What will the next US constitutional amendment be?

[Hermitian]

What do you think that the next constitutional amendment will be?

When do you think it will happen?


It seems like these days, with the partisanship influencing everything, it would be pretty hard to accomplish.

Any thoughts?

If I had to wager, I would say it will be congressional representation for DC.

[Shagnasty]

I don't think there are any amendments that would pass. The requirements are so strict and the current environment so partisan and fragmented that even a discount ice cream for kids with terminal illnesses amendment would wouldn't stand a chance.

However, the most likely of the candidates among the hopelessly unlikely would be an amendment changing or clarifying the definition of a citizen.

I don't think D.C. should have Congressional representation BTW and lots of other people don't either. Republican states could easily shoot that horse before it got out of the gate. Maybe you could shrink D.C. to be just the federal district and split the rest with Virginia and Maryland.

[Shagnasty]

---

[Saint Cad]

Originally Posted by Hermitian

If I had to wager, I would say it will be congressional representation for DC.

I'll take that bet. It failed miserably in 2009.

Depending on how SCOTUS rules, we may get a movement from the states to petition Congress under Article V to define "interstate commerce". Congress then proposes its own version of the amendment to prevent a Constitutional Convention. This was a the way the 17th Amendment got ratified.

Other than that, I don't see anything out there that would get ratified. TeaBaggers may push for a Balanced Budget Amendment but no way 2/3 of each House approves it.

[bup]

It may be time for the electoral college to evolve. Each presidential election cycle there's grumbling from one side or the other about apportionment of all a state's electors going to one party based on the thinnest of margins of victory. Also states with about 6 people in them are really over-represented in presidential elections.

I don't really think it'll happen, though.

In thirty years, I expect a civil-rights amendment that includes sexual orientation to pass, but it'll take a lot of oldsters to die off first.

[Vinyl Turnip]

If I had to guess? Something affirming that we're really, really free to bear lots and lots and LOTS of arms. Just in case it wasn't already clear.

[FlyByNight512]

Originally Posted by Shagnasty

However, the most likely of the candidates among the hopelessly unlikely would be an amendment changing or clarifying the definition of a citizen.

I'm really hoping for that. Our current set of laws is not doing a good job of dealing with megacorporations and the influence of advertising on elections. An amendment might be the best way of dealing with it. Unfortunately I suspect any move to constitutionally define 'person' could get hopelessly mired in the abortion debate.

[Diceman]

I agree that any ammendment is unlikely in the foreseeable future, but an ammendment to deny citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants would have a formidable amount of support. Possibly, it might also specify what a "natural born" citizen is, most likely by defining it as synonymous with "citizen by birth", to finally put an end to arguments about whether Barak Obama or John McCain or whoever qualifies for the presidency.

[Trinopus]

I can see a good chance for a "Privacy" Amendment, protecting us against various threats (some of which are absurd or imaginary... I know people who consider the supermarket's tracking of your purchases to be an intolerable intrusion!)

I can also see the whole matter wrecking on the reefs because it would support abortion rights. Congress would phrase it so delicately as to exclude abortion protection...and that would kill it in enough states to prevent ratification.

Anyway, that's what my magic 8 ball says...

(It also predicts the San Diego Chargers for the Super Bowl in 2013.)

[etv78]

My guesses:

1.Overturning Citizens United
2.Immigrants may become POTUS

[appleciders]

Originally Posted by etv78

My guesses:

1.Overturning Citizens United

This seems to me the most likely candidate. Congresspeople hate fundraising almost as much as they hate losing their jobs. Almost. Every one of them now lives in fear of losing their jobs when a SuperPAC dumps a shitload of last-minute money into their local campaigns. If they live in a "contested" district, they're worried it'll happen in the general election; if they live in a "safe" district, they're worried it'll happen in a primary. And besides, they hate fundraising because it makes them feel like they're corrupt politicians who are selling their votes to special interest groups, and let's face it, that's what they are. There's a reason that McCain-Feingold was significantly bipartisan; the idea of getting back to governing instead of fundraising is popular among Congresspeople.

Still, in today's polarized environment, I don't think it could pass. Any bill proposed would necessarily wind up tied slightly to one party (I'm guessing it would get labeled a Democratic bill, and any Republican who supports it a RINO, but who knows?), which would cascade into a wildly partisan fight, and no one would win, except lobbyists.

