If you could introduce a Constitutional Amendment What would it be

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

edit: btw Supreme Court justices should have limited terms. Lifetime appointments don't seem prudent. (although I don't think we need a constitutional amendment for that, that was just a tangent I wanted to consider)

All Article III judges have life terms guaranteed by the Constitution. Only Article I judges who act to make decisions concerning government programs such as Social Security don't have life terms.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

- abolish Delaware (it's useless)

Look, I hate Delaware as much as the next guy, but if it's gone, where are Pennsylvanians going to get their beers and other liquors?

Arguably, the existing clause giving Congress sole power over naturalizations, especially when combined with the Commerce Clause could be used to have Congress require corporations be chartered by the Federal government instead of States, which would help do away with one of the problems Delaware causes.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Repeal the 18th Amendment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-first_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

I'll be generous and point out that the 21st was not a clean repeal. It also gave the States power over the interstate commerce of alcohol that they have over no other product. So maybe ey was calling for a clean repeal, but I doubt it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

3.) Abolish the Senate as it is.  Replace with a chamber with proportional representation.

The Constitution actually makes this the one thing you can't amend.

Not quite. Changing the Senate itself to proportional representation is so difficult as to effectively be impossible, but adding a third proportional chamber and then neutering the Senate to make it irrelevant is theoretically possible, tho still unlikely. We'd need far fewer sparsely populated states to make it likely.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Oh I have a good one: abandon the two thirds majority needed to ratify treaties.

I could see maybe going to a three-fifths majority, but having a supermajority requirement for treaties is a good idea. Stability in international relations requires a broad consensus.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I wouldn't introduce one. I'd introduce all of the amendments from the book The Liberty Amendments by Mark Levin.

How does an amendment restricting early voting count as a liberty amendment? The rest of that conservative laundry list, I can see how they could claim the title, even when I think they're not good amendments. But limiting voting opportunity is the very antithesis of liberty. It also goes against the general theme of that set, of giving more power to the States.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Healthcare is a right

No one is preventing anyone from seeing any health care professional they can afford.  While I do think that the provision of what some refer to as "positive rights" by the government is generally a good thing, imbuing them with the status of unlimited obligation that historically has been associated with "rights" is not.  It doesn't cost the government anything to respect the so-called "negative rights" that have historically been granted that designation.  The public fisc is not infinite, so it can't provide for every desire concerning education, health care, employment, etc.  Beyond ensuring equal opportunity to all to access what people can afford as well as equal access to any government provision of such services, I can't see marking them as rights.  The impossibility of government fully satisfying the demand for them would encourage people to see the traditional rights as something to not be fully achievable either, which is a definite bad thing in my opinion.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Are you insinuating that universal healthcare for all people is a bad thing while other countries have them? Yeah, I realize healthcare for all means higher taxes, but I'd rather have to pay higher taxes for healthcare and education than for another war or for corporate welfare, which we spend more on than social welfare.

No, I mean enshrining it as a "right" is a bad thing.  I'm all for universal health care, so long as it is elected representatives and not unelected judges deciding which services are to be covered.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Setting the Supreme Court at a constant number. Likely 9. I see no reason to sway from 9.

I see every reason to increase the size to thirteen, and to allow for that size to change as needed.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Setting the Supreme Court at a constant number. Likely 9. I see no reason to sway from 9.

I see every reason to increase the size to thirteen, and to allow for that size to change as needed.

What are your reasons for 13?

One per U.S. Circuit. Indeed, initially that's how the number of Supreme Court Justices was determined, but that link was lost when Congress shrank the Court from its then current size of 10 justices so as to deny Andrew Johnson the ability to nominate Justices to the Court. Having one circuit per justice appeals to me.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

One of complaints the Anti-Federalists had about the Constitution was the lengthy terms of the elected officials, including having the House not having a yearly election as most State lower houses did at the time.

If we had to have a change in term length today, I'd like to see the House  and President be elected every three years, with a three term limit on the Presidency.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Another good one would be a constitutional amendment to ban political parties.

That's typically something that only weird dictatorships and absolute monarchies do. Parties are, at the very least, important to democracy because they give voters some broad sense of what sorts of nationwide policies they're voting for, rather than just voting in some clientelistic clique of local notables. They have many other important functions as well.

