So why the need for a paid holiday then? If you work on election day, use the mail in option. Problem solved and without a Constitutional Amendment.
Don’t forget about giving DC representation, if note statehood.
One thing that we should avoid is the temptation to turn the Constitution into some sort of uber-Civil Code, which is a bothersome trait I see in many of the states (and many foreign nations). So, sorry, no definitions of “marriage” nor redefinitions of how should a corporation for-profit corporation function. That is something on which policy should be allowed to evolve with the culture.
The thread has been good in that respect in focusing on specifics about the election, function and qualifications of federal officers and about rights of individuals.
So, what would I look for?
-
Because it has a special immediate interest to me I put it ahead though it’s not existentially critical for the nation: A proper section on the condition and status of the nonstate jurisdictions, more than just the current passing mention whereby the territories are lumped together with federal properties as if millions of citizens are the same thing as a lighthouse or a mining claim. That sort of worked over a century operating in the spirit of the preconstitutional Northwest Ordinance which assumed that once territories in the frontier were settled by enough White Anglo people they’d qualify for statehood. But after overseas possessions not open to further settlement were acquired post-1898, this has been handled through ad-hoc actions for each jurisdiction which results in that at any given time some of them have popularly-voted constitutions and not others; some are inside the customs zone and not others; some have the residents be born citizens and not others; some have a separate Tax Code and not others, etc.; there’s gotta be some better basic rule.
-
Incorporate Afroyim v. Rusk explicitly: birth citizenship can’t be lost except by an intentional explicit act of expatriation and repudiation on the citizen’s part. While we’re at it, substitute “Citizen at Birth” for “Natural Born”.
-
The DC question: define that the federal capital district as a governmental entity remains a subject of Congress, not a State, BUT **the citizens thereof *constitute a special congressional district rating voting representation ( footnote on the Senate later).
-
The RTKAB is of the People *both *individually and collectively, however, as the function of the Militia as per Article II is to execute the laws, suppress insurrections and repel invasions, no militia or paramilitary may exist that is not sworn to the constitutional authority and laws of the US and the state in which formed.
-
Refine the XXVth Amendment and square away the provisions in the Presidential Succession Act that are not entirely consistent. Make clear what is the scope of the Acting Presidency.
-
Explicit recognition of the existence of a right to personal privacy.
(*footnote on the Senate: The Constitution says no state may be denied an equal representation in the Senate, and that this clause is itself irrevocable. This creates a challenge to those who would want to accommodate DC and the overseas territories in the Senate since if people are upset that Wyoming with fewer than 600K people has the same Senators as California, imagine the Mariana Islands with fewer than 60K… and if you wanted to lump all the nonstate jurisdictions together as one pseudo-delegation, (a) DC would want none of it and (b) it would de facto be the Puerto Rico delegation since it contains over 70% of the US citizens living in the nonstates.)
One item not mentioned so far is compensation of Congress. I’d like to see it established that benefits for members of Congress and their staff be limited to no more than the median given to full-time workers in large private sector organizations*. This would eliminate their current defined benefit plan and replace it with a 401k or similar plan with a reasonable match. Also, they would pay a larger percent of the premium for their health care coverage.
In return, I’d have them be eligible for Social Security (and of course pay the same SS tax as private sector employees/employers).
- The Bureau of Labor Statistics already does a regular survey of benefits. Maybe it would need some refining, but the framework is already there.
The President can have an attorney file a motion in local court to quash the warrant or subpeona, and file motion for sanctions for frivolous lawsuit against the local official. That will be sufficient, especially since Bumblefuck County WV has no jurisdiction over treason cases.
This is a really bad idea that for some reason keeps coming up in these types of threads.
It seems to assume that laws are bad and we should get rid of them. But laws are what hold our civil society together.
Do you want the title to your house, your car, and your bank accounts to be subject to legislative review every ten years? Because property law is largely statutory in the States, having been codified from the common law.
Do you want any contracts that you are a party to, to suddenly disappear every ten years? Because contract law is largely statutory.
If you hold stocks in a corporation, do you want to run the risk that those stocks go “poof” if the corporate law doesn’t get re-enacted in time?
If you’re happily married, do you want to risk having your marriage dissolved every ten years, unless the legislature re-passes the marriage laws?
If you’re divorced with kids, do you want to risk having your custody and access rights disappear on the sunset of the divorce act? And to have all your property, alimony and child support settlement, and rights to enforce it in court, disappear?
If you’re in the middle of probating one of your parent’s estates, do you want to risk all the probate rules disappearing because the sunset came on the probate law and the legislature couldn’t get the new law passed, so you and your crazy siblings have to come to an agreement on your own over who gets what?
Do you want your rights as a consumer to be subject to legislative review every ten years? Just when you’ve bought a lemon car, for instance, and the dealer is being uncooperative in fixing it? Especially since the warranty may have gone poof (see entry on contract law, above).
