What Constitutional Amendments Would You Add if you Could?

[Russ]

Just as a topic for debate, I thought I would list a few Constitutional Amendments I would add right now if I somehow had the opportunity to do so.

1. Term Limits for Congress - Maximum 2 (maybe 3) 6-year terms for Senators; Maximum 6 2-year terms for the House. This would get rid of forever Congress people like Pelosi who just live in rabid liberal districts. Would also get new blood in the Senate once in a while. I bet most people who aren't actually in Congress would support this.

2. Make Lobbyists Illegal - Why should a few cronies with under-the-table payments get more access to Congress than the average voter does?

3. Require Balanced Budgets - Congress and President should be forced to only create spending plans that match up with funds on hand. Stop spending our grandkids money.

4. Limited Political Donation - Everyone can only give any particular candidate anywhere between $10 to $1,000 Nothing higher. And no PACs! PACs are illegal.

5. All CNN Employees Automatic 10-year Sentences - Since they are doing their best to kill our democracy with hyper-slanted 'reporting', they should all get mandatory sentences. Just have the FBI waiting at CNN's HR Department and as soon as anyone accepts a job, they are taken away in handcuffs.

[icansayit]

28th amendment.
Any Politician from any political party from any town, city, county, state, or Federal election WHO knowingly UTTERS, WRITES, IS HEARD REPEATING,
while abusing the FIRST amendment (Freedom of Speech).
When heard, seen, recorded or repeats a known LIE, is a LIAR.
SHALL INSTANTLY BE REMOVED FROM THEIR ELECTED OFFICE.
The methods for such instant removals from elected office shall be the sole decision of ANY two
United States Citizens no younger than the age of TWENTY-ONE at their last birthday.
The TWO citizens must appear before a U.S. Circuit Court Judge, placed under oath, and warned of how they will be severely punished for Perjury. They will be Fined no more than $10,000 U.S.D. Cash, and attend one year of Hard Labor in Guantanimo Bay, Cuba correction faciilty.
Better known as https://i1.wp.com/images14.fotki.com/v777/photos/5/1222605/8418084/club_gitmo-vi.jpg
NO EXCEPTIONS, NO EXCUSES, NO HARDSHIPS, NOBODY CARES!

[revelarts]

Before adding anything new I would just like the U.S. Government to truly abide by the constitution and 27 amendments we have right now.

Something I've been hoping for a very long time,
While the abuses of the constitution and amendments just seem to grow every year.
And Americans don't seem to see it or don't seem to care very much.
Or worse, make excuses for not following them based on so called "Safety", "Pragmatism" or the lamest "it's been done that way for a long time therefore it's OK..'constitutional'".

[SassyLady]

1. Term limits
2. No lobbyists
3. No dual citizenship for members of congress
4. No Mandates

I'm sure there are others I'll think of later.

[fj1200]

Repeal the 17th Amendment. Require State legislatures elect Senators.

[fj1200]

Just as a topic for debate, I thought I would list a few Constitutional Amendments I would add right now if I somehow had the opportunity to do so.


2. Make Lobbyists Illegal - Why should a few cronies with under-the-table payments get more access to Congress than the average voter does?



Define lobbyists. I would think the under-the-table would already be illegal.

[Russ]

Define lobbyists. I would think the under-the-table would already be illegal.

I was thinking of "lobbyist" as anyone who gets access to a member of Congress because they represent a group that donated a lot of $$$ to the last campaign chest. Or anyone that invites the member of Congress to a posh convention in the Caymans.

As far as I know, all types of lobbyists are legal. They're often former members of Congress themselves. I've never heard of any lobbyist ever getting in any kind of trouble.

[Russ]

Repeal the 17th Amendment. Require State legislatures elect Senators.

This sounds intriguing, but I'm not sure how this would end up working. So I'm guessing that Senators would not have to campaign at all; whichever party was in control of the State Legislature would pick someone they like. Is that what you're thinking?

What kind of people do you think would get picked as Senators under this system?

