What should the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution address?

[Big Boss]

How do people feel about certain issues to do with government structure?

For example:

• The fact that Supreme Court justices can sit on the court for life.
• There are no enumerated powers and limits for the executive branch (see Article II of our Constitution and compare it with Article I's Sections 8 and 9; pretty big difference).
• The electoral college.
• The three-branch system; do you view another branch as necessary, I mean.
• The term for a president being 4 years and the term limit being 2.
• The lack of a means for national initiatives and referendums (i.e. bringing issues for a direct democratic vote at a national level).

These are issues where an amendment remedy is probably most necessary, assuming you view these as issues. I don't necessarily view all of these as issues myself, but these are ones I see commonly discussed.

 

[Giggywig]

What amendments would you propose to resolve these issues?

I don't view 1,2,4 and 5 as issues and I'm not too worried about 3.

 

[leftysergeant]

Right before your "from each according to ability, to each according to need" amendment. Right, Lefty?

What a totally off-the-wall and irrelevant ad hominem!

Corporations are an artificial construct of the state, creatred to enable commerce. What the state can create, the state can limit.

Corporations are dangerous because they have power far beyond reason by dint of their wealth. They have no conscience, nor concern for consequences that do not directly effect them. Thewy have no moral sense, nor sense of aesthetics.

They are not competent voters and thus not mentally competent to have a political voice.

They are property, not persons. Allowing them political influence is allowing the wealthy to buy additional political power, often to the hurt of actual people.

Worse yert, treating them as persons enables them to exercise control over the agencies that are supposed to control them to prevent public harm.

They are not mentioned in the constitution at all at this time, but some dirtbag corporate whore law clerk incorrectly recorded a decision a long time ago and the mistake has been compounded by subsequent courts. Even that knee-jerk right wing nut job Rehnquist thought it smelled badly.

The best policy would be to make it clear that corporations have only those rights and privilleges that permit them to acquire resources to perform their functions and to prevent the siezure of assets without due process as defined by law.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

No. They are citizen, period.

Otherwise you end up like many countries that have third generation individuals who are not citizens. Koreans who are no japanese for example.

Agreed, those countries that have modified or eliminated Jus Soli are running into problems with dissenfranchised, stateless persons. Children are espcially vulnerable to abuse and exploitation in these cases.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Given the many problems that face our nation today, and just assuming you had the authority to ratify the 28th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution all by yourself, what issue(s) would you have the amendment address?

Some general issues to consider:

• The issue of corporate personhood.
• What powers are available to the executive branch and how it is organized.
• Equal rights across lines such as gender, sexual orientation, etc.

I would propose that the courts of the United State must follow the Bible in all decisions.

This is not in conflict with the first amendment, because it is not the establishment of a religion, it is just the endorsement of a rule book that a bunch of religions agree is pretty good.

Of course this would make the DOMA redundant. We would then have to stop eating shellfish and wearing mixed clothing, though. Retribution would be forbidden, but then so would lending money. Taxes would still be OK. Ahh, who am I kidding, you could probably find text for and against each of these issues.

This is mainly just to stir the pot. I'm sick of hearing how we are a Christian country while no one really wants to tackle the Bible at face value.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I've only just scanned the thread so far.

Has anyone talked about the "Move to Amend"? This is the idea that the only way to un-do the Citizens United SCOTUS decision is by amendment.

I haven't been able to find any suggested amendment text (with an admittedly brief bit of googling), but I found their petition saying what they want the amendment to do:

We, the People of the United States of America, reject the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United, and move to amend our Constitution to:

• Firmly establish that money is not speech, and that human beings, not corporations, are persons entitled to constitutional rights.
• Guarantee the right to vote and to participate, and to have our vote and participation count.
• Protect local communities, their economies, and democracies against illegitimate "preemption" actions by global, national, and state governments.

I'm in favor of something like the first point (depending on how it was worded), but the second two points scare me off.

Not to derail the thread, the court sort of pointed, in the Citizens United decision, what Congress can do do ameliorate the decision (pass more specific disclosure regulations). Also, since this is "new law" from a landmark decision, it is conceivable that the court could reverse itself again in the near future. (Look, for example, at the history of desegregation cases.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

How do people feel about certain issues to do with government structure?

For example:

• The fact that Supreme Court justices can sit on the court for life.
• There are no enumerated powers and limits for the executive branch (see Article II of our Constitution and compare it with Article I's Sections 8 and 9; pretty big difference).
• The electoral college.
• The three-branch system; do you view another branch as necessary, I mean.
• The term for a president being 4 years and the term limit being 2.
• The lack of a means for national initiatives and referendums (i.e. bringing issues for a direct democratic vote at a national level).

These are issues where an amendment remedy is probably most necessary, assuming you view these as issues. I don't necessarily view all of these as issues myself, but these are ones I see commonly discussed.

I would support an amendment to establish national popular elections for POTUS and VP rather than the electoral college, BUT, I would point out that an amendment isn't the only solution to the biggest problem it causes. States can already change their systems to apportion their electoral votes based on the popular vote (rather than the winner-take-all way of doing it). You'd still have the problem that voters in very low population states get disproportionately more weight than those in high-population states, but I think that issue is relatively minor.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Also, has anyone mentioned the ERA? IIRC, it came very close to being ratified in the '70s (maybe just 2 states short*?).

