How would you amend the United States Constitution?

It needs clarity to force the courts into recognizing its existence...

 

.
Thanks -

So I'll stick with my amendment to require politicians to be bound by the perjury laws whenever speaking to the electorate.

It could be started at the grass roots level with up-and-coming politicos binding themselves voluntarily, so eventually becoming the norm.

Wishful thinking, probably, but fun to think of the possibilities.

.

 

As long as people prefer a pleasant lie over an unpleasant truth we will have politicians willing to tell us pleasant lies.

 

1. Repeal the 17th Amendment
2. Repeal the ICC
3. Repeal the "necessary and proper" clause.

Then, sit back and watch the federal government shrink.

 

1. A single term limit for all elected officials.

2. Illegal for the Federal government to send funds to a state or local government.

3. Illegal for the Federal government to spend more than it takes in. Illegal for it to go into debt.

 

I really like this one.

It would have the effect of, among other things, prohibiting federal disaster relief. Which is a good thing. Why should all Americans pay higher taxes to subsidize people who choose to live in beautiful homes on the Florida coast, or below sea level in New Orleans, or on spacious ranches in "tornado alley"?

Those same people aren't paying for all the extra local taxes I pay for salt and snowplows. So I'm getting docked for my weather AND someone else's.

Disaster relief should be state level. Then, states would have to tax at the level necessary to support any disasters. States like Florida would have higher taxes, which would prevent people from moving there, which would lower the cost of their disaster relief, and eventually things would reach equilibrium in each state.

 

The main purpose of the suggestion is to help restore states rights. The states are taxing entities themselves. The federal government perverts the union of states by buying the states acceptance of national policies. It should be illegal. I do agree that disaster relief should be a state and local activity as well, but that isn't the main purpose of the suggestion.

 

Freedom of thought. Mind-control technology is a problem that should be addressed by the constitution.

 

For every new federal law enacted, an existing federal law MUST be rescinded.

 

1; Abolish the legal institution of marriage, and barr the government from having any say in whether consenting adults are allowed to marry.

2; Ban all special interest money in politics and abolish citizens united.

 

I'd amend the 2nd amendment to state" every adult U/S citizen gets to carry any firearm, of any type, any time, any place, concealed or openly and this amendment doesn't have a damned thing to do with any militia. it's about personal freedom"

 

Oh fun I would do five.

1. Amend the First Amendment to affirm the right to personal belief and of belief in religious sanctuaries and those are fully protected but there can be no intermingling of faith in the public domain remaining secular for all.

2. Ban any military action longer than six months without a formal declaration of war immediately activating the selective service for both genders and no exclusions, a war tax to pay for all the costs each year on personal income over 150% of the Federal Poverty line and the military will make all war decisions. And to declare war uses a 60% majority of the House of Representatives. This will exempt only humanitarian requests by nations in need.

3. Limit elections for national offices to eight weeks and ban any activity for said election before then by any sources.

4. The government will assure all citizens not legally disabled a job at the minimum wage, basic housing and sustenance and adequate medical care.

5. Education through 12th grade and one added tear of vocational education will be the sole duty of the States, no Federal intervention except to protect other rights in the Constitution will be permitted and no Federal funding may be given. States must provide education as noted in this amendment. Parents must send children to public schools until the child is eighteen.

 

#1... a political supermajority + State supermajority....already CAN repeal and stuff in the Constitution.

#2? Well.....I need a whole lot more info. The TERMS...are not that specific.......or.....at least the Real effect is fuzzy.

ANY relevant change to the Constitution...outside the SCOTUS making a ruling... is so DIFFICULT.. we may not see it in 25 years. I could probably think up a few things.. but... those won't happen.

 

Tragically true and finally humorous. How about a comic book version for republicans?

Ultimately we face the cognitive distortion that party politics is. LABELLING.

Overall, the main reason states citizens need to agree upon constitutional intent and conduct the American, lawful and peaceful revolution. Once state legislatures are confronted by Americans with agreement firmly rooted in the framing documents, they will relent and work with citizens to go after the infiltrated federal government.

 

Actually a very accurate perspective, and the lawful and peaceful revolution is the proper "political supermajority + State supermajority".

There is a real threat from a convention that the Koch bros are working on that revolution will stop.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...nstitutional-threat-thread-real-defenses.html

In fact the lawful and peaceful revolution is an intervention into the multinational corporate agenda and conspiracy that may be the only way to preserve the 1787 constitution.

 

My suggestion?

"The nineteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."

