If you could introduce a Constitutional Amendment What would it be

[brucejoel99]

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?

[brucejoel99]

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."

[brucejoel99]

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.

This wouldn't require a constitutional amendment as the Constitution doesn't actually establish the office, & only presupposes its existence with that single impeachment reference.

Indeed, given that Article III, Section 1 prescribes that it was for Congress to see fit as to how to establish the judicial power of the United States, & made no provision for the composition or procedures of any of the courts &/or their judges (obviously leaving this to Congress to decide), 28 U.S.C. §3 as it currently stands (wherein the most senior Associate Justice carries out the Chief Justice's duties when the Chief Justice is unable to discharge his functions, or when the office is vacant, until the disability or vacancy ends) more than covers what you're looking for.

[brucejoel99]

An amendment to ban abortion nationwide without exceptions, modeled after the former Eighth Amendment to the Irish Constitution.

Y'know, maybe it's just me, but perhaps there's a pretty good reason that even Ireland, second in Catholicism to only the Vatican itself, decided to put the "former" in "former Eighth Amendment."

[brucejoel99]

Reinstate the articles of confederation

I went down the rabbit hole last week and read some law school professor discussion about "when did the Constitution become law/when did the Articles of Confederation cease"?

I was wondering about this question of "do laws passed by the Continental Congress pre-Constitution still exist/still functional unless later explicitly overwritten?" I could not find a hard and fast answer, but read an article discussing the post-Civil War Supreme Court case regarding whether Texas left the Union or not/had a right to. The Justice that wrote the opinion declared no basing it on "perpetual Union". The phrase "perpetual Union" does not exist anywhere in the Constitution, but it does exist in the Articles of Confederation.

Therefore this Supreme Court case while not citing the Articles of Confederation explicitly provides a rare example of something decided that references the Articles of Confederation, meaning they are still in force where not superceded by the Constitution. One bit of that is clearly currently in force is Article I because the Constitution is completely silent:

"The stile of this confederacy shall be 'The United States of America'."

I think you're partially misunderstanding that Supreme Court citation. Yes, it mentioned that the Articles of Confederation created a perpetual union, but then went on to state that the Constitution creates a "more perfect" union than that which existed under the Articles of Confederation. Thus, since the union created under the Constitution is even stronger than the perpetual union of the Articles, the new union - which the Texas v. White decision was based upon - must also be inherently perpetual.

In effect, that serves to render one of the fundamental premises of that argument (that the Articles of Confederation are still in force where not superseded by the Constitution) incorrect: that the Articles of Confederation required some sort of explicit overwriting to be invalidated. The government doesn't exist separately from its founding documents; it exists as a thing created by those documents. In other words, the government created by the Articles of Confederation no longer exists. The U.S. government exists & operates under the Constitution - not the Articles of Confederation - & isn't beholden to that document in any way because, in purporting to establish a separate government from the one created by the current Constitution, the Articles of Confederation is an ineffective instrument: just words on paper. It's not recognized by the Constitution nor by the government created under the Constitution. There is no magic about it or formality to be obeyed, & it's not still valid law.

Also, the Constitution isn't silent on the name of the country: the Preamble makes clear that it's being established "for the United States of America."

[brucejoel99]

You also can't have automatic voting registration until you keep a list of citizens, and one doesn't exist. The census doesn't ask people's citizenship status.

About your last point: do you also mean that local census bureau offices do not keep track of citizenship status?

No. Trump tried to add this as a question to the census and it was blocked by the Democrats/courts.

I know about the 2020 Census question thing, but I thought that local offices had citizenship lists.

If they did, then Trump would've never needed to try adding a citizenship question.

[brucejoel99]

Inspired by Article V, Sec. 5, subdivision (b) of the California Constitution:

"For purposes of article II, section 2, clause 2 of this Constitution, in the event that a nomination transmitted by the President to the Senate is neither advised and consented to nor denied advice and consent by the Senate within one hundred and twenty-five days of such transmission, the nominee shall be appointed and take office as if such nomination had been advised and consented to by the Senate: Provided, That if such one hundred and twenty-five day period ends when the Senate is not in session, such period shall be extended until the fourth day following the day on which the Senate reconvenes."

[brucejoel99]

Section 1. A State may not impose any burden that places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability on the ability of a woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy before fetal viability; but a State may restrict the ability of a woman to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability, unless such a termination is necessary to preserve the life or health of the woman.

Section 2. A State may enact regulations to further the health or safety of a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy; but unnecessary health regulations that have the purpose or effect of presenting a substantial obstacle to a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy shall be construed as imposing a burden that places a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking to terminate a pregnancy.

Section 3. For purposes of this article, the District constituting the seat of government of the United States and the several Territories shall be treated as though they were States.

