evan Bayh are "social conservatives"? It seems to me that it's the Democrats who are always attacking video games and TV.
That is a conservative viewpoint no matter who it's coming from.
It was a bigger deal from the 80s to early 2000s than it is today. I think Democrats today would be less likely to support bills like that.
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,390
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #210 on: December 14, 2017, 12:09:04 AM »
« Edited: December 14, 2017, 12:11:43 AM by darklordoftech »

many social conservatives blame gun violence on TV and video games.
The Clintons, the Gores, Lieberman, and Evan Bayh are "social conservatives"? It seems to me that it's the Democrats who are always attacking video games and TV.
That is a conservative viewpoint no matter who it's coming from.
It was a bigger deal from the 80s to early 2000s than it is today. I think Democrats today would be less likely to support bills like that.
Didn't the Democrats claim to no longer support anti-gun laws when Gore lost, but then went right back to supporting gun laws as soon as Obama got into office?
many social conservatives blame gun violence on TV and video games.
The Clintons, the Gores, Lieberman, and Evan Bayh are "social conservatives"? It seems to me that it's the Democrats who are always attacking video games and TV.
That is a conservative viewpoint no matter who it's coming from.
That may be true by definition, but in reality it seems to be correlated with being anti-gun and anti-tobacco more than it seems to be correlated with religion, pro-lifeism, homophobia, etc.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #211 on: December 27, 2017, 06:30:10 PM »

     Fix the size of the Supreme Court at nine Justices.
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #212 on: January 13, 2018, 08:25:55 PM »

     Fix the size of the Supreme Court at nine Justices.
Then how am I - er, we going to stack the Court when we come to power?
Logged
IndustrialJustice
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 552


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #213 on: January 14, 2018, 02:37:19 PM »

1. Right to Strike, Pickett, and Boycott (expansively read, naturally, so as to effectively overturn much of Taft-Hartley).

2. Right to Just-Cause Employment (nullifying the judicial presumption of at-will employment).
Logged
15 Down, 35 To Go
ExtremeRepublican
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,663


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: 5.57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #214 on: January 19, 2018, 03:27:19 PM »

     Fix the size of the Supreme Court at nine Justices.
Then how am I - er, we going to stack the Court when we come to power?

Another question with that is what the time period is when a vacancy occurs at which point it would have to be back to nine?  What if hearings and votes are happening, but the president and Senate cannot come to an agreement on any candidate?
Logged
NewYorkExpress
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,823
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #215 on: January 21, 2018, 04:24:01 PM »

     Fix the size of the Supreme Court at nine Justices.
Then how am I - er, we going to stack the Court when we come to power?

Another question with that is what the time period is when a vacancy occurs at which point it would have to be back to nine?  What if hearings and votes are happening, but the president and Senate cannot come to an agreement on any candidate?

That's exactly what recess appointments where designed to address.
Logged
Blackacre
Spenstar3D
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,172
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.35, S: -7.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #216 on: January 21, 2018, 05:51:12 PM »

Here would be my rule for Supreme Court Appointments:

When the President makes a nomination, the Senate has a certain amount of time (let's say 60 days) to go through the confirmation process, hold hearings, and vote. If a vote is not held within 60 days of the President's nomination, the President's nominee is automatically seated.
Logged
darklordoftech
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,390
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #217 on: July 30, 2018, 10:48:26 PM »

Repeal the "federal crime" part of the 21st amendment. The federal government shouldn't be enforcing state laws.
Logged
Karpatsky
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,545
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #218 on: July 31, 2018, 08:14:23 AM »

Here would be my rule for Supreme Court Appointments:

When the President makes a nomination, the Senate has a certain amount of time (let's say 60 days) to go through the confirmation process, hold hearings, and vote. If a vote is not held within 60 days of the President's nomination, the President's nominee is automatically seated.

good way for a same-party majority leader to get literally any nominee in without a vote
Logged
KingSweden
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,227
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #219 on: July 31, 2018, 04:46:46 PM »

- Some form of restriction on gerrymandering/money in politics
- Mandate supermajority votes in Senate for all judicial candidates
- Set a formula for House size growth. Wyoming Rule is my favorite but I’m open to suggestion
- Make Senators elected for single non-renewable 10 year terms
- Make process for amending Constitution easier
- Narrow the powers of Senate to up-down votes, with all legislation originating in the House. No amendments from Senate floor/committees.
- Single six-year term for the President/Vice President
- National popular vote
- Define Commerce Clause more narrowly to allow states more power over economic affairs without federal permission
- Some form of straightforwardly worded and understood equal rights amendment
Logged
Alabama_Indy10
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,319
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #220 on: July 31, 2018, 04:53:41 PM »

Here would be my rule for Supreme Court Appointments:

When the President makes a nomination, the Senate has a certain amount of time (let's say 60 days) to go through the confirmation process, hold hearings, and vote. If a vote is not held within 60 days of the President's nomination, the President's nominee is automatically seated.

That is absolutely terrible.
Logged
MAINEiac4434
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,269
France


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -8.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #221 on: August 01, 2018, 01:41:11 PM »

Repeal Article II, Clauses 2 & 3.
Logged
Strudelcutie4427
Singletxguyforfun
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,375
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #222 on: August 01, 2018, 02:09:08 PM »

A 2/3 majority needed to raise any taxes
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #223 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
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,227
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #224 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
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 12 queries.