[Abbey Marie]

Amendments which:
1. Further elucidate states’ rights
2. Grant equal rights to fetuses
3. Limit individual campaign contributions to $50, and corporate contributions to $25.
4. Require voting be only done in-person, or absentee with valid reason, like military service or hospitalization.
5. Require military or community service for a certain period by all able-bodied Americans, a la Israel.
6. Require AOC to cover her mouth with duct tape at all times except when eating

[Russ]

Amendments which:
1. Further elucidate states’ rights
2. Grant equal rights to fetuses
3. Limit individual campaign contributions to $50, and corporate contributions to $25.
4. Require voting be only done in-person or absentee with valid reason, like military service or hospitalization.
5. Require military or community service for a certain period by all able-bodied Americans, a la Israel.
6. Require AOC to cover her mouth with masking tape at all times except when eating

Nice, requiring military service like Israel might make some people appreciate the freedom that they currently take for granted.

And I'd amend #6 to be duck tape.

[Abbey Marie]

Nice, requiring military service like Israel might make some people appreciate the freedom that they currently take for granted.

And I'd amend #6 to be duct tape.

Good idea! Done!

[icansayit]

I would suggest we change their PRONOUN to be CROOKISTS.
Lobbyists only exist in Washington on K Street to find ways to (Extort, Bribe, Blackmail) politicians.

SPONSORED BY...https://mediaproxy.salon.com/width/1200/https://media.salon.com/2021/01/gettyimages-1144039258.jpg

[fj1200]

This sounds intriguing, but I'm not sure how this would end up working. So I'm guessing that Senators would not have to campaign at all; whichever party was in control of the State Legislature would pick someone they like. Is that what you're thinking?

What kind of people do you think would get picked as Senators under this system?

Can't say how it would work exactly but that's the way it was designed so that the States, via the legislatures, were represented in DC. Now the people are represented twice.

[Gunny]

Can't say how it would work exactly but that's the way it was designed so that the States, via the legislatures, were represented in DC. Now the people are NOT represented twice.

I amended your Amendment to more accurately reflect reality :)

[Kathianne]

I amended your Amendment to more accurately reflect reality :)

I think the direct election of senators has put us in the precarious position we are now in. It took more than a lifetime, but the tendency towards "factions` that the founders so feared has reached fruition. Oh, add federal ncome tax to seal the deal.

The money , now printed seemingly into infinity. The fed totally able and willing to bully states and now even individuals through their grabbed powers. An executive that has grown into a king like figure.

Senators now are in the position of money raising for next election almost immediately. That takes partisan and lobbyist money, big time.

Certainly state legislatures didn't always get it right, but more often than not were able to rectify or lose their own potions quickly.

[fj1200]

I think the direct election of senators has put us in the precarious position we are now in. It took more than a lifetime, but the tendency towards "factions` that the founders so feared has reached fruition. Oh, add federal ncome tax to seal the deal.

The money , now printed seemingly into infinity. The fed totally able and willing to bully states and now even individuals through their grabbed powers. An executive that has grown into a king like figure.

Senators now are in the position of money raising for next election almost immediately. That takes partisan and lobbyist money, big time.

Certainly state legislatures didn't always get it right, but more often than not were able to rectify or lose their own potions quickly.

As brains go, you've got one of the good ones. :cheers2:

[BoogyMan]

1. Balanced budget

2. Term limits

In that order.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

1.
Shoot all lobbyists.:laugh:

2.
Reduce House and Senate critters pay to no more than ten grand a year.

3.
Abolish any and all Federal entities involved in the corrupt and bullshat climate change crap.

4.
Abolish all CRT bullshat -divisive and trouble stirring activities.
Tell the scum to work for a living and shut the hell up....

5.
Totally revamp the dem engioneered liberal education system..
Arrest any lousy dems that complain..

A good start and with that new foundation this nation may just survive another 100 years or so...-Tyr

[Russ]

1. Shoot all lobbyists.:laugh:


You have a point - why make lobbyists illegal when you can shoot them first? It would accomplish the same thing, but much more quickly and more satisfyingly.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You have a point - why make lobbyists illegal when you can shoot them first? It would accomplish the same thing, but much more quickly and more satisfyingly.

