If you could introduce a Constitutional Amendment What would it be
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:07:47 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  If you could introduce a Constitutional Amendment What would it be
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14
Author Topic: If you could introduce a Constitutional Amendment What would it be  (Read 69571 times)
Meclazine for Israel
Meclazine
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,650
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #275 on: January 21, 2020, 09:10:01 PM »

"Right to Bear Arms"

would change to exclude military grade semi-automatic (and fully automatic which I assume are already banned) weapons.

At the time the constitution was written, I don't think they were talking about semi-automatic weapons.
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,447
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #276 on: January 21, 2020, 10:19:26 PM »

I had an awful thought about how a Chief Justice could block a Presidential impeachment trial by resigning, so I'd like to add the following amendment:

In the event that there shall not be a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the senior Associate Justice shall perform all duties assigned to the Chief Justice by this Constitution or the laws enacted under this Constitution until a Chief Justice is nominated and confirmed.

This wouldn't require a constitutional amendment as the Constitution doesn't actually establish the office, & only presupposes its existence with that single impeachment reference.

Indeed, given that Article III, Section 1 prescribes that it was for Congress to see fit as to how to establish the judicial power of the United States, & made no provision for the composition or procedures of any of the courts &/or their judges (obviously leaving this to Congress to decide), 28 U.S.C. §3 as it currently stands (wherein the most senior Associate Justice carries out the Chief Justice's duties when the Chief Justice is unable to discharge his functions, or when the office is vacant, until the disability or vacancy ends) more than covers what you're looking for.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 57,959
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #277 on: January 21, 2020, 11:06:19 PM »

Right to vote for every citizen and permanent resident over the age of 16 (with explicit prohibition on imposing any significant burden to the exercise of that right), automatic voter registration, proportional representation for the House and all lower houses of state legislatures, and mandatory public funding of campaigns.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #278 on: January 22, 2020, 04:30:35 AM »

I had an awful thought about how a Chief Justice could block a Presidential impeachment trial by resigning, so I'd like to add the following amendment:

In the event that there shall not be a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the senior Associate Justice shall perform all duties assigned to the Chief Justice by this Constitution or the laws enacted under this Constitution until a Chief Justice is nominated and confirmed.

This wouldn't require a constitutional amendment as the Constitution doesn't actually establish the office, & only presupposes its existence with that single impeachment reference.

Indeed, given that Article III, Section 1 prescribes that it was for Congress to see fit as to how to establish the judicial power of the United States, & made no provision for the composition or procedures of any of the courts &/or their judges (obviously leaving this to Congress to decide), 28 U.S.C. §3 as it currently stands (wherein the most senior Associate Justice carries out the Chief Justice's duties when the Chief Justice is unable to discharge his functions, or when the office is vacant, until the disability or vacancy ends) more than covers what you're looking for.

Probably, but this is something that would be better to not leave to potential dispute at a contentious time.  I also would not be opposed to an amendment that essentially replaces Article III (and the 11th amendment) with more specifics concerning how the Federal judiciary works now that it's been fleshed out. It was originally left vague not because of any grand principles, but because they didn't want to spend time at the Convention doing so.
Logged
15 Down, 35 To Go
ExtremeRepublican
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,659


Political Matrix
E: 7.35, S: 5.57


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #279 on: February 08, 2020, 05:55:54 PM »

An amendment to ban abortion nationwide without exceptions, modeled after the former Eighth Amendment to the Irish Constitution.
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,447
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #280 on: February 08, 2020, 10:18:19 PM »

An amendment to ban abortion nationwide without exceptions, modeled after the former Eighth Amendment to the Irish Constitution.

