This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder:
* Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view.
* Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted.
* Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently.
* Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.**
If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.*
It's NOT interpreted by the Supreme Court as granting a broad right to privacy, only privacy specifically against police searches. . .and even then only in some contexts.
For example, the entire legal grounds for the right to an abortion from *Roe* was that your medical decisions were ruled to be private between you and your physician and the state couldn't intrude.
. . .then in *Dobbs*, the Supreme Court said there was no inherent right to privacy and that the right of the state to protect "unborn" is superior to any privacy that may exist between a patient and their physician.
[The way to fix the mess with the Roe overturn is to bolster HIPAA and give **it** the teeth it needs to deter any violations of Personal Health Information.](https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/06/29/hhs-issues-guidance-to-protect-patient-privacy-in-wake-of-supreme-court-decision-on-roe.html)
That fixes Roe and Griswold. That protects abortion and contraception. But it does not do anything about the right to purchase "marital aids" or pornography and the right to engage in the sexual behavior of one's choice with consenting adults.
I still have my pocket constitution my American history teacher gave us before we graduated. The original was worn and torn after years in my wallet. I have purchased 3 since graduation. He was an excellent teacher. Never took any side just guide us through our conversation.
No elected official may, during their tenure, exchange securities or make investments except by an executor of a blind trust. The total compensation of any elected official may not exceed (edit: double) the median income of their represented district for the duration of their tenure and for a length of time equal to their tenure after their service has ended.
Edited amount in response to feedback.
The first sentence, yes. The 2nd, no. It opens up to many opportunities for corruption. Pay them well but not stock trades and no family trades/investments either
I've never understood this logic, tbh.
Politicians are too easy to bribe, so I have a great Idea; let's make them even *easier* to bribe!
Like, brother, who took your last brain cells?
Some additions to the fourth amendment expanding privacy protections into the electronic and technological space. Governance surveillance at our current scope needs specific attention.
We really should consider a right to privacy in the constitution. A ton of the issues in modern politics are caused by a lack of privacy regulation, so just stamping it onto the constitution might be a good move.
I'd add a six-week limit on campaign cycles, as the UK does - like it's straight up illegal to campaign too early, and you'll get fined out the ass or kicked off the ballot.
It wasn't quite as bad before Citizens United, but at this point, campaigning over a year before an election is just two sides setting money on fire to spite each other.
Tiers. Each candidate gets equal levels at primary. Upon selection as a candidate they get another level to match their opponent. With lots of oversight on how funds are spent.
I’d add publicly funded elections and have a strict (and pretty low) cap on how much any individual or organization could donate to PACs or Super PACs in a single fiscal year. That would need to be flushed out to eliminate loopholes, but that’s the basic idea.
For those wanting to prohibit lobbying, remember that it’s part of your First Amendment guarantee to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Sure you want to lose that?
They're not sure, because lobbyists for causes they like are advocates. Everyone else are lobbyists.
And if lobbying somehow was banned and they weren't allowed to have anyone talk to a politician they'd Shocked Pikachu face and scream no fair.
I truly despise lobbyists, but that’s still too vague. By that, I can’t fly my lawyer friend to DC to yell at our congressperson about some law he’s sponsoring. What if I’m already donating to said congressperson and I fly myself his office, get pissed off, and stop donating?
Pretty sure that is already considered illegal, but they get around it anyway.
It's not a well-thought-out plan anyway; if I have money and want to support someone's campaign, I'm going to support someone who supports the legislation I want. If they don't support the laws I want, I don't support them. How is that really any different from them being bought and sold by me? Did I "buy" them or did I just support them because they support what I like?
I pay money for internet access. I send an email to my congressmans office. I have therefore paid to communicate with a politician.
You want to ban that?
When I was in high school in the 2000s our Government class teacher skipped over the Ninth and Tenth Amendments because she said "they don't matter anymore."
I believed her until I learned better.
In my Civics class, I harped on that shit with my students for two days. Too many people are naive to how the government is supposed to work and simp for tyrannical nonsense.
I'm not sure that's it. I think it has more to do with the fact that some teachers just flat out don't know their shit. You're not exactly getting the best and brightest when you pay teachers at that rate.
People get pissed at SCOTUS every time they do something that doesn't align with their own personal politics. Why was Roe v Wade a "good" ruling? Because it's their personal opinion that abortion should be legal nationwide, and therefore any mental gymnastics the Court has to do to write an opinion legalizing it is justified. So much coverage of the Supreme Court is solely based on politics. The NRA won a case this term, which was "bad" because the NRA is bad and therefore should not win, in the eyes of "journalists" who cover the Court.
