Jump to content
270soft Forum

Forum Amendments for Article 2


Article 2 Proposals  

16 members have voted

  1. 1. Which changes should be made to our Constitution?

    • award electoral college votes proportionally (with a minimum threshold of 10% in order to win any EVs) Note: if this proposal and proposal 13 both secure a majority, only the proposal with more votes will be approved
    • hold presidential elections every six years and prohibit the President from running for reelection (though allow for non-consecutive terms) Note: if this proposal and proposal 14 both secure a majority, only the proposal with more votes will be approved
    •  abolish the office of Vice President
    • establish a new line of succession where the President is followed by the Vice President (if said office is not abolished) and then the members of the cabinet (in the order their positions were created)
    • The president must fill all open vacancies in all areas in which he or she can make an appointment. The president has 90 days to make a nomination, and Congress has 90 days to hear and confirm/deny or the position is automatically confirmed.
    • Presidential recall: In order to initiate a recall election, a petition (or petitions) must be signed by an amount of people greater than 50% of that state's voters in the previous Presidential election. If this criterion is met, a recall election will be held with the winner serving the balance of the term..
    • Trigger a special election whenever a non-nationwide-elected official (e.g. Speaker of the House or Secretary of State) ascends to the Presidency (unless it is within one year of a scheduled election)
    • remove the words "natural born citizen" from Section 1 Clause 5
    • a parliamentary system amendment (similar to the Westminister system, but only with the parts relevant for addition to the article)
    • ranked-choice voting for Presidential elections
    • for treaties, 2/3rd's of the Senate must APPROVE not 2/3rds must DISAPPROVE
    • eliminate the word "misdemeanors" from Section 4
    • abolish the Electoral College entirely and have a popular vote with a second round if no majority is gained in the first round, like in France Note: if this proposal and proposal 1 both secure a majority, only the proposal with more votes will be approved
    • Shorten the President's term to 2 years, but allow for the President to run for 3 consecutive terms Note: if this proposal and proposal 2 both secure a majority, only the proposal with more votes will be approved
    • Allow the President to call early elections
    • None of the above

This poll is closed to new votes

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 07/16/2018 at 04:43 AM

Recommended Posts

Just now, Patine said:

And given this specific decision was made in a day and age when women were not allowed to publicly hold any positions or responsibility, were not allowed to own property or decide whom they would marry, and in fact, were considered property, more or less, legally speaking, in pretty much every culture in the world at that time, I'd be quite suspect of the actual reasons for this decision were and if they still belong in a modern world. I know, for instance, the "ban on women in Christian clergy" was not actually the world of Christ, and he had actually intended for Mary Magdellan to be a very important and senior member of the church he was the ban. The ban, in this, is traced to a word by Paul that's taken completely out of context, because it was meant as a shot-term solution to a specific problem in the Early Church and was not (contrary to many Christians') meant to be a permanent, or even long-term, state of affairs. 

And more importantly whining about it won't convince people

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

2 hours ago, Patine said:

And given this specific decision was made in a day and age when women were not allowed to publicly hold any positions or responsibility, were not allowed to own property or decide whom they would marry, and in fact, were considered property, more or less, legally speaking, in pretty much every culture in the world at that time, I'd be quite suspect of the actual reasons for this decision were and if they still belong in a modern world. I know, for instance, the "ban on women in Christian clergy" was not actually the world of Christ, and he had actually intended for Mary Magdellan to be a very important and senior member of the church he was the ban. The ban, in this, is traced to a word by Paul that's taken completely out of context, because it was meant as a shot-term solution to a specific problem in the Early Church and was not (contrary to many Christians') meant to be a permanent, or even long-term, state of affairs. 

If they want it they should just shut up and demonstrate their competence.

note:there's already some on the market

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

If they want it they should just shut up and demonstrate their competence.

Isn't it nice that we can discuss this from a position of high privilege and utter and complete and detachment with no understanding or true empathy at all for those we're discussing. Let's talk about the Black Civil Rights Movement now from the same perspective. <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

Isn't it nice that we can discuss this from a position of high privilege and utter and complete and detachment with no understanding or true empathy at all for those we're discussing. Let's talk about the Black Civil Rights Movement now from the same perspective. <_<

I'm saying that that's the only way to realistically convince people to do that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

And what did that discussion have to do with anything?