Y'know, maybe it's just me, but perhaps there's a pretty good reason that even Ireland, second in Catholicism to only the Vatican itself, decided to put the "former" in "former Eighth Amendment."
Logged
Kingpoleon
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,144
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #281 on: February 24, 2020, 01:26:45 AM »

I would make myself king with absolute power. Much easier than having to pack all my plans into an gangly, Franksteinian Constitutional Amendment.
Logged
HarrisonL
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 465


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #282 on: February 24, 2020, 12:33:46 PM »

An amendment to reform the method by which Presidential Elections are conducted. The use of the Electoral College would be revised and replaced by a Proportional system. This would help make the Electoral College more fair without fully getting rid of the system. While I would prefer to get rid of the EC all together, this amendment would have a better chance of being ratified.
Logged
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,890


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #283 on: July 28, 2020, 07:51:17 AM »


I went down the rabbit hole last week and read some law school professor discussion about "when did the Constitution become law/when did the Articles of Confederation cease"?

I was wondering about this question of "do laws passed by the Continental Congress pre-Constitution still exist/still functional unless later explicitly overwritten?" I could not find a hard and fast answer, but read an article discussing the post-Civil War Supreme Court case regarding whether Texas left the Union or not/had a right to. The Justice that wrote the opinion declared no basing it on "perpetual Union". The phrase "perpetual Union" does not exist anywhere in the Constitution, but it does exist in the Articles of Confederation.

Therefore this Supreme Court case while not citing the Articles of Confederation explicitly provides a rare example of something decided that references the Articles of Confederation, meaning they are still in force where not superceded by the Constitution. One bit of that is clearly currently in force is Article I because the Constitution is completely silent:

"The stile of this confederacy shall be 'The United States of America'."
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,447
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #284 on: July 28, 2020, 11:20:56 AM »


I went down the rabbit hole last week and read some law school professor discussion about "when did the Constitution become law/when did the Articles of Confederation cease"?

I was wondering about this question of "do laws passed by the Continental Congress pre-Constitution still exist/still functional unless later explicitly overwritten?" I could not find a hard and fast answer, but read an article discussing the post-Civil War Supreme Court case regarding whether Texas left the Union or not/had a right to. The Justice that wrote the opinion declared no basing it on "perpetual Union". The phrase "perpetual Union" does not exist anywhere in the Constitution, but it does exist in the Articles of Confederation.

Therefore this Supreme Court case while not citing the Articles of Confederation explicitly provides a rare example of something decided that references the Articles of Confederation, meaning they are still in force where not superceded by the Constitution. One bit of that is clearly currently in force is Article I because the Constitution is completely silent:

"The stile of this confederacy shall be 'The United States of America'."

I think you're partially misunderstanding that Supreme Court citation. Yes, it mentioned that the Articles of Confederation created a perpetual union, but then went on to state that the Constitution creates a "more perfect" union than that which existed under the Articles of Confederation. Thus, since the union created under the Constitution is even stronger than the perpetual union of the Articles, the new union - which the Texas v. White decision was based upon - must also be inherently perpetual.

In effect, that serves to render one of the fundamental premises of that argument (that the Articles of Confederation are still in force where not superseded by the Constitution) incorrect: that the Articles of Confederation required some sort of explicit overwriting to be invalidated. The government doesn't exist separately from its founding documents; it exists as a thing created by those documents. In other words, the government created by the Articles of Confederation no longer exists. The U.S. government exists & operates under the Constitution - not the Articles of Confederation - & isn't beholden to that document in any way because, in purporting to establish a separate government from the one created by the current Constitution, the Articles of Confederation is an ineffective instrument: just words on paper. It's not recognized by the Constitution nor by the government created under the Constitution. There is no magic about it or formality to be obeyed, & it's not still valid law.

Also, the Constitution isn't silent on the name of the country: the Preamble makes clear that it's being established "for the United States of America."
Logged
Idaho Conservative
BWP Conservative
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,234
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.00, S: 6.00

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #285 on: July 28, 2020, 12:29:02 PM »


I went down the rabbit hole last week and read some law school professor discussion about "when did the Constitution become law/when did the Articles of Confederation cease"?

I was wondering about this question of "do laws passed by the Continental Congress pre-Constitution still exist/still functional unless later explicitly overwritten?" I could not find a hard and fast answer, but read an article discussing the post-Civil War Supreme Court case regarding whether Texas left the Union or not/had a right to. The Justice that wrote the opinion declared no basing it on "perpetual Union". The phrase "perpetual Union" does not exist anywhere in the Constitution, but it does exist in the Articles of Confederation.