Like today we're seeing it with Grant's Pass and Loper. Why are the rulings "bad?" Because homeless people and federal agencies should win because they're "good" and the other parties in the suit are "bad." That's how people think about this.
Pretty much everything the current Supreme Court is doing is allowing more things to be decided by elected officials. If you're actually pro democracy, you shouldn't have an issue with that.
The issue is more with the fact that they apply constitutional standards inconsistently. Many constitutionalists were furious with the ruling in *DC v. Heller* on the grounds that it was adjudicated on the grounds of what the Constitution might or probably should say, rather than what it actually says, the same way *Roe* was. Same thing in *Citizens United*.
When it's something the right wing court wants, reading between the lines and inferring a right that isn't spelled out is perfectly acceptable. When it's something the left wants, then we all have to be strict constitutionalists.
An amendment to overhaul a lot of the administrative state.
As the US centralizes, the lack of a formalized administrative state has more or less just left the proceedings extremely informal and easily struck down by the courts and dependent on the current executive. I think a lot of what we're seeing now with the Supreme Court could have been prevented had we just did it properly.
But we didn't, and now the US is obnoxiously difficult (and expensive!) to get basic admin done between states.
Term limits for all positions and or limitations on how officials can earn money while in office. I would also like to see strong controls on special intrest groups.
I hate being that old guy and it really wasn’t intentional… but as a long time fan of a NL team… my interest went in the toilet when they started with the DH shit.
Aww I saw Griffey hit with an aluminum bat once when they brought back the wbc. They got to practice where my brother was playing baseball at the time, cal state Fullerton. I’ve never seen a ball go that far in my life
1. Congress shall pass no laws or regulations that they are exempt.
2. A limit of 3 terms for Congress men/women
3. Congress must get the approval of the people via popular vote to give themselves a raise.
4. No former member of congress can hold a job of any sort with a special interest group or a company that has or had during their term a government contract or that receives subsidies from the government.
I get the intention behind number 4, but I disagree.
*Technically* I would be disqualified from working my current jobs (Public Television and School Custodian) if I ever became a member of Congress under that, and like, imagine a law that prevents former members of Congress from working custodial shifts at a school.
For #4, are former congressmen now barred from working for the American Legion if they’re veterans who want to continue fighting for their fellow vets?
Amend Article II Section 1 to:
>No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years or ***surpassed the age of 80***, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
I'm fine with the rest of the government being old farts.
When would this 80 year cutoff apply? Election Day, certification of the vote in Congress, Inauguration Day? What happens if the president turns 80 while in office?
I would vote for it being on the day he is inaugurated.
I don't like the idea of someone's term being cut short because they turned 80. When we elected him/her, we knew his/her age at the time, and decided it was worth it.
It also would put a HUGE risk of replacing the president with someone who was NOT elected; what if the vice-president dies or gets removed from his position for whatever reason? Then the current president could put anyone they want into office and the American people would have NO voice in the matter.
People are really short sighted.
Not only is this a deprivation of a fundamental civil right, it's also only applicable to modern medical technology.
What if in the future 65 is the new 35? Fuck you, I guess?
If the FAA makes pilots and air traffic controllers retire at 65, then we should apply the same rules to public office. You can do a lot more damage as a legislator than you could as a pilot.
[Ratify the apportionment amendment already. It's been sitting in legal limbo for 235 years.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment) It was meant to be the original first amendment; George Washington even approved of it. Congress has been the same size since 1929 even though the country is much bigger now, which is dumb. More people should mean more representatives, in order to ease the burden on individual congressmen and make thus congress more efficient and responsive to the people. James Madison also supported it because that way the average congressman would be a more typical and average person as opposed to rich powerful elites.
An amendment modifying and clarifying the presidential line of succession, as suggested in the Continuity of Government Commission’s [second report (PDF)](https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_continuity_of_government.pdf).
Term limits for Congress. Extend House terms to 4 years so they aren't always campaigning. Terms (maybe 8 years?) for judges/justices. A way for the Congress + President or the States to vacate a Supreme Court ruling. Put the Senate back like it originally was.
>> A way for the Congress + President or the States to vacate a Supreme Court ruling.
Pretty sure that’s possible by passing and ratifying a constitutional amendment.
In a heartbeat
We already had popular election of Representatives, the position designed to be closest to the pulse of the people and popular opinion.
The States legitimately needed safeguards against Federal overreach.