 

I was just commenting on your cavalier, dismissive, ivory tower point of view of people's long struggles you have likely have no real understanding or empathy for from their perspective at all, and think things should be so simple and cut-and-dry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • award electoral college votes proportionally (with a minimum threshold of 10% in order to win any EVs) Note: if this proposal and proposal 13 both secure a majority, only the proposal with more votes will be approved
  • Up to states; unnecessarily intrudes on federalism
     
  • hold presidential elections every six years and prohibit the President from running for reelection (though allow for non-consecutive terms) Note: if this proposal and proposal 14 both secure a majority, only the proposal with more votes will be approved
    4 years is long enough; 6 wouldn't allow the people enough options to change leadership if they feel it's failing them
     
  •  abolish the office of Vice President
    Why?
     
  • establish a new line of succession where the President is followed by the Vice President (if said office is not abolished) and then the members of the cabinet (in the order their positions were created)
    Why?
     
  • The president must fill all open vacancies in all areas in which he or she can make an appointment. The president has 90 days to make a nomination, and Congress has 90 days to hear and confirm/deny or the position is automatically confirmed.
    Gives Senate majority leader too much power; the Senate needs to be able to disregard a nominee that isn't qualified or doesn't deserve a hearing
     
  • Presidential recall: In order to initiate a recall election, a petition (or petitions) must be signed by an amount of people greater than 50% of that state's voters in the previous Presidential election. If this criterion is met, a recall election will be held with the winner serving the balance of the term..
    If the voters elected a President, then they are stuck with them for the duration (unless impeached and removed for crimes); They'll have a chance to change leadership in 4 years.  Would just create instability and move closer to pure democracy.
     
  • Trigger a special election whenever a non-nationwide-elected official (e.g. Speaker of the House or Secretary of State) ascends to the Presidency (unless it is within one year of a scheduled election)
    Why?
     
  • remove the words "natural born citizen" from Section 1 Clause 5
    Why?
     
  • a parliamentary system amendment (similar to the Westminister system, but only with the parts relevant for addition to the article)
    Would create instability and remove many of the checks and balances
     
  • ranked-choice voting for Presidential elections
    You should chose a candidate and make a vote based on that.  If they don't win, you shouldn't be able to vote for someone else.
     
  • for treaties, 2/3rd's of the Senate must APPROVE not 2/3rds must DISAPPROVE
     
     
  • eliminate the word "misdemeanors" from Section 4
    Why?
     
  • abolish the Electoral College entirely and have a popular vote with a second round if no majority is gained in the first round, like in France Note: if this proposal and proposal 1 both secure a majority, only the proposal with more votes will be approved
    Another dangerous step towards true democracy.  Screws over the smaller states.
     
  • Shorten the President's term to 2 years, but allow for the President to run for 3 consecutive terms Note: if this proposal and proposal 2 both secure a majority, only the proposal with more votes will be approved
    Would lead to constant campaigning and fundraising (like House elections).
     
  • Allow the President to call early elections
  • Way too much power in the President's hands; could easily lead to abuse; the system was designed to make it difficult to make major changes
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NYrepublican said:

Anyway @Patine's proposal wouldn't work

So basically, you've just dismissed it, without further consideration or being added to the list of options to vote on, by your own singular wisdom, opinion, and point-of-view alone, with no other consideration or consultation on the issue being needed or welcome, because you, yourself, know best?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

So basically, you've just dismissed it, without further consideration or being added to the list of options to vote on, by your own singular wisdom, opinion, and point-of-view alone, with no other consideration or consultation on the issue being needed or welcome, because you, yourself, know best?

I was just changing the topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

I was just changing the topic.

