Just got done with a fascinating book on how the twenty-seven Amendments to the Constitution were brought into existence, and about the several dozen others proposed over the years and never passed and/or ratified.
And saw the premiere of “Son of Bush v. Gore – soon to be a minor motion picture” and, over on the Pizza Parlor, yet another protest about “how we’ve thrown God out of school.”
And had the slogan on the license plates of our nation’s capital: “Taxation Without Representation” brought back to mind by notes in the book on the 23rd Amendment and Sen. Bayh’s efforts to give D.C. Congressional representation.
So I would ask what measures you feel deserve institution as Amendments to the Constitution, and why. Opinions and arguments for them. Do feel free to dispute, courteously, the views of other posters, but let us not get hijacked into exclusive consideration of a particular problem or any character assassination here.
“Displaying any version of the ‘Calvin Pissing On Another Vehicle, Or Other Product Logo’ shall be considered a capital offense in all states and territories”
Although it will never be made an actual Amendment, I would like to see the heretofore ill-defined Right to Privacy included in the Constitution. You could write it as simple as: Congress, nor the States, shall not unreasonably infringe upon a person’s right to privacy.
I’d like to see this Amendment proposed and debated for many reasons. First, although the USSC has already recognized that there exists a right to privacy, they have done using many different legal theories; from the “penumbras” of the different rights, to the right to privacy being incumbent in the right to liberty. However, with an inconsistent and ill-defined definition, it may not be a far stretch to see a conservative court decide to seriously limit this right. If it is spelled out in the Constitution, even a conservative Court would be hard pressed to limit it. Second, from a purely legal theory point of view, having this right specifically enumerated in the Constitution would clean up a really messy part of amorphous lawmaking done by the courts. Finally, the debate surrounding it’s adoption and how, if at all, the right would be limited would be the first time in probably 150 years that the United States would have a fantastically interesting discussion about human rights. Good God, hearing Tribe, Fish, and others debating it would be worth the price of admission itself.
That last point is probably a big reason it would never be adopted. The right to privacy incoporates so many hotly debated things, i/e abortion and sexual orientation, that there is no way this country could obtain a consensous. Still, it would be intriguing to watch.
Elimination of the United States Senate because it allows a population and political support base of about 6% (theoritically based on current census) to filibuster the country to a standstill and increase house terms to 4 years.
Next up is direct popular election of the President.
After that, 20 year term limits for Supreme Court justices.
Well, first off a few clarifications. Let’s spell out, as stated above what the 2nd amendment exactly means. Let’s pass something like the ERA. Eliminate the electoral college, including clauses on race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. That’s about it, really, I’m pretty happy.
As already mentioned I like the idea of clearly spelling out the “right to bear arms” bit. While I have an opinion as to which way it should go I won’t start that here. Suffice it to say that whichever side it came down on would at least get rid of the endless debate.
I also like the one about spelling out a “right to privacy”…especially now that such rights seem in more jeopardy than ever.
Beyond that I’d like to see a federal election system imposed for any race for federal office. I wouldn’t toss the Electoral College however…it isn’t as bad as it seems on the face of it.
Beyond that it’s a pretty rockin’ document…I would be afraid to mess with it too much (most of the above are just clarifications on what’s already there).
Revise the electoral college. Allow only one vote per representative district per state, and don’t tack on the extra two votes that are currently provided. The minimum number of electoral votes a state can have should be one. Further, the “winner take all” provision that 48 states currently use should be banned. Uniform election procedure should mandate that each elector gets to vote whichever way he or she sees fit, even if every other elector in the state goes another way.
Two weeks after a presidential election there should be a run-off election in which the two candidates who received the most electoral votes duke it out. Voting procedures should be standardized for the entire country.
Washington, DC should either get Congressional representation and it should vote with Maryland in national elections. Or maybe it should just be ceded to Maryland; I see no problem with placing the national capitol in a specific state. Hell, it works in Canada.
As others have said: total rewrite of the Second Amendment. It’s far too vague.
Repeal the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. Presidential term limits should be done away with.
Permit a foreign-born person to become President of the United States. This is a pointless and archaic requirement.
Reënfranchise ex-felons. If you’re in prison, your voting rights should be suspended, but once you’ve paid your debt to society, you should be allowed to vote again. No state should be allowed to deny ex-felons that right.
Yes, the Second Amendment is not only a vaguely written provision, it’s also in violation of several rules of usage. They sprinkled commas in that thing like salt on french fries.
