United States US Constitutional Amendment Proposals and Discussion Thread

[bullethead]

I know we've had at least one thread about this before, but I found an interesting piece on some proposed amendments, and I figure it'll be good to have a one stop shop.

Anything related to Constitutional amendments that affects the federal government doesn't have it's own thread is welcome here. Progress on the states getting together to force a constitutional convention, ideas for new Constitutional amendments, why a certain amendment was a mistake in retrospect, etc...

(To keep things uncomplicated, keep 2nd Amendment stuff in the Legal Case/Law or Gun Politics threads).

Some past amendment related threads:
Majority of Americans Want to Scrap First Amendment, Polling Finds

The Most Dangerous Amendment Proposal in America

Senator calls for Repeal of 17th Amendment (Direct Election of Senators)

Democrats Propose Committee to Manage 25th Amendment & "Screen" Presidential Candidates

Would you approve of a new US constitutional amendment that simultaneously abolished birthright citizenship and repealed Citizens United?

State government constitutional amendments are material for their specific state's thread (if one exists).

 

[bullethead]

More detail on the "repeal the 17th Amendment" thing, for people who don't want to look at the thread:

Article:

Republican Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse called for the repeal of the 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution in an op-ed published Tuesday by The Wall Street Journal.

Proposed in 1912 and ratified by 36 state legislatures on April 8, 1913, the amendment required U.S. senators to be elected by popular votes in each state. Prior to its enactment, Article I of the Constitution mandated that each state legislature vote to send two senators to Washington.

Sasse’s op-ed, titled, “Make the Senate Great Again,” suggested several Senate reforms “aimed at promoting debate, not ending it.”

“What would the Founding Fathers think of America if they came back to life?” Sasse began. “Their eyes would surely bug out first at our technology and wealth. But I suspect they’d also be stunned by the deformed structure of our government. The Congress they envisioned is all but dead. The Senate in particular is supposed to be the place where Americans hammer out our biggest challenges with debate. That hasn’t happened for decades—and the rot is bipartisan.”

In arguing for the abolition of the 17th Amendment, Sasse pointed to the polarization and nationalization of politics, suggesting that returning control to state legislatures would be a way of implementing local control.

“Ratified in 1912, it replaced the appointment of senators by state legislatures with direct election,” he wrote. “Different states bring different solutions to the table, and that ought to be reflected in the Senate’s national debate. The old saying used to be that all politics is local, but today—thanks to the internet, 24/7 cable news and a cottage industry dedicated to political addiction—politics is polarized and national. That would change if state legislatures had direct control over who serves in the Senate.” (RELATED: It’s Time To Repeal The 17th Amendment)

The Nebraska senator’s list of reforms also included abolishing standing committees, requiring senators to show up for debates, term limits, and requiring senators to live together in dorms when in Washington.

Source: https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/08/ben-sasse-repealing-17th-amendment-constitution-senate/

 

[Emperor Tippy]

If I could make any one change to the Constitution, it would be repealing the 17th Amendment.

More broadly, I would also scrap re-apportionment.

Every state gets 1 House member per hundred thousand citizens. Any adult citizen who can get at least a hundred thousand citizens signatures can show up on the ballot. Come election time, every adult citizen eligible to vote gets one vote and whichever candidates get the most votes get the seats (in order of votes until all of a states seats are filled).

Congressional Districts are gone, they made sense before modern communications and transportation but today they are just a problem.

The House is has no size limit.

Electoral College votes are divided as follows:
1) Whichever candidate wins a states popular vote gets two of the states Electoral votes
2) Every hundred thousand votes a candidate gets gives them 1 Electoral vote.
3) After step two, any excess Electoral votes go to whomever won the states popular vote.

The President is whichever candidate gets the most Electoral votes.

---
I would also fix the size of the Supreme Court at 11 Justices are re-arrange the appeals courts.
There would be eleven Courts of Appeals, each covering five states and the last covering everything else.

The Chief Justice is the one with oversight of the 11th Court and it is responsible for military appeals, FISA, the DC circuit, and similar stuff.

All court documents not specifically sealed must be publicly available in an easily accessible manner by the general public free of charge.

