Constitutional amendment

[jayem]

What is the most pressing problem needing a Constitutional fix? If you had he power to enact ONE amendment, what would it do? A dozen commonly discussed proposals are below. Or specify something else. (But don't say your amendment would give you the power to enact 10 more. This is fantasy enough already. ) And be as specific as possible regarding your amendment's provisions.

1) Define personhood as beginning at conception, or birth, or by some other criteria.

2) Define legal marriage the union of one man and one woman.

3) Modify the 14th Amendment's language on citizenship.

4) Limit Congressional power under the Commerce Clause.

5) Allow Congress and the states to regulate spending on political campaigns.

6) Impose term limits on Congress.

7) Impose term limits on federal court judges (including SCOTUS.)

8) Limit the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

9) Repeal the 16th Amendment.

10) Repeal the 17th Amendment.

11) Eliminate (or modify) the Electoral College.

12) Prohibit flag burning.


My choice--without hesitation-- is #5. And to be specific, the Udall Amendment has already been introduced.

 

[Amber Bird]

Repeal the 16th amendment. Because indentured servitude was precluded under the 13th.


Ideally also, an amendment that insures term limits be imposed on both the Legislative and the Judicial branches.

 

[Vylo]

From your list, 1 or 6.

I would also like to update the language of the second amendment.

 

[jayem]

Oops, I left out a biggie: Requiring a balanced federal budget.

Now there's a baker's dozen. Carry on.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm torn between two options.

1) Limit the interpretation power of the judicial branch (IE: Limit them to interpreting the existing text, not write their own meaning into it)

2) An amendment that would outlaw riders on congressional bills. I've wanted to see riders go away for a long time. They have no business putting unrelated subject matter in a bill to sneak it in under the radar.

 

[freezerman2000]

#6
#7

 

[Illuminaughty]

An amendment that would make it harder to start wars with other nations. It would bar unilateral action on the presidents part unless there was an immanent threat of physical invasion or attack on one or more of the 50 states. If we are about to be physically invaded (nuked , carpet bombed, etc..) the president can act on his own and if not he needs super majority support for his proposed war from congress and the senate before military action can be taken.

 

[Drekkan85]

Given how much complaining goes on about the two party system and how tired people are of it, I'm surprised that number 11 isn't the clear and outright winner. The electoral college (and the first past the post congressional voting system) basically ensures two-party rule in perpetuity. There literally cannot be any third, fourth, or fifth parties of any import (beyond maybe getting a single seat in Congress) because of the limitations of the system.

My amendment would completely overhaul the electoral structure of both Congressional and Presidential elections. For Congress the amendment would establish the New Zealand system of Mixed Member Proportional voting. People would vote for both their local candidate and the party which they represent. Congress would be made up of its current members plus another block of 100 or so new members. After all the members are seated by a first past the post system, the electoral authority would examine the national percentage vote of each party. The party that least well represented compared to their actual national support (as measured by percentage of national votes) gets to fill the first of the 100 seats by a pre-done list of their party leader. This process is then repeated. So say the election broke as such:

Actual national %:
Republicans 35%
Democrats 35%
TEA Party 20%
Green Party 5%

But the seats (because of vote splitting on the TEA/Republican seats ends up):

Democrats: 60%
Republicans: 38%
TEA party: 2%
Green party: 0%

Then you'd begin by saying that the TEA Party is under-represented the most (18%) and adding a new TEA Party representative. This is then repeated using the new adjusted percentages time and time again until all the extra seats are filled, and then the final percentage is more accurate to the true beliefs of the people, and encourages the establishment of third parties instead of punishing them.

The total representation in the US by elected seats (in the House) would be reduced to 300 from 435 (plus the additional 100). Those seats would be distributed to the States precisely by population (and rebalanced every 10 years). Also, within States committees will not be able to gerrymander the districts. Within State boundaries would be drawn on a strict shortest-straightline algorithm to prevent gerrymandering and the current pro-rural bias.

The Amendment would adjust electoral college votes to follow population changes as exactly as possible. However, the vote would be done by the British Alternative Vote method of preferential voting to try and foster 3rd/4th parties instead of always being a two horse race.

 

[Jase]

Probably #6. The amount of corruption in Congress is ridiculous. The mere fact that they decide their own salary kinda proves that point. So they can keep giving themselves a raise while doing nothing productive, and stick around for decades.

Wouldn't we all love it to work that way in the real world?

 

[BoltNut]

There are a couple that sound good, but Amending the Constitution isn't something to be done haphazardly. A balanced budget amendment sounds good, but could also create it's own set of additional problems. I don't really see any that I would consider imperative. I believe that the 14th amendment should be worded to not allow the "anchor baby" issues, but not until our current situation is dealt with first.

I have to reluctantly say, none of the above for now.

 

[SharonL]

#6 and balanced budget

 

[Creech]

I'd pick 1,2,3, and 6 prob

 

[Paradoxum]

I like the sound of (5) and miniverchivi's (2) option, but I think I would have to go for one that limits business' and the rich's power over democracy and politicians. Corporations aren't people and money probably isn't speech. Money shouldn't be given to get a certain law passed and any dealings between politicians anyone capable of influencing politicians should be kept on record.

I have no idea if anything I have said is completely ignorant of me.

 

[Illuminaughty]

Along with the amendment I proposed to make it harder to start wars I think I would also support a campaign finance reform amendment too.

 

[Drekkan85]

I like the sound of (5) and miniverchivi's (2) option, but I think I would have to go for one that limits business' and the rich's power over democracy and politicians. Corporations aren't people and money probably isn't speech. Money shouldn't be given to get a certain law passed and any dealings between politicians anyone capable of influencing politicians should be kept on record.

I have no idea if anything I have said is completely ignorant of me.

Corporations are people. Having corporations qualify as people is utterly necessary for business and a modern capitalist economy. If you don't take the short cut of simply calling them people (and counting them as such) then you must create an exact replica of all the rights of a separate legal personality for the corporation, and introduce massive new complications into the law to account for the change.

 

[MachZer0]

There are a couple that sound good, but Amending the Constitution isn't something to be done haphazardly. A balanced budget amendment sounds good, but could also create it's own set of additional problems. I don't really see any that I would consider imperative. I believe that the 14th amendment should be worded to not allow the "anchor baby" issues, but not until our current situation is dealt with first.

I have to reluctantly say, none of the above for now.

The anchor baby could be resolved by a Supreme Court decision to interpret the 14th amendment to exclude anchor babies based on the subject of jurisdiction clause

 

[John Lee Pettimore III]

9) Repeal the 16th Amendment.

10) Repeal the 17th Amendment.

These two, and #4. It's a toss up between #9 and #4, and #10 is a close second.

 

[Paradoxum]

Corporations are people.

No they are not. It is just quite simply a fact. I would make an argument for it, but it is quite clear to anyone who considers what a person is even for a second. So do you have any argument for corporations being people?

Having corporations qualify as people is utterly necessary for business and a modern capitalist economy. If you don't take the short cut of simply calling them people (and counting them as such) then you must create an exact replica of all the rights of a separate legal personality for the corporation, and introduce massive new complications into the law to account for the change.

Yes, create the rights (and only the necessary rights) for a business to work. To call them people would be laughable if it wasn't sad and potentially dangerous in the future. Almost on par with saying women and children are objects. Such disregard for what a person is and why it is important.

 

[Wolseley]

I would champion an amendment which stated that Congress must abide by all laws which apply to everyone else---no more special perks, bennies, funds, special health plans, retirement at full pay, etc., etc., etc., etc.

Under my amendment, the royalty treatment would be done---from then on, they'd all have to live just like everybody else.

 

[MachZer0]

I would champion an amendment which stated that Congress must abide by all laws which apply to everyone else---no more special perks, bennies, funds, special health plans, retirement at full pay, etc., etc., etc., etc.

Under my amendment, the royalty treatment would be done---from then on, they'd all have to live just like everybody else.

We might want to include a limit on how often Congress can meet and the elimination of Congressional pensions