[madmonk28]

I don't think Washington DC will have Congressional representation as long as it is perceived to be a "black" city. There are just too many bigots who secretly think it is funny to deny them the right to vote.

[Lord Feldon]

I think an amendment allowing naturalized citizens to be elected president could be successful...but only if there are plausible candidates on both sides who could be seen as benefiting. Without any, there's no sense of immediacy, so nobody really cares; with only one candidate, it becomes a thinly-veiled movement to draft that candidate.

Sadly, I think it could easily be a flag desecration amendment. The fervor has died down over the past few years, but it came dangerously close to escaping Congress just 6 years ago. If not that, then I think it could be some other stupid moral panic, like protecting "In God we trust" as the national motto or something.

[aceplace57]

Modern media makes passage of another Amendment nearly impossible. It's too easy to create a media campaign against the amendment.

ERA is a very good example. They spent over a decade battling state by state. They just couldn't get it passed.

Today we have social networking and 24 hour media. I can't imagine getting any amendment passed in todays world. The same gridlock that has crippled our Congress would effect a vote on amendments in the state ballots.

You just can't get enough people to agree on anything. Everybody has their own precious plan on how to accomplish something.

[aceplace57]

I agree. Mainly because its a simple yes/no issue. There wouldn't be 10 different ways of trying to do it for people to argue over.

Thats one that shouldn't be hard to pass.

Allowing naturalized citizens to run for Congress or President is another one. Maybe with a time frame? 10 years after getting citizenship you could run for those offices.

Arnold for Prez.

Originally Posted by Hermitian

<snip>
Any thoughts?

If I had to wager, I would say it will be congressional representation for DC.

[Sunspace]

Is there any agitation for an amendment these days? If so, for what?

[figure9]

The next amendment to be passed will grant machine intelligences equal rights to humans. I for one welcome our silicon based masters.

[etv78]

Lord Feldon-The amendment limiting the Prez to 2 terms passed by a GOP Congress shortly after FDR's death. Clearly in response to him.

Aceplace-Immingrants ARE allowed to run for Congress. (a midwestern state has a Canadian rep)

[madmonk28]

Originally Posted by Shagnasty

I don't think there are any amendments that would pass. The requirements are so strict and the current environment so partisan and fragmented that even a discount ice cream for kids with terminal illnesses amendment would wouldn't stand a chance.

However, the most likely of the candidates among the hopelessly unlikely would be an amendment changing or clarifying the definition of a citizen.

I don't think D.C. should have Congressional representation BTW and lots of other people don't either. Republican states could easily shoot that horse before it got out of the gate. Maybe you could shrink D.C. to be just the federal district and split the rest with Virginia and Maryland.

I think it is important to note that it is an open question as to whether voting rights for DC even requires an amendment to the constitution. The American Bar Association and legal scholars including Ken Starr (yes, of Clinton report fame) have argued that Congress already has the power to give DC representatives in Congress.

Supporters of this approach have also argued that the framers of the Constitution never intended to disenfranshise the residents of DC and there is strong evidence that this is the case

The same constitutional authority was exercised by the very first Congress, in 1790, when Congress accepted the cession by Maryland and Virginia of the ten-mile-square area constituting the District and provided by statute that its residents would continue to enjoy the same legal rights - - including rights to vote in federal and state elections - - which they had possessed under Maryland and Virginia laws prior to acceptance by Congress of the cession (Act of July 16,
1790, chapter 28, section 1, 1 Stat. 130). Under this federal legislation, residents of the District were able to vote, from 1790 through 1800, for members of the United States House of Representatives (and for members of the Maryland and Virginia Legislatures, which then elected United States Senators).

http://www.americanbar.org/content/d...thcheckdam.pdf

On the issue of voting rights for DC, there is a lot of accepted wisdom that is not based on fact, but has built up over the years. I think when people are arguing for such a radical approach as to disenfranchise Ameican citizens, the burden should be on them to prove that a) this was the intent of the framers of the Consitution; and b) there is a compelling reason to do so.

Other sources:
http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/constitut..._one-pager.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091500935.html

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by aceplace57

Allowing naturalized citizens to run for Congress or President is another one. Maybe with a time frame? 10 years after getting citizenship you could run for those offices.