---

Those are the three big structural changes I would make if I could just hand wave them into being.

 

[bullethead]

Here are the proposals that got me to make this thread:

Article:

In 2020, the National Constitution Center sponsored a constitution-drafting project in which it named three groups to produce their own revised versions of the Constitution: a conservative team, a libertarian team, and a progressive one—each composed of prominent academics and other experts on constitutional law issues. The exercised revealed some important points of agreement between the three teams (even though they also predictably differed on other issues). This year, NCC reconvened the three teams and asked them to come up with a list of constitutional amendments they could jointly agree on.

...

Their list of proposed amendments is as follows:

1. Term limits for Supreme Court justices
This amendment would limit Supreme Court justices to 18 year terms, with a new justice to be appointed every two years. I summarized the advantages of Supreme Court term limits here. The amendment also fixes the number of justices at nine, thereby eliminating the risk of court-packing.

2. Making impeachment easier

This proposal would allow impeachment of the president and other high officials for "serious abuse of the public trust" as well as for "criminal acts" and would reduce the number of votes needed for a conviction in the Senate to a three-fifths majority (from the currently required two-thirds majority). It also requires a three-fifths majority for the House of Representatives to impeach in the first place (up from the current simple majority).

This makes conviction of a criminal, abusive, or malevolent president (or other high official) easier. But it also reduces the risks of beginning an impeachment process for frivolous reasons, by preventing the House from doing so with a bare partisan majority.

3. Legislative veto

This amendment would reverse INS v. Chadha (1983) and give Congress the power to negate most executive branch actions by a majority vote of both houses. Such "legislative vetoes" would not be subject to the presidential veto in the way other legislative enactments generally are. The point of this amendment is obviously to curb the growth of executive power over federal spending and regulation.

4. Eliminating the requirement that the president be a natural-born citizen

This amendment would make immigrants eligible for the nation's highest office. As the statements by the team leaders make clear, it was the issue on which the three teams came to agreement most easily. I outlined the case for getting rid of the natural-born citizen requirement in this 2020 USA Today op ed, co-authored with Harvard Law School Professor Randall Kennedy (a longtime advocate of this reform).

5. Making the Constitution easier to amend in the future

This measure would make it possible to submit a proposed amendment for ratification by the states if the proposal is supported by 3/5 of both houses of Congress, by a majority of the states, or by state legislatures representing two-thirds of the population. This is reduced from the current requirement of a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress.

An amendment submitted this way could be ratified "by the legislatures or ratifying conventions of two thirds of the several States, or of States representing three fourths of the population according to the latest national census." This is reduced from the current requirement of ratification by 3/4 of state legislatures.

Another provision of the amendment makes it somewhat easier to propose and ratify amendments by using the mechanism of a convention of the states. This tool exists under the present Constitution, but has never been used (probably because success is so unlikely).

Source: https://reason.com/volokh/2022/10/09/national-constitution-center-project-offers-constitutional-amendment-proposals-with-broad-cross-ideological-support/?comments=true#comments

Personally, I'm unconvinced of the benefits of 18 year terms for SCOTUS justices and eliminating the natural-born citizen requirement for being eligible to be president. All term limits for justices does is make everyone work up a schedule for each and every nomination from that point on, making everything a shitshow of fighting over nominees.

Getting rid of the natural-born citizen requirement is only a good thing if you're really into the idea of celebrities like Arnold Schwarzenegger or Elon Musk becoming president. Otherwise, there's really no downside to the rule, and it probably does a lot to diminish credibility that presidential candidates are foreign plants aiming to ruin the country.

The only other quibble I have is with proposal number 3: just make it require 3/5ths of each house, for consistency's sake.

 

[Robovski]

We should repeal the 26th where we lowered the voting age from 21 to 18 because people thought it wasn't fair to send those 18 year-olds off to war without a vote. This was the dumb way to address this problem, the draft should have been increased to 21.

 

[Cherico]

the consitition should be difficult to ammend making it easier is a mistake.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

SCOTUS term limits kinda defeat the point of why judges were given lifetime appointments.

