None of which changes the fact that Shirley Chisholm had no hope of being so elected.
The point I was trying (and apparently failing) to make is that there are multiple reasons why we very often can’t, in practice, vote for the people we’d choose if we had the entire universe of candidates, or even of US residents, to choose from. Restricting this fractionally further by a two-term limit is not an existential difference to the right to vote. And bear in mind that everybody’s already had two chances to vote for that person for POTUS.
If somebody says “I’m not going to run and if elected I will not serve” (and means it) does that unfairly remove everyone else’s right to vote for them?
See this is also a completely terrible law because the entire second half is completely open to interpretation. What is a weapon “designed and intended for military purposes”? You may think you have an answer, but so do a million other people. Unless you deliberately meant light and heavy machine guns but then again, completely open to interpretation and would fix almost nothing.
I get your point and appreciate Rick pointing out that expanding the House does not require a constitutional amendment. In fact, the House was routinely expanded after nearly every census until that practice came to a crashing halt in 1929.
Now the census is used merely for re-apportioning for relative state population gains and/or losses while the average district size has increased by well more than double.
I don’t see any constitutional requirement for a universal time period. We already have different time periods for copyrights, patents, and trademarks. Congress could differentiate further and, for example, legally set one limit for electronic devices and a different limit for chemical compounds. Or set up a shorter limit for health-related inventions.
I think the real constitutional challenge to such a law would be the ex post facto clause.
All Senators and Representatives are to be proxies which represent the people - they do not count as one vote; instead, they allocate the votes which they themselves received. That is to say, if my congressperson is elected with a vote count of 38,324, when the House votes, whatever my congressperson votes on gets 38,324 votes, and each other congressperson similarly ‘forwards’ the votes of everyone who voted for them as a candidate.
Additionally, all candidates who have gotten at least…(uncertain; 5%, or perhaps a flat number like 5,000) votes are seated, even competing candidates from the same area. This means that even the minorities in an area, unless they are extreme minorities, have their votes counted, rather than the losers in a particular area getting zero representation in government whereas the winners get it all.
So, uh…that, but condensed down into clearer language.
Perhaps require that state governments function the same way, even.
Have a “Right to Vote” Amendment. Any law, regulation, or procedure limiting anyone’s ability to vote should be held up to a strict scrutiny standard and could not take effect until the completion of a due process hearing.
The 2nd Amendment is modified to allow totally unrestricted possession and carry of such arms as existed in 1783. All others are seriously and severely restricted (ie centerfire semiauto rifles and pistols are totally banned from civilian possession.)
Churches are taxed heavily.
Wealth is taxed heavily.
Secular laws trump religious beliefs across the board. Little or no exceptions allowed.
Ranked Choice voting. Raise the size of the House.
Remove Statehood from any state that doesn’t meet a population threshold equal to say Los Angeles County. These areas become US Territories and are governed accordingly.
Corporations aren’t people. Period.
Bodily autonomy and reproductive autonomy. At the same time, make it a lot easier for kids to get emancipated.
Guarantee that the budget for the VA has to equal at least 10% of the DOD budget.
Term limits for ALL justices, senators, congresscritters, etc. They are all also banned from serving as consultants, lobbyists etc for 20 years after the end of their last term.
I thought that would be 28 states. Guess I haven’t checked the most recent population figures. Hell, let’s be generous and allow states down to half the population of the most populous county in the country.
And not only that , but the idea of Gun licenses is to me the idea of having a newspaper license. or we can take LA county and how they used to issue Concealed weapon permits- only to political donors , buddies, and VIPs. We can be sure that the hurdles for Blacks to get a gun license in the South would be very high indeed.
The 1st Ad - right to a free press- should then only apply to hand powered old style printing presses , then right? Not the internet, radio, TV or even modern ways of printing books and newspapers, right? Only religions existing in 1783 are protected.
Churches have little or no taxable income. And to tax Churches, to be fair, you’d also have to tax all other forms of “non-profit orgs” (They are all lumped more or less together in the Tax code) and the "non-profit part should give a clue, since taxes are levied on PROFITS. There would be no net taxes.
So a Corporation or a Union or an Organization no longer has the Right to Free speech? Red states can muzzle the ACLU, or even the DNC right? This isnt a new idea, it goes back at least a century. if not more.
So, we wouldnt have the right to vote for the candidate we want?
Ex post facto applies only to criminal offenses. They have often passed laws that changed something in the past.
And since the same constitutional provision authorizes patents, copyrights, and trademarks, I see no reason they cannot legislate different classes of patents. And how can insulin still be under patent? It was discovered nearly a century ago and, if I am not mistaken, Banting declined to patent it.
It’s the Supremes who said that 19th century standards apply to firearms, not me. They can adapt for Press and Speech, they can fucking well adapt to guns. Just as those laws have evolved along with technology, so should laws on firearms in private hands.
Mega-preachers and internet god-botherers need to be taxed out of existence. Property taxes will work just fine. So will wealth taxes, which I notice you didn’t address.
Nice way to dodge the “Corporations aren’t people” bit - you know as well as I the thrust of that suggestion was to remove the ability of corporations to throw money at elections and politicians. Their ability to do so should be severely crippled.
And no, you don’t have the right to vote for who you want if they are term-limited. What you want is subservient to the good of the people in general. Make the critters shift around every so often - weeds out the weak. Judges especially need to be term-limited.
Kinda? The Constitution says “No Bill of attainder or Ex post facto law shall be passed.” It was later court decisions that have decided what laws that applies to - from Calder v. Bull in 1798 to Golan v. Holder in 2012. (Coincidentally, the issue of the Golan decision was copyright extensions.) But I’d argue that it’s far from settled law.
If I can go way beyond what Little_Nemo wrote about this:
Our Supreme Count ignoring the literal meaning of the Latin phrase ex post facto illustrates the flaw in the majority of the ideas in this thread. Most require that the Supreme Court either be dominated by progressive justices, or by justices who will interpret the new Constitutional amendments literally. Neither seems to me a condition one can expect. Even if you get rid of most of the current crop of justices with a term limit amendment, there is is a roughly 50 per cent chance of new justices being Republicans.
I prefer the British, or perhaps New Zealand constitution – especially parliamentary supremacy. None of this hypocrisy of A-student Supreme Count judges finding clever ways, in their written opinions, to legally justify a ruling in accord with their political leanings. Instead, we should have a honest representative democracy where when parliament errs, there is some hope of fixing the error at the next election.
If that’s what you mean, then say you want campaign finance reform. Saying “corporations aren’t people” means you want the government to be able to censor the Washington Post.
When the Senate convened on November 16, 1818, it set a record that is never likely to be broken. Members on that occasion, however, probably did not realize they were making history—and violating the Constitution—in administering the oath of office to Tennessee’s John Henry Eaton, who was 28 years, 4 months, and 29 days old .
The framers of the Constitution set the minimum age for Senate service at 30 years. They arrived at that number by adding five years to the 25-year minimum they had established for House members, reasoning that the deliberative nature of the “senatorial trust” called for a “greater extent of information and stability of character” than would be needed in the House.
Apparently no one asked John Eaton how old he was. ..Had someone in 1818 chosen to challenge his seating, Eaton could have pointed to the Senate’s 1816 decision to seat Virginia’s Armistead Mason, who was 28 years, 5 months, and 18 days old, or the 1806 precedent to admit 29-year-old Henry Clay of Kentucky.