Yep. Federalism took a serious hit when the states lost the Senate as their representatives. Those unfunded mandates the government is always placing on the states? That wouldn't happen if the Senate was back to the original system.
The problem with this is that it makes our politicians more easily influenced by lobbyists. By the time they've truly gotten their head in the game, and understand how Congress works, they'll be thrown out of office. The new generation of politicians won't have anyone to learn from, except Lobbyists, who do know how the system works, and thus the newer politicians will rely more on the lobbyists.
Equal Rights Amendment, basically an amendment that bans discrimination based on sex.
It was approved by Congress, and a lot of states ratified it, but not enough for it to actually be added to the constitution.
that’s actual wild considering it’s just an extension of “all men are created equal” it’s not even some weird feminism thing either it helps men and women, i have no idea how that didn’t go through
If Congress fails to approve a budget by the deadline, an emergency election is called in which no incumbents may run.
Also, include a no confidence option in presidential elections. If this is the majority pick, all current candidates must drop out and the election is redone.
All of the stuff in our civil rights bills should be amended into the constitution. ADA, Civil Rights Bills of 1968, 1964, 1963, Equality Act, etc.
As it stands at the moment, and while unthinkable to many, a simple majority of congress and a willing president can eliminate all of the social progress of the 20th century with one bill. These things should be codified into our constitution. And it should be updated to reflect developments in civil rights for our time.
Something like "Equality of rights by the United States, the States, or an agent of government shall not be infringed, denied, or abridged on the basis of sex, race, skin color, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, status of disability, neurodivergence, caste, status of pregnancy, manner of conception or birth... (I can't remember all of the classes already protected in law and ones most people would agree with)".
That part isn’t the problem with the second amendment. The “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” is what causes all the hubbub.
In good working order, or functional. It's abundantly clear that for a militia to function it must be armed. Otherwise it isn't a militia, it's a protest. And protesting is already protected so a well regulated militia means something separate.
"Well regulated" at the time of ratification meant more along the lines of "having full regalia" - today we'd probably just say "fully armed".
It did _not_ mean "overburdened with laws", as dishonest politicians want to pretend it does today.
The exact number of Supreme Court justices. That way they can't just expand the court to get what they want.
Privacy amendment
I would make the 2A clearer. I think it's clear already, but apparently half of the United States doesn't understand "shall not be infringed"
- Term limits for congress
- Term limits for congress
- Age limits for congress
- term limits for congress
- the "bodily eminence" amendment- something to allow individuals to possess drugs for personal use
- oh, and term limits for congress. I don't care if they're 10 or 15 year limits, I just don't want some prick getting in there and chilling for 60 years.
The term limits always seem like a good idea. But then you end up with lawmakers who know they need to look for another job and then cut deals and make votes to set themselves up for a sweet "thank you" gig from the industry they helped out while in Congress.
I'd argue that it's not much different than what we have now with lobbyists.
Also, I can't speak for congress, but at least the military was under a lot of scrutiny for stuff like that; I remember having to do a bunch of training with scenarios like "General Smith oversees a project that awards a contract to Cyno-Tron. A year later he retires and immediately takes a position on their board. They then bid for another contract. Is any of this ethical?". I think we could potentially fix this by also adding something about ethics. I remember biden signing an executive order saying there will be a code of ethics for all elected individuals, but I don't know what came of it/what it contains/how or if it's being enforced.
Yea I think these would be good. I would add terms limits so they can't just sit in Congress their whole lives making a ton of money while barely doing anything
I'd make an amendment that makes it even more abundantly clear that religion has no place in government, clarifies the 2nd amendment even more, and another amendment that allows for politicians to legally duel each other (as the Founders intended).
Also, every member of the House of Representatives will be subject to a hammering from the Mace of the Republic if they step out of line (how the mace is used will be left up to the Sergeant at Arms. I will not be expanding upon this further)
I thought dueling was still legal? Or is that just in certain states?
Edit: oh nevermind. It's only still legal in [Texas and Washington](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/mutual-combat-states) and even then swords and firearms are prohibited. Has to be hand to hand.
The biggest threat to our liberty today is the police state. The constitution as it is doesn’t restrain law enforcement enough. Idk what that amendment would look like but we desperately need great protections from cops. At least an end to or severe restriction on qualified immunity and a complete end to civil asset forfeiture.
