Jump to content
270soft Forum

What Amendments to the US Constitution Would You Like to See?


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Basically, a gun couldn't be brought out of the house, aside from hunting, unless the governor calls the militia. A militia is a force that is raised by a governmental order. That would be when the guns are allowed to be carried in public areas. 

In regards to war, I am making it a Constitutional issue. War should have been declared numerous times. This hypothetical convention would define it. 

In regards to rights women don't have. Try googling, "What equal rights do women not have?". I'll define these later and how it will be enforced. Basically, it will be enforced just how equal rights and civil rights are currently enforced. Although this could be stricter too 

Recall would not be via the electoral vote. In fact, I hope that's abolished. Right now your opinion means nothing. We are making a list of proposed amendment, even if we aren't serious about them. Then they will be improved, defined, and voted on by this forum, which leans far more left than you do politically. 

The last one will be defined or have a way that can lead to defining it. It isn't a "prejudice of the moment." We've had too many scandals, too many corrupt politicians, too many bald face lies--regardless of party. Trump is just one politician that's unethical, immoral, and corrupt. Impeachment and conviction will likely be easier to impose in an amendment. Hopefully, this will drive away unethical people from running. 

You don't seem to understand the point of this exercise. We propose amendments we may or may not agree with. At some point, they'll be fleshed out, then we will vote on them. Basically, we are carving out our own individual utopias and hoping that majority of the forum members vote on our ideas. 

Feel free to add more ideas for Amendments. We will polish up the language and better define the amendments later. I'll be including the historical Amendment, but we are going to assume the slate is clean to recreate the Federal Government and its relations to the states. 

 

Fair enough.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

A two-round popular vote election like in France for the Presidency. Proportional allocation of House of Representatives seats. Expanding the size of the House/uncapping it, altogether.

Didn't we do this before?

Well, other than a couple of those, that's a quick way to make a nation in the context of the 21st Century utterly ungovernable...

Posted Images

Shocking that the old folks don't want the youngsters to vote

I propose limiting the vote to those under 65.  Past that you start getting cognitive decline.  By retirement age you've had your political say and then some.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, pilight said:

Shocking that the old folks don't want the youngsters to vote

I propose limiting the vote to those under 65.  Past that you start getting cognitive decline.  By retirement age you've had your political say and then some.

Where did you ever get the idea that ALL senior citizens suffer from cognitive decline, if I may ask?

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

Same place @jvikings1 and @servo75 got the idea that ALL 18-20 year olds are too ignorant to be allowed to vote

I haven't checked the polling results, yet. And two people, even on a forum like this, isn't an overwhelming bloc of consensus. Plus, @jvikings1 isn't as nearly as old as @servo75 (or myself, but I haven't yet made any firm statements on the issue) - I believe, in fact, that @jvikings1 hasn't been over 20 very long at all, in fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I would support SC Justice age limit of 75, but something like this should accomplish a similar aim.

I'll add that as a proposed amendment. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'll add that as a proposed amendment. 

He's quoting the maximum mandatory retirement age in Canada for appointed judges and Senators, for your edification there, @vcczar

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Patine said:

He's quoting the maximum mandatory retirement age in Canada for appointed judges and Senators, for your edification there, @vcczar

Oh okay. I wonder what other Canadian ideas could be amendents for this exercise. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Oh okay. I wonder what other Canadian ideas could be amendents for this exercise. 

 

Wasn't consciously referring to that number, 75 just sounds about right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Proposal

SEC. 1. Except in the event of an invasion of the United States or its Territorial possessions and attack upon its citizens residing therein, the authority of Congress to declare war shall not become effective until confirmed by a majority of all votes cast thereon in a nationwide referendum. Congress, when it deems a national crisis to exist, may by concurrent resolution refer the question of war or peace to the citizens of the States, the question to be voted on being, Shall the United States declare war on ________? Congress may otherwise by law provide for the enforcement of this section.

SEC. 2. Whenever war is declared the President shall immediately conscript and take for use by the Government all the public and private war properties, yards, factories, and supplies, together with employees necessary for their operation, fixing the compensation for private properties temporarily employed for the war period at a rate not in excess of 4 percent based on tax values assessed in the year preceding the war.

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

Proposal

SEC. 1. Except in the event of an invasion of the United States or its Territorial possessions and attack upon its citizens residing therein, the authority of Congress to declare war shall not become effective until confirmed by a majority of all votes cast thereon in a nationwide referendum. Congress, when it deems a national crisis to exist, may by concurrent resolution refer the question of war or peace to the citizens of the States, the question to be voted on being, Shall the United States declare war on ________? Congress may otherwise by law provide for the enforcement of this section.

SEC. 2. Whenever war is declared the President shall immediately conscript and take for use by the Government all the public and private war properties, yards, factories, and supplies, together with employees necessary for their operation, fixing the compensation for private properties temporarily employed for the war period at a rate not in excess of 4 percent based on tax values assessed in the year preceding the war.

@Actinguy's not going to like this. His favourite criminal warmongers would be so hamstrung...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Proposal

SECTION 1. Congress shall have power to limit the wealth of the individual citizens of the several States, Territories, and the District of Columbia and of all persons owning property within the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States.

SECTION 2. No law shall be enacted fixing the maximum amount of wealth allowed to any one individual at a sum less in value than $10,000,000

SECTION 3. The power of levying and collecting taxes for revenue · under the existing articles of the Constitution and the amendments thereto shall be in no wise abridged.

SECTION 4. All sections of the Constitution of the United States inconsistent herewith are suspended for the purpose of carrying this article into effect. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Proposal

Section 1. A provision of a treaty which conflicts with this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect.

