HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Constitutional Amendments

Sun Sep 2, 2018, 06:40 PM

Constitutional Amendments

When the day comes that the liberal democrats take over the government as these alt-rights have, there are at a minimum 5 constitutional amendments I would like to see happen. Anyone can add to this list as you so please.

1. A constitutional amendment to reverse Citizen's United. Elections should be publicly funded but if private funding is allowed, the same limitations on individual citizens should be required of corporations now that this alt-right Supreme Court has declared corporations to be individuals.

2. Federal judges should be allowed to serve only 20 years instead of lifetime appointments.

3. A requirement that health care is a right and not a privilege and should be provided to all citizens.

4. That all elected officials - municipal, state, and federal - be required to release their tax returns for the previous 5 years. This should help slow down the corruption that is so rampant in government these days.

5. If an election is found to have been massively influenced by a foreign government (friendly or hostile), a new election can be called for and all appointments by the illegal government be nullified. This election can be held at any time and is therefore not time restricted as they are now.

The reason why I want these to be constitutional amendments is so an alt-right Congress and the alt-right Supreme Court can't reverse these without considerable effort. Be certain that corrupt government officials will do their best to undermine even constitutional amendments as best they can, but we have to start somewhere. I could easily add about a dozen more amendments but this is just a few I have been thinking about lately.

Trump would have never entered politics if he had been required to disclose his tax returns for even one year.

35 replies, 1470 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 35 replies Author Time Post
Reply Constitutional Amendments (Original post)
queentonic Sep 2 OP
Crutchez_CuiBono Sep 2 #1
Chickensoup Sep 2 #2
LonePirate Sep 2 #3
Quemado Sep 2 #6
TomSlick Sep 2 #14
Va Lefty Sep 2 #4
shraby Sep 2 #5
brooklynite Sep 2 #15
wiggs Sep 2 #7
NYC Liberal Sep 2 #19
onenote Sep 3 #30
NYC Liberal Sep 3 #32
onenote Sep 4 #33
NYC Liberal Sep 4 #34
onenote Sep 4 #35
john657 Sep 2 #8
fallout87 Sep 2 #9
BigmanPigman Sep 2 #10
john657 Sep 2 #11
BigmanPigman Sep 2 #12
john657 Sep 2 #13
brooklynite Sep 2 #16
BigmanPigman Sep 2 #20
tikka Sep 2 #17
jmowreader Sep 3 #23
rogerashton Sep 3 #28
lindysalsagal Sep 2 #18
Xolodno Sep 2 #21
creeksneakers2 Sep 3 #22
LastLiberal in PalmSprings Sep 3 #27
onenote Sep 3 #31
smirkymonkey Sep 3 #24
smirkymonkey Sep 3 #24
jmowreader Sep 3 #26
WestIndianArchie Sep 3 #29

Response to queentonic (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2018, 06:44 PM

1. Welcome to Du.

Those are good ideas. Happy Holiday Weekend!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to queentonic (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2018, 06:46 PM

2. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to queentonic (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2018, 06:48 PM

3. First and foremost, we need to solidify, strengthen and protect the right to vote.

Republicans have successfully hindered and weakened the right to vote across America. We need to stop and reverse that immediately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #3)

Sun Sep 2, 2018, 06:50 PM

6. There needs to be an unequivocal right to vote.

nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LonePirate (Reply #3)

Sun Sep 2, 2018, 07:58 PM

14. The most important.

Everything else depends on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to queentonic (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2018, 06:49 PM

4. Wholehearted agree with them all!

Welcome queentonic!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to queentonic (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2018, 06:49 PM

5. It's not that easy. To change the constitution you need to have:

2/3 of both houses of congress deem a change is necessary and propose amendments, or on the application of the legislatures of 2/3 of the states to call for a convention for proposing amendments.

Then the amendment needs to be ratified by the legislatures of 3/4 of the states or by conventions in 3/4 thereof , as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by congress.

Per the Article 5 of the constitution.

I agree they are all great ideas.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shraby (Reply #5)

Sun Sep 2, 2018, 08:06 PM

15. I...3/4 of States are needed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to queentonic (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2018, 06:50 PM

7. 6. congress has a responsibility to act on a scotus nomination. No more 'if it's your guy here's

a bunch of new rules but if it's ours here are the other rules'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to wiggs (Reply #7)

Sun Sep 2, 2018, 09:05 PM

19. Nominations should be treated like bills are.

If Congress passes a bill and the president fails to either sign or veto it, then it automatically becomes law.

Likewise, if the Senate fails to vote on a nomination within a reasonable amount of time (3 months should be fine), then the person is automatically confirmed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #19)

Mon Sep 3, 2018, 07:16 AM

30. Under your proposal, the Republicans could not hold a single hearing on Kavanaugh

and he'd be deemed automatically confirmed.

Not such a great idea, imo.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #30)

Mon Sep 3, 2018, 03:24 PM

32. True. How about requiring a vote within a certain timeframe or the nomination

is automatically rejected.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #32)

Tue Sep 4, 2018, 08:10 AM

33. Isn't that effectively what happened to Garland?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #33)

Tue Sep 4, 2018, 09:53 AM

34. No vote was taken on Garland.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NYC Liberal (Reply #34)

Tue Sep 4, 2018, 10:25 AM

35. right. and if the rule was no vote equals rejection

then simply by refusing to schedule a vote, the majority party could "reject" the nomination put forward by the president.

A rule saying that no vote within a certain time frame equals rejection allows the party that controls the Senate to frustrate a nomination by inaction. A rule saying that no vote within a certain time frame equals confirmation allows the party that controls the Senate to obtain the confirmation of a nominee put forward by a President from their own party without requiring anyone to go on the record.

Neither rule really works.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to queentonic (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2018, 06:50 PM

8. All great ideas,

 

but do you know what is involved in amending, changing or adding to the Constitution?

We, as a nation, are so polarized that it would be near to impossible to add to our Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to queentonic (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2018, 06:59 PM

9. Amending the constitution

is no easy task. It takes a lot more than a simple majority. Not to be a negative nancy, but dont get your hopes up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to queentonic (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2018, 07:00 PM

10. Three things...

1. Bring back the Fairness Doctrine (Fox Ruse IS propaganda)
2. Increase the number of justices on the SCOTUS
3. Get rid of the Electoral College

*I am not a Poli Sci major and do not know if these can be done but I have read several times during the past 2 years that these are items that pundits have said should be changed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigmanPigman (Reply #10)

Sun Sep 2, 2018, 07:03 PM

11. You mean bring the Fairness Doctrine back

 

don't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to john657 (Reply #11)

Sun Sep 2, 2018, 07:15 PM

12. Yeah, that IS what I meant. I'll edit it.

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigmanPigman (Reply #12)

Sun Sep 2, 2018, 07:18 PM

13. No problem.

 

Kinda figured that's what you meant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BigmanPigman (Reply #10)

Sun Sep 2, 2018, 08:10 PM

16. The fairness doctrine would not be applicable to Fox News...

Setting aside that pesky 1st Amendment, the only reason that it was legal was because it was a regulation on renewing broadcast licenses. Fox, as a cable channel, is not subject to FCC regulation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #16)

Sun Sep 2, 2018, 09:12 PM

20. DAMN!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to queentonic (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2018, 08:20 PM

17. Removing personhood from corporations would be better.

I see no benefit of corporate personhood. If a corporation breaks the law now they are fined and nobody goes to jail. It's time that people are jailed for corporate misdeeds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tikka (Reply #17)

Mon Sep 3, 2018, 01:52 AM

23. There's a very good reason corporations have personhood

Our legal system only allows people to be held to account. If we got rid of corporate personhood, you couldn't sue a corporation. (And don't say "well, you can't sue one now." You can, and if you have enough money, or enough friends with money, to outlast their lawyers you might actually prevail. Without corporate personhood, you couldn't sue one at all.)

Corporate personhood also comes in real handy if it's your corporation and you're being unjustly sued. No corporate personhood means no corporate veil which also means a patent troll or a copyright troll could not only take your company's money, they could clean out your personal bank account and steal your house.

The good corporate personhood does vastly exceeds the evil it brings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jmowreader (Reply #23)

Mon Sep 3, 2018, 06:26 AM

28. Legal personhood means --

that corporations can own property, enter into contracts, and be sued, as jmowreader says. They could not function without those rights. But do corporate persons share all rights of natural persons or of citizens? The Republican apparatchiki on the Supreme Court misrepresented the constitution to claim that it does. (I say misrepresented not misconstrued as I think they knew what they were doing.) A constitutional amendment, or, probably, even a federal statute could define corporate personhood in a more limited way, since, after all, a corporation (unlike a natural person) is a creature of the state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to queentonic (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2018, 08:23 PM

18. Gerrymandering and ERA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to queentonic (Original post)

Sun Sep 2, 2018, 09:32 PM

21. Well...

1. Agree.

2. Disagree. A judge close to the 20 year limit will cause massive chaos in a election. In other words, politicizing the judicial position instead of focusing on issues. Even with life time appointments, the politics is bad.

3. Agree....but that gets tricky. There are massive economic consequences and adjustments to be made.

4. Agree..but what happens when the tax code changes and they are no longer required to report under the amendment? Best to leave this to the states who can pass laws more readily than the Federal Government.

5. Bad idea. Just about every election will be called into doubt by the losing party. It will make things worse, not better. We have only two methods of removing the president....and are slow moving. Some kind of improvement or third option sounds better.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to queentonic (Original post)

Mon Sep 3, 2018, 12:06 AM

22. Remove the presidential pardon power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #22)

Mon Sep 3, 2018, 02:15 AM

27. Also Executive Orders and Signing Statements.

They're both part of the Unitary Executive theory than Bush/Cheney were pushing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to creeksneakers2 (Reply #22)

Mon Sep 3, 2018, 07:23 AM

31. While a handful of pardons have gone to controversial figures

the overwhelming majority go to ordinary people, often those convicted of minor drug offenses. Getting rid of that power would be a huge mistake.

Here's a list of the pardons granted by Obama:https://www.justice.gov/pardon/obama-pardons

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to queentonic (Original post)

Mon Sep 3, 2018, 02:01 AM

24. Hear, Hear!

Agree with all of these queentonic. It won't be easy, but I think with some effort and backing by the populace it can be done.

Welcome to DU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to queentonic (Original post)


Response to queentonic (Original post)

Mon Sep 3, 2018, 02:07 AM

26. Eliminate midterm elections

The House gets four years, and the election is the same year as the presidential election.

The Senate gets eight years, elections are the same year as the presidential election.

States will be encouraged to do likewise.

- - - - -

We need a mechanism for an outside body to impeach a legislator. The Framers of the Constitution weren't perfect; one of the things they fucked up worst was not creating any way for someone besides Congress to get rid of a corrupt member. Perhaps the governors of five states could request a legislator be impeached, and a board of 100 members, one Democrat and one Republican from each state, meets in Washington to hear the evidence and decide. Conviction requires 67 votes.

- - - - -

Add a requirement to the list of requirements for president that a candidate must have been held an elected office within five years of the election, and the office has to be a governorship or a US Congress seat in either house. Cabinet secretaries must get elected to office before they are allowed to run for president.

- - - - -

A president's salary is set by Congress before the start of the president's term. Unless the president is receiving a military pension, he or she may not receive one dollar more than the statutorily-set presidential salary from the government.

- - - - -

The size of the House of Representatives will no longer be fixed at 435 seats. Instead, a state will receive one seat per each whole number multiple of the population of the smallest state. (So, if Wyoming has 500k residents, Idaho has 1.65 million and New York has 20 million, Wyoming gets one seat, Idaho gets three (1650k/500k = a little over 3) and New York gets 40. E-conferencing can be used to reduce the size of the hall needed to hold them all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to queentonic (Original post)

Mon Sep 3, 2018, 06:37 AM

29. These are great

I would add the removal of provisions in the 13 amendment that allow slavery to exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread