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

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 11:00:40 AM
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 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14
Author Topic: If you could introduce a Constitutional Amendment What would it be  (Read 69602 times)
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,511
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #250 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
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,132
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #251 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
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,459
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #252 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
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,610
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #253 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: 4,319
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #254 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
Rookie
**
Posts: 56
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #255 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
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #256 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 can’t win senate seats by gerrymandering the state legislature, i assume.
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,459
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #257 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 can’t 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
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,800


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #258 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
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,800


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #259 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
S019
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,257
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #260 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
S019
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,257
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #261 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
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #262 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
Xeuma
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 711
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: 0.00

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #263 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
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,391
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #264 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
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,391
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #265 on: May 20, 2019, 04:27:09 AM »

Amend the Commerce Clause to simply say, "to regulate commerce".
Logged
Xeuma
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 711
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: 0.00

P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #266 on: May 21, 2019, 08:43:06 PM »

Create a prosecutorial or auditory branch of government separate from the executive to enforce laws.
Logged
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,890


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #267 on: December 20, 2019, 09:46:55 AM »
« Edited: December 20, 2019, 09:53:43 AM by StateBoiler »

-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.

I consider that a valid question. I would say that the VP is elected by the public, while any appointed VP as Ford was is not. So he had just as much democratic legitimacy as Secretary of State who the Senate had already approved previously. Plus in this era of more partisanship as displayed in Supreme Court confirmation hearings, I don't think Congress should have a voice in the matter. 3 Senators and 35 Representatives voted against Ford becoming VP. Why? Did these individuals ever explain their vote? Why did they think Gerald Ford was not qualified to be Vice President? (Ditto the 7 Senators and 128 Representatives for Rockefeller, whose confirmation hearings lasted for months.)

In the context of modern politics, a VP confirmation hearing if one occurs is probably a party line vote, which demonstrates Congress should not have a say in the matter.

Quote
-What if they're independent? The House is big enough that vacancies aren't going to  it up

A special election would be held. It's the rule we have in Indiana.

It's quite infuriating to me of a person elected to a term and he or she near the term's start resigns to accept an executive branch appointment. Now the state is on the hook to hold ANOTHER election.
Logged
MarkD
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,132
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #268 on: December 24, 2019, 10:07:53 PM »

Oh, what the heck. Why not repost this? I'm bored and trying to find something to post in this board.

My number one legislative goal is to see a constitutional amendment get adopted which rewrites Section 1 of the 14th Amendment in order to make its meaning narrower and clearer.
I drafted such a proposal; it is long and detailed.
The most important part of my proposal is to take out this sentence from the 14th:
"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."
I have written a set of detailed and much more specific rules to replace that sentence. Keeping this explanation very brief, states must still obey most of the right enumerated in the first eight amendments, but the Ninth is irrelevant to the state and unenforceable against them by the federal government. The Ninth only binds the powers of the federal government itself. States must not engage in discrimination against anyone on the basis of race, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, or disability status. States must continue respecting every citizens equal right to vote; gerrymandering will be prevented by requiring all redrawing of congressional district and state legislative district maps must be done by independent redistricting commissions. Scold the Supreme Court for its ruling in Bush v. Gore, telling the Court to never do anything like that ever again.
Numerous Supreme Court precedents would be overturned by this proposal, including Roe v. Wade, which I'm sure will be the most controversial part of what I am proposing. But the way I wrote it makes it quite clear why the Court should not have decided in favor of "abortion rights" in the first place.
A broad goal of this proposal is return a lot of law-making power to the states that the Supreme Court has usurped from them numerous times. It's based on my belief in states' powers -- I try not to use the term "states' rights" unless I am quoting someone else. The Supreme Court inappropriately has been deciding whether or not state/local laws are unconstitutional by deciding, abstractly, subjectively, when does a state not have a good enough reason to deprive someone of "liberty," or when does a state not have a good enough reason for treating people unequally. What constitutes "good enough" has been an ever-shifting goal post, and has been based purely on the subjective beliefs of the majority of Justices. I want to eliminate as much legislating from the bench as I can.
This proposal has elements that will be pleasing to conservatives and loathsome to liberals, while other elements will have the opposite effect. I purposely drafted it with the concept of a compromise in mind.
I have sent copies to certain members of the House Judiciary Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee (sometimes "sent" means that I delivered it right to their Washington D.C. office in person). If Congress does not ever get around to proposing it, I also support the Convention of States Project.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,504
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #269 on: December 25, 2019, 05:12:00 PM »

An amendment to undo Citizens United and regulate the amount of money that can be spent on campaigns.  (I may have submitted this before.)
Logged
Slander and/or Libel
Figs
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,338


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.83

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #270 on: January 07, 2020, 04:37:22 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.

I think it's a problem to count votes for ratification that were cast by people whose great grandchildren are long dead.
Logged
KaiserDave
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,589
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.81, S: -5.39

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #271 on: January 08, 2020, 08:20:20 PM »

An amendment to undo Citizens United and regulate the amount of money that can be spent on campaigns.  (I may have submitted this before.)

This^^^^^

Happy Fuzzy and I agree on this
Logged
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,890


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #272 on: January 15, 2020, 11:18:25 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)?

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

I don’t have it at hand, so I’ll have to go digging, but much of what I’d read indicated that at the time of some debate, this was an open, unsettled question with proponents on both sides.

There's 3 instances of where states did not appoint electors - the Civil War election of 1864 and the 2 immediately following during Reconstruction. In all 3 instances, Lincoln and Grant easily won a majority even counting the uncasted electoral votes, and it's hard to imagine a court at the time not ruling in favor of them if the question did arise due to a closer election.

If as in 1876, it was a majority of votes cast - thereby not counting the votes of states where electors were disputed, the Democrats never should've agreed to the Electoral Commission because Tilden would've been elected.
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #273 on: January 20, 2020, 06:24:05 PM »

Reinstate the articles of confederation
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #274 on: January 21, 2020, 07:26:21 PM »

I had an awful thought about how a Chief Justice could block a Presidential impeachment trial by resigning, so I'd like to add the following amendment:

In the event that there shall not be a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the senior Associate Justice shall perform all duties assigned to the Chief Justice by this Constitution or the laws enacted under this Constitution until a Chief Justice is nominated and confirmed.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 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 0.069 seconds with 12 queries.