- NEW!
by Glenn Blaylock on September 14th, 2009
There are a number of things that I would like to see enshrined in amendments.
First of all, I would like to see term limits for the members of Congress. Too many of them are making a career out of it and I think that spending that much time in Washington, they lose touch with what it is really like for the rest of us. I think that I would like to see both houses limited to three terms with the option to run again after sitting out for one full term.
Second, I would like the line item veto given to the President. This would make it a lot easier to strip the pork out a budget.
It seems to me that there were others, but I can't think of them right now.
-------
Addendum:
I just remember the other amendment that I would like to see. I would eliminate the winner take all system that most states have for their electors. Instead, I would prefer the electors awarded for the House districts be chosen according to how their districts vote. As it is, in a state like California, those who live in rural areas are pretty much disenfranchised by Los Angeles and the Bay Area because those two areas tend to dominate the elections. If you take a look at the maps from the last election (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/statemapredbluer1024.png http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2008/countymapredbluer1024.png), you can see how much of the country was not really represented by the election results.
One of the main reasons for the electoral college was to insure that Presidential candidates could simply ignore the smaller states when campaigning. However, the winner take all system creates a different inequality. It makes it possible for Presidential candidates to simply focus on urban population center and ignore rural areas. By apportioning representation in the college according to how the Congressional districts vote it would prevent the urban areas from dominating a state's delegation.
by Tater on August 2nd, 2008
I would like to eliminate the Presidential Electoral College vote. We live in an age where we can count each person's vote and the college "voters" do not have to vote the will of the people. I also think the Presidential and Vice Presidential election should be separate. We have had some lame veeps because no Prez candidate will bring on a mate that will be better than he/she.
by wheaten on September 4th, 2006
I would think that to go to war would require a vote of american people so by popular vote, americans would decide if they wanted to engage in war over in another country.
Pros being that the majority of americans would decide to make that investment and not a few sitting in Washington that never send their own kids to war.
Cons would be in attaining the popular vote. The constitution was written to allow an amendment by popular vote as it is written for the people and the people's voice rule the course. It would have been more impossible to do years ago but with the technology we have today, the people could vote and the majority rule.
by Moongrim on September 15th, 2009
The "Put your money where your mouth is" Amendment.
You want a war- you're the first on the front line.
You want your church to run things? They're liable to pay their fair share of taxes, and they're liable to fund any mistakes made.
Essentially- you wanna change things- you get to pay for it, personally.
by Kat on October 16th, 2009
A most needed amendment should be same-sex partner marriages should be allowed in all States. I am not gay but I do not see why some people should be regarded as 'less'.
by ExactlyTwentyLetters on October 16th, 2009
I would like to see an amendment that decriminalized all vice-laws. Our prisons are filled with non-violent offenders that cost our country millions. These people need medical rehabilitation, not incarseration.
by MrJosh on October 16th, 2009
Corporations are not persons. They have no rights, only privledges. They are dissoved after 100 years.
-
Elections are publicly funded. Senators and members of congress have term limits. Lets say 20 years for a senator and 10 years for a representative.
by HungryGuy on October 6th, 2009
Prohibit corporations. All companies must be privately owned (proprietorship or partnership) and financed by their owners by loans or direct investment.
by purplecows on October 6th, 2009
When a statute is declared/found unconstitutional, the Legislators who voted for it are permanently disqualified from holding office.
by Fiddle Playing Creole Bastard on September 14th, 2009
Term limits.