DPWhite, I disagree with you about eliminating the Senate. Were it not for the Senate, we’d have the Ten Commandments on display in our schools and a severely restricted right to abortion. (Or, were the Democrats in control, taxes through the roof and enormous welfare rolls)Because Senators are elected by entire states, there tend to be less extremists in there than in the tumultuous House, which has plenty of extremists on both sides. Also, it’s fitting with the Federalist philosophy governing this country. A chamber that represents the interests of STATES, not the people, is consistent with the overall structure of the government. However, I do agree with 4 year terms for the House.
A new equal rights amendment, with provisions for sexual orientation along with gender, would be nice.
Make DC a state already. I think it has about the same amount of people as Wyoming. Yes, it all but guarantees 2 extra Democrats in the Senate, but so what. They’re people. They should be represented.
Determine a consistent age for every privelege the government gives you: driving, voting, serving in the armed services, consuming alcohol, being legally independent. 19 sounds good (but you could phase in the right to operate a motor vehicle from age 16 on, a lot of states already do this, with full driving rights being granted at 18)
An amendment establishing a minimum wage and tying it to inflation for the rest of time.
[li] Change all the fs back to ses.[/li]
[li] Require that dependent clauses not be separated from their antecedents by more than one other clause.[/li]
[li] Put in footnotes to the Federalist Papers and other sources that explain the reasons behind non-obvious decisions. ahem[sub]Second Amendment[/sub]ahem[/li]
[li] Explicitly state that the first 9 Amendments apply to State and local governments too.[/li]
[li] Don’t put anything in that will look silly after 200 years of inflation.[/li]
[li] Put in a “No Dumb Amendments” rule. ahem[sub]Eighteenth Amendment[/sub]ahem[/li]
[li] Scrap the mish-mash of rights non-abridgement stuff. State that all sentient beings have the same rights regardless of any discernable characteristics. (You’ll have to revoke certain rights for children and currently incarcerated felons.)[/li]
One thing I haven’t decided on is how powerful the Federal Government should be. We’ve obviously eroded the autonomy of states since the country started, but I don’t know if that’s a good idea or not. I think the Federal Government is too big and does too much, but I’d also like it if we could just toast capital punishment in one fell swoop so that Amnesty International and other countries wouldn’t think we’re a bunch of bloodthirsty Neanderthals.
Permit me to boast, for Alaskans are rightly proud of our state constitution, considered a model for others to follow. Unfortunately, y’all went & made your constitutions before us.
From the Alaska Constitution, an amendment adopted in 1972:
Not that it helps. Courts have held that Alaskans have a constitutional right to possess marijuana, for example, but pot was still criminalized by statute.
This will sound familiar, but was clarified in 1994:
Of course, one can still quibble with the definition of “keep and bear arms” – which has definite military, as opposed to individual, connotations. And the Alaska constitution originally prevented non-English speakers (i.e. Natives) from voting, which had to be amended in 1970. And some dickhead in 1998 thought it would be a good idea to put one of those “One Man, One Woman” marriage amendments in there.
Kudos to other states that have refined their constitutions. As we can see, the U.S. Constitution is much harder to amend, thus defects are more likely to linger. As for my suggestions, I would second DPWhite’s motions, though abolishing the Senate is a low priority. It may be time for a death penalty amendment, Chance. And if not D.C. statehood, then amend Article 1, Section 8, paragraph 17 to eliminate Congressional sovereignty over the district.
I’d propose that, in order to be enfranchised, one must complete some form of federal service. Whether it be in the armed services, federal work service, or even some sort of authorized community service, a person should invest some of their energy into supporting the country that defends and supports them.
I’m not talking about unpaid volunteer work.
I think that earning the right to vote would result in people cherishing it more dearly and exercising it more carefully, and probably more often. The percentage of voter turnout in 2000 (approx 51%) is too low, IMHO.
I like a lot of ideas that have been presented here. Might I suggest an overhaul of the entire bill of rights? Not a change of them, just a clarification of them.
The Founding Fathers had no clue, zip, zilch, zero, that their words would still be around two and a quarter centuries after writing it. If they knew that we wouldn’t have even one Constitutional Congress, if they knew anything about any technological change, if they knew that we would be reading the constitution word for word to figure out its meaning, things would have been written a lot differently.
Some amendments we’ve done all right on. The 4th, for instance. Some we’re still completely lost. Like, oh, say, the 7th. And don’t tell me you know how to interpret this one. You’re lying. No one knows how to interpret it. We’re all just guessing.
Anyway, spell things out a bit more. That’s all I’m asking.