And do you want the risk that the criminal law may potentially all disappear every ten years, both the substantive offences, and the laws holding convicted felons in jail? No valid criminal law means Jake the Snake can drive off with your car without committing any criminal offence. And it may not be your car any more anyway (see entry on property law, above). And if there’s no statutory law authorising the state corrections system to hold convicted felons, constitutional law says they have to be released.
And of course, a lot of courts could disappear every ten years if the statutes creating them aren’t re-enacted in time. So even if you have some sort of common law or constitutional right that you want to enforce, there may not be a court that can hear your claim.
And the thing is, re-enacting all of those laws will take a lot of time and effort by the legislatures, meaning that they may not be able to address significant new issues, because they have to get the entire law book law re-enacted before the sunset.
This proposal also assumes that the legislatures are functional, not dysfunctional. As a hypothetical, what would happen if the sunset is coming for a lot of Washington state laws this spring? :smack:
Treason against the State of West Virginia. And yes, we will have a hearing on your motion to quash within 5 business days as required by statute. Meanwhile, Mr. President, what is your shirt size? We need to fit you for this orange jumpsuit for your jail cell until the hearing.
Agree with most of these, but point 2, while the current President can stop the prosecution of himself, the Veep, and his officials, that power ends when he leaves office. So this proposal would stop the outgoing President from being able to pardon himself, the Veep, his officials, etc. for any crimes they have committed prior to the expiry of his term of office.
That’s not to say the amendment would be needed, just that there is a way it could have a substantive effect.
Article the 1st: Agreed.
2: Agreed.
3: I would rather retrocede most of D.C. to Maryland and leave D.C. as a bare core of government buildings whereby almost nobody actually resides in it. I think that is more in line with the constitutional design.
-
Not a problem. Might have an issue about what a “military” or “paramilitary” group means, but we could figure it out.
-
Agreed.
-
Whoa! What is a right of “personal privacy”? Prostitution and incest? Can I engage in a criminal conspiracy in private? Do a line of cocaine? Do home improvements without a permit?
I’m all for the government leaving people alone, as are most conservatives, but it seems like “privacy” is just used in the context of legal abortion and (some) sexual privacy, but all other forms are ignored.
I disagree. Citing as authority the movie, “Absolute Power” (1997), starring Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman etc., the President (Hackman) can be arrested for murder by the law enforcement agency having jurisdiction where the murder occurred, and prosecuted by the DA there. Easy peasy.
I like it.
Why the 17th???
Already in some states they has passed laws that effectively prevent Unions from donating, but not companies- in that Unions must get the approval of membership. But companies dont have to get approval of stockholders.
We have no way of counting citizens, unless we put that Illegal question in the Census.
Children need to be counted, and a state which has extra immigration needs the support.
Name three.
That has worked so well with Israel and the UK, eh?
Define “gerrymandering”.
I dont think this will help get voters to the polls. I think that people will just take another day to go on vacation and not vote at all.
People already get 4 hours off by law if they need them.
Good points.
Yes, other than getting rid of the Electoral college- a holdover from days gone by- dont mess with the best.
So, what you are saying here, is that you want more millionaires in Congress, and less working stiffs, eh?:dubious:
We already have too many wealthy people in Congress. we need to encourage more working people, not less.
The Court did not say that the question was illegal, just that (Roberts plus 4) held that the administration’s justification was pretextual and sent it back. In a world where an amendment was passed requiring apportionment based on citizenship, that would be a damn good reason to put it on the census.
Holy shit, we agree on something. Let’s not do that again lest I have to go lie down.
Okay. On my way to lie down. 
:):):D:D:p:p
I know at least one US-component jurisdiction, Puerto Rico, which mandates the general election day to be a general holiday (primaries and referenda are held on Sundays) by statute and tradition, not by local constitution(*). So it is doable, each state could dust off some old “blue law” and have things work as they would on Christmas Day or Easter Sunday (or, heck, during the lockdown) and give the critical workers advance voting or mandate the essential private industries arrange half-shifts. However, making it so every single state enforces the *same *limitations and concessions about it, doesn’t look like the sort of thing you do at national constitution level.
(*Turnouts back home are consistently 70-80% of registered voters. But gotta let ya know I haven’t noticed it resulting in superior quality 
More involvement so people are more motivated to take to the street to say “this was not what we voted for” and run the Governor out of town, yes; better results, no… )
You seem to have a bit of an elevated estimation of the compensation and benefits situation for the congressional staff, which all reports I’ve seen consistently describe as not exactly splendid for the average office cubicle “foot soldier”, in a very high cost of living market. Chiefs of Staff of senior members or committee chairs must do pretty well but those are usually people with decades under their belts. BTW full time staffers hired after 1984 *do *pay into Social Security and have a “hybrid” retirement benefit.
But again, this is one of those bits that are not really matter for the constitution of the republic but of regular policymaking.