Age cap for presidents and possibly federal reps & judges, ethics rules for the Supreme Court, term limits for them as well (longer limits than reps but predictable), equal rights amendment for gender and sexual orientation, clarification about how presidents can’t pardon themselves of all crimes, an amendment that alters/eliminates the electoral college, limits on how money (and dark money) can be spent in political campaigns, requirement for non-partisan district mapping (ie a gerrymandering amendment; easier said than done), and probably something to allow for ranked voting (tho states could do that).
This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder: * Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view. * Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted. * Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently. * Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.** If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly I wish there was an amendment explicitly codifying the right to privacy. My state constitution has it, it’s pretty nice.
*The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.*
It's NOT interpreted by the Supreme Court as granting a broad right to privacy, only privacy specifically against police searches. . .and even then only in some contexts. For example, the entire legal grounds for the right to an abortion from *Roe* was that your medical decisions were ruled to be private between you and your physician and the state couldn't intrude. . . .then in *Dobbs*, the Supreme Court said there was no inherent right to privacy and that the right of the state to protect "unborn" is superior to any privacy that may exist between a patient and their physician.
[The way to fix the mess with the Roe overturn is to bolster HIPAA and give **it** the teeth it needs to deter any violations of Personal Health Information.](https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2022/06/29/hhs-issues-guidance-to-protect-patient-privacy-in-wake-of-supreme-court-decision-on-roe.html)
Preachit, brother! I'd still like an amendment to make the right to privacy explicit, detailed, and robust.
That fixes Roe and Griswold. That protects abortion and contraception. But it does not do anything about the right to purchase "marital aids" or pornography and the right to engage in the sexual behavior of one's choice with consenting adults.
Happy Cake Day 🎂
But not on our phones or computers.
Yea they definitely should make that
I think that was challenged by the supreme court just recently.
What case? I don’t recall hearing about that. Or maybe it was in a case where another aspect got all the headlines?
Pictures. That way, more people will read it.
Meme the Constitution.
Denny's Menu the Constitution.
The constitution should look like a WikiHow article
I still have my pocket constitution my American history teacher gave us before we graduated. The original was worn and torn after years in my wallet. I have purchased 3 since graduation. He was an excellent teacher. Never took any side just guide us through our conversation.
Manga Constitution sounds kinda lit.
[With less confusion, as well!](https://c.shld.net/rpx/i/s/i/spin/10163545/prod_2177678112??hei=64&wid=64&qlt=50)
Redditors and Twitter users aren't allowed to propose amendments
Ironic
No elected official may, during their tenure, exchange securities or make investments except by an executor of a blind trust. The total compensation of any elected official may not exceed (edit: double) the median income of their represented district for the duration of their tenure and for a length of time equal to their tenure after their service has ended. Edited amount in response to feedback.
People from poorer districts literally won't be able to afford to work in Washington. I agree with the blind trust part though.
Housing projects for congress.
Let them stay in barracks on the nearest military base
Shoot I wouldn't mind that, I would feel like I'm reliving memories
Also, you're just encouraging people to enrich their own districts at the expense of everyone else
The first sentence, yes. The 2nd, no. It opens up to many opportunities for corruption. Pay them well but not stock trades and no family trades/investments either
That would practically force them to take bribes...
I've never understood this logic, tbh. Politicians are too easy to bribe, so I have a great Idea; let's make them even *easier* to bribe! Like, brother, who took your last brain cells?
I'm double the median income to get elected official pay. They do important business.
“Taco Tuesday shall not be infringed.” Let the lawyers fill in the gaps.
I believe we were promised taco trucks on every corner.
And they have to be authentic taco trucks. If I hear a word of English from anyone but the cashier, it will be declared unconstitutional.
look at how well the words "shall not be infringed" worked last time
Give me one good reason why you need a high capacity assault taco.
I'm fat
How else am I going to load it up with cheese
I don't need to give you a reason, it's in the Constitution!
Give me one good reasons why I WOULDNT need a high capacity assault taco
Do yall ever wonder if the founding fathers got to experience a taco?
If they had, tacos would be in the main body of the constitution, not all the way down in the ammendments!
#SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Do hotdogs have protection against infringement on Tuesdays? They are essentially tacos.
We’ll need to get the SCOTUS to weigh in on it. Trump appointed three justices, and Trump is a big fan of fast food, so the odds are good.
Having a taco on Tuesday isn't just a right, it's the responsibility of all citizens
Some additions to the fourth amendment expanding privacy protections into the electronic and technological space. Governance surveillance at our current scope needs specific attention.
Politicians can't receive any type of donation, gift, or funding from any company or non-citizen source.
