If you could amend the US Constitution...

[Young_LiberalCO]

I'm currently taking a (fascinating) course on Constitutional Reform and we're in the midst committee work writing and voting on potential amendments to the Constitution, which will eventually be debated and voted on during our Convention. So far, our committee has voted to institute direct popular election of the president, lower age requirements for running for federal office, eliminated midterm elections by lengthening the House term to 4 years and the Senate term to 8 years, clarified the power of judicial review, given DC full voting rights, and devolved gun control policy to the state (a compromise between those of us who wanted to outlaws guns and those who wanted to strengthen federalism). We've considering and rejected proposals to make Congress unicameral, switch to proportional representation, repeal the 22nd amendment or disallow all presidents from running for reelection, institute a flat tax (thinly veiled within a claim to make income taxes subject to the 14th Amendment), and a few others.

Anyway, I thought it might be interesting to see what some of the DUers would change in the Constitution. As revered as our Constitution is, there are clearly some significant shortcomings. With all my hours looking at the Constitution and analyzing its structure, I'm sure there's some brilliant (and progressive!) ideas that I've completely missed!

Also, I really want to propose an amendment somewhat like FDR's "Bill of Economic Rights", with a right to housing, health care, education, etc. specified. However, I need to figure out what to include and, more importantly, how to convince the strict constitutionalists of the committee that such amendments aren't policy and belong in the Constitution. So, any ideas on that front would be much appreciated?


So, if you could amend the U.S. Constitution, what would you change?

[Hawkeye-X]

1. Include no-confidence vote to force an early Presidential vote.

And Senators has to answer all recall votes.

[Mythsaje]

2. Welcome to DU

It's an interesting question. If given the opportunity, I'd eliminate any notion of corporate "personhood," publically fund campaign financing, and deal with the drug war the way it SHOULD be dealt with.

For starters.

[trotsky]

3. Supreme Court Justices have 10-year terms.

At the end of 10 years, they can be re-nominated and re-confirmed.

[Mythsaje]

5. Good one...n/t

[BlueEyedSon]

8. How about thats it.... 10 yrs and youre out?

[sabbat hunter]

16. 10 years and out

problem with a term like that for supreme court justices is that they are MORE likely to vote for political reasons rather than what they feel is right. we would not have justices like o'connor, souter, stevens. all of whom where nominated thinking they would be conservative judges, but instead since they have life time terms are able to vote their conscience.

vote of no confidence for the president? who would be voting? the general population? the senate, the house of representatives?
if it is the people why not make it a simple recall vote?


f

[Eric J in MN]

23. I'd prefer if they had to be at leat 70 years old.

If they are just there for 10 years and they're going to be young when they leave, they may make rulings for corporations they would like to hire them.

[beyurslf]

29. Life terms allow a Juctise to vote without regard to election. This is how

it should be. If one is concerned with the stretching of terms by nominating young and younger Juctices (Roberts is the second youngest Chief ever), then a limit on years should be imposed. I would suggest 25 years as the max. This allows the President who made the nomination to be out office for at least 15 years (and surely even more) before the Justice has to retire. And at 50, Roberts could still serve until 75.

[Katherine Brengle]

85. Actually, I don't think this works...

Justices are acutely aware of elections and who is in power when they are appointed and when they retire. Former SC Justice O'Connor, for instance, said publicly that she would not consider retirement unless she knew a Republican president would name her successor.

Ten year terms would remove the ability of SC and other federal judges to play politics. They would have 0 control over who named their successors, unlike now.

[drm604]

115. Yes, a 25 year max

coupled with a generous lifetime pension and a prohibition of any other income whether from employment, investments, or whatever. That way you could limit their time on the court while also limiting any economic incentive for them to vote certain ways.

[Bacchus39]

126. bad idea

to be renominated and reconfirmed. Potentially, a justice could "resign" say at the end of 7.5 years and be reappointed by the same president who originally appointed him in the first place. or strategically resign after say only 9 years if at the time of resignation his/her party has the presidency.


I think a longer term limit of say 15-20 years would be better. or say impose a maximum age of 80.

[Inland]

4. Uniform voter registration and counting. nt

[shraby]

6. No president can pardon members of his

administration for wrong-doing.

[Eric J in MN]

15. I agree.

And it's something the founding fathers should have thought of.

[ComerPerro]

20. That's a very good one.

[Gregorian]

78. I like this one. Brilliant.

[BlueEyedSon]

7. 1. Make voting a constitutionally protected right.

Make it illegal to not vote (absentee ok... no vote, and you're fined).
Election day is on a weekend, or is designated as a holiday.
Hand-counted ballots only.
Instant runoff voting as the mechanism for contest between more than 2 candidates.