Arnold for Prez.

Actually, no one is sure what a "Natural Born Citizen" is. Arnold may well be one. I mean, was there anything supernatural about his birth?

[Wesley Clark]

Despondency over the fact that the government is run by money could lead to an amendment.

Aside from that probably some kind of privacy law. With the internet and smart phones people have no privacy anymore.

[whitetho]

My guess is Line Item Veto authority for the President. Congress already passed this as a law, but it was ruled unconstitutional, so it would require an amendment.

[Clothahump]

With any luck, there will be two:

1. Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments, and implement the Fair Tax.

2. Impose a balanced budget. Congress cannot budget spending greater than 99% of the revenues received in the preceding fiscal year.

[OttoDaFe]

It would not surprise me to see a push for DNA/genome privacy. Whether this could be accomplished by statute (adding it to "search and seizure") or would require a separate amendment is a matter I leave for those better versed in the Constitutional process than I — i.e., damn near everybody.

(Note that I said "a push for;" like many others, I think it would take a sea change in the political landscape* to achieve the bipartisan support an amendment would require.)

*Metaphors mixed to order.

[Munch]

Originally Posted by aceplace57

I agree. Mainly because its a simple yes/no issue. There wouldn't be 10 different ways of trying to do it for people to argue over.

Congressional representation for DC actually has a number of different debates going on about how to try to do it.

[Hari Seldon]

Originally Posted by Diceman

I agree that any ammendment is unlikely in the foreseeable future, but an ammendment to deny citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants would have a formidable amount of support. Possibly, it might also specify what a "natural born" citizen is, most likely by defining it as synonymous with "citizen by birth", to finally put an end to arguments about whether Barak Obama or John McCain or whoever qualifies for the presidency.

Nonsense. Obama is a natural born citizen if anyone is, but that doesn't stop the birthers. McCain is a different matter.

Here is a possible scenario that probably would lead to an amendment to get rid of the electoral college and institute a majority vote for president. If no one gets a majority, then the top three vote-getters go into the house where each state has one vote. In 1948, HST had a one vote majority in the electoral college and Strom Thurmond had 39 votes (Dewey got the rest). Had there been one more state go Dixiecrat, the election would have gone to the house and never been resolved. Then Alben Barkley would have become president (he became VP and eventually commissioner of baseball at which he did a lousy job). Had that happened, I think the electoral college would have become a historical footnote. If it ever happens, it will lead to an amendment toot sweet.

[Freddy the Pig]

Originally Posted by Hari Seldon

Then Alben Barkley would have become president (he became VP and eventually commissioner of baseball at which he did a lousy job).

No, that was Happy Chandler. Also, Truman's majority was 37 votes (303 x 531), not one.

I do think the election process will be revised if a future election ever goes to the House, whether the House resolves it or not. But, I don't think that will happen any time soon. Or even not so soon.

[Little Nemo]

My predictions for what's likely (not necessarily things I support)

1. Direct election of the President and Vice President. No more Electoral College.
2. A prohibition or heavy restriction on deficit spending.
3. A restriction on tax legislation.
4. Repealing jus soli citizenship.

[Boyo Jim]

Officially declare American military veterans AWESOME!

[DrDeth]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

My predictions for what's likely (not necessarily things I support)

1. Direct election of the President and Vice President. No more Electoral College.
2. A prohibition or heavy restriction on deficit spending.
3. A restriction on tax legislation.
4. Repealing jus soli citizenship.

1. Ain't gonna happen. Look, the Electoral College gives smaller states a small edge. Why should they vote to reduce their own power? Yeah, sure maybe a couple in the middle will, but it takes 30 states to pass one. Mind you, it is the most logical.

2,3,4 - aint gonna happen either due to the deadlock in Congress.

[TriPolar]

It would have to be something popular on the state level and with bi-partisan opposition at the federal level for the foreseeable future. There's no way the two-party system can join forces in Washington to get an amendment, it would have to be done by the states. I don't recall all the rules, but I think it needs to be proposed by the congress in the first place, which might work if only a simple majority is required. It would likely be something pointlessly, and ineffectively limiting federal power.

[Little Nemo]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

1. Ain't gonna happen. Look, the Electoral College gives smaller states a small edge. Why should they vote to reduce their own power? Yeah, sure maybe a couple in the middle will, but it takes 30 states to pass one. Mind you, it is the most logical.