A better requirement would be that Judges (all courts, including SCOTUS) are forcibly retired at the end of the term/year after which they turn 70, are permanently barred from any future employment without it being publicly approved by SCOTUS, are permanently barred from holding office, and receive a pension for the remainder of their life equal to the current pay of whatever position they were in before the boot.

No term limits but old people are kept away and it provides more predictability in replacements. Oh, I would also probably add an age requirement for District, Appeals, and SCOTUS (probably 30, 40, and 50).

So I suppose that would in effect be a twenty year term limit at the most. But it removes the stupid idea of dealing with a SCOTUS replacement every two years.

Of course, the real problem with any theoretical SCOTUS term limits or large scale alterations is the politics of replacements.

Realistically, you would have to have a mutually agreed upon slate of justices for all SCOTUS slots and do a wholesale replacement all at once (perhaps some of the current ones would stick around by being selected). Because you are never going to convince either party to support changes that will immediately advantage the other party in terms of replacements.

I mean it is kinda interesting that the whole "we must fix the Supreme Court" idea really only became a thing after the Republicans succeeded in their ~50 year quest to get a SCOTUS in their favor and that all of those "fixes" would just so happen to favor Democrats/Progressives.

---
Legislative Veto is pretty stupid. It basically undermines the entire point of having a strong executive branch. Executive branch power is an issue, but this really isn't how you fix it.

---
Easier Impeachment does nothing positive either. Although honestly, I would support being Impeached and Convicted being an automatic, no appeal, death sentence carried out on the floor of Capital immediately post conviction. With failure to convict permanently barring anyone who voted for the Articles of Impeachment from ever again being elected to the House (so they can serve out their current term but can't be re-elected). Resigning before the start of the Senate trial means no potential death sentence but also doesn't bar those who voted to impeach from being re-elected.

Make political impeachments a lot more risky and a lot more serious.

---
Natural Born Citizenship requirement. Nope, keep that.

---
Easier Amendments. If you want to do that then allow states to directly propose them. Any state can, by two thirds vote of its legislature (both parts) and with the agreement of its Governor, submit an amendment for consideration. If the proposal is not vetoed by a two thirds vote of both the House and Senate within a year then it goes to the states for consideration. If three fourths of the states approve the Amendment then it is added to the next Presidential ballot and is submitted to the voters for final approval.

Amendments can still be offered in the normal process, although I would add some time limits and requirements for ratification. Like a state must vote to ratify or reject an amendment within two years or they are denied Representatives and Senators until they do vote.

And that Senators/Representatives can force an Amendment to the floor for debate and vote with a joint declaration of ten percent of the House and Senates current membership. So get six Senators and 44 Reps on board and you can force everyone to actually vote on your idea.

 

[Bacle]

Terms limits for all Legislative Branch offices and positions would be a great idea.

Also, we need some sort of Amendment firmly establishing exact parameters of what US space colonization efforts should look like, just to get ahead of the curve and give NASA a solid mandate to fall back on that is not reliant on election cycles.

 

[Cherico]

Terms limits for all Legislative Branch offices and positions would be a great idea.

Also, we need some sort of Amendment firmly establishing exact parameters of what US space colonization efforts should look like, just to get ahead of the curve and give NASA a solid mandate to fall back on that is not reliant on election cycles.

Nasa is going to be useless, you want to get into space? Your going to have to go to the private sector and make them compete. Thats how you get up there.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

Terms limits for all Legislative Branch offices and positions would be a great idea.

You have to deal with staffs as well, which is basically impossible to write in a manner that isn't loopholed to hell and gone.

That's already a problem, especially with the House. Between the time it takes to get up to speed and re-election needs, basically no one in the House is actually able to even pretend to govern. So they rely on the permanent staff class (think tanks, lobbyists, RNC/DNC employees, etc.) to tell them what to do.

 

[Buba]

Between the time it takes to get up to speed and re-election needs, basically no one in the House is actually able to even pretend to govern.

A four year term for Reps would fix part (most) of that.