Right you are !
One can only dream.... :beer::beer:--Tyr

[icansayit]

Hillary Clinton's gang seems to be keeping up with the numbers. Probably have been using the Weaponized members of the CIA, and FBI all along...since those two outfits do the investigations with the blessings of Obama, and the Clintons.https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/640/cpsprodpb/63BB/production/_100813552_snipstone.jpghttps://mediacloud.theweek.com/image/private/s--X-WVjvBW--/f_auto,t_content-image-full-desktop@1/v1608614860/epstein_1.jpghttp://publish.illinois.edu/commonsknowledge/files/2017/11/clinton-bb.jpg

[Gunny]

I think the direct election of senators has put us in the precarious position we are now in. It took more than a lifetime, but the tendency towards "factions` that the founders so feared has reached fruition. Oh, add federal ncome tax to seal the deal.

The money , now printed seemingly into infinity. The fed totally able and willing to bully states and now even individuals through their grabbed powers. An executive that has grown into a king like figure.

Senators now are in the position of money raising for next election almost immediately. That takes partisan and lobbyist money, big time.

Certainly state legislatures didn't always get it right, but more often than not were able to rectify or lose their own potions quickly.Still pondering this. I'm stuck at .5 points simply because it does away with an Amendment rather than adds one. Not sure I agree on the idea itself.

[Kathianne]

Still pondering this. I'm stuck at .5 points simply because it does away with an Amendment rather than adds one. Not sure I agree on the idea itself.
THIS should be part of any discussion. Rarely are any of us going to be in complete agreement on any issue, however considering another's perspective, especially perhaps a point or two, can lead us to more balanced thoughts. This happened to me with Trump.

No, I've never approved of the person he is. While none of us is perfect, there are degrees of flaws, his I judge too great to follow. None on this though negates the successful polices he did enact, the results matter. How much they matter manifest themselves daily with Biden & Co resigning them to the dust bin, letting us pay the price. Trump being less doesn't make Biden better. I've said it so many times, give me trumpian policies with a person at least trying to appear normal.

[revelarts]

Hillary Clinton's gang seems to be keeping up with the numbers. Probably have been using the Weaponized members of the CIA, and FBI all along...since those two outfits do the investigations with the blessings of Obama, and the Clintons.https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/640/cpsprodpb/63BB/production/_100813552_snipstone.jpghttps://mediacloud.theweek.com/image/private/s--X-WVjvBW--/f_auto,t_content-image-full-desktop@1/v1608614860/epstein_1.jpghttp://publish.illinois.edu/commonsknowledge/files/2017/11/clinton-bb.jpg


Yes. It's all coincidence.
People die mysteriously and conveniently all the time.
If you even consider anything else you're just a nut who should be ignored, shunned, banned and mocked.
Politicians in AMERICA never have people killed for money and power. (That only happens in other countries, we're special.)
And American politicians and officials never cheat at elections either.
And 99.9% of U.S. police are good.
(That's also how we KNOW the Clinton body count deaths are all coincidences because the 99.9% good police would have caught them by now. Instead of investigating and finding NO connections.)

[Gunny]

THIS should be part of any discussion. Rarely are any of us going to be in complete agreement on any issue, however considering another's perspective, especially perhaps a point or two, can lead us to more balanced thoughts. This happened to me with Trump.

No, I've never approved of the person he is. While none of us is perfect, there are degrees of flaws, his I judge too great to follow. None on this though negates the successful polices he did enact, the results matter. How much they matter manifest themselves daily with Biden & Co resigning them to the dust bin, letting us pay the price. Trump being less doesn't make Biden better. I've said it so many times, give me trumpian policies with a person at least trying to appear normal.

As I've stated previously elsewhere. I don't think we are going to get around Trump. He's a factor. He just lit into the Republicans who voted for the Infrastructure Bill and Fox was more than happy to headline it. Would be nice to stick to just the ideals/ideas.

As far as FJ's proposed "non-Amendment" goes, I see that as a sideways move in the middle of a lake. Just going nowhere.

IMO, what we need is a reset of the US Government and it's role and responsibility to We, the People. That's instead of thinking they need to think for us. I don't think an Amendment or two is going to accomplish that.

For instance, where is this mythical code of ethics government employees are supposed to have and representatives of the People especially? It supposedly exists. Enforce it. Since Republicans are so keen on appearing morally superior, where is their insistence on manners and civility from "other" representatives?