Altho, the Framers were disdainful of parties as they saw them as leading to partisanship rather than people considering each issue on its own merits. That's why we ended up needing the 12th Amendment and why our constitution contains no recognition of the role parties play in our system. They weren't entirely wrong, yet I do agree that on balance parties are more of a help than a hindrance overall.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Allow a supermajority of state legislators (probably 2/3) to overturn federal laws.

While I can somewhat see the sense of a supermajority of State legislatures having that power (tho I think it a poor idea) but a supermajority of State legislators is ridiculous. New Hampshire has over three times as many legislators as California.

Both you and Solid seem to have missed the point of this thread. It's not for laundry lists of left- or right-wing ideas, but for you to put forward the singular Constitutional amendment you think is most needed, and also why you think so.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

$500 million tax free is my minimum asking price for my $600 rifle. I wont sell out my God given rights cheaply.

Then I presume you'll cheerfully pay property tax and an annual license fee on your rifle, just as you do your motor vehicle.  And let's not forget your shooting license and mandatory liability insurance.  There's no constitutional bar to treating guns similarly to motor vehicles, and every reason to do so.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

$500 million tax free is my minimum asking price for my $600 rifle. I wont sell out my God given rights cheaply.

Then I presume you'll cheerfully pay property tax and an annual license fee on your rifle, just as you do your motor vehicle.  And let's not forget your shooting license and mandatory liability insurance.  There's no constitutional bar to treating guns similarly to motor vehicles, and every reason to do so.

That only applies if you drive on public roads. I presume by this logic I can still be off-grid if I keep my rifle in my home correct?

At least in this state, the property tax is due regardless of where you use your car. All using a motor vehicle only off the public roads saves you is the annual license fee. The property tax is general revenue, the license pays for highways. By analogy, having gun owners pay for the costs of investigating gun crimes, ER and other medical costs of gunshot victims, etc. seems quite reasonable.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The property tax is general revenue, the license pays for highways. By analogy, having gun owners pay for the costs of investigating gun crimes, ER and other medical costs of gunshot victims, etc. seems quite reasonable.

No it doesn't.

Why should the rest of society bear the cost of gun fetishists and the violence begotten by placing guns above people?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The property tax is general revenue, the license pays for highways. By analogy, having gun owners pay for the costs of investigating gun crimes, ER and other medical costs of gunshot victims, etc. seems quite reasonable.

No it doesn't.

Why should the rest of society bear the cost of gun fetishists and the violence begotten by placing guns above people?

That's like saying Muslims should have to pay a Muslim tax because a tiny minority of adherents of their religion commit terrorism. There are 350 Million guns in private hands, whatever externalities you think exist apply to a fraction of a fraction of a fraction. Self-defense is an inalienable right, and no amount of saying "guns am skerry" changes that. There are externalities involved in freedom of speech, in due process rights, in religious freedom, in allowing people to gather ...

A fraction of a fraction of a fraction!?  There are over 100,000 gun injuries per year, of which over 30,000 die each year.  That's more than 10 times as many deaths per year as have died from Islamic terrorism in this country ever.  Heck, in a typical year more people are killed by being shot by toddlers than are killed by terrorists.  When you look at the numbers, the guns in our society are far more of a danger to us than the terrorists have been. No amount of saying "second amendment" changes that.

Even at the broadest possible definition of gun externalities that is put out there, it still comes to a bit under $1000 per gun per year.  Making gun owners pay the cost of their fetish won't prevent anyone who thinks they need one for self-defense or other reasons from getting one.  But it hopefully would make them think whether they really are worthwhile.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

We worry about far less dangerous things than guns. It's gun fetishists that make massacres possible.  And I don't mean Las Vegas or Sutherland Springs. I mean the thousands who die from domestic violence.

Guns objectively don't make us safer. The US routinely ranks as one of the more crime-riddled countries, and one of the most crime-riddled developed countries despite the supposed self-defense uses of guns.  People in households owning a gun have a higher death rate.

The very premise enshrined in the second amendment ”a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, " is demonstrably untrue. The days when a militia could defend us from a foreign adversary are long gone, if they ever existed at all. The statistics about gun violence show they fail to protect us from domestic adversaries.

