LeviF Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 The gas tax thread got me thinking: if you had a say in the matter (haha), what changes (amendments) would you want to make to the Constitution? I'm sure we've had topics like this before but I don't feel like necro-posting. Why is it important to make such amendments? Mine are more "out with the old" than "in with the new." -Repeal the 17th Amendment -Repeal the 26th Amendment (and the relevant portions of Public Law 91-285) -Institute a national referendum for big decisions involving war, immigration, and taxation The last one is tricky, and truthfully I wouldn't know how to begin implementing it (or what constitutes a "big decision), but in my perfect world this brings an end to our fearless leaders' utopian transnationalism and brings about the comeuppance that open-borders traitors so richly deserve (with apologies to our hardcore libertarian friends [haha not really]). Besides, it can't be any worse than a national election to choose a president who uses executive order like Slick Willy uses interns. Right? Right? Hey, a guy can dream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Why did you choose 17 and 26? I'd go with set term limits for all public officers in federal offices. States and locals could make their own what do. Senators get 6 years in 2 terms, but can serve more then two terms if one term has passed and can serve no more then 18 years. House can serve 3 terms of 4 years and serve no more then 24 years in the House. President keeps 2 terms at 4 years but I might be open to 6 year terms. Set aside separate treasuries/accounts or just isolated incomes for public schools governed by the state, highways governed by the feds, and dissolve the NRCS and let that become a public entity. Remove Republican, Democratic, Independent, etc. labels. Allow political parties to endorse a candidate no differently then the NRA or UAW. In the voting booths remove what affiliations each member has. This could possibly allow for a candidate a be backed by the Democrats, Republican and another party. Finally, Charlie Crist is no longer allowed to get the unlimited tanning membership at Sunny Days Tanning Salon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 An amendment to prevent a Bush or Clinton from ever occupying the White House again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted December 9, 2014 Author Share Posted December 9, 2014 Why did you choose 17 and 26? 17th - The concerns that drove the struggle to free the Senate from the control of corrupt state legislatures pale in comparison to what we have today, with huge sums of money being openly given to Senate candidates (mostly incumbents) by lobbyists and activists. In this regard, the 17th Amendment is an abject failure. It can hardly be the case that the amendment strengthened the resistance of the Senate against the advances of special interests. Additionally, state legislators are (in theory) more beholden to the voice of their constituents than are Senators picked by direct election. 26th - Lifespans, educational years, and time spent dependent on parents' money have increased, and probably will continue to. Consequently, it makes little sense to allow 18 year olds to vote their immature and inexperienced consciences into law. An amendment to prevent a Bush or Clinton from ever occupying the White House again. I can get behind this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 An amendment to prevent a Bush or Clinton from ever occupying the White House again. Add Obama. I saw/heard somewhere that Hilary could successfully be President, then Jeb Bush, then Chelsea Clinton, then the eldest of Obamas daughters, then one of the Bush twins, then the younger Obama daughter, then Chelsea Clintons kid... It was comical. 17th - The concerns that drove the struggle to free the Senate from the control of corrupt state legislatures pale in comparison to what we have today, with huge sums of money being openly given to Senate candidates (mostly incumbents) by lobbyists and activists. In this regard, the 17th Amendment is an abject failure. It can hardly be the case that the amendment strengthened the resistance of the Senate against the advances of special interests. Additionally, state legislators are (in theory) more beholden to the voice of their constituents than are Senators picked by direct election. 26th - Lifespans, educational years, and time spent dependent on parents' money have increased, and probably will continue to. Consequently, it makes little sense to allow 18 year olds to vote their immature and inexperienced consciences into law. The 26th makes sense, but I would dare say it'd be nice to reinstate you must own property outright. No lease, no rent, no financing, etc. I wish more people took interest in local government and state government then they do the American Idol pop star type Federal elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted December 9, 2014 Author Share Posted December 9, 2014 The 26th makes sense, but I would dare say it'd be nice to reinstate you must own property outright. No lease, no rent, no financing, etc. I know a guy who insists that voting should be restricted to net taxpayers, while net tax recipients can sit on the sidelines; impracticality be damned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 I know a guy who insists that voting should be restricted to net taxpayers, while net tax recipients can sit on the sidelines; impracticality be damned. It sounds good until 2 seconds in to the thought you are just like "What???" Everyone pays taxes, somehow, someway. Some just get them all back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Repeal 16th and 17th Add Amendment that