2.Revoke the personhood of the corporation
Corporations do not have implicit constitutional rights as do citizens, corporate rights must be made explicit

3.Money does not = free speech.
Public financing of campaigns
Make Lobbying and all other means of influence via money, gifts, quid pro quo illegal.

[sabbat hunter]

19. forcing people to vote

sounds too much like what would happen under a dictatorship. make it easier to vote, yes. illegal not to? no


election day is already a holiday, but people still have to work. however it should be a law, enforced with extremely high fines, that all businesses must give their employees time off to go vote.

how would the instant run offs work?

[BlueEyedSon]

28. Fines for not voting are democratic. Its done in Australia and other

places.

IRV info:
http://www.instantrunoff.com/
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

[sabbat hunter]

39. democracy

just because a democracy has forced voting, does not make it right.

[Skeptor]

56. As an Australian who is legally obliged to vote,

the rule is in fact only loosely enforced. I somehow failed to be enrolled to vote for a decade or so, and never received a fine notice (you have to be enrolled AND not vote to be caught), the fine is a token amount, and a person can be excused for voting on grounds of age and illness. Also, once in the polling booth with your paper (yes, we do it the old way here - no magical mysterious machinery), you can choose to write nothing on it, or whatever you like, even fill it out properly ('spoiled' ballots amount to a consistent 3%). Confidentiality is sacrosanct. I think the principle of compulsory voting isn't a bad one (although I wouldn't die for it). At least it makes the politicians compete to educate the public on their policies, rather than compete to provide buses and bribes on election day.

As for the problem of uninformed people voting:
1) we're all in the dark to some degree
2) the obligation to vote of itself courages people to inform themselves

[Bacchus39]

111. Brazil does it too

they slap penalties on people who don't vote. like disallowing people to take out loans who don't vote and other financial type penalties.

[BlueEyedSon]

116. Thats another, thx.

[rinsd]

123. Now that is burdensome...

Australia's fines are like parking tickets. That is just going too far.

[rinsd]

122. Fines for not voting are neither authoritarian nor democratic.

While its not a sunstantial burden placed upon someone. I just don't agree with mandatory voting.

Part of freedom is the right to not participate in the process.

[Jayhawk Lib]

30. I do not want every body voting.

I want only people willing enough to put out the effort to get informed to vote. That is the reason Bush got in is because there were not enough informed people voting.

[Craig3410]

114. All good, but instead of a fine for NOT voting...

give a small tax credit to those who DO vote.

[BlueEyedSon]

117. even better

[ripple]

125. Great idea!

I like the carrot, rather than the stick approach.

[NanceGreggs]

9. IQ tests for presidential hopefuls?

Seriously, though ...

I'd like to see an amendment that clearly sets out the parameters for a voting system, which would be used nation-wide, and would be required to (a) furnish a two-part paper 'receipt' specifying who was voted for. One part of the receipt would be stored by the elections office, the other would be retained by the voter. In the case of a recount, there could be NO manipulation; the paper receipt would override everything else.

[ComerPerro]

21. How about mandatory drug screening? I'm serious

I'd like to see just what Bush is on...

[NanceGreggs]

43. Whatever he's on ...

... we know for sure it's NOT intelligence-enhancing.

Kudos to Binka for replenishing your donor star!!!!

[drm604]

118. Nothing should be retained by the voter!

This leads to vote selling and blackmail. "Show me a receipt that says you voted for X and I'll give you $5" or "Show me a receipt that you voted for Y or you'll lose your job".

[AX10]

10. The majority of legislative/confirmation powers goes to the House.

The House should have the powers of the Senate, especially the filibuster and the power to confirm/reject Presidential appointments. The Senate should be merely be a check on the House. The Senate simply would get a yes or no vote. That's how it is in most other countries with bicameral legislatures.

[beyurslf]

33. Filibuster in the House? So a Rep of 235K people can stop the work

of the entire country? Might be great if you Barney Frank is your Rep. Mine is Todd Tiahrt and trust me, you don't want him filibustering anything.

[AX10]

34. 40% of House members would be required to support the filibuster.

[Bill McBlueState]

127. filibuster

Actually, the filibuster is provided for in the rules of the Senate, not in the Constitution. The House could institute a similar rule if they wanted to.

[proud patriot]

11. must have national vote before going to war and

mandatory service if you vote yes for war .

[beyurslf]

35. This could takes months to set up. Who would pay for the election?

After we were attacked at Pearl Harbor, it would have been months before we could have fought back if we had needed to call an election to do it. This is why we pay our representatives in Washington. It's like TABOR but with war. And we are not technically at war right now, anyway. We haven't declared war since Pearl Harbor.

[Katherine Brengle]

82. I would be willing to pay up for a national mandatory referendum

on wars. I think that if we had designated voting areas where the machines (not electronic machines mind you) were ready to be used at any time, it would not take as long to organize something such as this.