But you're unilateral and arbitrary way of putting (and I was making a serious proposal, not just musing, which you don't seem to realize) based solely on your own point-of-view and opinion that you expect to guide the conversion shows, in a microcosm, the problem with the mentality, institution, and culture that's built around singular executive heads invested with the amount of power most nations do today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jvikings1 said:
  • award electoral college votes proportionally (with a minimum threshold of 10% in order to win any EVs) Note: if this proposal and proposal 13 both secure a majority, only the proposal with more votes will be approved
  • Up to states; unnecessarily intrudes on federalism
     
  • hold presidential elections every six years and prohibit the President from running for reelection (though allow for non-consecutive terms) Note: if this proposal and proposal 14 both secure a majority, only the proposal with more votes will be approved
    4 years is long enough; 6 wouldn't allow the people enough options to change leadership if they feel it's failing them
     
  •  abolish the office of Vice President
    Why?
     
  • establish a new line of succession where the President is followed by the Vice President (if said office is not abolished) and then the members of the cabinet (in the order their positions were created)
    Why?
     
  • The president must fill all open vacancies in all areas in which he or she can make an appointment. The president has 90 days to make a nomination, and Congress has 90 days to hear and confirm/deny or the position is automatically confirmed.
    Gives Senate majority leader too much power; the Senate needs to be able to disregard a nominee that isn't qualified or doesn't deserve a hearing
     
  • Presidential recall: In order to initiate a recall election, a petition (or petitions) must be signed by an amount of people greater than 50% of that state's voters in the previous Presidential election. If this criterion is met, a recall election will be held with the winner serving the balance of the term..
    If the voters elected a President, then they are stuck with them for the duration (unless impeached and removed for crimes); They'll have a chance to change leadership in 4 years.  Would just create instability and move closer to pure democracy.
     
  • Trigger a special election whenever a non-nationwide-elected official (e.g. Speaker of the House or Secretary of State) ascends to the Presidency (unless it is within one year of a scheduled election)
    Why?
     
  • remove the words "natural born citizen" from Section 1 Clause 5
    Why?
     
  • a parliamentary system amendment (similar to the Westminister system, but only with the parts relevant for addition to the article)
    Would create instability and remove many of the checks and balances
     
  • ranked-choice voting for Presidential elections
    You should chose a candidate and make a vote based on that.  If they don't win, you shouldn't be able to vote for someone else.
     
  • for treaties, 2/3rd's of the Senate must APPROVE not 2/3rds must DISAPPROVE
     
     
  • eliminate the word "misdemeanors" from Section 4
    Why?
     
  • abolish the Electoral College entirely and have a popular vote with a second round if no majority is gained in the first round, like in France Note: if this proposal and proposal 1 both secure a majority, only the proposal with more votes will be approved
    Another dangerous step towards true democracy.  Screws over the smaller states.
     
  • Shorten the President's term to 2 years, but allow for the President to run for 3 consecutive terms Note: if this proposal and proposal 2 both secure a majority, only the proposal with more votes will be approved
    Would lead to constant campaigning and fundraising (like House elections).
     
  • Allow the President to call early elections
  • Way too much power in the President's hands; could easily lead to abuse; the system was designed to make it difficult to make major changes

Most of these "Why?"s are pretty self explanatory. Not sure how you wouldn't be able to understand the reasoning behind them, regardless of whether or not you agree, but I'll try to explain them.

Abolish the office of Vice President because the office has almost no power and the person elected to the office is almost always selected simply because they "balance" the ticket.

Create a new line of succession to remove people who were elected by a small portion of Americans (President pro tempore and House Speaker) in place of people selected by a person the entire country elected. 

Trigger a special election when a non-nationwide elected official ascends to the Presidency for the same reason as above. The President should always be somebody who was actually elected. 

Eliminate "natural born citizen" to clarify who is eligible for the Presidency. This could also be solved by changing the entire clause too "person born in the US", but this proposal would have the opposite effect, albeit still clarifying the wording.

The only one that I think doesn't have a fairly obvious reason behind proposing is the eliminating the word "misdemeanors" proposal, though I suppose this is also for clarification. If I were to make a proposal regarding that clause, I would have proposed something that specifies exactly what crimes would justify impeachment.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, jnewt said:

The only one that I think doesn't have a fairly obvious reason behind proposing is the eliminating the word "misdemeanors" proposal, though I suppose this is also for clarification. If I were to make a proposal regarding that clause, I would have proposed something that specifies exactly what crimes would justify impeachment.