Section 2. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty.

Section 3. Congress shall have power to regulate all executive and other agreements with any foreign power or international organization. All such agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed on treaties by this article.

Section 4. The congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Proposal

Section 1. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed total receipts for that fiscal year, unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House of Congress shall provide by law for a specific excess of outlays over receipts by a rollcall vote.

Section 2. Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed one-fifth of economic output of the United States, unless two-thirds of each House of Congress shall provide for a specific increase of outlays above this amount.

Section 3. The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.

Section 4. Prior to each fiscal year, the President shall transmit to the Congress a proposed budget for the United States Government for that fiscal year in which total outlays do not exceed total receipts.

Section 5. A bill to increase revenue shall not become law unless three-fifths of the whole number of each House shall provide by law for such an increase by a rollcall vote.

Section 6. The Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation, which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts.

Section 7. Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government except those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except for those for repayment of debt principal.

Section 8. This article shall take effect beginning with the fifth fiscal year beginning after its ratification.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Proposal

Section 1. A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native-born citizen of the United States.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's more proposals:

  • Every law passed by the House is required to be voted on by the US Senate and vice-versa.
  • Every law that that fulfills the requirement for a vote must be voted on within two weeks of passage in one of the houses of Congress, barring a sincere request for amendment. 
  • Streamline the process for vacancies in the US Senate and US House. The governor must fill a US Senate or US House vacancy with a replacement of the same party of the previous officer-holder. A special election must occur during the next state or federal election, whichever occurs next. 
  • Some yet to be defined amendment that bars people from holding offices if there is a reasonable concern of conflict of interests, generally in regards to the politician or immediate family owning stocks or a company while serving in a political role that could easily adjust the fortunes of the politician or family member holding those stocks or running that company. 
  • The VP will not have any role with the legislative branch, to keep the seperation of powers. In the event of a tie, the bill fails. 
  • Cabinet Departments will require an amendment for the creation of the Department with the duties specified therein. 
  • An amendment to establish a shadow cabinet, similar to that in the UK. 
Link to post
Share on other sites

Proposal

Section 1. The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill. In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate the appropriations disapproved; and shall return a copy of such appropriations, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Proposal

Section 1. All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Proposals:

  • All bills, laws, and amendments shall be written in plain, understandable language that can be understood by the common citizen. 
  • All bills shall include a summarizing blurb not to exceed half a page. In addition, such blurbs cannot be misleading regarding the context of the bill. The blurb for the bill must be approved by all members of the respective committee to ensure that the blurb is a quality summary. 

Both of these are aimed to cut down on the fact that many people in Congress occasionally fail to read a bill before voting on them. This also allows citizens to better understand them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

8. Eliminate birthright citizenship and outline an alternate way of becoming a citizen

14. Photo ID voting requirement and limited early/mail-in voting

Highlighted two points that I find strange regarding the US in particular.

1.  I understand the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to address the question of citizenship in a post-slavery era, but it baffles my mind that anyone can support just handing out citizenship along with a passport just for being born in a country.  Jus sanguinis citizenship seems like a much more practical option for a nation as wealthy as the United States.  The birth tourism practices that I have personally witnessed disgust me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis

2.  I have never understood the abhorrence, from a practical perspective, among the left-wing side of the US political spectrum towards the practice of requiring proof of citizenship before being able to cast a vote.  I personally reside in a Commonwealth country, and you have to be on the voting register and present voter identification (or 2 forms of other ID) in order to cast a vote in the jurisdiction.  There is no excuse not to have an ID in today's modern world; whether for purchasing alcohol, driving a motor vehicle, traveling abroad, etc.  I find it hard to justify opposing voter ID measures from a political perspective.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, CPE said:

1.  I understand the purpose of the 14th Amendment was to address the question of citizenship in a post-slavery era, but it baffles my mind that anyone can support just handing out citizenship along with a passport just for being born in a country.  Jus sanguinis citizenship seems like a much more practical option for a nation as wealthy as the United States.  The birth tourism practices that I have personally witnessed disgust me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_sanguinis

There is, however, a flip-side to this idea, with a very good set of case-and-point cautionaries already extant and fairly well-known about. The U.S. has not gotten quite this far, but it could possibly be on the horizon. The Persian Gulf Monarchies are VERY rich. They have glittering, ultra-modern cities with awe-inspiring experimental architecture and the world's only seven-star hotel (in Dubai). Citizens of these countries pay no taxes, AND get a check in the mail from oil wealth every year, and many of them own Italian exotic sports cars and high-grade yachts. However, a very unusually high percentage of the permanent residents in those nations are non-citizens who live there to work - at the jobs the citizens don't want to bother with, from base labour and services, to highly-trained and -educated specialists. But they will NEVER be citizens, because these nations do NOT naturalize foreigners for any reason - period, full stop. A woman from outside these countries who marries a citizen never becomes a citizen, even though her children by him do (this a legal protection for the citizens in terms of Islamic divorce laws). A man from outside these nations is LEGALLY FORBIDDEN to marry a woman who is a citizen, even if the man is a devout and practicing Sunni Sect Muslim (or Obadhi Sect, in Oman) and from a pre-dominantly Islamic nation, even a majority Arab nation outside those nations - it doesn't matter. The penalty for attempting an illegal wedding or elopement is DEATH. Many of these expatriate workers (moreso the unskilled labour and services ones - VERY RARELY the specialists) are exploited and taken advantage of ruthlessly, abusively, cruelly, and vulture-like - but the infrastructure and economies of these nations - as it stands - would collapse without them.

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...