More direct democratic processes would definitely change the nature of our country's democracy--this is a good thing.

[W_HAMILTON]

104. Good idea

I like it. As for the guy that questioned how we would be able to set up a quick vote if we were attacked, well, I would say this amendment could be waived if we are attacked first. Just make a provision for that in the amendment. I assume this would be mainly to prevent these "pre-emptive" wars, like Iraq, or possibly Iran. I think it's a great idea, let all the GOPers put their money with their mouth is, so to speak. They won't be so quick to send off everyone else to war if they had to serve themselves.

[SnoopDog]

12. Balance budget amendment (except in Declared War) and

the right to vote. And published voting record so that we know who really won the vote.

All Bills to be indivisible, meaning one bill one subject. House and Senate voting to be secret until all votes locked and then published (to prevent arm twisting).

[FormerDittoHead]

24. I happen to disagree...

I believe that Keynes had a point, that deficit spending has its place in moderating economic cycles.

[SnoopDog]

Like 6 trillion?

That's ok to disagree... I am not an economist but at my household, I not only have a balanced budget I have a surplus. Just makes sense to me.

How can deficit spending be beneficial?

[beyurslf]

37. During periods of economic downturns, the gov't may need to spend

money in order to turn the economy around. I would admit that right now I think we are seriously in danger, but all deficit spending is not bad.

[SnoopDog]

40. Thanks - that does make sense...

But I would also make a rule that says that, once things 'turn around' the debt must be a priority to be paid off...

[beyurslf]

42. That makes sense too. Just like ordinary people do it.

I know I "deficit spent" when my unemployment ran out and I used credit cards all the time. Then, I started working and had to pay it all off (or rather still am). Maybe the Amendment should state that we can't give tax breaks to richest among us and saddle every one else with huge debts. :)

[FormerDittoHead]

45. Borrowing is quite sensible on all levels...

I don't believe it's reasonable for a person to save up and buy a house with cash...

Cities and States have to balance their budgets, but they do so by borrowing massive amounts of money through bonds....

It's a hefty read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics

Borrowing, at times, for any person, business or gov't makes financial sense.

Under Keynes, the macroeconomic effects are even better, but they should be taken into balance with the economic cycle. (ie: the debt should be paid off in good times)

[SnoopDog]

53. Learned something today - thanks.

Still would like some concrete controls to pay off our debt within the bounds of what you stated.

[AJH032]

96. I mostly agree with you, but look at it this way

Almost every company has some form of debt. They issue debt in order to invest in their company, to grow their business, etc. However, efficient companies are those who aren't spiralling out of control in debt, and are able to pay it off before the interest payments go through the roof. The United States is analagous to this. It's obviously not a bad thing to have a balanced budget, however, some deficit spending is not such a terrible thing if the spending is efficient and makes the country stronger. The spending just has to be controlled; we can't be issuing more debt simply to pay off the interest payments for previous debt (which is exactly what we're currently doing under Bush's policies).

[Solo_in_MD]

13. My List, in no particular order

Equal Rights amendment
Direct election of national leaders/No confidence vote to trigger a new national election
Limitation of emininet domain for public use
Clear statement on franchise for felons
Clear statement on the death penalty
Claer Statement of fiscal restraints
Clear statement of secular nature of our society
Clear statement of the right to bear arms is a personal right

[Eric J in MN]

14. Supreme Court Justices need 70 votes to be confirmed.

nt

[sabbat hunter]

17. eliminate electoral college

instead you just need to be the highest vote getter. (not a majority but the highest number of votes cast)

[Poiuyt]

70. Abolish the electoral college, and establish Instant Runnoff Voting in its

place. It's the only form of voting where a third candidate can't act as a spoiler. This way the winner will always have a majority of the votes. The Condorcet method is my favorite variation.

http://www.instantrunoff.com/irv.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method

[Katherine Brengle]

83. I 100% agree--IRV is an essential step we need to take to revive

our democratic process!

[Burried News]

18. The constitution should have an article on POLITICAL PARTIES

Their duties, responsibilities, methods of financing and most importantly clauses that emphasize what is due process to insure democratic operation, transparency and the guarrantee of "one man one vote" operation - are areas that need to be addressed.

I don't think our founding fathers had any conception of how Political Parties could in fact become Ruling Parties.

[heirs_of_liberty]

75. Update the Letters of Marque thing

Since most people don't seem to understand that it already clearly stipulates that secrecy and the blank check of Marque illegally wormed unto USC 50 413 (b) that appears to allow a secret criminal CIA Mafia backroom dictatorship is in fact actually totally illegal and unconstitutional, and always has been.

[Burried News]

79. Read your Bio comment - spot on.

I note the same word was omitted in the movie Syriana - how you can do that in a movie about the ME is beyond me.

Bush as a Pirate is a metaphor I used to push on another board.

