So, if you could make one ammendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, what would that Ammedment do or say?

I'd repeal the Sixteenth Amendment:


If I get another one, I'd like to pass the Bricker Amendment:


And I'd like to modernize the wording of the whole Constitution and tighten up the language to make it hard to misinterpret, but that'd take a lot more than just an amendment or two.

I would make an amendment that dramatically reduced the number of people each congress person represents (in the house, that is) and in my amendment as a rider, I would not oppose the addition by my esteemed colleague from North Carolina who adds language that creates standards for the districting of house seats.

The former would give more power to individuals to have influence over the votes of their individual representative. It would provide an opoortunity for more unique voices and lesser parties to get seats in the house.

The latter provision would be to makes districts that were generally balanced. Districts should most resemblle circles or squares and any squirrely deviations would have to have a solid reason. The intent would be to reduce the ability to have state legislatures rig the districts to give the most advantage to the party in control of that body. It also would get rid of districting to guarantee a specific type of candidate (minority, ethnic what have you)

Just one? Well, sorry, but I have a few ideas for Amendments. First, put the woman's right to choose in writing and add it to the Constitution. Second, repeal the 17th Amendment and return the election of Senators to state legislatures to better represent the rights of states in Washington. Third, eliminate the electoral college and elect Presidents by the popular vote. Fourth, establish a national healthcare system that gives FREE healthcare to ALL citizens. That's about it for now, I may think of some more later...

Not sure which one it is but, the ammendment that limits terms, as long as you can get voted in, why do you have to stop being a Pres. or senator, ect? That way we can have a Conservative/Bush dynasty. [Cue evil laugh]

CP

I'll second that one, Nu Marx. I think that was one the changes that upset the balance of power between the states and the federal government.

The Equal Rights Amendment.

Allow me to add that it had its fair chance, and that it was rejected. I am very disappointed, but I have to accept that.

I would like an admendment to limit all elected federal offices to two consecutive terms to emphasis the importance of representative government.

Both of Eeyore's admendments could help in this regard.

I also would like an admendment to give FREE any goods or services to ANYONE.

I would add: manditory votes on all presidential nominations, on or before 6 months after the pres takes office.

We still have not voted on Bush's justices. This needs to end.

--cheers

"The General Welfare and Commerce clauses are limited to enabling the Federal Government to utilize it's powers delegated in Article I Section 8 and the Amendments." No more misinterpretations of these clauses by activist judges.

Unicameral legislature, proportional representation (additional-member system).

...or, if not that, ...

No delegation of legislative authority to bodies within the executive branch.

Frankly, I 'd be delighted if we could adhere to the Constitution we've got. Beyond that, I think it would be a good idea make a couple of the existing Amendments more explicit - like the First, Second, and Fourth (okay, they're pretty clear to me already - but there are those who will insist on misinterpreting them ).

To be wildly unrealistic (yes, even more unrealistic than my first two suggestions), I'd love to see an amendment which would solve a lot of the legislative issues discussed elsewhere in these pages, one which I'd hope would receive the endorsement of both progressives and libertarians (pity neither group has any representation in this country!), to wit: an amendment which would eliminate victimless crimes. Something along the lines of "The Congress shall enact no law which shall limit the exercise of the natural rights of any person except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights."

I second every motion from numarx and would enjoy adding in a compensatory program for those making under 25,000 dollars a year in America.

I like that one!

Same here...

Of course once I argue that taxing the proceeds of one individual and giving them to another would be a violation of this amendment, me Wertz and Nu Marx will be debating again.

Excuse me?

I would support an amendment giving every adult citizen the right to vote regardless of his or her status. I'm assuming minimal mental competence. I would not include the retarded. If you are in prison even you should have the right to vote.

The logic is simple. The Declaration of Independence states that government derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed. Even if you do bad things you should not lose your fundamental right to choose those who govern you. That is how we distinguish ourselves from dictatorships.

This amendment of mine was totally tongue-in-cheek to exaggerate and possible connect the problematic situation of this proposed amendment.

My amendment would read:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Oh wait, that's already in there.

Let's make it this, then:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Darn it. There I go again. Maybe I'll try this one later.

Mike

It is a shame that this has not been better fought for and protected over the years.