 

i would really like a provision to overturn non criminal supreme court decisions by 3/4 of governors or congress.

 

Why would conservatives and Libertarians want to amend the Constitution? Don't they operate under the mistaken assumption that the Consititution is set in stone?

 

Absolutely, should never have been passed in the first place

State legislatures are not judicial bodies nor Constitutional experts, there is a process to override the SCOTUS, and amendment to change the Constitution, giving state legislatures this power could lead to all kinds of Constitutional issues and interpretations and slippery slopes.

I'd make less than that 8 years and a review with additional at 4 years.

They would just call them something else. The President runs the Executive Branch and has to have the authority to appoint experts and special heads of of groups he establishes, Congress can always defund them. Hey I'd particularly like them either but Congress can't manage itself very well let alone micro manage the Executive Branch.

Yes the Democrats the last 7 years have demonstrated there needs to be some statutory measure concerning the budget process and while not eliminating any deficits at all, there will be times of emergency where a deficit is unavoidable but the best way to get better fiscal management is to elect better Congress critters.

A good idea in the olden days when Congress did not meet often, but they are not in session more than not these days, at least a law that says any recess appointment is temporary until the next session and no further action is require by Congress to end the temporary appointment other than banging the gavel to open that session.

I would just make it much easier to fire the substandard employees and get rid of the government retirement system as it now exist and go to a 401k type program and get rid of the 20-25 year retirements with full retirement benefits, they work till they are 62-65 like everyone else and retire on what they have saved in their retirement accounts.

I take it you mean dereliction of duty. Would create a madhouse with probably 1000 lawsuits file every day. It is up to Congress to remove high officials for malfeasance or for us to not reelect them.

Impeachment. And what constitutes unenforcement, the President can allocate resources such as put more people on immigration enforcement which means some other areas will not get little attention, is that refusing to enforce a law? And the President doesn't direct day-to-day law enforcement anyway. Should he be able to issue an executive order that a law will not be enforced in any way shape or form because he does not agree, of course not.

BIG Constitutional problems here, you'd have to repeal the 1st Amendment entirely. You do realize that under your plan NO Government employee would be able to vote, that includes the military, that includes a janitor in some Government office in some little town somewhere, that means most businesses would refuse to do ANY business with the government such as building a road, or supply copy paper, or computer services because then none of their employees would be able to vote.

 

There is already a law to provide a budget plan. An administration must provide one before it's first year. President's in the past have done this as their first step. It shows what all they can do if done right.
Term limits is a great idea. One should not spend a lifetime in the white house, bending the country towards one individuals ideology.
To not be able to vote for receiving any sort of welfare from the government, is also a great idea. This might get people to get off their ass. However you would have to exclude retirement, social security, seems they paid into it.
I find myself agreeing with all of these. Now get it done!

 

Parliamentary Government, proportional representation, kill the Electoral College and have presidents elected by popular vote.

 

A little Jefferson on impeachment

"We have... [required] a vote of two-thirds in one of the Houses for removing a judge; a vote so impossible where any defense is made before men of ordinary prejudices and passions, that our judges are effectually independent of the nation. But this ought not to be. I would not indeed make them dependent on the Executive authority, as they formerly were in England; but I deem it indispensable to the continuance of this government that they should be submitted to some practical and impartial control, and that this, to be impartial, must be compounded of a mixture of state and federal authorities." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:120

"Having found from experience that impeachment is an impracticable thing, a mere scarecrow, [the Judiciary] consider themselves secure for life." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Ritchie, 1820. ME 15:297

"Impeachment is a farce which will not be tried again." --Thomas Jefferson to William B. Giles, 1807. ME 11:191

The problems with your arguments are in the assumption that existing remedies work. If they did we would not be discussing amending the mess. The problem is simple, the body of laws and regulation are set up not to govern us and limit government IAW the Constitution but instead to protect those in power, political, judicial and bureaucratic, from any actual responsibility for their actions, even when illegal.

Think about it. A daily discussion in the political realm is about debating the possibilities of the FBI and Justice dept actually prosecuting a senior politician for actions that would get anyone reading this serious jail time. The system is broken. Fixing it might require drastic surgery.

 

It's just a shift in judicial power, so there's no reason to think it will cause any more of that than already exists.

Nonsense, 1A covers way more ground than would be affected by that proposal, and only the petition clause would be modified.

An exception could be made for them.

It could be written to limit the exclusion to receivers of direct government payments.

 

I'd add an amendment stating that corporations are not people and are subject to the rules and laws under which their charters were issued and no more.

 

Revoke the second amendment.