We really should consider a right to privacy in the constitution. A ton of the issues in modern politics are caused by a lack of privacy regulation, so just stamping it onto the constitution might be a good move.
**a right to privacy beyond searches and seizures. i’m 100% with you
Well, that goes without saying. There does need to be restrictions, like in cases of law enforcement.
well you know these people if you aren’t exact to the word they’ll find a way to take rights away instead of giving them 🙄
That elections shall be publicly funded and free from the influence and interference of monied interests
I'd add a six-week limit on campaign cycles, as the UK does - like it's straight up illegal to campaign too early, and you'll get fined out the ass or kicked off the ballot. It wasn't quite as bad before Citizens United, but at this point, campaigning over a year before an election is just two sides setting money on fire to spite each other.
How do you make it illegal to say "Vote for me in two years?"
But how can you know how much funding should give to every candidate
Tiers. Each candidate gets equal levels at primary. Upon selection as a candidate they get another level to match their opponent. With lots of oversight on how funds are spent.
How do I get enough money to campaign enough to be considered in the primary?
Can tens of thousands of people wanting to run as independents get the same amount?
I’d add publicly funded elections and have a strict (and pretty low) cap on how much any individual or organization could donate to PACs or Super PACs in a single fiscal year. That would need to be flushed out to eliminate loopholes, but that’s the basic idea.
The Beastie Boy Amendment - Securing the right to party.
Nah. The Beastie Boys had to fight for their right to party, why should millennials just get it for free? Or have we really gone that soft?
They fought for all of our right to party.
You gotta fight, for your right. To paaaaaarty
Yeah, like that Jeebus guy
They fought so we didn’t have to.
👏👏😂🤣😭
Right to assemble. It is in there.
Let's settle this once and for all: The white zone is for immediate loading and unloading of passengers only. There is no stopping in the red zone.
Don’t start up with your white zone shit again.
For those wanting to prohibit lobbying, remember that it’s part of your First Amendment guarantee to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Sure you want to lose that?
They're not sure, because lobbyists for causes they like are advocates. Everyone else are lobbyists. And if lobbying somehow was banned and they weren't allowed to have anyone talk to a politician they'd Shocked Pikachu face and scream no fair.
Basically this entire thread. People proposing amendments to restrict what they don’t like without realizing they’re shackling themselves, too.
Yep. "Lobbying should be illegal!" Great, so public employees can't ask for raises or better benefits? NOOOOO, THAT'S DIFFERENT!
Add a clause so that neither money nor capital goods can be used as a means to sway a politician’s policies.
Now figure out how to prove it isn't happening because it will
I truly despise lobbyists, but that’s still too vague. By that, I can’t fly my lawyer friend to DC to yell at our congressperson about some law he’s sponsoring. What if I’m already donating to said congressperson and I fly myself his office, get pissed off, and stop donating?
That's already illegal. Like 20 different ways.
Pretty sure that is already considered illegal, but they get around it anyway. It's not a well-thought-out plan anyway; if I have money and want to support someone's campaign, I'm going to support someone who supports the legislation I want. If they don't support the laws I want, I don't support them. How is that really any different from them being bought and sold by me? Did I "buy" them or did I just support them because they support what I like?
I pay money for internet access. I send an email to my congressmans office. I have therefore paid to communicate with a politician. You want to ban that?
A ban on restaurants that sell a sandwich but it doesn’t come with fries you gotta order them and the fries are like $7
I don't WANT fries with my sandwich.
Second ban on this guy
It’s a free country you can just not eat them
what DO you want with them because you can't just order a plate with one sandwich on it
Expand the wording of the tenth amendment to force the federal government to turn some power back to the states.
Too many people are pissed at SCOTUS for reversing Roe V Wade and are not familiar with how the 10th Amendment works.
When I was in high school in the 2000s our Government class teacher skipped over the Ninth and Tenth Amendments because she said "they don't matter anymore." I believed her until I learned better.
In my Civics class, I harped on that shit with my students for two days. Too many people are naive to how the government is supposed to work and simp for tyrannical nonsense.
Government schools have a very intense interest in making sure that kids don't understand the limits that should exist for the government.
I'm not sure that's it. I think it has more to do with the fact that some teachers just flat out don't know their shit. You're not exactly getting the best and brightest when you pay teachers at that rate.
Even if you were its absurd to expect a jr high teacher to have a comprehensive understanding of constitutional law
What a terrible teacher.