Why are people who take an oath to support and defend the Constitution but obviously have no such plan allowed to represent the People in government? The Constitution isn't a suicide pact. Certain no-brainer rules should apply. This plays to your commentary on factions in the other thread -- there are factions within the government that do not represent the Constitution and believe being uncivil, insulting and rude is fine and dandy so long as it's them being such.

The list goes on. Seems to me the laws rules already exist that would greatly enhance the performance of the US Government. They're just selectively enforced, and usually only against the People, but not those that should be held to a higher standard.

[fj1200]

As far as FJ's proposed "non-Amendment" goes, I see that as a sideways move in the middle of a lake. Just going nowhere.

Umm, excuse me good sir. It takes an amendment to repeal an amendment; see Prohibition. As far as this thread goes none of our proposals will go anywhere and much of the list weren't even good laws let alone good amendments. Nevertheless so much of what you would like to see can hang on my particular proposal because if the individual states legislatures don't care to send effective representation to DC to represent them then we will continue our drift to the whims of the people.

[fj1200]

^Can someone explain why that particular post deserved a "piss off"? I didn't even call anyone anything.

[icansayit]

^Can someone explain why that particular post deserved a "piss off"? I didn't even call anyone anything.


Expressing my 1st amendment right to just say...YOU PISS ME OFF.
I feel that way for most double-talking, smart-ass's who believe they are smarter than everyone else.
So...There you have it.

[fj1200]

Expressing my 1st amendment right to just say...YOU PISS ME OFF.
I feel that way for most double-talking, smart-ass's who believe they are smarter than everyone else.
So...There you have it.


I guess it doesn't take much then because my post was top-notch; best that could convey an argument in 4 sentences. I even used one sentence to call Gunny sir. :)

[Gunny]

Umm, excuse me good sir. It takes an amendment to repeal an amendment; see Prohibition. As far as this thread goes none of our proposals will go anywhere and much of the list weren't even good laws let alone good amendments. Nevertheless so much of what you would like to see can hang on my particular proposal because if the individual states legislatures don't care to send effective representation to DC to represent them then we will continue our drift to the whims of the people.Of course it isn't going anywhere. I didn't mean for my response to be so controversial :laugh:

For all the times I've seen this topic, I don't recall seeing this particular proposal before so I decided to think it over. I'm neither a legal nor Constitutional scholar. Just a student :)

Regardless the road you choose to take to get there, an Amendment to cancel an Amendment = net -1 Amendment.

I don't see the People giving up yet another power to the state as good for anything. Your proposal allows the state to think for and choose for the People. Most state governments are as corrupt if not more so (especially in some cases) than the federal government. In this case, the People are a check against the power of the State.

I don't trust the people to use what's between their ears when they can watch MSNBC and become experts on everything :rolleyes: I trust government less. I can't really see a transfer of power/responsibility from the people to the government accomplishing anything except to require less of the people. You don't really think they people are going to have an epiphany and realize they not only have to pick a state candidate, but a candidate that supports "XX" for the US Senate?

[jimnyc]

Somehow I would love to see term limits for congress as well.

[fj1200]

Of course it isn't going anywhere. I didn't mean for my response to be so controversial :laugh:

For all the times I've seen this topic, I don't recall seeing this particular proposal before so I decided to think it over. I'm neither a legal nor Constitutional scholar. Just a student :)

Regardless the road you choose to take to get there, an Amendment to cancel an Amendment = net -1 Amendment.

I don't see the People giving up yet another power to the state as good for anything. Your proposal allows the state to think for and choose for the People. Most state governments are as corrupt if not more so (especially in some cases) than the federal government. In this case, the People are a check against the power of the State.

I don't trust the people to use what's between their ears when they can watch MSNBC and become experts on everything :rolleyes: I trust government less. I can't really see a transfer of power/responsibility from the people to the government accomplishing anything except to require less of the people. You don't really think they people are going to have an epiphany and realize they not only have to pick a state candidate, but a candidate that supports "XX" for the US Senate?

You're absolutely right and I don't disagree with any of it. But I was just going along with the OP and "if I could."

Also, it's not the first time I've proposed it. It's my number 1 go-to.