Executive Orders cannot exceed 90 days. If Congress does not vote order into law it is revoked Add Amendment that Congressional Legislation have a sunset period of no more than 4 years. Legislation must be renewed every 4 years. Add Amendment that Federal Civil Service jobs are not to execeed a 4 year enlistment with a miniumum of 2 years between enlistments. Add Amendment that Congress Critters and Senators cannot run for a different Federal Office until their current term has expired Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 An amendment to prevent a Bush or Clinton from ever occupying the White House again. I saw/heard somewhere that Hilary could successfully be President, then Jeb Bush, then Chelsea Clinton, then the eldest of Obamas daughters, then one of the Bush twins, then the younger Obama daughter, then Chelsea Clintons kid... You can probably expect to see Jeb's son, George Prescott Bush make a run for the presidency a few years from now. He's the first member of his family to win office on his first attempt as Texas Land Commisioner a few weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Add Amendment that Executive Orders cannot exceed 90 days. If Congress does not vote order into law it is revoked That's not an entirely bad idea. Add Amendment that Federal Civil Service jobs are not to execeed a 4 year enlistment with a miniumum of 2 years between enlistments. That is. You'd be causing a very significant turnover and loss of domain knowledge that could only be filled by long-term contractors, increasing reliance on Beltway Bandits. Really, the idea of the "lazy government employee" is overblown - most of them work their asses off; the ones that don't fall by the wayside pretty quickly. The perception is based on the citizen-focused desk workers such as at the SSA or IRS, who are completely unmotivated GS-8's that are an atypical example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Repeal 16th and 17th Add Amendment that Executive Orders cannot exceed 90 days. If Congress does not vote order into law it is revoked Add Amendment that Congressional Legislation have a sunset period of no more than 4 years. Legislation must be renewed every 4 years. Add Amendment that Federal Civil Service jobs are not to execeed a 4 year enlistment with a miniumum of 2 years between enlistments. Add Amendment that Congress Critters and Senators cannot run for a different Federal Office until their current term has expired all good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Balanced budget amendment would be one. Second, 1-term limit for all elected officials regardless of position. Third, 4 year term limit for SC justices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted December 9, 2014 Author Share Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) Add Amendment that Executive Orders cannot exceed 90 days. If Congress does not vote order into law it is revoked I would add, and can't issue the same Executive Order twice in a given amount of time. Add Amendment that Congressional Legislation have a sunset period of no more than 4 years. Legislation must be renewed every 4 years. Would you want term limits for Congressmen as well? Or would this alone satisfy you? Add Amendment that Congress Critters and Senators cannot run for a different Federal Office until their current term has expired This is a good idea. Edited December 9, 2014 by LeviF91 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Term limits: All elected offices get ONE term; no reelections for anyone. No career criminals holding the purse strings for decades. POTUS gets adjusted to six year term, House seats to four years. Over 320 million people here, we're not going to run out of qualified candidates. Balanced budget Government labor unions outlawed; all existing pensions capped at $75K per year in benefits and all future pensions converted to defined contribution plans w/ safe harbor matching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Balanced budget amendment would be one. I'd be opposed to this. The primary legitimate function of a federal government is national defense. An Amendment restricting spending to a pre-written budget would make it nearly impossible to defend ourselves durring a truely defensive war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Eliminate Gerrymandering and most of the issues above would be greatly diminished Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted December 9, 2014 Author Share Posted December 9, 2014 Eliminate Gerrymandering and most of the issues above would be greatly diminished How do you propose eliminating gerrymandering? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 What about limiting earmarks and add-ons to bills and laws already in legislation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 An amendment to prevent a Bush or Clinton from ever occupying the White House again. Don't worry about Bush, I'm sure the voters will be smart enough to take care of that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TH3 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 How do you propose eliminating gerrymandering? Good question – Doesn’t some state already do it with an algorithm? I just think it would change much of the political atmosphere we have today which rewards far left/right stances coupled with uncompromising positions. When one thinks about it – gerrymandering is about as anti-representative as you can get and its completely legal…of all the subjects discussed that seem to threaten the republic – I really believe this is having the biggest long term effect – and it has the good possibility to not change – or get worse for decades to to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts