Despondency over the fact that the government is run by money could lead to an amendment.
Aside from that probably some kind of privacy law. With the internet and smart phones people have no privacy anymore.
My guess is Line Item Veto authority for the President. Congress already passed this as a law, but it was ruled unconstitutional, so it would require an amendment.
With any luck, there will be two:
-
Repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments, and implement the Fair Tax.
-
Impose a balanced budget. Congress cannot budget spending greater than 99% of the revenues received in the preceding fiscal year.
It would not surprise me to see a push for DNA/genome privacy. Whether this could be accomplished by statute (adding it to “search and seizure”) or would require a separate amendment is a matter I leave for those better versed in the Constitutional process than I — i.e., damn near everybody.
(Note that I said “a push for;” like many others, I think it would take a sea change in the political landscape* to achieve the bipartisan support an amendment would require.)
*Metaphors mixed to order.
Congressional representation for DC actually has a *number *of different debates going on about how to try to do it.
Nonsense. Obama is a natural born citizen if anyone is, but that doesn’t stop the birthers. McCain is a different matter.
Here is a possible scenario that probably would lead to an amendment to get rid of the electoral college and institute a majority vote for president. If no one gets a majority, then the top three vote-getters go into the house where each state has one vote. In 1948, HST had a one vote majority in the electoral college and Strom Thurmond had 39 votes (Dewey got the rest). Had there been one more state go Dixiecrat, the election would have gone to the house and never been resolved. Then Alben Barkley would have become president (he became VP and eventually commissioner of baseball at which he did a lousy job). Had that happened, I think the electoral college would have become a historical footnote. If it ever happens, it will lead to an amendment toot sweet.
No, that was Happy Chandler. Also, Truman’s majority was 37 votes (303 x 531), not one.
I do think the election process will be revised if a future election ever goes to the House, whether the House resolves it or not. But, I don’t think that will happen any time soon. Or even not so soon.
My predictions for what’s likely (not necessarily things I support)
- Direct election of the President and Vice President. No more Electoral College.
- A prohibition or heavy restriction on deficit spending.
- A restriction on tax legislation.
- Repealing jus soli citizenship.
Officially declare American military veterans AWESOME!
- Ain’t gonna happen. Look, the Electoral College gives smaller states a small edge. Why should they vote to reduce their own power? Yeah, sure maybe a couple in the middle will, but it takes 30 states to pass one. Mind you, it is the most logical.
2,3,4 - aint gonna happen either due to the deadlock in Congress.
It would have to be something popular on the state level and with bi-partisan opposition at the federal level for the foreseeable future. There’s no way the two-party system can join forces in Washington to get an amendment, it would have to be done by the states. I don’t recall all the rules, but I think it needs to be proposed by the congress in the first place, which might work if only a simple majority is required. It would likely be something pointlessly, and ineffectively limiting federal power.
We can talk about the “states” but states don’t actually vote, people do. So all a direct election amendment would require would be for people to feel some other interest outweighs their state loyalty. And I have little difficulty in seeing that happen. People may talk about states rights a lot, but there’s relatively little evidence that people really mean it. Most voters routinely put some national or ideological interest ahead their state.
In my opinion, all it would take would be a close presidential election where the Republican candidate won the general election but the Democratic candidate won the Electoral College and was elected. The Democrats have already faced this in 2000. So having the reverse happen would unite both parties in feeling they had been “cheated” by the existence of the Electoral College.
As for these, I’m thinking they’re the kind of amendments that are easy sells. No deficits, no tax increases, and no anchor babies are the kind of simple slogans that sound good. Explaining why they’re bad ideas takes nuance. And demagoguery often outshouts nuance.
A national ID for voting…although the repercussions are frightening.
The deficits ammendment is probably the one we most desperately need. With a multi-trillion dollar deficit that’s still growing, we’re probably only a few years away from our own version of the Greek debt crisis. A sensible ammendment might say that Congress cannot authorize deficit spending unless some supermajority declares that a compelling need to do so exists. And the declaration must describe what exactly that emergency is.
Good idea. That will certainly hasten our own version of the Greek debt crisis.
The OP didn’t say the next amendment would happen any time soon.
I agree that it’s more likely that #1 happens through the current project to get states with 270 electoral votes to change their own laws so that whoever wins the national popular vote is guaranteed to be elected President (which has the added “advantage” of not needing at least 3 of the 15 smallest states to ratify it) than through a Constitutional amendment.
I also think #4 might happen, along the lines of guaranteeing citizenship to:
(a) All citizens as of the time the new amendment is ratified;
(b) All persons born to two parents who are citizens at the time;
(c) All persons born in the USA with one parent who is a citizen at the time (or whose father was a citizen when he died, if it is before the person’s birth);
and possibly (d) All persons, both of whose parents are citizens (i.e. if a couple become naturalized citizens, then so do their descendants)
They could also throw in a clause where no one can be stripped of citizenship involuntarily.
I think that eventually “DC gets a voting House of Representatives member” will be the next one (yes, there was a previous amendment proposed that made it to the states, but that included two DC Senators; removing that provision might make it easier). (Why, yes, I do think there will be a day when the Democrats will have 290 House and 67 Senate members - of course, when that happens, chances are the first amendment proposal to make it out of Congress will be a guarantee of health care for all citizens.)
I find resistance to this idea strange and another example of playing on peoples fears
I have 2 national ID cards already and everyone has at least one
1 Social Security Card
2 US Passport
What would the cost of providing a national proof of identity to every citizen be? If it’s required for voting, then the government can’t charge for it; that would be a poll tax.