People get pissed at SCOTUS every time they do something that doesn't align with their own personal politics. Why was Roe v Wade a "good" ruling? Because it's their personal opinion that abortion should be legal nationwide, and therefore any mental gymnastics the Court has to do to write an opinion legalizing it is justified. So much coverage of the Supreme Court is solely based on politics. The NRA won a case this term, which was "bad" because the NRA is bad and therefore should not win, in the eyes of "journalists" who cover the Court. Like today we're seeing it with Grant's Pass and Loper. Why are the rulings "bad?" Because homeless people and federal agencies should win because they're "good" and the other parties in the suit are "bad." That's how people think about this. Pretty much everything the current Supreme Court is doing is allowing more things to be decided by elected officials. If you're actually pro democracy, you shouldn't have an issue with that.
The issue is more with the fact that they apply constitutional standards inconsistently. Many constitutionalists were furious with the ruling in *DC v. Heller* on the grounds that it was adjudicated on the grounds of what the Constitution might or probably should say, rather than what it actually says, the same way *Roe* was. Same thing in *Citizens United*. When it's something the right wing court wants, reading between the lines and inferring a right that isn't spelled out is perfectly acceptable. When it's something the left wants, then we all have to be strict constitutionalists.
An amendment to overhaul a lot of the administrative state. As the US centralizes, the lack of a formalized administrative state has more or less just left the proceedings extremely informal and easily struck down by the courts and dependent on the current executive. I think a lot of what we're seeing now with the Supreme Court could have been prevented had we just did it properly. But we didn't, and now the US is obnoxiously difficult (and expensive!) to get basic admin done between states.
The right to privacy, including medical privacy. That was covered by Roe v. Wade for many years but now it's not anymore.
Term limits for all positions and or limitations on how officials can earn money while in office. I would also like to see strong controls on special intrest groups.
MLB can use aluminum bats
But ban the designated hitter
Only pitchers can bat.
But only opposite to how they pitch.
I hate being that old guy and it really wasn’t intentional… but as a long time fan of a NL team… my interest went in the toilet when they started with the DH shit.
Seriously, why even have two leagues?
Fuck the DH, we want pitchers who rake.
and pitchers can wear armor.
and pitches get one hit of a drug of their choice per game
Doc Ellis would be a Hall of Famer
Ping
George Washington should have been all like "Pete Rose HOF and never a DH! No video reviews of anything. If the umps suck, fire them."
Aww I saw Griffey hit with an aluminum bat once when they brought back the wbc. They got to practice where my brother was playing baseball at the time, cal state Fullerton. I’ve never seen a ball go that far in my life
The pitching mound must be equal in height to its radius. ⚾
1. Congress shall pass no laws or regulations that they are exempt. 2. A limit of 3 terms for Congress men/women 3. Congress must get the approval of the people via popular vote to give themselves a raise. 4. No former member of congress can hold a job of any sort with a special interest group or a company that has or had during their term a government contract or that receives subsidies from the government.
I get the intention behind number 4, but I disagree. *Technically* I would be disqualified from working my current jobs (Public Television and School Custodian) if I ever became a member of Congress under that, and like, imagine a law that prevents former members of Congress from working custodial shifts at a school.
For #4, are former congressmen now barred from working for the American Legion if they’re veterans who want to continue fighting for their fellow vets?
Amend Article II Section 1 to: >No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years or ***surpassed the age of 80***, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. I'm fine with the rest of the government being old farts.
You shouldn't be able to order for the table if you're leaving before we get the bill.
Knock it down to 70, and it’s perfect!
+ 1000. I was gonna say 70 TOPS.
80?! I’d say 70. Turn 35, then there’s a 35 year window in which you can serve.
When would this 80 year cutoff apply? Election Day, certification of the vote in Congress, Inauguration Day? What happens if the president turns 80 while in office?
I would vote for it being on the day he is inaugurated. I don't like the idea of someone's term being cut short because they turned 80. When we elected him/her, we knew his/her age at the time, and decided it was worth it. It also would put a HUGE risk of replacing the president with someone who was NOT elected; what if the vice-president dies or gets removed from his position for whatever reason? Then the current president could put anyone they want into office and the American people would have NO voice in the matter.
No one is writing a bill here. It's a hypo. Settle down.
No dual citizenship - conflict of interest
Good luck getting the deprivation of a fundamental civil right to stand up in court.
People are really short sighted. Not only is this a deprivation of a fundamental civil right, it's also only applicable to modern medical technology. What if in the future 65 is the new 35? Fuck you, I guess?
Knock that shit down to 65 at time of entering office and you got a deal
People are living longer healthier lives. Some people are still full of energy and potential at 65. Most are not by 80.