I would also like to see an amendment clarifying the 1st and 2nd Amendment. There are those who think the 1st does not create a wall separating church and state. I think an amendment clarifying that there is and should be a divider would be beneficial. Dealing with the second amendment, I would like a further amendment that declares the right to bear arms as an individual right once and for all, free from the grammar battles over the actual intent.
by Ron C on September 14th, 2009
I would impose fines for not voting. Voting is the least that you owe your country, I cannot understand why citizen participation is not mandated in a Democratic republic.
by Will on August 2nd, 2008
Term limits.
by Roger Kovaciny on September 7th, 2006
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1300
After reading the link above, I think a lot of people might agree that the best amendment would be repealing the 19th and taking the right to vote away from women. As a group they seem to be incapable of defending the security of a country, keeping it from socialist stagnation, or protecting it from aggressive immigration.
by UpperCut on September 6th, 2006
I normally don;t ever comment on others people's answers, but that is the smartest thinhg I have heard all day (I hear a lot)
by purplecows on October 8th, 2009
Everytime a new law is passed, an old one must be repealed
by AntigoneRising on October 27th, 2009
11.) Massive clarification: All US citizens have equal rights and responsibilities before the law. No public money can go to organizations who discriminate in hiring or providing services.
12.) No, really, we meant freedom of religion, including to have none at all. That's why we didn't say "freedom to choose a Christian denomination". Church and state are separate. The government must maintain neutrality towards religion to represent all citizens impartially.
13.) Massive clarification: All children born on US soil or with one or more parents who are US citizens at the time of their birth are US citizens.
14.) Term limits. No elected member of the United States government can serve more than 2 consecutive terms.
15.) All US Citizens, and those authorized to work in the US, have the right to equal compensation for equal work.
16.) The US President has the right to veto any line item of any Bill. The veto can be overridden by a two-thirds vote of Congress.
by Bob on October 16th, 2009
retrospectively, the united states isn't supposed to have a standing army. we quickly realized that we needed one.
looking ahead, i think that we need an amendment assuring political fairness. all political campaigns ought to be fully financed by the government. standardized forms with "issues, proposed resolutions and theory behind it" ought to be available / provided to every voter weeks before the election along with means to translate for the deaf or foreign speaking or blind. allowing money and political influence to breed always results in corruption. i want honest politicians. all politicians and senior administrators must place their assets in blind trust before taking office. all of them must have total financial transparency. i'm conflicted about term limits. i want the people's representatives in the house of representatives to be limited to 2 cycles, 2 elections, or 4 years. i want the upper chamber, the united states senate, to have lots of HONEST, gray haired people who have been in the senate long enough to provide institutional memory when dealing with, say, a foreign dictator or a greedy CEO or bad ideas that didn't work last time they were tried on social issues.
by Phillis - Zacks little sister on October 16th, 2009
I'd like to see an amendment that focused on policing the corruption of politicians. Handshakes with corporations would lead to hefty fines on both sides, and immediate firings of lawmakers. No more corporate bedfellows! No more covering for fellow politicians! If they are also attornies, they are disbarred. +5
by malevolentbutticklis on September 25th, 2009
Voting should be restricted to US property owners. You must actually own the property outright (unmortaged and lien-free). The property ownership must be more than a token – e.g. it must appraise at least 100% of per capita GDP (three years savings at the Japanese rate of 34% of GDP).
by Slightly less anonymous on November 1st, 2009
I'm sorry, but there have been several term limit answers.
We have elections, why do we need term limits?
We have judges, why do we then need to tell them a prisoner may not be given less time than X or more time than Y? What is the purpose of having judges then? If lawmakers have already decided that X has already had two run ins with the law, then when X steals a few pairs of socks, he needs to go to jail for 25 years minimum. Aside from cruel and unusual punishment, we're going to spend $40,000 to $50,000 a year for a minimum of 25 years--not because you've ever done anything dangerous, but to make sure you don't steal another couple dollars worth in socks.
I'm sorry, but we either trust people to vote or we don't. If we trust them, then we don't need term limits.
We either trust judges to judge, or we don't. And right now we are trying so hard to be so careful, that we have strict term limits in some places and so things never get done because by the time elected officials finally get their way around, get to know people etc, their term is up. Lobbyists and assistants know the system better than elected officials in too many places. No wonder they don't get much done.
by purplecows on October 31st, 2009
There should be no names on the ballot. Every vote should be a write-in.
