If you could introduce a Constitutional Amendment What would it be

[SteveRogers]

1. Abolish the Electoral College and replace it with a national popular vote with a runoff if no candidate receives a majority. Empower Congress to establish and enforce nationwide standards for voter eligibility, early voting, ballot access, and recount procedures for the presidential election.

2. Go ahead and give D.C. representation in the House, but no Senators. 

[SteveRogers]

Repeal the 18th Amendment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[SteveRogers]

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.

[SteveRogers]

Citizens Equality Act Amendment

What's that?

Eminent Domain Consent Amendment

That sounds like an oxymoron

[SteveRogers]

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.

He doesn't much care for democracy, you see. He literally wants a theocratic dictatorship

[SteveRogers]

I wouldn't introduce one. I'd introduce all of the amendments from the book The Liberty Amendments by Mark Levin.

How does an amendment restricting early voting count as a liberty amendment? The rest of that conservative laundry list, I can see how they could claim the title, even when I think they're not good amendments. But limiting voting opportunity is the very antithesis of liberty. It also goes against the general theme of that set, of giving more power to the States.

A lot of the authors concerns about early voting are about preventing fraud. Why wouldn't you want to vote the day after your taxes are due? Or let the states veto a Supreme Court decision, or a balanced budget amendment?

What on Earth does curtailing early voting have to do with preventing fraud?

As for letting the states veto a Supreme Court decision, that's just nonsense. Court opinions aren't actually binary yes-or-no decisions. They're not toggle switches that you can flip on and off. If you want to overturn the legal reasoning of the Court on an issue, you have to replace it with something. Are 2/3 of the state legislatures going to write a new opinion or what?

[SteveRogers]

-Life at Conception
-Marriage Protection Amendment
-RFRA-like Amendment
-Prohibition of income tax
-Clarification that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply to metadata, as it isn't a direct search
-Abolition of executive branch agencies, executive orders, and any presidential power not formally expressed in the Constitution
-Requiring all public-owned buildings to adopt a bathroom policy based on biological sex/gender at birth
-No international agencies can overrule US law

I don't think it would require an amendment, but I would like to see Title IX repealed as well.

We get it, you're Extreme.

[SteveRogers]

- Amend the 2nd amendment so that it only applies to the federal government. State and municipality governments should be free to allow or ban guns to their hearts' content.

- Add things involving student rights.

- Strengthen the equal protection clause when it comes to sex/gender, LGBT, and age

You can't do both. Your first proposal would effectively repeal the Fourteenth Amendment and especially void the equal protection clause. Interesting choice to reverse over 100 years of civil rights jurisprudence.

I don’t think that’s true