If you could introduce a Constitutional Amendment What would it be

[Slander and/or Libel]

Single terms are a bad idea. Then you end up like Mexico.

Given the fact that the electorate really doesn't pay enough attention to the process, term limits are the only way of ensuring a good level of turnover. The reason I think the executive branch should be limited to a single term is that it removes the need for the person holding the office of President from having to worry about campaigning while in office. (I'd prefer a single 7 year term, but I think that would become too expensive, making those be completely out of sync with congressional races...).

Why is a high level of turnover a priori a good idea?

[Slander and/or Libel]

Single terms are a bad idea. Then you end up like Mexico.

Given the fact that the electorate really doesn't pay enough attention to the process, term limits are the only way of ensuring a good level of turnover. The reason I think the executive branch should be limited to a single term is that it removes the need for the person holding the office of President from having to worry about campaigning while in office. (I'd prefer a single 7 year term, but I think that would become too expensive, making those be completely out of sync with congressional races...).

Why is a high level of turnover a priori a good idea?

I'd flip it around and say that having career politicians who entrench themselves in an office and end up worrying more about raising money for their re-election than about actually representing the people and governing, that that is, a priori, NOT a good idea.

Getting people with experience out of office, but leaving in place staffers and lobbyists who will find it easier to exert control over naifs seems like a bad idea to me. Why would your concerns not be addressed by modifying the relationship of money to campaigns, or by putting statutory time limits on campaign activity?

[Slander and/or Libel]

But again, why is turnover a priori important, if you can address the issues that you think are brought about by lack of turnover? You said that the issue is about people worrying about raising money and re-election more than doing their jobs. I asked about what you'd say if those issues were addressed, and you still seem to be stressing turnover as a positive good. Why?

[Slander and/or Libel]

You're positing that entrenchment is a bad that is worse than inexperience and naivete, but I'm not seeing any evidence for that assertion.

I'd say that the experience with the Freedom Caucus shows one of the negative results of legislators without almost any personal connection to each other or to the norms of the institution, which is what would happen more and more often with mandatory term limits. What incentive do members have to shore up the institution if they're going to be forced out in a couple of terms?

What you call entrenchment, I might call constituents deciding they like their representative and want him or her to keep representing them. Why should they be denied that choice arbitrarily?

[Slander and/or Libel]

So tell me what you would say to a voter who wants to reelect his representative, and who you want to deny that right.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I still don't see an argument that makes sense that the problems you keep pointing out are caused by the thing you're saying is causing them. It's fine to assert, but you don't have any evidence to back up the assertion of causality, or that your prescription would fix the problems you cite.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Seems to me that measures to limit Congress's pay would only further limit membership to the independently wealthy.

[Slander and/or Libel]

No, jobs that require you to be able to finance a year of applying for them require independent wealth.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Nah, I'm good. Your post let me know that I have no further interest in interacting with you.

[Slander and/or Libel]

OK. I was too hasty last night and responded in an anger that I didn't like, and it appears you did so in kind. I'd like to take the accusations and personal venom down a notch, since I don't believe I ever started with any. If you feel that my post came across that way, then that's my failing and I apologize for that. But I was not trying to be disingenuous or dishonest or anything. Let me lay out a bit more precisely what I was thinking (which, I'll admit, goes somewhat beyond what you proposed, but is at least adjacent to it).

The time and cost involved with running for office is substantial. We can stipulate that, right? Even the time and effort and cost involved with investigating whether such a run is possible, or desirable, is likely substantial. Especially for any working class types who might not quite be living paycheck to paycheck, but who could likely ill afford the time and expense of running even if they were interested.

As such, I don't know that the salary ultimately associated with the job is much of a factor at all. You later made the assertion that we might drive moneyed types out of the job by lowering the salary because they wouldn't be interested in a job that pays $100K as where they would be interested in a job that pays $400K (side note: congressional pay is currently $174K/yr. Were you thinking of the presidency by citing $400K?).