[Vincardog]

22. Federal financing of Federal Elections. Ban Corporate "Person hood"

[FormerDittoHead]

25. Reproductive rights / control over ones own body (assisted suicide) n/t

[ThoughtCriminal]

31. I think a broader protection of privacy may be required

to protect more than just reproductive rights. This Supreme Court is not going recognize that this is already our right, so we'll have to spell it out for them.

[FormerDittoHead]

36. Good call - include internet communications, business records, etc.

Our personal life are COMMODITIES now. We should change it so that WE have COMPLETE 1:1 control over everything about us at every level.

This of course, starts with any kind of government search.

[Joey Liberal]

26. I would amend the following

First, I would make the separation of church and state so clear that there is no room for argument.

Second, I would make it CLEAR that the President CANNOT spy on or detain Americans without a warrant.

Third, I would make it CLEAR that anyone charged with a crime in or by this country has the right to counsel, speedy and fair trial, the right to face the accuser, ect. I would make it CLEAR that the President CANNOT change these rules.

Fourth, I would make it CLEAR that the President does NOT have the authority to establish Detention Centers for our own citizens.

Fifth, I would make it CLEAR that the President CANNOT establish anymore GITMO's.

Sixth, I would make sure that it's UNCONSTITUTIONAL to torture prisoners.

Seventh, I would amend the constitution so that the President cannot destroy or sell/develop all or parts of our national parks, national forests and Wildlife Refuges. These things belong to the PEOPLE, not EXXON or the Timber Companies.

Eighth, I would make it CLEAR that the security of our country, to include our ports, is not to be outsourced.

Ninth, Congress should only be given a pay raise AFTER the voters decide.

Tenth, Marijuana should be legalized, controlled like alcohol, and heavily taxed, with all revenues going towards health care and Social Security.

Joey "Fuckin" Liberal

[OnionPatch]

119. So sad that some of these things

really are already crystal clear in the constitution.

[HamdenRice]

136. Sad part about your post: These already are clear

separation of church and state, illegality of torture and detention, etc. The last few years have shown that if the president is determined to break the law and disregard the constitution, and his own party is in power and its members craven and corrupt, there really isn't anything that can stop him.

[...of J.Temperance]

27. What I would do is

All Presidential candidates should have to undergo a psychological assessment, to make sure that they're in full possession of their faculties and are not four sandwiches away from being a picnic.

I would also ban the offspring of former President's from being able to run for President. We don't need any more *resident's finishing Poppy's business, or attempting to show that they're a bigger man than their Poppy.

That's what I'd do.

[FormerDittoHead]

32. Clarify the 2nd amendment

Starting by defining what "arms" mean in a modern world rather than use the word arms which was penned 46 years before the conical bullet was invented.

Next, I'd clear up all this stuff about 'well regulated militias' when that obviously is not the kind of military we have now.

[StClone]

58. The 2nd is in the Top Ten of my list

Of Constitutional Ambiguities. The greatest of men made a masterpiece but that 2nd Amendment brush stroke was a bit wan.

[Warren DeMontague]

38. An inviolable right to privacy, bodily integrity, and self-determination.

Or however one would word it- the gist being, that consenting adults have the absolute right to their own bodies, free of government control and interference, insofar as they are not harming anyone else, interfering with anyone else's freedom, or endangering others.

Furthermore, I would strengthen the fourth amendment so that all the gov't end-runs and whatnot which have made it essentially meaningless over the past several decades would be rendered unconstitutional.

The essential end result should be that the government has no right, or at best an extremely limited right, to criminalize consensual adult behavior or "victimless crimes".

The amendment could be written or expanded to say that concurrent with a reaffirmation of the rights which naturally should be accorded to INDIVIDUALS through the ideas this country was founded upon, the greatly expansive rights which we have afforded corporations should be restricted, and their legal 'personhood' should be eliminated or drastically re-regulated.

Oh. Also, the US Senate is a horribly un-democratic institution in terms of representation. I think part of our problem as a nation, and part of the reason our government is FAR MORE conservative than the majority of the population (case in point- most people in the USA are pro-choice. So why are the pro-lifers on a legislative and judicial rampage?) is that the 400,000 people in Wyoming control 1/50th of the US Senate just like the 33 Million people in California do. Ideally, I think that situation should be rectified. Either get rid of the Senate entirely, or California's vote in the Senate should carry at minimum 66 times the Weight of Wyoming's.

[alfredo]

61. I agree. Republicans like to say there is no right to privacy

in the constitution. That's why they want to do away with Roe Vs Wade. RvW said there is a right to privacy in our constitution.

[Warren DeMontague]

65. Actually, I think it was Griswold v. Connecticut

And Roe v. Wade came out of that decision.