We can talk about the "states" but states don't actually vote, people do. So all a direct election amendment would require would be for people to feel some other interest outweighs their state loyalty. And I have little difficulty in seeing that happen. People may talk about states rights a lot, but there's relatively little evidence that people really mean it. Most voters routinely put some national or ideological interest ahead their state.

In my opinion, all it would take would be a close presidential election where the Republican candidate won the general election but the Democratic candidate won the Electoral College and was elected. The Democrats have already faced this in 2000. So having the reverse happen would unite both parties in feeling they had been "cheated" by the existence of the Electoral College.

Originally Posted by DrDeth

2,3,4 - aint gonna happen either due to the deadlock in Congress.

As for these, I'm thinking they're the kind of amendments that are easy sells. No deficits, no tax increases, and no anchor babies are the kind of simple slogans that sound good. Explaining why they're bad ideas takes nuance. And demagoguery often outshouts nuance.

[Rysdad]

A national ID for voting...although the repercussions are frightening.

[Diceman]

Originally Posted by Little Nemo

As for these, I'm thinking they're the kind of amendments that are easy sells. No deficits, no tax increases, and no anchor babies are the kind of simple slogans that sound good. Explaining why they're bad ideas takes nuance. And demagoguery often outshouts nuance.

The deficits ammendment is probably the one we most desperately need. With a multi-trillion dollar deficit that's still growing, we're probably only a few years away from our own version of the Greek debt crisis. A sensible ammendment might say that Congress cannot authorize deficit spending unless some supermajority declares that a compelling need to do so exists. And the declaration must describe what exactly that emergency is.

[TriPolar]

Originally Posted by Diceman

The deficits ammendment is probably the one we most desperately need. With a multi-trillion dollar deficit that's still growing, we're probably only a few years away from our own version of the Greek debt crisis. A sensible ammendment might say that Congress cannot authorize deficit spending unless some supermajority declares that a compelling need to do so exists. And the declaration must describe what exactly that emergency is.

Good idea. That will certainly hasten our own version of the Greek debt crisis.

[That Don Guy]

Originally Posted by DrDeth

1. Ain't gonna happen. Look, the Electoral College gives smaller states a small edge. Why should they vote to reduce their own power? Yeah, sure maybe a couple in the middle will, but it takes 30 states to pass one. Mind you, it is the most logical.

2,3,4 - aint gonna happen either due to the deadlock in Congress.

The OP didn't say the next amendment would happen any time soon.

I agree that it's more likely that #1 happens through the current project to get states with 270 electoral votes to change their own laws so that whoever wins the national popular vote is guaranteed to be elected President (which has the added "advantage" of not needing at least 3 of the 15 smallest states to ratify it) than through a Constitutional amendment.

I also think #4 might happen, along the lines of guaranteeing citizenship to:
(a) All citizens as of the time the new amendment is ratified;
(b) All persons born to two parents who are citizens at the time;
(c) All persons born in the USA with one parent who is a citizen at the time (or whose father was a citizen when he died, if it is before the person's birth);
and possibly (d) All persons, both of whose parents are citizens (i.e. if a couple become naturalized citizens, then so do their descendants)
They could also throw in a clause where no one can be stripped of citizenship involuntarily.

I think that eventually "DC gets a voting House of Representatives member" will be the next one (yes, there was a previous amendment proposed that made it to the states, but that included two DC Senators; removing that provision might make it easier). (Why, yes, I do think there will be a day when the Democrats will have 290 House and 67 Senate members - of course, when that happens, chances are the first amendment proposal to make it out of Congress will be a guarantee of health care for all citizens.)

[Capt Kirk]

Originally Posted by Rysdad

A national ID for voting...although the repercussions are frightening.

I find resistance to this idea strange and another example of playing on peoples fears

I have 2 national ID cards already and everyone has at least one

1 Social Security Card

2 US Passport

[MegaBee]

Originally Posted by Capt Kirk

I find resistance to this idea strange and another example of playing on peoples fears

I have 2 national ID cards already and everyone has at least one

1 Social Security Card

2 US Passport

What would the cost of providing a national proof of identity to every citizen be? If it's required for voting, then the government can't charge for it; that would be a poll tax.