It's just because the meaning of the word has changed and in its modern meaning it doesn't make sense

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jnewt said:

Most of these "Why?"s are pretty self explanatory. Not sure how you wouldn't be able to understand the reasoning behind them, regardless of whether or not you agree, but I'll try to explain them.

Abolish the office of Vice President because the office has almost no power and the person elected to the office is almost always selected simply because they "balance" the ticket.

Create a new line of succession to remove people who were elected by a small portion of Americans (President pro tempore and House Speaker) in place of people selected by a person the entire country elected. 

Trigger a special election when a non-nationwide elected official ascends to the Presidency for the same reason as above. The President should always be somebody who was actually elected. 

Eliminate "natural born citizen" to clarify who is eligible for the Presidency. This could also be solved by changing the entire clause too "person born in the US", but this proposal would have the opposite effect, albeit still clarifying the wording.

The only one that I think doesn't have a fairly obvious reason behind proposing is the eliminating the word "misdemeanors" proposal, though I suppose this is also for clarification. If I were to make a proposal regarding that clause, I would have proposed something that specifies exactly what crimes would justify impeachment.

 

None are necessary there hence why I question their proposal.  There's no point in abolishing the position of VP.  Plus, that brings a question of who breaks ties in the Senate which has been ignored in the proposals so far.  At least people elected representatives to elect those (and so far having someone in the House and Senate [respectively] fill those positions) who are Speakers and President Pro Temp (unlike the unelected cabinet positions).  If a President dies in office, there will be a lot of preparations that need to be made.  If the person who assumes office wants to run for re-election, they would be distracted by a campaign which would limit their ability to lead.  Natural born means born as an American (so on US soil or to parents that are Americans).  I think that is fine.  If someone is going to be President, they should have been an American citizen their entire life.  The misdemeanors proposal doesn't do anything as it doesn't change the meaning of the clause.

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

None are necessary there hence why I question their proposal.  There's no point in abolishing the position of VP.  Plus, that brings a question of who breaks ties in the Senate which has been ignored in the proposals so far.  At least people elected representatives to elect those (and so far having someone in the House and Senate [respectively] fill those positions) who are Speakers and President Pro Temp (unlike the unelected cabinet positions).  If a President dies in office, there will be a lot of preparations that need to be made. 

The point in abolishing the office of Vice President is that it serves almost no purpose. Aren't conservatives usually for a smaller government? This is one place where it would be extremely easy to shrink the government. As for who would break ties in the Senate? Nobody. The Senate would actually need a majority of its members to support a bill instead of relying on whoever won the last Presidential election. I could also argue that this further separates powers as you would no longer have the Vice President serving in the legislative branch. As for your point on Speaker of the House and President pro tem: You said they were elected by representatives who were elected by the people. They were only elected by a small proportion of the people. Whereas the cabinet is also selected by a person who was elected, but this person was actually elected by the entire country. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, jnewt said:

The point in abolishing the office of Vice President is that it serves almost no purpose. Aren't conservatives usually for a smaller government? This is one place where it would be extremely easy to shrink the government. As for who would break ties in the Senate? Nobody. The Senate would actually need a majority of its members to support a bill instead of relying on whoever won the last Presidential election. I could also argue that this further separates powers as you would no longer have the Vice President serving in the legislative branch. As for your point on Speaker of the House and President pro tem: You said they were elected by representatives who were elected by the people. They were only elected by a small proportion of the people. Whereas the cabinet is also selected by a person who was elected, but this person was actually elected by the entire country. 

A tie is absolutely needed in the Senate especially if we get stuck with a 50-50 split in the body.  If there was no way to break ties, then it would have the potential of grinding everything to a halt (making it difficult to pass something is good but the inability to pass anything at all would be dangerous).  Plus, the VP allows line of succession right after the President which the people voted for.  This makes it a lot less likely that we get a President that wasn't voted on by the people (member of Congress or cabinet).

The cabinet wasn't voted on by any of the public while every member can vote for a representative that serves in Congress.  It makes a lot more sense to have a person elected by the representatives of the people (which everyone who wanted to vote voted in the election) than some unelected bureaucrat appointed by the executive.