Individuals who are not members of a political party shall not be discriminated against in any way when they seek public office by petition. They shall have the same rights as any nominee of a major political party. Nor shall any state make any rules that favor one party over another, nor shall there be designations of 'major' and 'minor' parties.
A majority of the votes cast shall be necessary to win elective office at all levels of government. If no majority is achieved in the original election, a runoff shall be held no more than one month later.

my amendment

The number of imprisoned citizens in america should never exceed a certain percentage,
how about .5%,

also, prison labour should be banned

what i believe is happening in america now, is people are going to jail for non violent reasons, such as smoking marijuana, and then being put to prison labour, for corporate gain, when will it end? when america is one big prison and corporations can pay you 1/4 of minimum wage for your slave labour?

i forgot,
no political donations to pre-elected officials from companies, industry, or commercal organizations.

and, if a certain number of the people vote for it, and if a president is found to be responsable for genocide, the president can be executed

Please do not double post. If you were the last person to post, you merely need to go in & edit your last post. If 12 hours have passed since your last post and no one else has since posted, you may start a new one since your edit window will have closed.

(PS proper capitalization helps, too )

I would make it so no political parties could exist but one.

There would be a period leading up to the election in whice a canidate for any office would give a statement of purpose, deviation from this at any level would be banishment or death, unless forced, this of course would come under investigation also.

no electoral system, no lobbying on any level, just equal tax dollars.

the electoral system would be replaced by two stages of voteing, one to weed out, then one to elect, on all levels of government, people of america based.

the government would be forced to explain government things in a language that all people can understand, not just those with a masters degree in english.

seperation of church and state would be more emplaced to say, any attempts to destroy this by any branches of government would mean banishment from the political system.

any attempts to form bodies like a republican or democrat in the political system would mean banishment.

And a compleate overall of debateing government stuff, but that would be to long for this post and really not needed to say the least,lol

As tempting as it is to go on some sarcastic rants here, I have to stick with the biggest injustice I see in our world today. I would ban abortion except in cases where the baby threatens the mother's life. I consider it the unheard holocaust and the biggest supreme court aberration since they legalized slavery.

Proposed as amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, appending Article I, § 7 with the following.

The Constitutionality of all bills entering consideration shall be the first order of business of Congress. Whoever shall introduce a bill for consideration by either house of Congress shall cite, in the Bill, the specific language of the Constitution of the United States which the sponsor considers as duly empowering, allowing and granting Congress a voice in the matter. Every bill, after being read on the floor of both houses shall be sent down for debate by a new body of Congress, the Constitutional Committee. After debate, a straight up-down vote will be cast. A decision in the negative kills the Bill; no process of appeal is granted. Upon a decision in the positive, the Bill shall be scheduled for normal debate in the house of origination. This committee shall be comprised of 6 members from the House and six from the Senate. Overseeing this committee shall be a rotating member of the Supreme Court; said Justice shall have the tie-breaking vote.

Wertz, you're a saint!

We should lobby our congressmen on this!

First, I must say that there have been some exceptional ideas put forth by many of our members in this thread. I agree with many of them, and am thankful that they have been addressed before my participation here. It allows me to focus on one I would like, but in the grand scheme of things isn't all that important.

I would like to see the First Amendment not simply address the establishment of religion by Congressional law but rather the endorsement of any religion by our government. If I had to put it into words...

"The Government of the United States shall make no endorsement or establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof; or abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Anyone curious as to why may read God in the Constitution by Robert G. Ingersoll. I feel his nineteenth century speech adequately sums up why it is important that we maintain a strong wall for the separation of church and state, extending beyond the establishment of law to any possible politicizing of faith.

*It's a long speech covering a lot of ground; don't begin it if you don't intend to finish. I do highly recommend it for anybody unclear as to why such a separation is integral to maintaining our democracy.

I think I would make "freedom from religion" addition to the first amendment right off the bat. And churches have to be taxed at twice the corporate limit. And the church leaders have to never participate in the political system and take a vow of poverty.

Then something along the lines of what Wertz posted.

Then I would totally de-privatize the legal system. Make all lawyers goverment employees. Everybody allowed one lawyer and one legal aide per case filed, loser pays. Anybody that earns in excess of 5 million dollars per year in unearned income is guilty until proven innocent in criminal cases. Automatic death penalty without appeal for CEOs convicted of unethical or immoral behavior.

I'm sure glad you aren't running the government, CR.

You want to free government from all religion, yet tax religious institutions twice, hmm. Forcing people (anyone) to take a "vow of poverty"? Vow to whom? Aren't the religious also citizens? Shouldn't they be just as free to participate as anyone else?

Guilty until proven innocent? How long would it take for frivolous claims to bring our business climate to a screeching halt?

Death penalty for unethical behavior? Everyone would be dead and again business would be non-existent.

I would amend the constitution to establish that the executive power of the United States is vested in the cabinet; of which all members must be chosen from the House of Representatives, and led by the President. As such all of their business would be a matter of public record and not private interactions with the president.

Says something for capitalism then eh? Can't be run ethically?