18 year term for the Supreme Court looks a bit short. As candidates are usually in their mid 40s, early 50s, they'd "retire" in their (early) 60s. IMO a single 25 year term would be better. Eliminates too entrenched to remove half-senile people.

 

[bullethead]

the consitition should be difficult to ammend making it easier is a mistake.

I can see why you're saying that, but the fact of the matter is that amending the Constitution is probably the best way to solve a lot of the structural problems with the government. Also, it seems necessary, given how it's taking longer and longer to propose and ratify amendments:

Article:

The ratification dates for each of the 27 Amendments to the United States Constitution are as follows:

First 10 Amendments (Bill of Rights) – December 15, 1791
11th Amendment – February 7, 1795
12th Amendment – June 15, 1804
13th Amendment – December 6, 1865
14th Amendment – July 9, 1868
15th Amendment – February 3, 1870
16th Amendment – February 3, 1913
17th Amendment – April 8, 1913
18th Amendment – January 16, 1919
19th Amendment – August 18, 1920
20th Amendment – January 23, 1933
21st Amendment – December 5, 1933
22nd Amendment – February 27, 1951
23rd Amendment – March 29, 1961
24th Amendment – January 23, 1964
25th Amendment – February 10, 1967
26th Amendment – July 1, 1971
27th Amendment – May 7, 1992

Source: https://constitutionus.com/constitution/amendments/constitutional-amendments/

It's straight up been 30 years since the last amendment was proposed and ratified, which is the second biggest gap in American history. Only the gap between 15th and 16th Amendments is bigger.

 

[Cherico]

I can see why you're saying that, but the fact of the matter is that amending the Constitution is probably the best way to solve a lot of the structural problems with the government. Also, it seems necessary, given how it's taking longer and longer to propose and ratify amendments:

Article:

The ratification dates for each of the 27 Amendments to the United States Constitution are as follows:

First 10 Amendments (Bill of Rights) – December 15, 1791
11th Amendment – February 7, 1795
12th Amendment – June 15, 1804
13th Amendment – December 6, 1865
14th Amendment – July 9, 1868
15th Amendment – February 3, 1870
16th Amendment – February 3, 1913
17th Amendment – April 8, 1913
18th Amendment – January 16, 1919
19th Amendment – August 18, 1920
20th Amendment – January 23, 1933
21st Amendment – December 5, 1933
22nd Amendment – February 27, 1951
23rd Amendment – March 29, 1961
24th Amendment – January 23, 1964
25th Amendment – February 10, 1967
26th Amendment – July 1, 1971
27th Amendment – May 7, 1992

Source: https://constitutionus.com/constitution/amendments/constitutional-amendments/

It's straight up been 30 years since the last amendment was proposed and ratified, which is the second biggest gap in American history. Only the gap between 15th and 16th Amendments is bigger.

i dont trust our current crop of polititions to change something this important in good faith.

The corruption is epidemic and the current crop I think are only there to steal as much as they can from the public purse and care little for the republic and seem to dispise its people, its culture, and its insitutions.

 

[Terthna]

Changing the rules when there's systemic corruption is not a good idea.

 

[bullethead]

Okay, here's the amendments I would like to see happen:

• Repeal the 17th amendment - no need to explain that one.
• All laws and executive orders sunset by default - basically, every law or executive order expires 10 years from the date of signing into law, by default. This will apply retroactively to all existing laws and executive orders as well. Keeping a law on the books will require 2/3 votes from each house of Congress and a presidential signature.
• Make it easier for states to call a Constitutional convention and amend the Constitution that way. Absolutely necessary if no one is going to make it easier to amend the Constitution via Congress.
• A person can only serve in the Federal government, in any capacity, for a total of 25 years.
• All citizens have the right to repair and maintain their possessions, as well as the right to access any and all required information and resources required to accomplish those ends.
• Allow state governments and the citizens of the states to recall their Congress critters if they fuck up/don't do what they're elected to do.
• Define non-government organizations (businesses, charities, etc...) in such a way that they have restricted rights/privileges, especially when it comes to donating to political candidates, but must respect the rights of the citizens.
• Impeachment reform - requires 3/5 of the House to authorize, 3/5 of Senate to confirm, make it apply to all Federal employees, widen the criteria a little, permanent ban from Federal positions if it succeeds. If it fails due to lack of evidence, automatic impeachment proceedings against whoever called for the original impeachment hearing.
• Some kind of copyright amendment that restricts the length of a copyright to 50 years max (applying retroactively), requires companies to carry the burden of proof in copyright infringement cases, stuff like that.

Basically, add a lot of negative consequences to fucking up, restrict the power/influence of big government and organizations, and let Congress' inability to accomplish anything work in the people's favor.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

The corruption is epidemic and the current crop I think are only there to steal as much as they can from the public purse and care little for the republic and seem to dispise its people, its culture, and its insitutions.

Less that, more they just don't care.

They are either obsessed with making the line on the graph go up, or want to build Utopia and don't give a damn about what they pave over.

 

[PeaceMaker 03]

A Constitutional amendment to hold political hacks accountable.

Any law later found to be unconstitutional automatically bars any sponsors of the bills from re-election and any government appointment/ position, to include working in a position to use their influence within government.
If the unconstitutional law caused citizens to be held in jail the sponsors of said law will have to serve jail time equal to the longest sentence served.

This would be at all levels of government not just federal.

What is the quote? “ Insanity is government by people not accountable for what they do”.

 

[Morphic Tide]

A Constitutional amendment to hold political hacks accountable.

Rather overkill in terms of breadth, but such a measure is deeply necessary if the Constitution is to remain the highest law of the land. Narrow it from "sponsors" to the one who penned the violation of the Constitution and those who expressed support of the specific clause that voted in favor. If it's too broad, it turns compromise bills into a tool of representative attrition.

 

[Atarlost]

Rather overkill in terms of breadth, but such a measure is deeply necessary if the Constitution is to remain the highest law of the land. Narrow it from "sponsors" to the one who penned the violation of the Constitution and those who expressed support of the specific clause that voted in favor. If it's too broad, it turns compromise bills into a tool of representative attrition.

I dunno, banning omnibus bills and requiring legislators to read legislation and assess it against the constitution before voting in favor of it both sound like good things on their own.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

While I'm not sure it should be in the Constitution, I kinda like the following idea.

1) A department of the federal government requires a Presidentially nominated and Senate approved head.

2) A departments budget request must be formally submitted to Congress by that Senate approved head. No Senate approved head and the President must formally submit that budget, along with a nomination to fill the vacancy.

3) Congress is required to give the budget request a straight up or down vote. If Congress determines by two thirds majority that an acceptable budget is not being submitted, then they may pass their own budget for that Department but every Senate approved officier of that Department is fired.

4) All budgets must be publicly published, unredacted.

5) The President may submit a "black" budget. Although it must also be certified by the Vice President, the Speaker of the House, the Senate Majority Leader, and relevant House and Senate oversight committees. This budget is only reported as a straight dollar figure, with no breakdown beyond that point.

6) Government spending lags revenue collection by two years. So 2020, for example, taxes would be collected and the IRS submit to Congress exactly how much money was raised. Ten percent of this money is set aside for emergency purposes (requiring a 2/3rds vote of both chambers to use). Any debt servicing needs are then deducted. Budgets are then submitted. If available funds don't exist to cover the budget, a two thirds vote is required to authorize borrowing (or the use of the emergency fund). So 2020 the IRS completes collection of monies owed for 2019 and submits that figure to the rest of the government in 2021, where it is used to cover 2022 expenses.

7) All monies raised from the Executive branch from any source (fines, fees, court judgements, gifts, anything) are submitted to the general revenue figure. No part of the executive branch is allowed to utilize any monies not appropriated to it by act of Congress.

8) In the event that the President concludes that Congress is incapable of passing a budget, he may submit that determination to the states. Upon that submission, all state legislatures are required to within thirty days vote whether they agree/disagree with him. If a majority of states agree then every Senator and Representative is booted from office and barred from ever again holding federal office, with the states filling the seats using their normal procedures for a vacancy in office. If a majority of states disagree, the President is removed from office and barred from ever again holding federal office. Essentially the nuclear option.