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, jnewt said:

The point in abolishing the office of Vice President is that it serves almost no purpose. Aren't conservatives usually for a smaller government? This is one place where it would be extremely easy to shrink the government. As for who would break ties in the Senate? Nobody. The Senate would actually need a majority of its members to support a bill instead of relying on whoever won the last Presidential election. I could also argue that this further separates powers as you would no longer have the Vice President serving in the legislative branch. As for your point on Speaker of the House and President pro tem: You said they were elected by representatives who were elected by the people. They were only elected by a small proportion of the people. Whereas the cabinet is also selected by a person who was elected, but this person was actually elected by the entire country. 

I notice my proposal was exempt was from the list of options to even vote on, and now the voting's closed, all seemingly because @NYrepublican shut down my option without due consideration or it being a voting option on his own authority that no one but me challenged. I thus view this convention, going forward, to have no validity and no hope of achieving, but that it was fallen to a small number of tyrants, directing affairs, debate, and what's considered "legitimate" to even consider what's worth voting on and what's not, by their own authority, without open consultation, and thus this convention will be INCAPABLE of solving any problems of the nation and will likely instead lead to tyranny, or at least a worse. Rather than waste my time further, I formally withdraw from this convention and will make plans to move a new nation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patine said:

I notice my proposal was exempt was from the list of options to even vote on, and now the voting's closed, all seemingly because @NYrepublican shut down my option without due consideration or it being a voting option on his own authority that no one but me challenged. I thus view this convention, going forward, to have no validity and no hope of achieving, but that it was fallen to a small number of tyrants, directing affairs, debate, and what's considered "legitimate" to even consider what's worth voting on and what's not, by their own authority, without open consultation, and thus this convention will be INCAPABLE of solving any problems of the nation and will likely instead lead to tyranny, or at least a worse. Rather than waste my time further, I formally withdraw from this convention and will make plans to move a new nation.

Repropose it as an amendment I think it's a good sugggestion I just don't believe it to be practical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

Repropose it as an amendment I think it's a good sugggestion I just don't believe it to be practical.

Well, given a singular executive head has proven over about 7000 years of recorded world history to so very often not be practical, what do we have to lose trying something else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

Well, given a singular executive head has proven over about 7000 years of recorded world history to so very often not be practical, what do we have to lose trying something else.

Alot

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, NYrepublican said:

Alot

We'd still be huddled around fires in caves if people like you who morbidly and superstitiously feared significant and radical change, even if the current situation is untenable, had always been in power and never been successfully challenged or gainsaid.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

We'd still be huddled around fires in caves if people like you who morbidly and superstitiously feared significant and radical change, even if the current situation is untenable, had always been in power and never been successfully challenged or gainsaid.

There's a legislature to check the president if it actually did it's job this checks and balances would work. Elaborate how multiple executives would help please.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

There's a legislature to check the president if it actually did it's job this checks and balances would work. Elaborate how multiple executives would help please.

The U.S. Congress has, other than a few rare cases (like Reagan, who could work and negotiate with a hostile-party-run Congress, or Trump, who seems to have bizarre, schizophrenic, and politically unhealthy relationship with Congress, for instance), either been the President's rubberstamp and lapdog in passing laws (except for a few cases), or been nothing but a gridlocked obstructionism for their agendas, taking a pound of flesh for every bill they pass, and piling on amendments that often destroy, or at least sabotage, the purpose of the bills, or adding riders (which should be forbidden). I don't any proper, healthy or productive President-Congress relationships that epitomize these "checks and balances" and actually help the PEOPLE and the NATION, and not just political jockeying.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Patine said:

I notice my proposal was exempt was from the list of options to even vote on, and now the voting's closed, all seemingly because @NYrepublican shut down my option without due consideration or it being a voting option on his own authority that no one but me challenged. I thus view this convention, going forward, to have no validity and no hope of achieving, but that it was fallen to a small number of tyrants, directing affairs, debate, and what's considered "legitimate" to even consider what's worth voting on and what's not, by their own authority, without open consultation, and thus this convention will be INCAPABLE of solving any problems of the nation and will likely instead lead to tyranny, or at least a worse. Rather than waste my time further, I formally withdraw from this convention and will make plans to move a new nation.

You proposed it well after the proposal period ended. You'll have to wait to propose it as a separate amendment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...