I think if there's any question about a right to privacy- an inviolable one, that says the government can't tell you what to do with your body or your bloodstream, and it can't interfere if you're, say, terminally ill and want a pain-free exit of your own choosing... anyway, if there's a question as to whether it's actually in there, then lets PUT it in there and be done with it.

[alfredo]

76. Right, Roe V Wade reaffirmed that right to privacy.

Do we own our own bodies, or are they property of the state?

[sabbat hunter]

41. increase size of house of representatives

make each congressional district smaller so the representatives can be more in touch and more accountable to the voters of the district. i would suggest at least tripling the size that the house currently is.

[Jawja]

44. I would draft an

Amendment to require heirs, spouses, siblings and siblings' heirs of sitting Presidents to wait 20 years before running for the Presidency. That ensures that we don't have an "elected" monarchy where idiot sons are aided by appointees of the Father to ascend to the office.

[Canuckistanian]

46. Allow churches to be taxed

The politically active churches, their organizations and any groups who do anything political.

[Joey Liberal]

49. Good idea!

I should have thought of that too!

[FormerDittoHead]

47. Re-do the Senate - 2 for each state is unfair representation...

That Wyoming has as many senators as California or Texas makes no sense to me, esp when we can see now the effects of disproporate representation...

[Yupster]

72. Get rid of state's entirely

Their powers are so diminished today that why even have them?

Just another costly level of government.

[jaredt112]

134. States rights

Instead maybe we could put some of the power BACK to the states that the federal government was never intended to have. Doesn't it seem more logical to have a state decide a hotly contested issue, such as the death penalty and assisted suicide? The reasoning behind letting states have rights is that people across the country hold different opinions on different issues, and letting individual states decide these issues will make the voice of the people heard a lot better. Don't you agree?

[Taoschick]

130. If you lived in a small state

You'd understand why we have the Senate and why each state is equal in the Senate. I live in New Mexico. Why should I have the people of Florida deciding what's best for my state?

[FormerDittoHead]

131. You've got it wrong...

As it is, as a voter, YOU have more power on what goes on in Florida than any voter in Florida does for their own state.

Explain how that is fair and proporational.

[jaredt112]

133. They already thought of this..

..it's called the House of Representatives.

[oregonjen]

48. How about somehow eliminating one party rule

When the country is ruled by a corrupt party, how can the Constitution be upheld?

[zonmoy]

101. why not

proportional representation in congress and instant run off voting in the presidential race.

[Spider Jerusalem]

50. Replacement of our current presidential system...

with a parliamentary system. Election of legislators to be proportional (meaning that if, say, Party X receives 35% of the vote, they get 35% of the seats).

[Lefty48197]

51. Here's part of my plan:

I would NOT lengthen the terms in Congress.

I would greatly increase the number of representatives, perhaps tenfold, so that the districts would be more similar in population. I think Wyoming only has the population to justify 1/2 a representative, yet the get a whole one, and at who's expense? Probably a state like Michigan who's urban African-American populations in Detroit and elsewhere remain criminally uncounted by the census, thus possibly costing us a House seat.

Therefore, I would demand that the census use the most accurate scientific methods available to determine the most accurate population census.

[Greyhound]

52. For the original 10 I'd ask them to be more specific, especially the

1st, 2nd, and 4th. In the articles, I'd switch it to require a 2/3 majority to pass a law, and a simple majority to repeal laws. Other than that I'd leave it alone, unless we get to play with the amendments beyond the 10th, in that case, restrict the 14th to specify only living human beings.
Good luck and keep us posted.

[ArbustoBuster]

54. Add "We mean it, dammit" to the end of each of the first ten...

...amendments. Just so everyone is clear that the Bill of Rights is sacrosanct. :)

And an amendment requiring the death penalty (or life in prison) for any member of Congress, the executive branch, or the judiciary who has accepted anything whatsoever to influence his or her decisions. Call it the "We think the friends of Jack Abramoff should be executed" amendment.

[Skeptor]

60. Disallowance of capital punishment, torture in any form, and arbitrary

detention without trial would be nice. It would make America begin to resemble an enlightened, civilised nation.

[serryjw]

55. Welcome to DU..thanks for the great thread

One of the reasons our constitution is the oldest living constitution is we don’t amend it frivolously. Some of the suggestion (IMHO) should not be constitutional changes.

After living through this 5-year horror I can’t support eliminating the EC. That is the only buffer we have from Hannity and Rush’s bushit propaganda that is believed by the Kool-Aid drinkers
I would support proportionate representation, IVR, publicly funded national elections. I am a big supporter of ONE 6 year term for Prez. The 2nd term proves to me too much for most, they become a lame duck after the first 2 years anyway

I think a 20-year term for Scotus Justices is fair. With a term that long it would prevent a political appointment (any more than we have) and IF they get confirmed in their 50’s than their 70’s is a perfect time to retire.

