# Democrats should start the process of amending the Constitution **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 6, 2022, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-start-the-process-of-amending-the-constitution/964072 "2022-05-06T16:39:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2022, 12:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-start-the-process-of-amending-the-constitution/964072/81 "2022-05-12T00:54:14Z")
Looking through John Eastman’s arguments, one amendment that seems fairly clearly necessary is something to do with electors. If nothing else, at least something like: - Any law affecting the appointment of electors will not take effect until after the next Presidential election, unless it is a new state which is having its first such election. In the case of a new state, it must decide its system of appointment previous to the election year or forfeit the election. During the election year, the original rule holds for the new state. And just in general, it would be good to finalize the rules for the electors, rather than leaving it to the states to corrupt. - From each district, a group of twelve electoral candidates must be chosen by sortition. These will be reduced to a single individual per district by condorcet vote of the largest elected body in the state government - if it has one - or by an assembly of all elected officials within the state if it does not have any elected body larger than 12 persons. - All electors must be free of all constraints and given no reward, so that they may to choose as they see right to do. - All electors will have their votes taken in secret by a method agreed to by the electors and the state government. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2022, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-start-the-process-of-amending-the-constitution/964072/82 "2022-05-12T02:08:04Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > “The rights of citizens of the United States, having attained the age of 18, to enter into a state of marriage with one other consenting person having attained the age of 18, shall not be abridged.” Non-citizen residents, meanwhile, presumably have no right to marriage and can go get rekt. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2022, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-start-the-process-of-amending-the-constitution/964072/83 "2022-05-12T05:33:20Z")
If they are marrying a citizen, though, they can. If neither is a citizen I think there is some merit to allowing restrictions in some circumstances, but fine, eliminate the citizen term. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2022, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-start-the-process-of-amending-the-constitution/964072/84 "2022-05-14T01:19:45Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > The Democrats don’t have anything close to this. Instead, they are probably still just focus-testing to find out what policies would appeal most to their “base.” …just in case anyone thought I was making this up, from today: > [@WP](#): > > Biden’s attempt to appropriate the “MAGA” brand as a political attack was hardly accidental. It arose from a six-month research project to find the best way to target Republicans, helmed by Biden adviser Anita Dunn and by the Center for American Progress Action Fund, a liberal group. > > The polling and focus group research by Hart Research and the Global Strategy Group found that “MAGA” was already viewed negatively by voters — more negatively than other phrases like “Trump Republicans.” > > In battleground areas, more than twice as many voters said they would be less likely to vote for someone called a “MAGA Republican” than would be more likely. The research also found that the description tapped into the broad agreement among voters that the Republican Party had become more extreme and power-hungry in recent years. > > “All of that extremism gets captured in that brand,” said Navin Nayak, president and executive director of CAP Action Fund. “We are not trying to create a new word. This is how they define themselves.” They spent **six-months** focus-testing and looking for an “attack-line” to rally around. And they came up with “Ultra MAGA.” The result? > [@](#): > > It took scant time for Republicans to gleefully seize on the moniker as their own, triumphantly elevating it as a brand worthy of celebration. [“I am ultra MAGA, and I’m proud of it,”](https://twitter.com/therecount/status/1524402180572262401?s=21&t=XE4X_fXeis7KXH05BoK_uQ) said Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), the No. 3 House Republican, after a reporter Wednesday noted that she was “being called ultra MAGA.” > > The same day, Trump’s Save America super PAC sent out a fundraising email featuring a $45 T-shirt bearing the image of Trump as Superman — a Trump “T” stretched across his chest rather than Superman’s iconic “S” — flying below the banner of “SUPERMAGA” in a red-and-yellow comic book font. > > “Did you hear what Joe Biden called us? He said we were an EXTREME POLITICAL ORGANIZATION. He said we were ULTRA MAGA,” read the email pitch. “Well … If loving your Country and wanting to put AMERICA FIRST makes you ULTRA MAGA, then yes. WE ARE ULTRA MAGA.” > **[Biden sees a new threat: ‘Ultra MAGA’ Republicans](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/05/13/biden-ultra-maga/)** > > Biden has taken to using the term “ultra-MAGA” to warn of Republican extremism. The term has caused bemusement among Democrats, and some Trump followers have embraced it. Yesterday: > [@NBC](#): > > President Joe Biden on Friday urged states and cities to use unspent money from last year’s $1.9 trillion [Covid relief package](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/what-s-1-9-trillion-covid-bill-biden-just-signed-n1260719) to fund crime prevention programs and hire police officers. > **[Biden urges cities to spend Covid relief money on police, crime prevention](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-urge-cities-spend-covid-relief-money-police-crime-prevention-rcna28656?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma)** > > New York, Washington and a number of other major cities have reported increases in violent crime since the start of the pandemic. Yep, the pandemic is over. Fund the police. That’s the message they are going into the mid-terms with. This is the strategic direction they have chosen to take. This administration is not the administration that will “start the process of amending the constitution.” Because that wouldn’t focus-test well enough. ---
**Author:** ![PhillyGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ed655f/32.png) [@PhillyGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PhillyGuy)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2022, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-start-the-process-of-amending-the-constitution/964072/85 "2022-05-14T02:31:32Z")
> [@Banquet\_Bear](#): > > This administration is not the administration that will “start the process of amending the constitution.” Because that wouldn’t focus-test well enough. Looking for a slogan sounds to me a bad use of a focus group because you can’t tell if the slogan will wear well, especially after the other side starts either mocking it or, as here, embracing it. But polling with closed-end questions doesn’t get at what people really think. A focus group on what the Constitution means, and whether median voters want to change it, may make sense. If a small part of the base wants something that is political box office prison, like a losing effort to change the constitution, the administration could leak the results of focus groups showing how bad an idea that is. Some, not all, of the base would then understand and forgive. ---
**Author:** ![Banquet\_Bear](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/banquet_bear/32/373_2.png) [@Banquet\_Bear](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Banquet_Bear)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2022, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-start-the-process-of-amending-the-constitution/964072/86 "2022-05-14T02:39:02Z")
> [@PhillyGuy](#): > > But polling with closed-end questions doesn’t get at what people really think. A focus group on what the Constitution means, and whether median voters want to change it, may make sense. …perhaps I needed to put “sarcasm” tags around what I said. > [@PhillyGuy](#): > > If a small part of the base wants something that is political box office prison, like a losing effort to change the constitution, the administration could leak the results of focus groups showing how bad an idea that is. Some, not all, of the base would then understand and forgive. There isn’t a single Democrat-aligned polling and focus research group that I would trust with a “let’s leak these focus-test results!!! This will _surely_ help!” strategy. Take the money away from these corporate-wastes-of-time and give it to the people at the front lines before you run out of time. (Who am I kidding? That’s never going to happen. They are going to focus-test themselves into oblivion.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/democrats-should-start-the-process-of-amending-the-constitution/964072.md?page=4)