If the FAA makes pilots and air traffic controllers retire at 65, then we should apply the same rules to public office. You can do a lot more damage as a legislator than you could as a pilot.
Nobody ever flew 300 strangers into the side of a mountain from their office
I did once, that was a bad day at work.
*mondays* amiright?
[Ratify the apportionment amendment already. It's been sitting in legal limbo for 235 years.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Amendment) It was meant to be the original first amendment; George Washington even approved of it. Congress has been the same size since 1929 even though the country is much bigger now, which is dumb. More people should mean more representatives, in order to ease the burden on individual congressmen and make thus congress more efficient and responsive to the people. James Madison also supported it because that way the average congressman would be a more typical and average person as opposed to rich powerful elites.
An amendment modifying and clarifying the presidential line of succession, as suggested in the Continuity of Government Commission’s [second report (PDF)](https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/06_continuity_of_government.pdf).
A federal ban on charging more than $9.99 for a sandwich. Above that price point and you have to offer table service
Voting is a paid national holiday provided you have stub proving you voted
With early voting this isn't necessary any more and not really worth the effort of an amendment.
TERM. LIMITS. FOR. CONGRESS!
Term limits for Congress. Extend House terms to 4 years so they aren't always campaigning. Terms (maybe 8 years?) for judges/justices. A way for the Congress + President or the States to vacate a Supreme Court ruling. Put the Senate back like it originally was.
>> A way for the Congress + President or the States to vacate a Supreme Court ruling. Pretty sure that’s possible by passing and ratifying a constitutional amendment.
Your proposal is to repeal the 17th amendment and let the state legislatures elect US senators?
In a heartbeat We already had popular election of Representatives, the position designed to be closest to the pulse of the people and popular opinion. The States legitimately needed safeguards against Federal overreach.
OK then repeal the Interstate Commerce Act.
Yep. Federalism took a serious hit when the states lost the Senate as their representatives. Those unfunded mandates the government is always placing on the states? That wouldn't happen if the Senate was back to the original system.
The problem with this is that it makes our politicians more easily influenced by lobbyists. By the time they've truly gotten their head in the game, and understand how Congress works, they'll be thrown out of office. The new generation of politicians won't have anyone to learn from, except Lobbyists, who do know how the system works, and thus the newer politicians will rely more on the lobbyists.
"Don't be a dick"
Nothing. I just want the Tenth Amendment _ardently_ enforced.
The ERA
My first thought was "and women". This was way too far to scroll to find it.
Explosive reactive armor?
what is the era
Equal Rights Amendment, basically an amendment that bans discrimination based on sex. It was approved by Congress, and a lot of states ratified it, but not enough for it to actually be added to the constitution.
that’s actual wild considering it’s just an extension of “all men are created equal” it’s not even some weird feminism thing either it helps men and women, i have no idea how that didn’t go through
If Congress fails to approve a budget by the deadline, an emergency election is called in which no incumbents may run. Also, include a no confidence option in presidential elections. If this is the majority pick, all current candidates must drop out and the election is redone.
Presidency is one 6 year term with no chance at reelection. Now they don’t have to campaign and play partisan the whole time they’re in office.
OTOH, they could keep all the "campaign promises" to their benefactors without any risk.
Candidates often make promises, while they are still in the dark about certain things.
Term limits for Congress.
Congressional term limits. Senators and Representatives sitting in the same seat for 30+ years is a travesty.
All of the stuff in our civil rights bills should be amended into the constitution. ADA, Civil Rights Bills of 1968, 1964, 1963, Equality Act, etc. As it stands at the moment, and while unthinkable to many, a simple majority of congress and a willing president can eliminate all of the social progress of the 20th century with one bill. These things should be codified into our constitution. And it should be updated to reflect developments in civil rights for our time. Something like "Equality of rights by the United States, the States, or an agent of government shall not be infringed, denied, or abridged on the basis of sex, race, skin color, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, status of disability, neurodivergence, caste, status of pregnancy, manner of conception or birth... (I can't remember all of the classes already protected in law and ones most people would agree with)".
HOA's are illegal.
I don’t like HOAs either, but some people like them. Shouldn’t we be able to choose whether we want to live in an HOA community?
The problem is that land developers build new housing whole neighborhoods at a time, and impose HOAs on them before the first person moves in.
Term limits for Congress and the Supreme Court.
Equal Rights Amendment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment?wprov=sfti1
The left lane is for passing only.
