New Constitutional Amendment

Mandate that the size of the house be increased until each member represents a population approximately equal to that of the least populous state.

Anarcho-fascist said:

Mandate that the size of the house be increased until each member represents a population approximately equal to that of the least populous state.

Click to expand...

I heavily support this.

Anarcho-fascist said:

Mandate that the size of the house be increased until each member represents a population approximately equal to that of the least populous state.

Click to expand...

Thats a really good idea. We should do the same with the electoral college.

megaprogman said:

You think Redress is serious or am I misreading your post?

Click to expand...

I hope Redress is just kidding. Does Redress realize that he probably has more in common with libertarians than he does with conservatives?

megaprogman said:

Thats a really good idea. We should do the same with the electoral college.

Click to expand...

If we did one, we'd do the other. Since the EC is dependent on how many representatives you have + the number of senators, it'd grow the college.

ElijahGalt said:

I hope Redress is just kidding. Does Redress realize that he probably has more in common with libertarians than he does with conservatives?

Click to expand...

I think he's probably just annoyed by the religious fervor many libertarians seem to possess.

ElijahGalt said:

I hope Redress is just kidding. Does Redress realize that he probably has more in common with libertarians than he does with conservatives?

Click to expand...

I do believe your gender identification is off.

ElijahGalt said:

I hope Redress is just kidding. Does Redress realize that he probably has more in common with libertarians than he does with conservatives?

Click to expand...

I was kidding, yes. I think I actually have more conservative positions than libertarian ones.

the makeout hobo said:

I think he's probably just annoyed by the religious fervor many libertarians seem to possess.

Click to expand...

What religious fervor? A grounded, consistent libertarian is not a religious zealot.

Redress said:

I was kidding, yes. I think I actually have more conservative positions than libertarian ones.

Click to expand...

Then why do you lean "very liberal" if you're not that liberal at all? If you're closer to conservatism than you are to classical liberalism, then how do you lean "very liberal?"

ElijahGalt said:

Then why do you lean "very liberal" if you're not that liberal at all? If you're closer to conservatism than you are to classical liberalism, then how do you lean "very liberal?"

Click to expand...

IN today's context, a liberal is one who feels that government can and should make the country better. A conservative is one who feels that less government makes the country better, and a Libertarian wants to get stoned. I feel strongly that government can be a force for good, and should be. When you break it down to individual issues, I do tend to side with conservatives on a few issues. Libertarians positions I disagree with pretty much across the board.

I think the 14th should be replaced, not just repealed. The original amendment was intended to insure that children of people brought here against their will could not be discriminated against and that states could not prevent certain people groups from enjoying the same constitutional rights as everyone else. It has been turned instead into anchor babies, affirmative action, gay marriage, equal pay mandates, etc. However, it does not prevent state gun laws which infringe on the federal constitution. It also does not prevent unfair taxation that taxes some at higher rates and gives credits and deductions to individuals based on their government approved choices. The 14th amendment needs to be repealed and replaced with something clearer that will keep states from abridging Constitutional rights for specific groups, guarantee due process of law for every human being and allow children born in the US to captive foreigners to be citizens. That was the original intent.

the makeout hobo said:

You want to repeal the seventeenth amendment? What makes you think a bunch of politicians can pick your senator better than you can?

Click to expand...

Senators were intended to represent the States, that's why. The House represents the People.

American said:

Senators were intended to represent the States, that's why. The House represents the People.

Click to expand...

And Senators do represent the states, and are selected by those states. So you should approve of the current system.

American said:

Senators were intended to represent the States, that's why. The House represents the People.

Click to expand...

But they thing is, they didn't represent the States. They represented the often corrupt politicians in the state house. Don't you see the difference?

ElijahGalt said:

What religious fervor? A grounded, consistent libertarian is not a religious zealot.

Click to expand...

It's more of that many libertarians are very single-minded about it, evangelical isn't a bad word for it. You weren't on the board during 2008 but I'm sure you can imagine how insane some of the ron paul fanboys got.

I misread the thread and thought you were asking if any of these should be done. I voted for ending war and meddling abroad, but I don't advocate any sort of constitutional amendment.

Getting rid of the equal protection clause and the right of citizenship for people born or naturalized in the US sounds tempting (joke)

the makeout hobo said:

But they thing is, they didn't represent the States. They represented the often corrupt politicians in the state house. Don't you see the difference?

Click to expand...

You're missing the point....it would be a good solution to what your idea of the problems is.

Repeal the income tax and replace with the Fair Tax
Repeal Amendment 14
Abolish Govt-run welfare, health care, education, etc.
Mandate a balanced budget every year
Limit total taxes and spending to under 15%
Stop all wars and meddling abroad
Abolish all meddlesome regulations and mandates
Privatize social security
Make all states independent nations

Click to expand...