But the benefits associated with holding high office in the government extend far beyond the pay. If super high earners were put off of holding office by lower salaries, we'd probably expect that Congress wouldn't be skewed so much by the very wealthy already, wouldn't we? After all, $174K isn't that great a salary for people with a net worth of over $1M (35.3% of Congress), over $5M (12.3% of Congress), over $10M (7.7% of Congress), over $50M (1.3% of Congress), or over $100M (0.7% of Congress). If there was such sensitivity to salary among high income people, we would expect to see Congress's population skewed differently, I'd imagine. (Source: Roll Call)

Mitt Romney wasn't running for President to earn the $400K salary. Donald Trump isn't running for President to earn the $400K salary. Neither is Hillary Clinton. They don't need the money, and they could make more by not running, but they did pursue (or are pursuing) the office vigorously. That makes me believe that in the case of jobs with significant influence and power, the top line salary isn't really a good predictor of how much people are going to want the job.

Besides all of that, my understanding is that a lot of the rigors of being a Congressperson involve expenditure of personal money, not just the Congressional salary. I'm not arguing that the salary is not generous, but rather that the job seems to have evolved into the type of thing where a lot of extraneous expenses out of the Congressperson's pocket are more expected than they may have been in the past (like often maintaining two households, costs of travel, etc.), making things more difficult for people not already in a position to self-fund such activities.

I don't believe that decreasing the salary of legislators would really hurt much, since ordinary folks are already not well-positioned to make a run for office, but I'm inclined to think it wouldn't really help anything either.

As far as the accusation that I was trying to use this to make a backdoor complaint about campaign finance reform, I really wasn't. I'm not entirely sure what constitutional amendment I would propose, and I've been thinking about it. In the meantime I've found the discussion in this thread about other proposals interesting and was commenting. That's all.

I'm not exactly sure what your complaint is with my observation that running for Congress is a full time job and requires the candidate to be able to fund themselves for the duration of the campaign, but I believe my post was worded confusingly, so that's on me. I was trying to say that the "application" process for Congress, running for the seat, incurs costs that are easier for the already-wealthy to bear, or to even consider bearing. And that's for a 50-50 chance of winning (sometimes much worse, obviously).

[Slander and/or Libel]

3.) Abolish the Senate as it is.  Replace with a chamber with proportional representation.

The Constitution actually makes this the one thing you can't amend.

Amend the part that says you can't amend that part, and then amend that part.

I think the only way to make something truly entrenched is as follows:

Put everything about amendment in Article V, as it is. Add in everything you want not to be subject to amendment in there. Then add a statement at the end that says, more or less, "Provided that no Amendment shall in any Manner affect any Clauses in the fifth Article."

You could presumably include a similar entrenchment statement in amendment to make it unchangeable. I sort of hate to even put the idea out there, though.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Wouldn't the thing about debates theoretically run afoul of the rights of the Commission on Presidential Debates?

Also, a Balanced Budget Amendment is a terrible idea, and repealing Obergefell is just naked bigotry.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Section 1. In the interest of the protection of pregnant mothers and their unborn children from criminal offenses and neglect and wrongful acts, the words "person" and "child" in the fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States must include unborn human beings.

Section 2. Nothing in this Constitution secures the right to an abortion or funding of an abortion.  Congress and the states retain the right to enact, amend, or repeal statutes regarding abortion, with the exception of circumstances of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest, or when necessary to save the life of the mother.

Section 3. All provisions of this article are self-executing and are severable.

I know your preamble addresses it in section 1, but "unborn human beings" does not exclusively refer to conceived-but-not-yet-born human beings. Seems dangerously broad.

EDIT: In a way beyond how dangerously broad the amendment already is.

[Slander and/or Libel]

-change senate terms to four years instead of six, giving each state the ability to vote in the senate every election (Class I in presidential years in all states, Class II in off years for all states--its always bugged me that in any given year 17 states have no say)

Wut?  With that kind of reasoning, I guess you're similarly upset the 38 states that aren't getting to elect a governor this year "have no say"? 

This argument doesn't really make any sense. States operate on their own timetable. If there's a swing in public opinion in a specific state, if it happens during the year they don't have a Senate election, then that swing in opinion doesn't get registered in the Senate, or at least not until another two years have passed.

My personal preference would be to just give each state one more senator so that each state has one senator up for re-election every 6 years.

[Slander and/or Libel]

-change senate terms to four years instead of six, giving each state the ability to vote in the senate every election (Class I in presidential years in all states, Class II in off years for all states--its always bugged me that in any given year 17 states have no say)

Wut?  With that kind of reasoning, I guess you're similarly upset the 38 states that aren't getting to elect a governor this year "have no say"?  