That said, confiscation wouldn't work. We need to make guns rarer, not drive them underground. We need to make gun ownership be seen as a responsibility. We don't need to repeal the second amendment to do that. Besides, getting rid of the second amendment would do nothing about our culture of gun violence, which is why the various amendments here that attempt social engineering earn my contempt. You'd think we'd have learned from the lesson of the eighteenth amendment.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

At least in this state, the property tax is due regardless of where you use your car. All using a motor vehicle only off the public roads saves you is the annual license fee. The property tax is general revenue, the license pays for highways. By analogy, having gun owners pay for the costs of investigating gun crimes, ER and other medical costs of gunshot victims, etc. seems quite reasonable.

Not sure the analogy holds. It's a reasonable expectation that car owners are also users of highways, and the overlap is likely quite high. It is not a similarly reasonable expectation that gun owners are consumers (or causers, if you want to put it like that) of those services.

Without gun owners, there couldn't be gun violence. Guns don't magically spring into existence thanks to fairy gunmothers.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I would do

1} Amendment to ban discrimination based on race so we can finely repeal the civil rights act.

1} I'm not sure what you mean. The last clause in Section 1 of the 14th Amendment is the Equal Protection Clause, which has always been interpreted, correctly, as a ban on racial discrimination by state governments. Do you want to adopt an amendment that bans racial discrimination by private enterprise the way the Civil Rights Act does?

As you point out, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 depends not upon the 14th Amendment but upon the Commerce Clause for its Constitutional basis.  I'd guess he wants that placed on a different footing so that the Commerce Clause might be gutted (or reined in depending on your POV.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

repeal the 22nd amendment, and add an amendment that named me President for Life, and my eldest son as the Vice President for Life until my death in which he would assume the Presidency

So when did you start having fantasies of being assassinated by your son?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My proposed amendments would clarify the bounds in which contested elections and presidential  In the absence of a provision to declare the winner of the popular vote the winner of the presidency, I'd like some clarification about what happens in the result of a contested election. Right now a lot of things are completely unclear. If a state doesn't certify its electors, leaving nobody with 270, does the election get kicked to the House, or does the candidate with the majority of certified electors get sworn in? There are compelling arguments on both sides, but this is completely an open question. The method of resolving contested elections, with the House voting as state delegations, is absolutely bonkers and is a time bomb waiting to go off.

It's not all that open. The Constitution required a majority of the total number of Electors to choose the POTUS. So if a state fails to choose nay, then a majority of the ones who have been chosen is sufficient.

I think what Figs was getting at was what if there is a dispute over whether Electors have been appointed or as in 1876, which Electors were appointed. Unlike Article I Section 5 Clause 1 which explicitly grants each House of Congress the right to judge whether prospective members have actually been elected and are qualified to be a Senator or a Representative, there is no explicit Constitutional grant of authority for the Electors to be so judged by anyone. That said, there is statutory law setting out what to do in such cases and in the absence of any other provision there is the Necessary and Proper clause to justify that law.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

My proposed amendments would clarify the bounds in which contested elections and presidential  In the absence of a provision to declare the winner of the popular vote the winner of the presidency, I'd like some clarification about what happens in the result of a contested election. Right now a lot of things are completely unclear. If a state doesn't certify its electors, leaving nobody with 270, does the election get kicked to the House, or does the candidate with the majority of certified electors get sworn in? There are compelling arguments on both sides, but this is completely an open question. The method of resolving contested elections, with the House voting as state delegations, is absolutely bonkers and is a time bomb waiting to go off.

It's not all that open. The Constitution required a majority of the total number of Electors to choose the POTUS. So if a state fails to choose nay, then a majority of the ones who have been chosen is sufficient.

I think what Figs was getting at was what if there is a dispute over whether Electors have been appointed or as in 1876, which Electors were appointed. Unlike Article I Section 5 Clause 1 which explicitly grants each House of Congress the right to judge whether prospective members have actually been elected and are qualified to be a Senator or a Representative, there is no explicit Constitutional grant of authority for the Electors to be so judged by anyone. That said, there is statutory law setting out what to do in such cases and in the absence of any other provision there is the Necessary and Proper clause to justify that law.

There's this dispute, for sure; but there's also arguments, never quite resolved, over whether the denominator for determination of a majority is of electors chosen, or of electors assigned to states. That is, if California failed to certify a slate of electors, then while there are 538 electors assigned, there are only 483 chosen. Is a majority sufficient to win the presidency calculated based on 538 (270), or based on 483 (242)?

If they weren't certified, they obviously weren't appointed and the text of the Constitution states ”a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed", so it would in your example be 242 out of 483.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.