I want a clear definition of PRIVACY as it refers to the 4th amendment. Not only for the sake of ROE but also as the Boomers get older we will want the RIGHT to die with dignity!

[ruggerson]

57. Privacy Amendment

A broad, but clearly worded amendment that would forever, once and for all, take abortion, gay rights, stem cell, right to die issues OFF THE TABLE and out of the reach of Republican wedge politics.

[yellowdogmi]

128. A great idea.!

Thanks for covering my issue.

[leftofthedial]

59. major election reform

abolish the electoral college; use straight national popular vote

campaign finance reform; public financing only

[leftofthedial]

89. second would be to severely restrict the "personhood" of corporations

and impose severe regulations

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

62. Give states the right to secede by popular vote.

[sabbat hunter]

68. didnt we go thru that once?

no we certainly should not have the right to secede. remember a little thing called the civil war?

what makes this country strong is the fact in the end we are the UNITED states. one nation, indivisable, :)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

84. It's also what makes us the bully of the world.

[Yupster]

73. 600,000 ghosts are saying

Now you tell us.

[annabanana]

63. the 11th

(mentioned here before.. prohibiting the concept of corporate "person hood" with amendment "rights" commensurate with those of individual citizens.)

[pinto]

64. Thanks for the post Young_LiberalCO...I have a few broad suggestions.

I see the Constitution as the basic American "contract" between the State and the People.

I'm leery of amending that broad contract in bits and pieces unless there are compelling arguments that relate to our basic relationship.

That said, I'd support these amendments -

Popular election of the President. The Electoral College system is a poorly understood and outdated 18th century political compromise.

Abolition of Federal term limits, including the Presidency. This would entail a repeal of an earlier Amendment.

Define the authority of the President to act under the auspices as Commander-in-Chief in relation to the Constitution and Congressional authority.

Define "quorum" in the House and Senate, for the purposes of enacting legislation, to a majority in each body (ie, half the House or half the Senate, plus one).

Mandated Supreme Court oversight of reapportionment of Federal Congressional/Senate districts in the States. Every reapportionment cycle.

Lifetime voter registration concurrent with issuance of a Social Security card and proof of citizenship. Age limits would need to be defined. Criminality issues would need to be addressed.

Big list....Amendments are a decade long proposal, I wish I'd kept it shorter, but it was an interesting proposition. Thanks, pinto

[Joe Fields]

66. Do away with the electoral college.

[adwon]

67. A couple

1. Repeal the 22d amendment. I suspect 2d terms tend to be scandal-ridden, in part, because of the complete lack of accountability that comes with a 2d win. Impeachment is less than worthless in practice, no matter how 'threatening' in theory it may seem to be. Having to continually win elections to stay in office brings a certain measure of accountability.

2. Add a section to the 14th amendment that plainly states that Congress has the power to create and enforce new rights, not just enforce judicially recognized rights. Removal of rights would have to be addressed as well, as the issue will come up at some point in the future.

3. Though this idea really isn't one to put in an amendment, it's still a fun one. A requirement that a certain proportion of the Supreme Court (and maybe the circuits, as well) cannot be career judges. While a career as a judge, especially on the DC Circuit, can give expertise in some areas of law, other important areas are ignored for lack of experience. It would be nice to see justices come from other backgrounds than just the courts.

4. Perhaps a recognition of the old executive power of impoundment. It was a useful informal means of pressure that a president could use to negotiate with Congress.

[sabbat hunter]

69. not true at all

warren harding and Grants administrations were riddled with scandals and corruption, despite not having the 22nd amendment. i actually think the term limits should be extended to the house and sentate. no more than 3 terms for senators and 9 for congresspeople. (18 years in any elected position is more than enough, get fresh blood into the legistlature)

2) that would a require a full amendment. you cannot add a section to an existing amendment.

[adwon]

98. ...

I said 'a certain measure of accountability' not a silver bullet. While the Harding and Grant administrations were scandal-ridden, those are two examples of men who held the title of President but not the reality. Neither was much interested in actually being president, so I find them a bit suspect as proof against the accountability argument.

Term limits are a silver bullet fantasy. Changing the faces will only strengthen the unelected organizations behind them. At least, under the current system, it is possible to throw the bums out. With term limits, this power, in practice, would be virtually eradicated.

Your 2) is a bit odd. I figure it's obvious that you have to use the amendment process to amend an amendment (or any part of the constitution). It wouldn't be the first time that an amendment was offered to add some text (or delete some). Hell, the 21st simply removed the 18th. In short, I don't really understand your point.

[sabbat hunter]

105. the 21st

the 21st amendment did not remove the 18th, it is still there. it repealed it. made it no longer the law of the land. you can repeal an amendment, but you cannot remove it.

[adwon]

106. Ok

Politely, that's a fairly pointless observation. Perhaps you had a larger point to make or you just prefer absolute precision in speech?

