The Constitution is included in any definition of “law of the land” including the one the Constitution uses:
“This Constitution, and …, shall be the supreme Law of the Land”
If you meant statutory law, then be specific and say statutory law.
Then say that they should be held responsible for failing to, yesh I don’t care. All I am saying is its impossible for the government to guarantee anything. By even passing that amendment, the government is violating it, by engaging in initial deception.
BrainGlutton shall be made Holy Maximum Overlord of the United States. (With jus primae noctis. 
)
The right of the people to party hard and get down and funky shall not be infringed.
Incest and cocaine shall be legalized, but only when indulged in simultaneously, and in public.
I’d specify that the concept of separation of Church and State is really to protect the Church from the State, not to protect the State from the Church.
Congressional districts shall be determined by an independent commission. Such districts must be reasonable given the geography and social construction of the area.*
Presidential Electors shall be apportioned by the winner of each electoral district, with the two remaining going to the overall winner of the state by majority of popular vote.
The President shall not send the armed forces abroad for more than a fortnight without the consent of Congress. Congress may not authorize the use of military force without an explict declaration of war against a definite and discrete entity, including the goals of the war.
Congress may make laws to ensure the safety and efficacy of medical treatments. Congress shall make no law impeding the access of the People to such treatments, including medically induced abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy and physician-assisted suicide by compentent persons.
The right to privacy and autonomy shall not be abridged without compelling public interest and due process of law. This includes, but is not limited to, the right of consenting adults to engage in private sexual behavior.
The government may not discriminate based on sex, gender, race, religion or lack thereof, or sexual orientation. This includes, but is not limited to, all rights and obligations related to military service.
The government may not give property taken by eminent domain to any person or persons other than the previous owners before the seizure for fifteen years after the property is taken.
Any naturalized citizen who has been a permanent resident of the United States for more than 20 years and a naturalized citizen for more than fifteen years is eligible to be elected president of the United States.
Amendment XXII is hereby repealed.
The bolded protion is better stated as “demographics”.
[Moderator Underoos On]Do not hijack this thread. Thank you.[/Moderator Underoos On]
Seems like a lot more than 3 amendments
Whoops. :smack:
Well, if Amendment I can roll six separate clauses into itself, I can group these together, somehow.
While I like these two provisions, I could not support their inclusion in the US Constitution. I believe they are state matters and are best left up to the individual states to enact.
First new Amendment: repeal the 16th Amendment and implement the Fair Tax (www.fairtax.org).
Second new Amendment: Implement a budget cap: Congress cannot submit a budget that spends more than 99% of the tax revenue collected in the previous budget cycle. The extra 1% will be applied to paying down the national debt. Once that is done, the surplus will be rebated back to the states in the form of no-string-attached block grants. Deficit spending allowed only in time of war or other national emergency.
Third new Amendment: Absolute term limits on the Congress. No one can spend more than 12 years total in the Senate and/or House.
Historically, the overall trend in government taxing and spending has been up, not down, thus indicating that the need for extra restraint is in direction of applying an extra brake on tax increases.
As for it being “irresponsible”, I assume you missed the part where the supermajority requirement would apply to borrowing as well as to tax increases (i.e. any tax cuts would need to be balanced by spending cuts unless you could get the extra votes).
I love the concept, because I despise politicians who vote for every tax cut and every spending increase and act like they’re doing us a favor.
But you have to reverse the order, because Congress never knows in advance exactly how much the government will spend in a given year. Instead, index each year’s taxes to the previous year’s spending. Once the hammer falls on the fiscal year each October 1, income tax rates are set for next April 15–whatever was spent, has to be raised. Maybe even with the extra 1% to pay down the debt.
Want to invade Iraq, or leave no child behind? Fine, but the money isn’t free–your constituents will feel the pain next April, and they’ll know whom to blame.
Except that under my first proposed amendment, there is no longer an income tax.
By indexing it to the previous periods income, it then behooves the government to act in such a way that the economy grows instead of stagnates, if the government wants to have more money to spend. And actually, by doing it this way, they will know exactly how much they have to spend. The fun then begins as they try to figure out where to allocate it.
(Sure, that’ll pass)
In order to rule an act of Congress unconstitutional, a supermajority of 6 of the 9 Supreme Court justices is required.
As of the moment of the passing of this amendment, the Departments of Agriculture, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Education are to be dissolved. Their current budget share shall be split, with half going to NASA and half towards government subsidies for private space enterprises.
Ha! 
I’m familiar with the story of Kurt Godel’s attainment of citizenship. But I’ve always wanted to know exactly what his proposed loophole was, and I’ve never found it. Liberal , did you just post it? Or if not, do you know where I can find it?
I like the idea of splitting the electoral vote by house district, but I’d like it to be uniform. If left to the states, suppose the blue states decide to split their electoral votes as described but the red states do not. The result would be that the blue party permanently forfeits every election, since the red party would get 100% of the red state electors plus a smattering of red votes from blue states. I say either we all do it or we don’t do it.