What constitutional reforms would you like to see post-Trump?

Politics & Elections
1

So as to avoid fighting the hypothetical here, let’s assume a best-case scenario for the next few years. Trump dies of natural causes or is rendered incapable of functioning, maga implodes without its charismatic leader, the 2028 election is a generational wave of 1932 proportions, Democrats capture majorities or supermajorities almost across the board, and the remaining Republican runp coalesces under a Mitt Romney type who agrees that Trump was a mistake and action needs to be taken from preventing another person like him from becoming president ever again.

In such an engironment, what Constitutional amendments would you want to see to de-Trumpize the US and prevent a future lunatic with autocratic aspirations from abusing his power?

2

I’d lower the barrier for presidential impeachment and removal from office. 67% is too high. It can be lowered to 60%. And yes, I know this could be used against a Democratic president, but I don’t foresee Republicans ever getting to a large enough Congressional majority to pull it off. 60% is at the threshold where it can only be used to depose Trump-like presidents but none others.

Secondly, repeal of Electoral College, and also amend the 26th Amendment to make it far easier for a Cabinet to rule a president as being unfit for office.

Thirdly, abolish all filibusters. Legislation must move swiftly to a yes/no vote each time.

Fourthly, all presidential-issued pardons must pass Congress by a majority vote in order to be valid.

Fifthly, cap all presidential/Congressional/gubernatorial candidates at age 65 to run for office, and put in term limits for Congress.

Sixthly, crackdown heavily on social-media speech that is factually wrong. Debate about things that are subjective (my sports team vs yours, which movie is better, pineapple on pizza being delicious or disgusting,) is totally fine, but any sort of factually wrong statements like the Moon landing being faked or Earth being flat will lead to stiff penalties.

Seventhly, much tougher crackdown on the media. This would require repeal or revision of the First Amendment. Congress has to pass laws that severely crack down on misinformation.

Eight, all gerrymandering is banned.

Ninthly, all presidential candidates would be required to possess a minimum of 10 years in public service, military service, elected office or some similar position, and pass a rigorous political-economic-history-etc. test (think something like SATs, but tougher.)

Tenthly, all voters must be capable of passing the equivalent of a US citizenship test/exam of knowledge. After all, if only US citizens can vote, and foreigners have to pass the test to become a US citizen, then it’s only fair that US citizens born in America itself should have to pass the same test that foreigners-turned-naturalized-Americans have to pass.

3

Well-regulated Elections, being necessary to the integrity of a free State, the right of all eligible citizens to vote, shall not be infringed.

4

Very little. I do not want much meddling with the Constitution

Pretty much all of these are simply a reaction to one man, who the Op stated is dead.

How about only allowing white people to run as long as these kinds of suggestions are being made. Or just Males. :roll_eyes: After all, both have been used in the past. :roll_eyes:

And I am in California- Term Limits have done crap to make things better. Same with other states.

The South tried Literacy tests remember? “Hey Bob, can you take off that hood and read Dick and Jane for us?” “Hello Mr Washington- here is a copy of James Joyce’s Ulysses. Please read a chapter for us and explain it.”

I like this one. Not really a “new” thing but clarifying what other Amendments tried to do/

5

But it’s not the same as Jim Crow literacy tests. It would be the exact test that the foreigners who are getting naturalized to be US citizens would have to pass. If they have to pass it in order to be deemed fit to be a US citizen, then I see no reason why an American born in the USA should be exempt from having to demonstrate the same capacity. After all, their votes will count equally in determining the nation’s path and future. A huge reason Trump won was because of ill-informed or low-capacity voters. Allowing only test-passing citizens to vote would make it much harder for a repeat of MAGA.

6

Those tests vary, maybe you didnt know that? They have to, otherwise new citizen applicants would know the questions and the answers. So, bigots would find some way to use that to their advantage. And how about dyslexics? Or other reading issues? This is a terrible idea- it has been tried and found to be really bad and terribly racist. And it wont stop MAGA. The test givers will just cheat. If you dont think MAGAs will find a way to cheat this, you havent been following the news.

Incidentally we had to take a version of that test in 5th grade.

7

I don’t think we need to amend the constitution, but establishing mail-in or online voting (for ALL) seems like a good idea. I’ll let smarter people work out the details.

8

Too difficult to make happen. Here’s an idea, though. The election of the electoral college should employ proportional representation. That is, they should choose both Red and Blue electors in proportion to the number of votes cast for each party in the state.

But who gets to police what is factually tight and factually wrong? Bad idea.

And who gets to police which statements are “true” ?

If this law existed, I see a situation where Trump declares the “truth” to be that he won in 2020, and arrest anyone who says different.

Bad idea. Too similar to the literacy test that used to exist in some states. It was used mostly to deny the vote to black people.