Therefore this Supreme Court case while not citing the Articles of Confederation explicitly provides a rare example of something decided that references the Articles of Confederation, meaning they are still in force where not superceded by the Constitution. One bit of that is clearly currently in force is Article I because the Constitution is completely silent:

"The stile of this confederacy shall be 'The United States of America'."
interesting, but my argument is replace the constitution with the articles.
Logged
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,890


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #286 on: July 29, 2020, 06:53:44 AM »
« Edited: August 27, 2020, 02:27:17 PM by True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자) »


I went down the rabbit hole last week and read some law school professor discussion about "when did the Constitution become law/when did the Articles of Confederation cease"?

I was wondering about this question of "do laws passed by the Continental Congress pre-Constitution still exist/still functional unless later explicitly overwritten?" I could not find a hard and fast answer, but read an article discussing the post-Civil War Supreme Court case regarding whether Texas left the Union or not/had a right to. The Justice that wrote the opinion declared no basing it on "perpetual Union". The phrase "perpetual Union" does not exist anywhere in the Constitution, but it does exist in the Articles of Confederation.

Therefore this Supreme Court case while not citing the Articles of Confederation explicitly provides a rare example of something decided that references the Articles of Confederation, meaning they are still in force where not superceded by the Constitution. One bit of that is clearly currently in force is Article I because the Constitution is completely silent:

"The stile of this confederacy shall be 'The United States of America'."

I think you're partially misunderstanding that Supreme Court citation. Yes, it mentioned that the Articles of Confederation created a perpetual union, but then went on to state that the Constitution creates a "more perfect" union than that which existed under the Articles of Confederation. Thus, since the union created under the Constitution is even stronger than the perpetual union of the Articles, the new union - which the Texas v. White decision was based upon - must also be inherently perpetual.

In effect, that serves to render one of the fundamental premises of that argument (that the Articles of Confederation are still in force where not superseded by the Constitution) incorrect: that the Articles of Confederation required some sort of explicit overwriting to be invalidated. The government doesn't exist separately from its founding documents; it exists as a thing created by those documents. In other words, the government created by the Articles of Confederation no longer exists. The U.S. government exists & operates under the Constitution - not the Articles of Confederation - & isn't beholden to that document in any way because, in purporting to establish a separate government from the one created by the current Constitution, the Articles of Confederation is an ineffective instrument: just words on paper. It's not recognized by the Constitution nor by the government created under the Constitution. There is no magic about it or formality to be obeyed, & it's not still valid law.

Also, the Constitution isn't silent on the name of the country: the Preamble makes clear that it's being established "for the United States of America."

Thanks for the response.

Here is the articles I was mentioning that was defining when the transition from Articles of Confederation to Constitution occurred.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=278416

Overlong dead link that was breaking page formatting removed. - TF
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,279
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #287 on: July 29, 2020, 08:51:40 AM »

I would introduce a Constitutional Amendment that repeals Amendments II, III, IX, X and XXII.

I would also introduce a Constitutional Amendment that guarantees the unalienable right to vote to every citizen older than 18, and that all people will automatically get registered into voting rolls when they come of age or become citizens.
It would also repeal Amendments XV, XIX, XXIV and XXVI, which would not be meaningful anymore.

I also think that repealed Amendments should be completely expunged from the text of the Constitution.
Logged
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,890


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #288 on: July 29, 2020, 12:40:59 PM »
« Edited: July 29, 2020, 12:45:17 PM by StateBoiler »


...that all people will automatically get registered into voting rolls when they come of age or become citizens.

The problem is not people getting on voting rolls. It is governments that do not do their jobs and update their voting rolls for people moving in and out and dying. In theory the census, annual tax records, etc. should inform voter rolls to be kept accurate. That doesn't happen.
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,279
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #289 on: July 29, 2020, 12:49:52 PM »

...that all people will automatically get registered into voting rolls when they come of age or become citizens.

