If you could introduce a Constitutional Amendment What would it be (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 04:15:24 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 (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: If you could introduce a Constitutional Amendment What would it be  (Read 69593 times)
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
« on: October 17, 2015, 02:51:36 PM »

I would transform the US into a parliamentary system. I posted this amendment some time ago, which could now, upon further reflection, probably be revised in a few ways:

Section 1. The executive Power shall be transferred from the President and vested in a Prime Minister of the United States, who shall be chosen by a majority vote of the whole membership of the House of Representatives upon its convention. The Prime Minister shall first choose a Cabinet, which shall be established by Law and subject to confirmation by the House of Representatives.

Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every fourth Year by the People of the several States, except upon a majority of Representatives having voted to declare non-confidence in the Prime Minister and Cabinet. If the House of Representatives has voted to declare non-confidence, the House of Representatives shall be dissolved and the Prime Minister shall order Writs of Election for all Representatives to occur no sooner than thirty days and no later than sixty days upon such declaration. The House of Representatives shall convene for its Term no later than thirty days upon its Election.

Section 3. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Representatives shall be prescribed by Congress.

Section 4. Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate shall become Law.

Section 5. This amendment shall take effect upon the next Election of the House of Representatives occurring no sooner than ninety days after the date of ratification.


That's my attempt at adopting a parliamentary system for the US (with the Senate left untouched). I'm not a lawyer, so the language may not be entirely perfect in establishing my intent.

Section 3 was primarily designed to take away any state control over federal elections. I'd like to expand upon it to outlaw gerrymandering nationwide (or at least very seriously mitigate partisan and incumbency influences in redistricting). I'm unsure as to how to resolve Senate elections with a new system for the House. One consideration is to divide the Senate into two classes (every state would have one Senate seat up per election), with each alternating upon every House election (regardless of duration). Furthermore, I would also now include an absolute right to vote for every citizen age 18 and up. And, lastly, I'm unsure as to whether or not to leave a figurehead President.

I may work on that text above to better perfect my intentions.
Logged
politicallefty
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,200
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -9.22

P P
« Reply #1 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
Pages: [1]  
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 0.023 seconds with 13 queries.