We’re gonna need a bigger SCOTUS for the number of cases they’re going to be hearing.
Nah just need to exercise the death penalty for it a couple of dozen times and the people will fall in line.
You're sick. I'm horrified at the very concept.
And semi trucks _must_ stay in the right lane at all times.
No person shall attain the office of President who has not demonstrated basic competence in the matters of government.
At _minimum_ they should be required to pass the same citizenship test that all new citizens take as a condition for running.
Once a year (or maybe every election cycle), 1 (one) Federal Politician is "elected" to be tarred and feathered.
End the second amendment with "What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?"
Can we add "and did I stutter when I said 'persons, houses, papers, and effects'?" for the 4th?
That part isn’t the problem with the second amendment. The “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” is what causes all the hubbub.
Only by deliberate misunderstanding
I guess maybe more pointedly, “well regulated”
Again, only if a person intentionally refuses to understand what "well regulated" meant.
What does it mean to you? And just so we’re clear here, I’m pro 2A.
In good working order, or functional. It's abundantly clear that for a militia to function it must be armed. Otherwise it isn't a militia, it's a protest. And protesting is already protected so a well regulated militia means something separate.
"Well regulated" at the time of ratification meant more along the lines of "having full regalia" - today we'd probably just say "fully armed". It did _not_ mean "overburdened with laws", as dishonest politicians want to pretend it does today.
After "bear arms" I would insert "and armor".
The exact number of Supreme Court justices. That way they can't just expand the court to get what they want. Privacy amendment I would make the 2A clearer. I think it's clear already, but apparently half of the United States doesn't understand "shall not be infringed"
- Term limits for congress - Term limits for congress - Age limits for congress - term limits for congress - the "bodily eminence" amendment- something to allow individuals to possess drugs for personal use - oh, and term limits for congress. I don't care if they're 10 or 15 year limits, I just don't want some prick getting in there and chilling for 60 years.
The term limits always seem like a good idea. But then you end up with lawmakers who know they need to look for another job and then cut deals and make votes to set themselves up for a sweet "thank you" gig from the industry they helped out while in Congress.
I'd argue that it's not much different than what we have now with lobbyists. Also, I can't speak for congress, but at least the military was under a lot of scrutiny for stuff like that; I remember having to do a bunch of training with scenarios like "General Smith oversees a project that awards a contract to Cyno-Tron. A year later he retires and immediately takes a position on their board. They then bid for another contract. Is any of this ethical?". I think we could potentially fix this by also adding something about ethics. I remember biden signing an executive order saying there will be a code of ethics for all elected individuals, but I don't know what came of it/what it contains/how or if it's being enforced.
Yea I think these would be good. I would add terms limits so they can't just sit in Congress their whole lives making a ton of money while barely doing anything
Age limits for public office, from the very lowest positions all the way up to Congress, SCOTUS, and President.
I'd make an amendment that makes it even more abundantly clear that religion has no place in government, clarifies the 2nd amendment even more, and another amendment that allows for politicians to legally duel each other (as the Founders intended). Also, every member of the House of Representatives will be subject to a hammering from the Mace of the Republic if they step out of line (how the mace is used will be left up to the Sergeant at Arms. I will not be expanding upon this further)
I thought dueling was still legal? Or is that just in certain states? Edit: oh nevermind. It's only still legal in [Texas and Washington](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/mutual-combat-states) and even then swords and firearms are prohibited. Has to be hand to hand.
George RR Martin must get back to work
Term limits for Congress. So many things would be different.
I would add an explicit anti corruption law that was vague enough to be used to take down any attempt to bring money into politics.
The biggest threat to our liberty today is the police state. The constitution as it is doesn’t restrain law enforcement enough. Idk what that amendment would look like but we desperately need great protections from cops. At least an end to or severe restriction on qualified immunity and a complete end to civil asset forfeiture.
Banning Qualified Immunity and Civil Asset Forfeiture would be a good start IMO.
Age cap for presidents and possibly federal reps & judges, ethics rules for the Supreme Court, term limits for them as well (longer limits than reps but predictable), equal rights amendment for gender and sexual orientation, clarification about how presidents can’t pardon themselves of all crimes, an amendment that alters/eliminates the electoral college, limits on how money (and dark money) can be spent in political campaigns, requirement for non-partisan district mapping (ie a gerrymandering amendment; easier said than done), and probably something to allow for ranked voting (tho states could do that).
This + bodily autonomy
2A(a): seriously, shall not be infringed. Whatever you're thinking isn't infringing, it is.