Section 4. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation; Provided that nothing in this article shall be construed to have any effect on laws regarding conscience protection.

[brucejoel99]

Abortion and Same Sex Marriage amendments.

Or just an amendment that constitutionally codifies Griswold & all of its progeny.

[brucejoel99]

Like I mentioned elsewhere, a rewritten Equal Rights Amendment expanded to include sexual minorities:

"ARTICLE —

"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex, gender, or sexual orientation.

"Sec. 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

"Sec. 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."

What would that do that the 14th Amendment doesn’t do already?

It'd require the courts to subject all laws relevant to the aforementioned classifications to strict scrutiny, compared to now, where they only apply intermediate scrutiny when considering a challenge to a law that discriminates on the basis of sex. The biggest non-draft impact would be divorce/child custody cases, at least in states where women are still de-jure favored in such cases as a matter of law, but there might be others (e.g., single-sex education; mandating paternity leave for employees of employers who provide maternity leave for reasons unrelated to physical recovery from childbirth; etc.). In any event, such an amendment would also revert the standard for abortion restrictions back to Roe's application of strict scrutiny from the undue burden standard that Casey replaced it with, which would be significant, as once again applying strict scrutiny to abortion restrictions would require the courts to concede that all laws which wholly subordinate constitutional privacy interests & maternal health concerns to efforts that deter a woman & her doctor from making a decision that's theirs to make are unconstitutional.

[brucejoel99]

Fixed (& upgraded) version of my proposal from earlier today:

Section 1. Every bill which has passed the House of Representatives and the Senate shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President of the United States, who shall approve and sign it into law, and may not disapprove it. Every order, resolution, or vote to which the concurrence of both Houses of Congress may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President, who shall approve and sign it into effect, and may not disapprove it.

Section 2. If a bill for raising revenue, having been passed by the House of Representatives and sent to the Senate at least one month before the end of a session of Congress, is not passed by the Senate without amendment within one month after it is so sent to the Senate, the bill shall, unless the House of Representatives directs to the contrary, be presented to the President, who shall approve and sign it into law, and may not disapprove it, the Senate having not passed the bill notwithstanding; provided that there shall be endorsed on every bill for raising revenue, when it is sent to the Senate and when it is presented to the President for approval, the certificate of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, signed by them, attesting that it is a bill for raising revenue; and that, before giving their certificate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives shall consult, if practicable, the Chairperson and the Ranking Member of the primary revenue-raising committee in the House of Representatives.

Section 3. If any legislation other than a bill for raising revenue, having been passed by the House of Representatives in two successive sessions of Congress and sent to the Senate at least one month before the end of each of those sessions, is rejected by the Senate in each of those sessions, that legislation shall, on its rejection for the second time by the Senate, unless the House of Representatives directs to the contrary, be presented to the President, who shall approve and sign it into law, and may not disapprove it, the Senate having not passed the legislation notwithstanding; provided that this provision shall not take effect unless one year has elapsed between the date on which the legislation passes the House of Representatives in the first of those sessions and the date on which it passes the House of Representatives in the second of these sessions; and that, when a piece of legislation is presented to the President for approval pursuant to the provisions of this section, there shall be endorsed on the legislation the certificate of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, signed by them, attesting that the provisions of this section have been duly complied with.

For purposes of this section, a piece of legislation shall be deemed to be rejected by the Senate if it is not passed by the Senate either without amendment or with such amendments only as may be agreed to by both Houses of Congress; and a piece of legislation shall be deemed to be the same piece of legislation as a former piece of legislation sent to the Senate in the preceding session if, when it is sent to the Senate, it is identical with the former piece of legislation or contains only such alterations as are certified by the Speaker of the House of Representatives to be necessary owing to the time which has elapsed since the date of the former piece of legislation, or to represent any amendments which have been made by the Senate to the former piece of legislation in the preceding session; but any amendments which are certified by the Speaker of the House of Representatives to have been made by the Senate in the second session and agreed to by the House of Representatives shall be inserted into the legislation as presented to the President for approval pursuant to this section; provided that the House of Representatives may, if it thinks fit, on the passage of such a piece of legislation through the House of Representatives in the second session, suggest any further amendments without inserting the amendments into the legislation, and any such suggested amendments shall be considered by the Senate, and, if agreed to by the Senate, shall be treated as amendments made by the Senate and agreed to by the House of Representatives; and that the exercise of this power by the House of Representatives shall not affect the operation of this section in the event of the legislation being rejected by the Senate.

Section 4. Nothing in this article shall diminish or qualify the existing rights, privileges, and immunities of the House of Representatives.