The problem is not people getting on voting rolls. It is governments that do not do their jobs and update their voting rolls for people moving in and out and dying. In theory the census, annual tax records, etc. should inform voter rolls to be kept accurate. That doesn't happen.

Well that is "a problem" in the sense that voting registration is not automatic in all of the United States.
Logged
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,890


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #290 on: July 29, 2020, 01:26:10 PM »
« Edited: July 29, 2020, 01:34:07 PM by StateBoiler »

...that all people will automatically get registered into voting rolls when they come of age or become citizens.

The problem is not people getting on voting rolls. It is governments that do not do their jobs and update their voting rolls for people moving in and out and dying. In theory the census, annual tax records, etc. should inform voter rolls to be kept accurate. That doesn't happen.

Well that is "a problem" in the sense that voting registration is not automatic in all of the United States.

People don't report they move. (I'm moving in the next couple weeks. I will report I'm moving, but most don't.) Election boards don't update for people moving in or out or people dying. This is a know for everywhere. Part of the reason California takes 2 months to count an election is because they don't do any voting roll maintenance. That's why DMV's is a huge part of voter registration but that's only once every 5 years when you register and update your driver's license. Evan Bayh who was a Governor and Senator from Indiana was removed from Indiana voter rolls because he was living in the D.C. area and never responded to multiple mailers from the state to his listed Indiana address. So he was removed because they were unsure he was still a state resident. You can't have automatic registration for people that you don't know are residents, either on a state or a county level.

You also can't have automatic voting registration until you keep a list of citizens and accurate up-to-date accounting for where said individuals live. Why doesn't the IRS, local school board, local election board, county recorders, etc. talk to one another to have one database keeping track of where everyone is located? I don't know. I know a few months ago I received a letter from city government addressed to the former resident. I'd live in my current house more than 3 years at this point. I wrote on the letter and put it back in the mail "RETURN TO SENDER. HAS NOT LIVED HERE IN MORE THAN 3 YEARS. THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD KNOW THIS."
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,279
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #291 on: July 29, 2020, 01:29:20 PM »

...that all people will automatically get registered into voting rolls when they come of age or become citizens.

The problem is not people getting on voting rolls. It is governments that do not do their jobs and update their voting rolls for people moving in and out and dying. In theory the census, annual tax records, etc. should inform voter rolls to be kept accurate. That doesn't happen.

Well that is "a problem" in the sense that voting registration is not automatic in all of the United States.

People don't report they move. (I'm moving in the next couple weeks. I will report I'm moving, but most don't.) Election boards don't update for people moving in or out or people dying. This is a know for everywhere. Part of the reason California takes 2 months to count an election is because they don't do any voting roll maintenance. That's why DMV's is a huge part of voter registration but that's only once every 5 years when you register and update your driver's license. Evan Bayh who was a Governor and Senator from Indiana was removed from Indiana voter rolls because he was living in the D.C. area and never responded to multiple mailers from the state to his listed Indiana address. So he was removed because they were unsure he was still a state resident. You can't have automatic registration for people that you don't know are residents, either on a state or a county level.

You also can't have automatic voting registration until you keep a list of citizens, and one doesn't exist. The census doesn't ask people's citizenship status.

About your last point: do you also mean that local census bureau offices do not keep track of citizenship status?
Logged
StateBoiler
fe234
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,890


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #292 on: July 29, 2020, 01:35:01 PM »

Quote
You also can't have automatic voting registration until you keep a list of citizens, and one doesn't exist. The census doesn't ask people's citizenship status.

About your last point: do you also mean that local census bureau offices do not keep track of citizenship status?

No. Trump tried to add this as a question to the census and it was blocked by the Democrats/courts.
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,279
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #293 on: July 29, 2020, 05:28:07 PM »

Quote
You also can't have automatic voting registration until you keep a list of citizens, and one doesn't exist. The census doesn't ask people's citizenship status.

About your last point: do you also mean that local census bureau offices do not keep track of citizenship status?

No. Trump tried to add this as a question to the census and it was blocked by the Democrats/courts.