THE EQUAL RIGHTS AMENDMENT

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

*ETA: I was wrong. It was 4 states short when the time limit expired.

 

[Big Boss]

...I would point out that an amendment isn't the only solution to the biggest problem it causes. States can already change their systems to apportion their electoral votes based on the popular vote (rather than the winner-take-all way of doing it).

Good point and it's a pretty crafty strategy too. If states worth 270 electoral votes decide to ratify such laws, this means that 270 electoral votes will always go to the national popular vote winner. Since 270 is the amount required to win, this means the electoral college will just be a redundant way of assigning the winner (and thus, useless at that point).

So it's not necessary that all 50 states change their laws in this fashion to achieve such an effect. Just states worth 270 electoral votes.

 

[CORed]

The sexual bill of rights:

"The right of adult citizens to engage in consensual sexual activity, for any reason, shall not be infringed."


Good bye prostitution and sodomy laws.

 

[Upchurch]

"No, really. Religion and Government should not be mixed in any fashion."

 

[CORed]

Aborting your Senate would upset the balance of power, the checks and balances. How about removing the 60 seat filibuster rule. As for the Electoral College, sounds good.

But It isn't my country.

TAM

Removing the 60 seat filibuster rule would not require a constitutional amendment, because it is not a constitutional rule. A constitutional amendment, however, would drive a stake through its heart.

I would support eliminating the electoral college, provided that a majority popular vote were required to win the presidency. Specifically, I would require a runoff between the top two candidates if no one got a majority in the in the general election.

 

[Ladewig]

the will of the majority also elects the President.

I disagree. One might make an argument that the will of the plurality elects the president, but even that would be wrong given that there have been three times in which the man who took office received fewer votes than another candidate.

 

[CORed]

Pretty much anywhere you set the bar other than where it currently is, you're going to affect kids you didn't mean to. For instance if an American citizen is raped or has a one night stand with an illegal immigrant or a tourist visiting the country for a week, her child would not be an American.

Any amendment or law that requires both parents to be anything is problematic because paternity can not always be positively determined. Even with DNA testing, the purported father has to be available (or at least a DNA sample must be available) to be tested.To cite a current example, if both parents had been required to be legal residents or citizens when Obama was born, the Birthers would only have to claim that Obama's father wasn't a citizen. One could imagine future "birthers" claiming a president with a dead father who's DNA had never been sampled claiming the president had been fathered by an illegal alien. Making citizenship contingent on paternity is fraught with problems.

 

[CORed]

Good point and it's a pretty crafty strategy too. If states worth 270 electoral votes decide to ratify such laws, this means that 270 electoral votes will always go to the national popular vote winner. Since 270 is the amount required to win, this means the electoral college will just be a redundant way of assigning the winner (and thus, useless at that point).

So it's not necessary that all 50 states change their laws in this fashion to achieve such an effect. Just states worth 270 electoral votes.

There are at least hypothetical problems with this approach. Nothing in the Constitution requires that electors be chosen by popular vote, or that there even be a popular vote for President. The manor of choosing electors is left entirely to the discretion of the state legislatures. So, if a state chooses not to choose electors by popular vote (very unlikely, I will concede) where does this leave the states that have chosen award their electors according to the "national popular vote"? Also, states that wish to thwart this approach could award their electors to the winner of the state's popular vote, but refuse to reveal the actual counts of that vote. I see any approach that makes the choice of a state's electors on the basis of factors outside the state as potentially problematic and less than optimum.

 

[Ladewig]

From Archives.Gov

There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years, over 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College.

 

[live830]

Amendment 28 - The Right to Shelter

Because homelessness is actionable on behalf of the State (via laws regarding loitering, vagrancy, disorderly conduct, et cetera), federal law should ensure that each of its citizens has a livable home.

This, or states should stop discriminating against the homeless. Our current solution to homelessness is to jail offenders, where we as taxpayers support them anyway--where they emerge with statistically-proven likelihood of being more destitute, more psychologically impaired... committing more crimes and going right back to detainment with our financial support.

Homelessness is dangerous to the homeless and their communities, and jails/prisons are a drain on society. This should be a fundamental right for each citizen.

(Pretend with me that the underlined phrases above are linked to their sources.)

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

They are property, not persons. Allowing them political influence is allowing the wealthy to buy additional political power, often to the hurt of actual people.

So the wealthy aren't "actual people"?

 

[Dancing David]

I disagree. One might make an argument that the will of the plurality elects the president, but even that would be wrong given that there have been three times in which the man who took office received fewer votes than another candidate.

I understand that, especially since there is no provision for a run off, and the founders definitly wanted the 'smart and wise' people in the electoral college to be able to overturn the 'will of the people'.

 

[Dr. Keith]

(Pretend with me that the underlined phrases above are linked to their sources.)

I love this.



(Yes, I understand that the new poster couldn't post links and all, but the honesty and humor of the note at the end is just awesome. No frustration or confusion, just a reasonable plea of cooperation. Big smiles from me.)