Maybe. But remember, it will also be Synagogues, and other religions impacted. But any Wealth tax has to have a very large floor, like tens of millions.
Yes I have. They don’t have much leeway. Certain things will/should disqualify you outright. If the concept is good enough to disqualify someone from working on defense projects, it ought to disqualify a person from being commander in chief (or a senator, or a congressman), namely anyone who potentially have access to classified info.
Just looking at the current slow moving crash that is the US House, I realize that in every parliament system I am aware of the head of state would have long since dissolved the body and called new elections. I am not sure what the best way to bring this about is, but I am sure that the current system is badly broken.
I can think of a number of changes I would like to see in a new constitution, but I think now is a bad time for them. As long as the electorate is bitterly polarized people on the left, the right, or both would perceive of major changes as efforts by the other side to marginalize their values, concerns, and goals.
I believe a Second Constitutional Convention should wait until there is a broad general consensus about how the U.S. government should be constituted and what it should be doing. Until then think we should make the best with what we have.
I do think a new constitution should be a guideline for a representative democracy, rather than a series of prohibitions and commands that may not have majority support.
Political candidates I vote for often lose elections. Nevertheless, I trust the majority of voters more than any minority, be it of wealth, birth, or intellect.
Trouble is that any change I would approve of would be seen as automatically benefiting the Dems. Banning gerrymandering, check. Get rid of voting restrictions, check. Instant runoff, check. Term or age limits on judges, check.
If I had the power to dictate:
- Supreme Court justices to have 18 year terms, staggered so that every 2 years, one justice would be replaced. Should the Senate fail to reject a nominee within 30 days, the nomination shall be confirmed.
- The states shall be divided into thirds by population. The most populous third gets 3 Senators, the middle third gets 2 Sanators, and the least populous third gets 1 Senator.
- The smallest state in population gets 1 Representatives, the other states get a number of Representatives determined by dividing its population by the smallest state’s, rounded down (truncated) to the whole number.
- House districts done away with- each party shall provide a slate of candidates equal to the number of seats that the state is allowed. Voters will vote for the party as a whole and then for the candidates. Seats will be allotted for each party in proportion to the share of the party’s vote statewide and the seats for each party awarded to the candidates with the highest vote totals in that party. Example: State gets 10 seats in the House. The party vote comes in at 55% D 45% R. Rounding in favor of the majority, the top 6 Democratic candidates and the top 4 Republican candidates get seated.
- Whenever 50 representatives sign a petition to bring a matter to the floor for a vote, a vote shall be taken.
- In matters of impeachment, both the impeachment vote in the House and the trial in the Senate shall be by secret ballot.
- A minimum wage of $20 per hour shall be established to be perpetually indexed to inflation.
- Health care shall be completely run by the government and all providers must accept the rates set by the government. Private health insurance shall be banned.
- Military style weapons shall be banned for non military use. Congress shall have the authority to define what is a military style weapon.
- The right to abortion shall be available to all women in accordance with the limits set in Roe v Wade.
- Tuition in all public universities shall be paid for by the government.
“No legislation or judicial opinion may be based on any religious doctrine or text.”
I have no idea if this would be a good thing or not, but I’ll toss it out here for debate:
As currently written, the US federal constitution is mostly a workaday charter describing the structure and authority of the federal government. Except as read between the lines due to specific provisions, it does not lay out a thesis or manifesto on democracy, or what a government “conceived in liberty” should and should not do. IOW, the current constitution contains very little in the way of ideology. In fact people sometimes fall back on the Declaration of Independence, which technically has no current authority, for this ideological background.
Should then the constitution have an expanded preamble which expounds upon the guiding principles that the government is supposed to live up to?
Veterans should get Veteran’s Day off while everybody else works.
Does this mean that all laws criminalizing homicide and theft are illegal because you can’t prove they aren’t based on “Thou Shalt Not Kill” and “Thou Shalt Not Steal”?
As I said at the top of this thread, this is meant to be for amendments to the current Constitution, which means you cannot give any state more Senators than any other state.
The problem with your system of apportioning Representatives is, you would need to increase the size of the House chamber to fit the 550 Representatives you would get. California would have 68, Texas 50, and New York 34.
As for your health care proposal, you’ve just driven pretty much any “better than average” doctor out of the country. Who do you think would work for a government-mandated wage? (If health care is “completely run by the government,” that includes setting doctors’ salaries, either directly or by forcing them to accept certain amounts for particular procedures.)
I for one don’t see the problem with allowing private insurance alongside an available “Medicare for All” system.
Unfortunately amending the existing Constitution is not going to work. The poison pill of equal representation in the Senate cannot be fixed without tossing the entire document so unless we can do that, we’re just arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.
My proposal would indeed increase the size of the House, but it would eliminate the ridiculous overrepresentation that the small states currently enjoy.
As for doctors’ salaries, I say that once the bloat of the insurance industry is taken out of the system, there will be plenty of money to pay doctors very well indeed.
I mean Congress can’t justify a law by saying it’s what God wants and a judge can’t cite the Bible as the basis for an opinion. They need to base their decisions on secular ethics, even if they arrive at the same conclusion.
The world’s greatest nation should be able to find office space for a couple of hundred more representatives.
How large can a legislature be before it’s too unwieldy and the representatives have to have representatives?
The British House of Commons has 650 members.
And, pray tell, where are they going to go? Is there any other advanced country that doesn’t have government-mandated health care?
I’m not a registered Republican, but I’m a conservative and have never voted for a Democrat. I have no problem with any of the things you mentioned.
Secret while the vote is being conducted – no show of hands, roll call, &c – so no one can be influenced by any other person’s vote. As soon as the votes are counted and the results announced, the votes are made public.
The only problem I have with the electoral college is that most states (48?) give all their electoral votes to the winner of the election in that state – hence the undue influence of the states with large numbers of electoral votes. They should be awarded in accordance with the popular vote.
This, definitely.
This, too, though I can understand the complaints that this would deprive people of their right to vote for anyone they want. But members of SCOTUS are appointed, not elected, so they should have term limits.
One amendment I would propose is one that would limit the power of eminent domain and completely end asset forfeiture without a criminal conviction,
But that complaint doesn’t really hold water. We’ve never really had any right to vote for “anyone they want”. Aside from pointless write-in votes, we vote for whoever the parties nominate for the position. Currently, about 40% of GOP primary voters want Nikki Haley as President, but come the GOP convention, it’s overwhelmingly likely that she won’t be on the ballot for President. So are those people being denied their right to vote “for who they want”?
This argument can be made about any limits you put on voting, so why should it matter any more for this one particular limit?
+ one.