What ammendments would you like to see to the USconstitution

I'd like to see term limits for Australia as well. We've had some shockers.

Here's one I'd like to see for both Australia and the US.

"Any monies used by or accepted as payment by the government, or as legal tender, shall be entirely backed by a single type of commodity at a set rate."

That way you limit the ability of the government to fund whatever it likes. It doesn't have to be gold, or silver. Just so long as it is something physical, and 100% backed.

Short of a revolution though, it ain't gonna happen. Dammit.

biochem wrote:Every so often an idea comes up that would require a constitutional amendment.

Well, I don't have a stake in it. But my take: If it's broken beyond mending, don't try to amend it.
My advice: Write a new one and put the old one where it belongs - in a museum of US history.
Unfortunately, you'd need a functioning political system for that, of course.

anwi wrote:

biochem wrote:Every so often an idea comes up that would require a constitutional amendment.

Well, I don't have a stake in it. But my take: If it's broken beyond mending, don't try to amend it.
My advice: Write a new one and put the old one where it belongs - in a museum of US history.
Unfortunately, you'd need a functioning political system for that, of course.

For the most part we're pretty happy with the constitution. The current dysfunction is unusually bad. And frankly there are periods where all the first world countries get this dysfunctional. The Australians, British etc can probably point to times where their government wasn't functioning well either. The problem is present in all democratic structures, the problem is people and when people are involved....

However there is a mechanism in the constitution Article 5 to do this if we wanted to. Two thirds of the states would have to petition to form one and three quarters of the states would have to ratify it. A constitutional convention would have the power to do anything from adding a single amendment to rewriting the whole constitution. But since they would have to get 3/4 of the states to approve any changes draconian changes would be unlikely.

The closest we've come was in 1912 (1 vote short). But congress wound up passing the 17th amendment by the usual process instead.

biochem wrote:For the most part we're pretty happy with the constitution. The current dysfunction is unusually bad. And frankly there are periods where all the first world countries get this dysfunctional. (snip)

"Don't worry, be happy" is certainly good advice.
But regarding the dysfunction, I don't think you're right. While there are certainly often political crises of states, it's rarely the case that the legal system itself is actually deadlocked as far as I'm aware. Usually it's the electorate that negates inconvenient truths leading politicians to not solving them for fear of not being reelected.
However, in the U.S., the current dysfunction is actually furthered by the constitution because it's the consequence of its checks-and-balances approach. One should probably not blame its authors for not anticipating that politicians would sometime no longer act as gentlemen and would not behave with at least a remnant of rationality and in the interest of the common good. But if there is no clear majority in Congress in line with the President, deadlock is the logical consequence after rationality has been lost. And if you put into the mix this Senate supermajority nonsense - which is basically a byproduct of equal representation of massively inequal states - you get the Congress you see right now. And currently, deadlock is actually incentivized by the political system as shaped by the constitution.

Solving that mess - barring a resurrection of common sense in D.C. or the electorate - would likely require restructuring the whole system.
The first important step would be to get rid of gerrymandering. The most effective cure would probably be to go for strictly proportional representation for the House - if possible on a nationwide scale to get rid the "New Hampshire" problem.
The second step would be to reform the Senate. You could turn it into a representation of the states again (but then with more votes for California than for New Hampshire) or you curb its powers.
The third step would be to go for popular vote for President.

While you're at it, you might want to get rid of a lot of other quirks like e.g. confirmation of federal officals, the role and rules for the supreme court, etc.

In effect, it's a new constitution.

I'd also have a problem with changing the President being born a US citizen.

O.K. Found this one facebook!

As posted as a quote from Warren Buffett
Warren Buffett, "I could end the deficit in 5 minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for re-election. The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971...before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc. Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.

And I liked it!

What amendments would I like to the US Constitution?

How about one saying the Revolution was a mistake and the US will happily rejoin the United Kingdom?

With the US debt the Queen should say, with royal snicker of course, "Thanks, but no thanks."

Poker

Michael Everett wrote:What amendments would I like to the US Constitution?

How about one saying the Revolution was a mistake and the US will happily rejoin the United Kingdom?

anwi wrote:

biochem wrote:For the most part we're pretty happy with the constitution. The current dysfunction is unusually bad. And frankly there are periods where all the first world countries get this dysfunctional. (snip)

"Don't worry, be happy" is certainly good advice.
But regarding the dysfunction, I don't think you're right. While there are certainly often political crises of states, it's rarely the case that the legal system itself is actually deadlocked as far as I'm aware. Usually it's the electorate that negates inconvenient truths leading politicians to not solving them for fear of not being reelected.
However, in the U.S., the current dysfunction is actually furthered by the constitution because it's the consequence of its checks-and-balances approach. One should probably not blame its authors for not anticipating that politicians would sometime no longer act as gentlemen and would not behave with at least a remnant of rationality and in the interest of the common good. But if there is no clear majority in Congress in line with the President, deadlock is the logical consequence after rationality has been lost. And if you put into the mix this Senate supermajority nonsense - which is basically a byproduct of equal representation of massively inequal states - you get the Congress you see right now. And currently, deadlock is actually incentivized by the political system as shaped by the constitution.

Solving that mess - barring a resurrection of common sense in D.C. or the electorate - would likely require restructuring the whole system.
The first important step would be to get rid of gerrymandering. The most effective cure would probably be to go for strictly proportional representation for the House - if possible on a nationwide scale to get rid the "New Hampshire" problem.
The second step would be to reform the Senate. You could turn it into a representation of the states again (but then with more votes for California than for New Hampshire) or you curb its powers.
The third step would be to go for popular vote for President.

While you're at it, you might want to get rid of a lot of other quirks like e.g. confirmation of federal officals, the role and rules for the supreme court, etc.

In effect, it's a new constitution.

The bolded part is my emphasis. The reorganizing o0f the Senate as you've outlined is unnecessary and would wreck Congress for the less populated states. The purpose of the Senate is to give each state the same number of votes. This way the states with larger populations wouldn't be able to run roughshod over the rest of the country by virtue of having a larger population. You're basically turning the Senate into another House of Representatives for no apparent reason other than 'the larger states need more Senators because they have a bigger population'. It would give control of the Legislative branch to the 5-10 most populated states in the country. A government of the minority who would be able to pass laws and dictate anything they wanted to the majority of the other states. I am sure California and New York would -love- to have that power. They'd abuse the hell out of it on the states around them.

Edit: I checked population count and 10 states have over 1/2 of the entire US population in them. About 170 million people. that is a hell of a lot of power to give to just 10 states that would be able to dictate what they wanted to the other 40 (and territories).