What do you think that the next constitutional amendment will be?
When do you think it will happen?
It seems like these days, with the partisanship influencing everything, it would be pretty hard to accomplish.
Any thoughts?
If I had to wager, I would say it will be congressional representation for DC.
I don’t think there are any amendments that would pass. The requirements are so strict and the current environment so partisan and fragmented that even a discount ice cream for kids with terminal illnesses amendment would wouldn’t stand a chance.
However, the most likely of the candidates among the hopelessly unlikely would be an amendment changing or clarifying the definition of a citizen.
I don’t think D.C. should have Congressional representation BTW and lots of other people don’t either. Republican states could easily shoot that horse before it got out of the gate. Maybe you could shrink D.C. to be just the federal district and split the rest with Virginia and Maryland.
I’ll take that bet. It failed miserably in 2009.
Depending on how SCOTUS rules, we may get a movement from the states to petition Congress under Article V to define “interstate commerce”. Congress then proposes its own version of the amendment to prevent a Constitutional Convention. This was a the way the 17th Amendment got ratified.
Other than that, I don’t see anything out there that would get ratified. TeaBaggers may push for a Balanced Budget Amendment but no way 2/3 of each House approves it.
It may be time for the electoral college to evolve. Each presidential election cycle there’s grumbling from one side or the other about apportionment of all a state’s electors going to one party based on the thinnest of margins of victory. Also states with about 6 people in them are really over-represented in presidential elections.
I don’t really think it’ll happen, though.
In thirty years, I expect a civil-rights amendment that includes sexual orientation to pass, but it’ll take a lot of oldsters to die off first.
If I had to guess? Something affirming that we’re really, **really **free to bear lots and lots and LOTS of arms. Just in case it wasn’t already clear.
I’m really hoping for that. Our current set of laws is not doing a good job of dealing with megacorporations and the influence of advertising on elections. An amendment might be the best way of dealing with it. Unfortunately I suspect any move to constitutionally define ‘person’ could get hopelessly mired in the abortion debate.
I agree that any ammendment is unlikely in the foreseeable future, but an ammendment to deny citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants would have a formidable amount of support. Possibly, it might also specify what a “natural born” citizen is, most likely by defining it as synonymous with “citizen by birth”, to finally put an end to arguments about whether Barak Obama or John McCain or whoever qualifies for the presidency.
I can see a good chance for a “Privacy” Amendment, protecting us against various threats (some of which are absurd or imaginary… I know people who consider the supermarket’s tracking of your purchases to be an intolerable intrusion!)
I can also see the whole matter wrecking on the reefs because it would support abortion rights. Congress would phrase it so delicately as to exclude abortion protection…and that would kill it in enough states to prevent ratification.
Anyway, that’s what my magic 8 ball says…
(It also predicts the San Diego Chargers for the Super Bowl in 2013.)
My guesses:
1.Overturning Citizens United
2.Immigrants may become POTUS
This seems to me the most likely candidate. Congresspeople hate fundraising almost as much as they hate losing their jobs. Almost. Every one of them now lives in fear of losing their jobs when a SuperPAC dumps a shitload of last-minute money into their local campaigns. If they live in a “contested” district, they’re worried it’ll happen in the general election; if they live in a “safe” district, they’re worried it’ll happen in a primary. And besides, they hate fundraising because it makes them feel like they’re corrupt politicians who are selling their votes to special interest groups, and let’s face it, that’s what they are. There’s a reason that McCain-Feingold was significantly bipartisan; the idea of getting back to governing instead of fundraising is popular among Congresspeople.
Still, in today’s polarized environment, I don’t think it could pass. Any bill proposed would necessarily wind up tied slightly to one party (I’m guessing it would get labeled a Democratic bill, and any Republican who supports it a RINO, but who knows?), which would cascade into a wildly partisan fight, and no one would win, except lobbyists.
I don’t think Washington DC will have Congressional representation as long as it is perceived to be a “black” city. There are just too many bigots who secretly think it is funny to deny them the right to vote.
I think an amendment allowing naturalized citizens to be elected president could be successful…but only if there are plausible candidates on both sides who could be seen as benefiting. Without any, there’s no sense of immediacy, so nobody really cares; with only one candidate, it becomes a thinly-veiled movement to draft that candidate.
Sadly, I think it could easily be a flag desecration amendment. The fervor has died down over the past few years, but it came dangerously close to escaping Congress just 6 years ago. If not that, then I think it could be some other stupid moral panic, like protecting “In God we trust” as the national motto or something.
Modern media makes passage of another Amendment nearly impossible. It’s too easy to create a media campaign against the amendment.
ERA is a very good example. They spent over a decade battling state by state. They just couldn’t get it passed.
Today we have social networking and 24 hour media. I can’t imagine getting any amendment passed in todays world. The same gridlock that has crippled our Congress would effect a vote on amendments in the state ballots.
You just can’t get enough people to agree on anything. Everybody has their own precious plan on how to accomplish something.
I agree. Mainly because its a simple yes/no issue. There wouldn’t be 10 different ways of trying to do it for people to argue over.
Thats one that shouldn’t be hard to pass.
Allowing naturalized citizens to run for Congress or President is another one. Maybe with a time frame? 10 years after getting citizenship you could run for those offices.
Arnold for Prez. 
Is there any agitation for an amendment these days? If so, for what?
The next amendment to be passed will grant machine intelligences equal rights to humans. I for one welcome our silicon based masters.
Lord Feldon-The amendment limiting the Prez to 2 terms passed by a GOP Congress shortly after FDR’s death. Clearly in response to him.
Aceplace-Immingrants ARE allowed to run for Congress. (a midwestern state has a Canadian rep)
I think it is important to note that it is an open question as to whether voting rights for DC even requires an amendment to the constitution. The American Bar Association and legal scholars including Ken Starr (yes, of Clinton report fame) have argued that Congress already has the power to give DC representatives in Congress.
Supporters of this approach have also argued that the framers of the Constitution never intended to disenfranshise the residents of DC and there is strong evidence that this is the case
On the issue of voting rights for DC, there is a lot of accepted wisdom that is not based on fact, but has built up over the years. I think when people are arguing for such a radical approach as to disenfranchise Ameican citizens, the burden should be on them to prove that a) this was the intent of the framers of the Consitution; and b) there is a compelling reason to do so.
Other sources:
http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/constitutional_dcvra_one-pager.pdf
Actually, no one is sure what a “Natural Born Citizen” is. Arnold may well be one. I mean, was there anything supernatural about his birth?