No to all of these. These ideas range from the extreme (e.g. repealing the 14th amendment) to the vague (e.g. meddlesome regulations).

Other (specify)

Click to expand...

Here are a few constitutional amendments that I would like to see:

AMENDMENT 28:
(1) By the time of their inauguration, the President and Vice President must be 18 years of age and citizens of the United States. Any residency requirement or natural-born citizen requirement is hereby repealed. (2) The President and Vice President shall be jointly elected on a ticket by a nationwide popular vote. The ticket receiving the most votes shall become President and Vice President.

AMENDMENT 29:
(1) All states and territories shall have the right to secede from these United States. (2) Any state or territory, having declared its intent to secede with a two-thirds majority in its state legislature and the consent of its executive, shall put the matter to a popular vote of the residents of the state or territory. If the residents consent by a three-fifths majority, the state or territory shall hold another popular vote 24 months later. If the residents again consent by a three-fifths majority, the state or territory shall be granted its independence and no longer bound by the Constitution of the United States.

AMENDMENT 30:
No congressional rules or parliamentary proceedings may be used to require a supermajority for the passage of any legislation, excepting those issues specified in this Constitution.

AMENDMENT 31:
Neither the United States nor any state shall confiscate any private property for private use, with the exception of transportation, defense, or infrastructure projects.

AMENDMENT 32:
(1) There shall be a number of representatives equal to the population of the United States divided by the population of the least populous state, (2) The congressional districts for all states shall be redrawn once per decade, in accordance with the US Census, by a computer program using parameters chosen by ten randomly-selected independent federal judges.

AMENDMENT 33:
(1) In the event that more than one-fifth of the seats of either house of Congress are vacant, the executives of each state shall have sole authority to appoint replacements irrespective of the state constitutional process. (2) This authority shall remain in effect until fewer than one-tenth of the seats of either house of Congress are vacant.

AMENDMENT 34:
(1) Supreme Court justices shall be appointed for a single term of 18 years. (2) No person shall serve more than one term on the Supreme Court. (3) This amendment shall not apply to anyone who is currently serving on the Supreme Court at the time of its ratification.

AMENDMENT 35:
(1) No person shall serve more than two terms in the United States Senate. (2) No person shall serve more than four terms in the United States House of Representatives. (3) This amendment shall not apply to anyone who is currently serving in the United States Senate or House of Representatives at the time of its ratification.

Redress said:

IN today's context, a liberal is one who feels that government can and should make the country better. A conservative is one who feels that less government makes the country better, and a Libertarian wants to get stoned. I feel strongly that government can be a force for good, and should be. When you break it down to individual issues, I do tend to side with conservatives on a few issues. Libertarians positions I disagree with pretty much across the board.

Click to expand...

That is a very simplistic way to put it. I see the political spectrum in a David Nolan type fashion. Liberals generally support expanded civil liberties and restricted economic freedom while the conservatives supports the contrary. This is always a generalization.

To say that Libertarians only wish to get stoned is ridiculous. Ask Koriymer the Rat about libertarianism. Libertarianism is essentially the extreme opposite of totalitarianism, so if you're the opposite of libertarian, then you must be a totalitarian! And given that the base root of the word liberal is derived from liber- to be free, then you must either be confused or not very liberal at all. Since the government's primary method beyond the scope of the constitution is to restrict liberty, you must not be liberal at all.

Read the following platform from the national LP and tell me you oppose nearly all of them:

Platform | Libertarian Party

And by the way, do you support repealing the Bill of Rights? Because according to the Libertarians, this document is one of the most sacred (if not the most important) document (or sub-document) of our national founding. Libertarians STRONGLY support each of the first ten amendments. Given that you oppose nearly everything the Libertarian stands for, that would mean you would strongly oppose the Bill of Rights.

ElijahGalt said:

That is a very simplistic way to put it. I see the political spectrum in a David Nolan type fashion. Liberals generally support expanded civil liberties and restricted economic freedom while the conservatives supports the contrary. This is always a generalization.

To say that Libertarians only wish to get stoned is ridiculous. Ask Koriymer the Rat about libertarianism. Libertarianism is essentially the extreme opposite of totalitarianism, so if you're the opposite of libertarian, then you must be a totalitarian! And given that the base root of the word liberal is derived from liber- to be free, then you must either be confused or not very liberal at all. Since the government's primary method beyond the scope of the constitution is to restrict liberty, you must not be liberal at all.