[Czolgosz]

71. Top 5: (1) adopt a parliamentary form of government; (2) preclude

corporations from enjoying equal rights status with humans; (3) recast senatorial authority so that less populous states do not get disproportionate overrepresentation as compared to more populous states (e.g., each state elects two senators but their votes do not count equally so that a senator from a state with twice the population gets twice the voting power as a senator from a state with half the population); (4) access to health care and payment of no wage less than a living wage are inalienable human rights; (5) no death penalty.

[Genki]

74. great topic

kick

[Katherine Brengle]

86. I like this list--especially the first two. The redistribution of Senator

ial authority is also particularly brilliant.

[sabbat hunter]

121. one man one vote

the idea of the senate was to make sure the less populous states had an equal say. instead of doing what you suggest, you might as well just get rid of the senate.

[northzax]

77. I only agree with three of yours

first, granting of full statehood to DC, as a resident, I like that plan. Second, eliminating the age requirement for federal office. Although I don't think that will really change anything, it's fairly meaningless. third, eliminating the 22nd, which was reactionary, and the only current amendment that takes rights away from someone, instead of enumerating rights.

Besides that, not much else really needs changing, if you interpret what's left honestly. For instance, we don't need an ERA, if we actually interpret the whole 'all men are created equal' stuff in a modern light.

the problem with devolving gun legislation to the states is that there is no border control, and the full faith and credit clause would ban them. So if I can buy a fully automatic weapon in Virginia, DC can't logistically stop me from bringing it into DC, where it would be illegal. It would be a race to the bottom among rural states to sell firearms to urban ones.

The electoral college serves a brilliant purpose, yes, some states have more weight, but without it, those states would never receive attention from a campaign in the first place, why spend money in Wyoming, when there's LA to play with?

the economic ones you are talking about are policy, not consitutional law,

[Initech]

80. I'd clarify the rules on declaring war on other countries

Like for instance - the war on Iraq. You should have absolute concrete proof of evidence that another country is going to attack us before a sitting president can sign any document declaring war.

[Katherine Brengle]

81. 22nd Amendment...

I would change our term limits across the board. Presidential term limits would either remain the same, or perhaps switch to one 6-year term (I prefer this option). (I think the no-confidence vote was a great idea, btw.)

Conressional reps would be limited to two 4-year terms, either consecutive or not, doesn't matter.

Senators would be limited to two 6-year terms.

Federal judges would still be appointed and approved by the Senate, but would then serve one 10-year term each.

Upon completion of Congressional terms, reps and Senators would be eligible to run for higher office--Senators to the Vice Presidency or Presidency (or governorship), reps to the Senate or to the Vice Presidency or Presidency.

Vice Presidents would be eligible to run for the executive office upon completion of their term in office.

Presidents would not be eligible to run for any national elected office after completion of their terms.

I think that this would increase voter interest and participation in elections, as Congressional elections wouldn't have the pre-determined feel they often do at present. It would also encourage more American citizens to run for office and do a great public service.

For judges, I believe that term limits would decrease stagnation in our courts. I also believe that short-term appointments would limit the politicization of court appointments--if appointees were not being appointed to life-long positions:

1) There would be less cronyism, since the appointments wouldn't be quite hte plush deals they currently are.

2) More qualified judges would get a chance to sit on federal benches, increasing citizen participation in the judicial process.

[Ciggies and coffee]

87. 100 percent taxation of profits derived from military contracts n/t

[tritsofme]

93. Then why in the world would a company decide to contract with the

government?

There's a difference between war-profiteering and honest business.

[Bacchus39]

113. yeah, no kidding

n/t

[Ciggies and coffee]

88. The house shall increase its number of seats based on population

growth, retroactive to the date the number was set at 435.

[Ciggies and coffee]

90. Abolish all senate seats, and let state governors cast senate votes n/t

[Ciggies and coffee]

91. All votes shall be cast with pen and paper n/t

[rucky]

92. Right to healthcare, equal education & living wage @ 30 hrs/wk.

[ContraBass Black]

94. I don't think I want to amend it right now

So much as I want the government to adhere to what's already there.

[Blue_Tires]

95. term limits for congress critters

and much tighter rules for 'gerrymandering' congressional districts

also, finally get rid of that electoral college once and for all

[banana republican]

97. A few things

1) Corporations are individuals or they are not. Corporations which commit felony's should be prohibited from doing business for the length of their sentence. (employees s/b reimbursed from from the sale of corporate assets to find new jobs if necessary first priority claims against corp assets). Spending limits on politics should apply equally to individuals & corps.

2) Eliminate presidential pardons. No one is above the law. Equal Justice for all Act.

3) No confidence vote by a simple majority of state legislatures. States are required to vote on the issue if one state votes for no confidence. The Restoring Confidence in Government Act.