I am more on the thought of Criminal proceedings vs civil as far as the "frivolous" part is- Really, it is what most poor poeple face already, once a poor person is charged with a crime, it is really quite doubtful that he/she is able to able representation for them to have access to the same justice system the rich enjoy, so "guilty until proven innocent" is really actual deal, and the rest are just words. And the middle class that is accused of a crime, even if innocent, thier life is probably ruined both fnancially as well as socially, so thier life is usually punished worse than the actual crime many times (say a minor drug charge, and just for argument, they didn't commit) so just being accused of the crime is a huge punishment, with guilt implied. Only the rich have ACTUAL innocent until guilty, except in lip service only, so I just want to equalize the system. Though the rich ARE SO powerful in this country, just charging them with a crime is a miracle- case in point, Ken Lay- still a free man!

I think that CHURCH LEADERS should not be citizens, no, something along the lines of someone with a green card rights=wise. I have never met an evangelical christian minister that was ethical or moral, so cutting them out of the system is probably a good thing, and keeping them from getting to rich is not a bad idea either. Besides, a church is a better institution with a little persecution!

Mostly those are just wishes, I know, and are impossible in reality due to thier ability to abuse, so they will hopefully just reside in fantasy.

However, an amendment to stop the ability to prosecute victimless crimes or "church" crimes along the lines Wertz suggested is very good.

I do think we need a major legal overhaul, and think that the private lawyer should be made a thing of the past.

I actually have a couple of amendments that come immediately to mind. In no particular order:

1. Congress shall only write, debate and and vote upon, single issue bills only. No more tacking a half a dozen "riders" or additional bills to the vote of something completely unrelated. Force each bill to be submitted, and voted, on it's own merits.

2. Campaign financing limited to $100 per person per year, period. No corporate or PAC funding, no "gifts in kind", no "soft" money. Contrary to the Supreme Court, money does not equal "speech". Money equals influence, and our elected officials should not be given the opportunity to even look like they are trading favors for it.

3. All federally elected officials limited to two terms. The original intent of the founding fathers was that this was supposed to be a temporary position, where the legislator then returned home, to live under the laws he enacted. This would supposedly force the representatives think a little harder about what they were imposing on the general populace, since they would soon enough be living again under those same rules.

I definately agree with what some have posted about campaign finance reforms. I would also like to add that campaigns be limited to one month, and that no television ads be used. It will allow smaller parties to have a more level playing field and hopefully, the short term will allow ONLY the issues to be discussed and not the personal life of a candidate.

Other amendments, the death penalty is ruled as "cruel and unusual" punishment.

I like those.


I would add an amendment clarifying one major definition for us to use in the legal world.

Alive (legal): adj; describing a human who has demonstrated all necessary involuntary self-sustaining actions were or are capable of being performed autonomously

I have several:

1. The definition of marriage in the United States shall henceforth contain only those unions, recognized by the states, between a man and a woman.

2. The definition of murder in the United States shall henceforth be inclusive of the killing with forethought and without due process of law of any human, to include the unborn.

And even though the 14th Amendment should have taken care of this already...

3. There shall henceforth be no discrimination based on race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, or nationality by institutions of employment, education, or other institutions where such criteria could be used to favor or disfavor in processes of selection, promotion, and others.

Of course, they're not perfect, but they sum it up for me.

There have been many suggestions here that have either been clearly impossible or unworkable or bad ideas. With respect, this is the first proposal I have seen which would make actually make me ashamed of the United States Constitution.

As a general comment, I think we can all see why it's a good thing that the Constitution is a very hard document to amend. (Take a look at the things that happen to a lot of state constitutions.)

How do suggest we give away goods and services? This is simply impossible. Do you think things cost money just for the heck of it?

Secondly, it is not necessarily bad to have 'professional politicians' in Congress. There is a large learning curve when freshman members take office. Personally, I feel like 3rd and 4th term members do a better job of representation than freshmen or sophomores. Don't forget that Representatives spend most of their time in their districts. The mechanism that keeps them in tune to their constituency is frequent elections. Term limits would be harmful to our system of government.

I would have no problem with this as long as we did two things:

1. Campaign finance reform of the nature stated in my prior post. After all, corporations, PACs, labor unions, and other special interests don't have a vote. They should not be able to influence (or appear to influence) a representative of the people. Leave the contributions to those that do vote. The citizens

2. If you are going to insist on not having term limits for congress, then lets go back, and do away with term limits for President as well. Unless you're telling me that it's harder to be a congressman than President. I can't say I'd be happy with three or four terms for Mr Bush (one is quite enough for me), but shouldn't that be up to the people as well? It's not like it would be a monarchy. Just like with congress, if you don't like the job the man is doing, you can always vote him out.