I know about the 2020 Census question thing, but I thought that local offices had citizenship lists.
Logged
brucejoel99
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,447
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #294 on: July 29, 2020, 05:58:36 PM »

Quote
You also can't have automatic voting registration until you keep a list of citizens, and one doesn't exist. The census doesn't ask people's citizenship status.

About your last point: do you also mean that local census bureau offices do not keep track of citizenship status?

No. Trump tried to add this as a question to the census and it was blocked by the Democrats/courts.

I know about the 2020 Census question thing, but I thought that local offices had citizenship lists.

If they did, then Trump would've never needed to try adding a citizenship question.
Logged
Battista Minola 1616
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,279
Vatican City State


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -1.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #295 on: July 29, 2020, 07:35:50 PM »
« Edited: July 29, 2020, 07:41:12 PM by Battista Minola 1616 »

Quote
You also can't have automatic voting registration until you keep a list of citizens, and one doesn't exist. The census doesn't ask people's citizenship status.

About your last point: do you also mean that local census bureau offices do not keep track of citizenship status?

No. Trump tried to add this as a question to the census and it was blocked by the Democrats/courts.

I know about the 2020 Census question thing, but I thought that local offices had citizenship lists.

If they did, then Trump would've never needed to try adding a citizenship question.

I mean, I have just found out that the United States have no resident registration.
Which I should probably have already known given that infra-Census population estimates are apparently always based on household surveys like the ACS.
Or by looking at StateBoiler's updated post, but I read it before it was updated.

I am simply so used to the fact that Italy has compulsory resident registration, which keeps also track of citizenship status. And of course, register offices have this information independently of the Census.
Logged
mianfei
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 322
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #296 on: August 27, 2020, 05:07:05 AM »

-Bar voter ID, poll taxes, literacy tests, etc
Yesterday I considered an alternative 24th Amendment that banned literacy tests instead of poll taxes, and I concluded that, unlike the real 24th Amendment, an amendment to ban literacy tests would not have been ratified. This is because the four states of Alaska, Arizona, Montana and South Dakota would have been almost as opposed to an amendment banning literacy tests as the South. The threat of Native American political power at a local level – and as the 1992 and 1996 elections show as a potential balance of power in a statewide election – would have been viewed too dangerous by rulers of those states. That would mean a bloc of sixteen states (32 percent) intractably opposed, which would be enough to preclude ratification, and I am note sure that some other states which did ratify the actual 24th Amendment would not have taken more persuasion to ratify an amendment banning literacy tests.
Logged
Alcibiades
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,851
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -6.96

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #297 on: August 27, 2020, 10:34:01 AM »

-Bar voter ID, poll taxes, literacy tests, etc
Yesterday I considered an alternative 24th Amendment that banned literacy tests instead of poll taxes, and I concluded that, unlike the real 24th Amendment, an amendment to ban literacy tests would not have been ratified. This is because the four states of Alaska, Arizona, Montana and South Dakota would have been almost as opposed to an amendment banning literacy tests as the South. The threat of Native American political power at a local level – and as the 1992 and 1996 elections show as a potential balance of power in a statewide election – would have been viewed too dangerous by rulers of those states. That would mean a bloc of sixteen states (32 percent) intractably opposed, which would be enough to preclude ratification, and I am note sure that some other states which did ratify the actual 24th Amendment would not have taken more persuasion to ratify an amendment banning literacy tests.

When did those four states you mentioned repeal literacy tests for Native American voters?
Logged
Ferguson97
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,800
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #298 on: October 05, 2020, 09:08:49 AM »

Either overturning the Electoral College, guaranteeing LGBT rights, or guaranteeing abortion rights.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderator
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,248


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #299 on: October 05, 2020, 09:11:58 AM »

Dramatically curtail the powers of the Senate to bring it more into line with other unrepresentative upper houses around the world, depoliticize the process of appointing federal judges, abolish the Electoral College and federalize presidential (but only presidential) elections, and establish an affirmative constitutional right to vote rather than merely delineating specific bases on which the franchise can't be restricted.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.066 seconds with 13 queries.