Section 5. The Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of all civil officers of the United States, and the power to negotiate and ratify treaties, as they shall think proper. Members of either House of Congress may be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the United States during the time for which they were elected, and may hold any non-judicial office under the United States during their continuance in office. The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment, and to try all impeachments, for the purpose of which, they shall sit on oath or affirmation; and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of a majority of the Representatives present, with judgment in cases of impeachment not to extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States with the concurrence of two thirds of the Representatives present; but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

[brucejoel99]

Section 1: The US Senate shall be abolished, and the US House shall be the sole legislative chamber in the Country.

 -snip -

Just remember that, because of what's in Section 1 of your proposal, it cannot be adopted into the Constitution unless all 50 states ratify the proposal.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

No it would not because 0 = 0.

The relevant section guarantees the states equal representation in the Senate, which they can't be guaranteed in a Senate that doesn't exist, so any amendment proposing an alteration in the number of Senators that nevertheless maintains the states' equal representation therein (e.g., an amendment that wants to give each state 1 Senator, or each state 3, or 6, etc.) could be ratified by the usual 38, but an amendment that'd entirely eliminate that representation would definitely trigger the unanimous consent threshold. Even the typically proposed bypass - the 38 states ratifying one constitutional amendment that repeals the unanimous consent provision & then another that actually abolishes the Senate without the need for ratification from 12 more states - wouldn't actually work because the first of those proposed amendments - the one that'd necessarily have to state, "A state, without its consent, may be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate" - still arguably triggers the unanimous consent threshold anyway by virtue of its inherent enabling of the possibility that a state might be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent, which - y'know - literally can't happen without the states unanimously consenting to an amendment allowing as much. So, MarkD is right, & you're wrong here.

[brucejoel99]

Theoretically a workaround to that Senate issue would be to just to turn the Senate into a purely advisory body ala the House of Lords and shift its powers on things like Confirmation to the House.

"All powers herein granted to the Senate shall, following the ratification of this article, be vested in the House of Representatives."

[brucejoel99]

Section 1. At the next general election held following a reapportionment of Representatives among the several States after the ratification of this article, and each twentieth year thereafter, there shall be elected, from each congressional district, a Member of a Constitutional Revision Commission, in which each Member shall have one vote. No person constitutionally ineligible to be elected as a Representative shall be eligible to serve as a Member of a Constitutional Revision Commission. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

Section 2. When vacancies happen in the membership of a Commission from any State, the executive thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies; and make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election.

Section 3. Each Constitutional Revision Commission shall publicly assemble, on the 1st day of February following its election, unless the Congress shall by law appoint an earlier day no earlier than the 3rd day of January following a Commission's election, and sit thereafter at the Seat of Government of the United States; choose its Chair and other officers; adopt its rules of procedure; judge the elections of its membership; examine this Constitution; prescribe the times and places of its future meetings; and, no later than ninety days before the next succeeding general election, cause to be filed, with the Archivist of the United States, its proposals, if any, to revise this Constitution or any part of it; provided that any such revision shall embrace but one subject and matter directly connected therewith; and that no such revision shall deprive any State of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

Section 4. A revision of this Constitution, or any part of it, proposed pursuant to this article shall be submitted in a manner as shall be provided by the Congress to the people of the United States at the next general election held at least ninety days after the report of a Commission proposing it is filed with the Archivist of the United States; and, if the proposed revision is approved by vote of at least fifty-five percent of the people voting on the measure, it shall be effective as an article of amendment to this Constitution on such date as shall be specified in the revision.

[brucejoel99]

Idek if I'd support this one that I just came up with if introduced IRL, but it's modeled on the EU's Article 50, & Texas v. White did say that secession with the consent of the States could be constitutional, so there might as well be a process:

Section 1. Any State may decide to secede from the United States in accordance with the Constitution and Laws of such State.

Section 2. A State which decides to secede shall notify the President of the United States of its intention. The President shall then negotiate, and by and with the advice and consent of a qualified majority of the Congress, shall conclude an agreement on behalf of the United States with that State setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal and providing the framework for its future relationship with the United States.

Section 3. A State which decides to secede shall cease to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, and to be bound by this Constitution and the Laws of the United States made in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made under the authority of the United States, from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in Section 2 of this article, unless the President of the United States, in agreement with the State concerned, decides to extend this period.

Section 4. For the purposes of Section 2 of this article, a qualified majority of the Congress shall be defined as a majority vote of both Houses of Congress with the Representatives and Senators representing the seceding State not participating in the discussions of the House of Representatives and of the Senate, respectively, or in the decisions or votes thereof concerning the withdrawal agreement.

Section 5. If a State which has seceded from the United States thereafter requests to be readmitted into the United States, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in the first clause in the third section of the fourth article of this Constitution.