This argument doesn't really make any sense. States operate on their own timetable. If there's a swing in public opinion in a specific state, if it happens during the year they don't have a Senate election, then that swing in opinion doesn't get registered in the Senate, or at least not until another two years have passed.

My personal preference would be to just give each state one more senator so that each state has one senator up for re-election every 6 years.

No that doesn't make any sense.  Swings in public opinion are not confined to only occurring immediately before election dates; even with elections to the House of Representatives, there are certain changes in public opinion that are not recorded through electoral outcomes.  Take for example the Sandy Hook shooting and the large swell of public support for new gun control measures that came as a result of it.  The shootings occurred right after a general election, so the change in public opinion was not reflected in the 2012 election results.  With events like Sandy Hook occurring frequently but irregularly, what's the argument for not having elections every year, month, or week?      

You don't really seem to be engaging with this argument in good faith, so I'm going to check out.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I wasn't implying that we should hold elections at laughably short intervals. I was questioning why there is an arbitrary gap in senate elections in each state. your characterization was a straw man. I said what I think would be the remedy, for me: simply have each state have three senators, one in each class.

[Slander and/or Libel]

No, its a very fundamental question regarding the purpose of elections and the nature of representative democracy.  If the purpose of elections is to produce representation that is acutely aware of every minute change in the body politic (like Hammy seems to imply in his arguments), then a necessary question becomes why aren't we holding elections at laughably short intervals

House elections are every two years--and everybody is up for reelection. Should we then start staggering the house seats to where 1/3 of voters have no say in any given election? The idea is to simply regulate the Senate in a similar manner as the House, giving each state a say in each elections. Simply reduce the terms by two years and hold all 50 states at intervals. I don't quite see how this is "laughably short"--simply giving each voter a say in the legislative process each election.

It produces the unfavorable outcome that half of the Senate will always be elected in a Presidential year while the other half will always be elected in a midterm year.  Ideally, Senators should have to run under both conditions.

So add a third senator to each state.

[Slander and/or Libel]

a few amendments that come to mind at the moment, without delving into repealing existing ones:
-abolish electoral college and establish popular vote with IRV voting
-change senate terms to four years instead of six, giving each state the ability to vote in the senate every election (Class I in presidential years in all states, Class II in off years for all states--its always bugged me that in any given year 17 states have no say)
-abolish caucuses and fully closed primaries
-change the House to proportional representation (abolishing actual districts and just allocating that number of representatives to each state)

14. NO!!! The Electoral College is part of preserving our Republic against absolute democracy (America is a Repubic)

I never understood the "we're not a democracy, we're a republic" argument as any country with a president is a republic, be it a federal, direct democracy, dictatorship, etc. Democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive.

So you're ok with folks from one party being able to sabotage the other parties primary? I'm not. It's Democrats who crossed into Republican primaries and caucuses who foisted Trump on us.

This is not even close to true.

[Slander and/or Libel]

a few amendments that come to mind at the moment, without delving into repealing existing ones:
-abolish electoral college and establish popular vote with IRV voting
-change senate terms to four years instead of six, giving each state the ability to vote in the senate every election (Class I in presidential years in all states, Class II in off years for all states--its always bugged me that in any given year 17 states have no say)
-abolish caucuses and fully closed primaries
-change the House to proportional representation (abolishing actual districts and just allocating that number of representatives to each state)

14. NO!!! The Electoral College is part of preserving our Republic against absolute democracy (America is a Repubic)

I never understood the "we're not a democracy, we're a republic" argument as any country with a president is a republic, be it a federal, direct democracy, dictatorship, etc. Democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive.

So you're ok with folks from one party being able to sabotage the other parties primary? I'm not. It's Democrats who crossed into Republican primaries and caucuses who foisted Trump on us.

This is not even close to true.

Prove it

Not how assertions work, man. You asserted that large scale Democratic intrusion into the Republican primaries resulted in Trump's nomination. That's a positive assertion for which you've offered no proof. It's not on me to disprove a thing that popped out of your fever dream.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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)?

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.

[Slander and/or Libel]

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?

[Slander and/or Libel]

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.