Democracy means that every adult citizen gets to vote. They don’t need to earn the right to vote, it is given automatically. Stupid or smart makes no difference.

9

For the purposes of the hypothetical we’re assuming that no amendment is “too difficult to make happen” and Democrats have carte blanche to get anything passed.

10

Dissolution.

11

Electoral College gone. Ranked choice voting for all federal elections.

I agree with Congressional approval on all presidential pardons and commutations. No blanket pardons, no pardons before conviction. My threshold for Congressional approval would be 60 percent. Also, no pardons allowed in the post-election period November to January at the end of a president’s term.

Convicted felons would be ineligible for all federal elective and appointed positions in government for a certain period post conviction. Ten years? Twenty years? Needs work.

All ‘soft’ money gone from federal elections. Whoever thought that politicians accepting unlimited money from corporations and rich donors would be healthy for a democracy? This would be heavily regulated.

Pipe dreams…

12

Electoral college gone. Direct election of all offices (including mail-in votes). Specify a non-partisan body to “call” the election - no more letting Fox News or CNN announce who the next president is. The last few elections raise the ominous specter of a bad media actor or actors (looking at you, Fox News and Bari Weiss) purposely mis-reporting the totals to allow their chosen candidate in or sow doubt about the election of an opponent.

Term limits for Supreme Court justices - say 20 years. Expand the court. Let every new president pick three new justices until we are at some predetermined number, say 21. After that, regular retirements should allow each new president to nominate at least one of his or her own picks.

Mandatory retirement age for Congress, the President and the justices. Let’s say 75 for Congress and the Court, 70 for President. If a Congressman or President turns that age during their term they can finish it, but no re-election allowed after. Justices are out at 80 regardless, since their terms would be much longer.

Gerrymandering outlawed. Election districts based strictly on population. Every 100,000 citizens gets a representative. This will increase the size of the House of Reps but that’s a good thing. Give the citizens more of a voice.

Drastically reduce the power of the Speaker of the House. It’s bullshit that he (or she) can single-handedly kill a bill by refusing to bring it to the floor or end a legislative session to avoid confronting issues the members may want to debate. The role should be more ensuring procedure is followed and less dictating what kind of business gets done.

Lower the bar for removing presidents for misconduct or unfitness for duty. Likewise lower the bar for removing Congress members who refuse to do their jobs, report for duty or enable the president to openly engage in corruption. I’m not sure how this should be done but I’m sure we can find legal experts who could draft something.

Ditto removing “soft” money from federal elections and repeat Citizens’ United.

Ratify the Equal Rights amendment; and while we’re at it, add a Civil Rights amendment codifying the provisions of the Civil Rights Act that the Supreme Court recently gutted. Include abortion rights and LBGQT rights in the language.

Finally, not sure how easy this is to do, but encourage additional parties to the two main ones.

13

Yeah, that’s worked out so well. The civics test would be easier to implement than a nationwide purge of all MAGAts, forcibly relocating them to other countries. (Granted, it also would not be as viscerally satisfying, but you can’t have everything…)

14

Well, no. But:

“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…”

Winston Churchill

15

If Winston saw what was happening in America, the situation that you can lay at the feet of the policy of giving every adult a vote, regardless how ignorant or just plain stupid they happen to be, he’d been setting fires to every polling place he could find.

16

A voting rights amendment would solve a lot of problems.

The Republicans know that they don’t have a genuine majority. What they have is a majority of whoever’s left after they prevent literal millions of voters from voting.

17

I’m iffy on this one. I agree the current membership of the Supreme Court is a problem. But I’d rather address the problem by impeachment and replacement than by expanding the court.

And I’m against this one. The government should have no role in deciding which political parties or candidates deserve to receive “encouragement”.

18

They do that already, dont they? Only a couple states are winner take all. And note- even if the Congress was 90% democrats, and the states also, the Small states aint gonna vote down the Electoral college. Delaware, Conn, etc.

Yep, some day the GOP will win back, then “katy bar the door!”! Not to mention the 1st Ad is pretty sacred.

Yep.

Sure, but that doesnt assume that all Democrats are in lock step.

Then when the GOP wins congress back, no Dem president’s pardon will be Okayed.

Discharge Petition is already there.

The Democrats are not Fascists.

Yep. Only one I like, and not really a new idea. In fact the Amendments suggest this.

Impeach Justices as we dont like their politics? No.

Yeah, as mutli-party governments- see Israel and GB- have similar issues.

90% of these “fixes” are just a reaction to the current Administration. That too, shall pass- and rather soon.

19

*Mr. Churchill’s offer not good in India.

20

No, not for their politics.

But I’d like to see an investigation of Kavanaugh’s and Thomas’ history of sexual assault. And if substantial evidence is found, I’d say that justifies impeachment.

If the Republicans want to appoint criminals to government positions, then I say we use those criminal histories against them.