What ammendments would you like to see to the USconstitution

Zakharra wrote:

anwi wrote: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 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. (snip) 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).

Several comments.
First, you don't have to assign votes in the Senate proportionally. Just going from 2 votes for all to 1 to let's say 4 votes according to population numbers would be progress.
Second: I don't agree on the state power abuse theory. For that to be relevant, the interest of states would have to be completely different in most instances - and that's no longer true for the U.S. IMHO. For all practical purposes the smaller states would still be needed to organize majorities (which could then be justified to be 60% or such). As it is now, the Senate strongly overrepresents the smaller (and indeed very small) states. And that's not good either.
Third: For the Senate to represent the states, let the state's governours define the representation. That'd make more sense than electing senators directly, possibly at odds with said state's government.
Fourth: In the end, one should consider tidying up the east-coast map and arriving at states with the size of grown-ups...

I'd like to see an amendment that allows the president to exhile 1 person a year.

We don't want Murdock back!

Annachie wrote:I'd like to see an amendment that allows the president to exhile 1 person a year.

Daryl wrote:We don't want Murdock back!

Annachie wrote:I'd like to see an amendment that allows the president to exhile 1 person a year.

True dat

Australia called No Backsies on that one.

anwi wrote:

Zakharra wrote: "anwi"
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.. quote

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. (snip) 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).

Several comments.
First, you don't have to assign votes in the Senate proportionally. Just going from 2 votes for all to 1 to let's say 4 votes according to population numbers would be progress.
Second: I don't agree on the state power abuse theory. For that to be relevant, the interest of states would have to be completely different in most instances - and that's no longer true for the U.S. IMHO. For all practical purposes the smaller states would still be needed to organize majorities (which could then be justified to be 60% or such). As it is now, the Senate strongly overrepresents the smaller (and indeed very small) states. And that's not good either.
Third: For the Senate to represent the states, let the state's governours define the representation. That'd make more sense than electing senators directly, possibly at odds with said state's government.
Fourth: In the end, one should consider tidying up the east-coast map and arriving at states with the size of grown-ups...

1. I was commenting on your suggestion that the larger states do get more representation/Senators as per California getting more votes than New Hampshire (the only reason I can think you meant because California is a LOT larger populationwise). That means the states with larger populations would have the majority of the votes in the Senate. Not a good thing.

2. California's interests/needs/desires aren't that of the states around it. Nevada's aren't the same, neither is Oregon, Washington, Utah, New Mexico or Arizona or Idaho, yet I know there's a good number of things that California would love to take from those states (electricity and water among things), and if the state could do it by dint of its larger population, it would do it.

The purpose of the Senate is to give all states equal representation in the government. No one state has more votes or say in the bills and laws being presented. in the Senate, all states are equal. If you want population representation, that's the House of Representatives where population does count. The Senate =/= the House for good reason. Your way gives the states with larger populations an unequal advantage in both houses of the Legislative Branch. Again, the 10 states would be able to dictate anything to the other 40 because they simply would not be able to get enough votes to counter them.

3. Ahh.. No. It's an elected position. Why let the governor be the one to decide who is to be the state's Senators? The Senators are also supposed to represent the people of the state. Not the governor. If the people elect a senator to the Senate that isn't on board with the governor,good for them!

4. Definitely not. That would wipe out about a third or more of all US states. it would also anger a hell of a lot of the US population, not to mention those of the states that were being erased from existence.

Amendment:
Keep the election process for US Senators.
Institute a Draft for the House of Representatives.
Eligibility status: 18 years or older (as per 26th amendment),and must meet state residency requirements.
One term allowed as Representative from any district. Can't be drafted as a representative if he or she moves to another state and has already served as a representative from another state.

Amendment: All US laws must be reviewed every 10 years for applicability and clarification. This will include all amendments to the US constitution.

For example look at the 26th amendment:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This law was to make the minimum age of voting 18 years.
Vote for what?
Can an 18year old walk into congress and vote on legislation. Can we infiltrate the electoral college?

Zakharra wrote:[quote="anwi]
Several comments.
First, you don't have to assign votes in the Senate proportionally. Just going from 2 votes for all to 1 to let's say 4 votes according to population numbers would be progress.
Second: I don't agree on the state power abuse theory. For that to be relevant, the interest of states would have to be completely different in most instances (snip)
Third: For the Senate to represent the states, let the state's governours define the representation. (snip)
Fourth: In the end, one should consider tidying up the east-coast map and arriving at states with the size of grown-ups...[/quote]


1. I was commenting on your suggestion that the larger states do get more representation/Senators as per California getting more votes than New Hampshire (the only reason I can think you meant because California is a LOT larger populationwise). That means the states with larger populations would have the majority of the votes in the Senate. Not a good thing.

2. California's interests/needs/desires aren't that of the states around it. Nevada's aren't the same, neither is Oregon, Washington, Utah, New Mexico or Arizona or Idaho, yet I know there's a good number of things that California would love to take from those states (electricity and water among things), and if the state could do it by dint of its larger population, it would do it.

The purpose of the Senate is to give all states equal representation in the government. No one state has more votes or say in the bills and laws being presented. in the Senate, all states are equal. If you want population representation, that's the House of Representatives where population does count. The Senate =/= the House for good reason. Your way gives the states with larger populations an unequal advantage in both houses of the Legislative Branch. Again, the 10 states would be able to dictate anything to the other 40 because they simply would not be able to get enough votes to counter them.

3. Ahh.. No. It's an elected position. Why let the governor be the one to decide who is to be the state's Senators? The Senators are also supposed to represent the people of the state. Not the governor. If the people elect a senator to the Senate that isn't on board with the governor,good for them!

4. Definitely not. That would wipe out about a third or more of all US states. it would also anger a hell of a lot of the US population, not to mention those of the states that were being erased from existence.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

OK, let's look at it point by point.
1. Currently, in a worst case scenario, 26 states representing ~ 18% (!) of the population can indefinetly block the legal process (and indeed pass a law in the Senate). The 60 votes senate supermajority can be reached with ~ 25% representation by population numbers. Conversely, a filibuster could be organized with ~ 12% of population represented. And if you look at changes of the constitution, any amendment sent by Congress for ratification can be passed with 36% of the population represented. I don't see why that should be a good situation.

2. Well, I read Article 5 and it's clear on equal representation of the states (see under 1.). And I agree that a second House would make not a lot of sense. What you should be aiming for is a distribution of votes onto the (current) states, where a Senate blocking minority definitely needs more than 33% of the population represented and you can't pass laws against 66% of the population represented (e.g.). Thus, I just differentiate a bit between the votes numbers by states. But giving Wyoming the same vote as California (it's a factor of 65 regarding population...) is simply strange.
If you have a more well-balanced situation in the Senate, particular interests are rather less important. And there's definitely no problem with bigger states lording it over the smaller ones.

3. If I understand it correctly, direct election of Senators was amended into the constitution. The original idea was to have a second chamber where states' interests would be represented in the legal process. As those states' interests are (and should be) represented by its elected government (i.e. the governors); these should call the shots in the Senate. Consequently, I think that the 17th amendment was a mistake. What it produced was Senators independent of their states's governments holding a lot of power on the Hill, kind of like super-Representatives. Moreover, they are fully integrated in the DC political games. Their states' governments - and the interest of the states defined by those - are less important to them than their chances of re-election as I see things. That actually contributes to the current dysfunction.

4. Well, I don't think it's sensible to maintain a state with a population below 1 Mio (or close to it) just because it was there from the beginning - especially not if there's a state like California on the same organizational level. But I can understand tradition. So if you don't want to save some bucks by getting rid of smaller states (note: affected states should fusion voluntarily), then perhaps trimming down the biggies is more palatable. So, you slice California into 7 suitable pieces (and make sure that one covers the 30 mile zone in LA and reverts to a constitutional principality - perhaps Henry of Wales might be interested), then you quarter Texas, divide New York State into three and bisect Florida into the retiree and the soon submarine and islands part, and you arrive at a better situation as well.

TN4994 wrote:Amendment:
Keep the election process for US Senators.
Institute a Draft for the House of Representatives.
Eligibility status: 18 years or older (as per 26th amendment),and must meet state residency requirements.
One term allowed as Representative from any district. Can't be drafted as a representative if he or she moves to another state and has already served as a representative from another state.

Amendment: All US laws must be reviewed every 10 years for applicability and clarification. This will include all amendments to the US constitution.

For example look at the 26th amendment:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

This law was to make the minimum age of voting 18 years.
Vote for what?
Can an 18year old walk into congress and vote on legislation. Can we infiltrate the electoral college?

I don't have a problem with the first one. The second might be problematic. Draft people to be Representatives? And they can only serve one 2 year term (assuming you kept the same length of term) and no others? That's extremely limiting.

Reviewing all laws every 10 years would be damned near impossible, and that you list all Amendments to the Constitution, including the first 10 Rights as laws that must be reviewed makes me say, No. That implies that the Rights aren't rights, but laws that can be changed or altered or removed. You're basically saying that there would be no rights but what the law says. No. The same to the Amendment review too.

I'm not sure what your last part means. All the 26th Amendment did was give 18 year olds the right to vote in elections, and run for office if they meet the requirements. Do you know what the electoral collage is?

anwi wrote:OK, let's look at it point by point.
1. Currently, in a worst case scenario, 26 states representing ~ 18% (!) of the population can indefinetly block the legal process (and indeed pass a law in the Senate). The 60 votes senate supermajority can be reached with ~ 25% representation by population numbers. Conversely, a filibuster could be organized with ~ 12% of population represented. And if you look at changes of the constitution, any amendment sent by Congress for ratification can be passed with 36% of the population represented. I don't see why that should be a good situation.

2. Well, I read Article 5 and it's clear on equal representation of the states (see under 1.). And I agree that a second House would make not a lot of sense. What you should be aiming for is a distribution of votes onto the (current) states, where a Senate blocking minority definitely needs more than 33% of the population represented and you can't pass laws against 66% of the population represented (e.g.). Thus, I just differentiate a bit between the votes numbers by states. But giving Wyoming the same vote as California (it's a factor of 65 regarding population...) is simply strange.
If you have a more well-balanced situation in the Senate, particular interests are rather less important. And there's definitely no problem with bigger states lording it over the smaller ones.

3. If I understand it correctly, direct election of Senators was amended into the constitution. The original idea was to have a second chamber where states' interests would be represented in the legal process. As those states' interests are (and should be) represented by its elected government (i.e. the governors); these should call the shots in the Senate. Consequently, I think that the 17th amendment was a mistake. What it produced was Senators independent of their states's governments holding a lot of power on the Hill, kind of like super-Representatives. Moreover, they are fully integrated in the DC political games. Their states' governments - and the interest of the states defined by those - are less important to them than their chances of re-election as I see things. That actually contributes to the current dysfunction.

4. Well, I don't think it's sensible to maintain a state with a population below 1 Mio (or close to it) just because it was there from the beginning - especially not if there's a state like California on the same organizational level. But I can understand tradition. So if you don't want to save some bucks by getting rid of smaller states (note: affected states should fusion voluntarily), then perhaps trimming down the biggies is more palatable. So, you slice California into 7 suitable pieces (and make sure that one covers the 30 mile zone in LA and reverts to a constitutional principality - perhaps Henry of Wales might be interested), then you quarter Texas, divide New York State into three and bisect Florida into the retiree and the soon submarine and islands part, and you arrive at a better situation as well.

1. To be ratified, a certain number of the states have to ratify it too, so its not just congressional representation, but the state governments as well.

2.Why is it strange to give all states the same number of representation? The purpose of the Senate numbers was specifically to ensure that the larger more populated states couldn't override and vote in laws that benefited just them over the objections of the lesser populated states. It's to make at least one side of the Legislative branch an equal field for the states. Whereas the House of Representatives is purely population based. Giving more votes/Senators to states with a larger population destroys that balance because those larger states have more votes. It becomes a situation of 'we don't have to listen to you because your vote doesn't count'. Keeping the balance at 2 Senators per state keeps the playing field equal, which benefits everyone there.

3. I fail to see why Senators should have to be on the same page as the governor of their state or be selected by their governor. That would be extremely vulnerable to cronyism. That's not a good thing. The Senators are supposed to represent half their state. Not the governor of their state.

4. It's more than a matter of saving money, there's also 200+ years of tradition, history, custom, not to mention it would require forcing states to disband/be absorbed and require a massive rewriting/reworking of the entire systems of laws from the top on down. Especially when they try to decide what state goes where, where is the capital, what is the name of the state and so much more. It would be in no way economical, diplomatic or doable and it would only serve to enrage the populations of all of those states.

Also, when the US was growing, no one could have envisioned states the size (population) of California or Texas or the other large states. Your idea would be just as unpalatable to try and trim some of the larger states. That would be more doable, but only if those states wanted to. try to force it and you'd get a lot of anger stirring up. Especially if its the federal government trying to force the states to merge/break apart.

My ideas:

The constitution should be directly applicable in court even in the absence of specific law actually implementing a particular provision.

Any change to the constitution requires a referendum and can be initiated directly by the people.

Interpretations of a law violating its stated goal or meaning (as documented in preamble and during legislative debates) shall not be considered valid.

Checking laws periodically or on challenge whether they fulfill their stated purpose, are not unduly intrusive and generally fit for purpose. Also easier nullification if a law was passed based on false premises, whether fraudulent or honestly wrong.

Mandatory cooling-off period: The legislative process for laws in response to a singular event may only be initiated more than six months after primary media reporting ceased.

Nulla poena sine culpa.