Read the following platform from the national LP and tell me you oppose nearly all of them:

Platform | Libertarian Party

And by the way, do you support repealing the Bill of Rights? Because according to the Libertarians, this document is one of the most sacred (if not the most important) document (or sub-document) of our national founding. Libertarians STRONGLY support each of the first ten amendments. Given that you oppose nearly everything the Libertarian stands for, that would mean you would strongly oppose the Bill of Rights.

Click to expand...

Yes, I disagree with the LP platform almost point for point. If a libertarian wants to call me totalitarian for that, feel free.

American said:

You're missing the point....it would be a good solution to what your idea of the problems is.

Click to expand...

What my idea of the problem is? I don't have any problem with the 17th, so i'm not sure what you're saying here.

ronpaulvoter said:

If you could write any amendments to the US Constitution, what would they be?

Click to expand...

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging 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.

Change it to read: - or abridging the freedom of non-provoking and non-inflammatory speech...

ricksfolly

Before reading the thread...

Repeal the income tax and replace with the Fair Tax This is the only one I voted for. The income tax as currently used is simply unfair and stymies initiative and growth. Many people don't understand the Fair Tax, but it would actually BENEFIT those living below the rate of poverty as well as encourage investment and savings. Somethign that is sorely needed in the U.S.

Repeal Amendment 14 Amend this, yes. Outright repeal, no way. It has become one of the bedrock elements of the U.S. Constitution that has helped to bring immigrants to the U.S. that have helped to build the country. The promise that children would be citizens. Amend it to require that at least one parent be in the U.S. legally to acquire citizenship, but not outrifht repeal.

Abolish Govt-run welfare, health care, education, etc. Absolutely not... Scale it back through legislation? In many cases, yes. Welfare is absolutely necessary. There are people who require it through no fault of their own. Americans are a compassionate people. Health care? Scale it back, but not eliminate it. Again, people need health care. Education? Take out the federal role and make it state/local as per the Constitution.

Mandate a balanced budget every year While the runaway deficits are destructive to the long-term financial health of the U.S., to put such a straitjacket on the federal government would be counterproductive. It would tie the hands of the government to deal with sudden, unexpected crises that are inevitable.

Limit total taxes and spending to under 15% Under 15% of what? Too problematical. How do you measure it? Who is the referee? Also dangerously hamstrings the federal government in abovementioned situations.

Stop all wars and meddling abroad Even the Founding Fathers meddled around. The U.S. MUST remain engaged in the world. The long-term consequences are unthinkable. Forgotten the lessons of history already?

Abolish all meddlesome regulations and mandates Who defines meddlesome? The government has long instituted regulations. That is part of the job of government. However, I would agree that it has gone overboard, but limits should be legislative, not constitutional.

Privatize social security Legislative, not Constitutional.

Make all states independent nations Absurd... there is strength in unity

molten_dragon said:

Mandate a balanced budget each year. Or more realistically, mandate a balanced budget over a rolling period from, say, 3-5 years. I don't really care if there's a couple hundred million budget deficit one year as long as the deficit isn't growing uncontrollably.

Click to expand...

I adressed this in my initial post in the thread. In theory, I like the idea... However, this hamstrings the government in emergencies...

Get rid of the electoral college and have a direct election of the president.

Click to expand...

Totally disagree. This is a union of States. The electoral college is a manifestation of that fact. I wouldn't mind if the states changed the way they allocate electoral votes in the way that Nebraska and Maine do, but I don't like the idea of eliminating the electoral college.

Change our voting system to instant run-off voting.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind seeing run offs, in fact, some areas already do it. However, I don't like the idea of instant run-off voting... The dymanics of the choice in a run-off could vary based on who actually advance and would affect the second-choice vote of many, to be sure.

Disallow fillibusters in the senate.

Click to expand...

Constitution???

Change tax policy to have a flat tax on earnings over what's required for basic necessities (food, shelter, etc.)

Click to expand...

No way. This would kill sole proprietorships as they use their business expenses as legitimate deductions. In a straight flat tax, they would not be able to do so. Fair tax is a FAR better idea.

Add in a definition of 'person' to be any homo sapien that is past 20 weeks gestational age.

Click to expand...

We are on the same line of thinking here, though I would go earlier than you.

Institute basic (as in covers major emergencies and nothing else) government-provided healthcare for everyone in the country.

Click to expand...

As a Constitutional amendment? Major emergencies is basic???

Domestic partnership rights for all (adult) Americans. Marriage would be strictly ceremonial.

Click to expand...

We will part ways in a major way here. Marriage/family is the bedrock of society.

I'm sure there are others, but that's all I can think of at the moment. Some of these might not require constitutional amendments.

Click to expand...

Most of these should be handled through legislative initiatives, not Constitutional