4) There is no such thing as executive privilege. The Sunshine Forever Act.

5) Permanent special prosecutor appointed by the opposition party. (sorry folks but I think that most people are able to separate wheat & chaff).

6) Lying to congress is a felony. period end of story. No oath is required. SOTU is an example.

7) Republicans should be banned from reproduction.

[zonmoy]

103. perhaps instead of eliminating presidential pardons

have it so that there has to be compelling evidence of innocence in order to get a pardon.

[Cronus Protagonist]

99. Personhood only allowed for flesh and blood natural born people

None of this corporate shit.

Educate a Freeper Today!
Buttons, Stickers and Fridge Magnets made in America for brainy people
http://brainbuttons.com/home.asp?stashid=13

[zonmoy]

100. have an 11th amendment of the bill of rights that

would have made sure that corporations could never have been considered persons under any circumstances.

[LWolf]

102. Ok

Right to privacy

"Economic Bill of Rights:" Yes.

Equal campaign finance and media time: publicly funded campaigns with a level playing field; equal air and print time for all.

Voting to remain transparent, and able to be recounted by hand by people.

Proportional representation, IRV, and/or some other system to break the "winner take all" process and allow all, including those outside the 2 party system, a place at the table.

Specific separation of church and state

Department of Peace.

[in_cog_ni_to]

107. NO EVOTING MACHINES ARE ALLOWED IN ELECTIONS and

THE SCOTUS CANNOT APPOINT THEIR PRESIDENT.

[melm00se]

108. 10th amendment

Remind the folks in Washington of this amendment:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Unfortunately this amendment is ignored far more than it is enforced.

[rfkrfk]

109. cartoonist rights, except when blaspheming the Prophet ... n/t

[rpgamerd00d]

110. Right to Privacy, Term Limits on all jobs, Public Funding of Elections

[n2doc]

124. Public Funding- Yeah!!! AND publically counted ballots

There are a whole lot of things that I would love to see changed, but the top 2 would be
1. Public counting of ballots- All ballots to be on paper or other solid, immutable material, to be counted in a public forum with anyone who wishes to watching immediately after the vote.
2. Public financing of elections and limits on spending. All candidates from parties recieving more than 5% in a previous election OR those with signed petitions from 5% of the electorate eligible to recieve public financing. Say, 100K for House, 500K for Senate. (I am deliberately keeping these figures low so that folks would HAVE to go out and do groundwork and rely upon volenteers). No other funds allowed, no third party ads, no third party endorsements, only public campaigning (debates and interviews) by office seekers. Require equal time on major media for all qualified office seekers. Make them go out and get the people to vote for them. I also think those numbers given above might be changed for those already in office, say, cut them in half if a person has been in office more than 1 term.

It wouldn't be perfect, but it would go a long way towards making these folks more responsive to the public's wishes.

[Craig3410]

112. An IQ test for the presidency.

Or something like it; something mindbogglingly easy for normal people, like what is the capital of Spain? or Who is currently the Prime Minister of Japan? or "Per capita, what is the richest state in the US?"

So we could at least have a president with a basic grasp of, you know, WHAT THE PRESIDENT NEEDS TO KNOW TO DO HIS JOB...

[OnionPatch]

120. I'm no legal scholar

or anything, but I have three things:

I would like to see not only the right to vote, but a system where all elections are transparent and fully observable by the public to the point that there is no question at all about who truly won.

Publicly financed campaign money. Or at least some sort of system where big money is unable to buy our politicians.

Citizen initiatives. We should be able to address a problem nationally like we do in California, with citizen initiatives.

I'm sure I could think of others.

[Ioo]

129. Make President Elected by Popular Vote, No more Battleground states...

1 Popular Vote for President - This would make every state a battleground state.
2 Publiclly funded elections.

[CrazyForKucinich]

132. IRV, Equal rights to everyone(including marriage), End of Death Pen.

Those would be my top 3.

[Norquist Nemesis]

135. It is an individual's right to make their own health and reproductive

decisions.

That would cover the life and death issues that the Cons have been putting into the courts.

[HamdenRice]

137. Proportional representation, Senate seats assigned by population ...

Proportional representation -- because the two party system tends toward corruption and suppresses valid policies and positions.

I would retain the Senate, but each state would have a number of Senators proportional to the state's population, like the House.

Public financing of elections, and little or no campaign contributions, and no campaign contributions at all from business corporations.

A no confidence vote could end an administration.

Direct election of the president.

Economic, social and cultural rights enshrined in the Constitution (like South Africa's constitution).

Reaffirm public ownership of the airways and other media, such that the media can be required to provide campaign coverage and fairness.

[VelmaD]

138. Equal Rights Amendment

guaranteeing equality under law to women. That we don't have one in our actual constitution is a national tragedy.