Because:
If you don't know the name of the person you want to vote for, you shouldn't be voting.
by Opera Fan on October 31st, 2009
I think the Constitution Admendment should be that the persons running for our country's most powerful position have to produce his original birth certificate and it be open for the public.
Another admendment should be that the Congress and Senate serve 4 year terms with a max. of 2 terms.
Another admendment should be that from the President all the way down the food chain in Wash. DC should have to pay into the S.S. and upon leaving the office they would not keep the lucrative pensions and benefits we have to pay for, for the rest of their lives and their surviving spouses.
by ExactlyTwentyLetters on November 2nd, 2009
I would like a Constitutional Amendment that made election day a national holiday.
by Papa Roach Girl on November 4th, 2009
Drugs should be legal.....Most people do something because they're told not to do it, so if someone asks you to do drugs you're probably gonna say yes. Also,their wouldn't be as much crimes because I bet more than half the people that murdered did it for drugs. And if someone OD you can't blame it on the store cause they(the person not store) are the ones that took the drugs, where as if someone was doing drugs and OD while it was illigal you could blame numerous people. I don't do drugs so I'm not just saying this for my benifit, I have actually been thinking about this for a while.
by Slightly less anonymous on November 7th, 2009
-----
by More2Be on November 4th, 2009
The constitution is a work of beauty without any additional amendments.
by dawg75 on January 9th, 2010
ban racist groups
by malevolentbutticklis on November 4th, 2009
See comment.
Where is Parris Island?
by Answerbag Staff on February 1st, 2011
| 2 people like this
Where can you find the Statue of Liberty?
by Answerbag Staff on January 31st, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Is censorship progressive or regressive? Defend your answer.
,.
by einsteinwasright0116 on January 28th, 2012
| 2 people like this
What is the mileage from Scottsdale to Tombstone, Arizona?
by Answerbag Staff on January 31st, 2011
| 1 person likes this
What happened to the good ol USA?
by WABOO on February 2nd, 2012
| 2 people like this
You're reading If we were going to propose a new amendment to the constitution, what would be the most needed amendment and what are the pros and cons of it?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
,){kind=link}
Comments
I could go with those. I'll ring up my congressman, no doubt he'll get right on it.
by Factotum on October 8th, 2009
The problem is that I doubt that we could get the needed two thirds of both houses in Congress to get the ball rolling on either of these amendments because they would mean a reduction in power for them. Additionally, I don't like the idea of throwing the whole think open to a constitutional convention because that would open things up for whatever crazy amendments various people can come up with.
by Glenn Blaylock on October 8th, 2009
I have always maintained that Presidents should have as many terms as they can be elected to while Congressmen and Senators should be shown the door.
.
The way the do business with committees that kill bills long before they can ever be voted on is a disgrace.
by Factotum on October 8th, 2009
No, I like the idea of term limits for all of them. Otherwise they come to think that they own the office to which they are elected and become unresponsive to the people who elect them. What is going on in Congress is a very good case in point. The Democrats are pushing ahead with their agenda despite the fact that the people are more and more telling them that they don't want it.
by Glenn Blaylock on October 9th, 2009
Aye. There is the possibility, though, that term limits might accidentally make politicians more efficient. I personally fear a lawmaking factory that works double shifts.
by Factotum on October 9th, 2009
Glenn: The past eight years have seen a tremedous increase in presidential power, do you really want to increase that power even more by giving presidents the line-item veto?
by ExactlyTwentyLetters on October 16th, 2009
States where the Governors have the line item veto tend to be much better about managing the people's money than those that don't. One of the things that allows legislators to pass a lot of pork spending is that they add this spending to important bills giving the executive the choice of either accepting all of the spending or vetoing the important provisions along with the pork. This can be an especially big deal when it is the actual budget that is loaded down with pork and the result of an outright veto would shut down the government. So, giving the president the ability to veto specific parts of a bill without having veto the whole thing places a very valuable check on the spending of the legislature.
by Glenn Blaylock on October 17th, 2009
Yeah. Especially bills that the president needs.
.
So, for example, Congress lards up defense spending bills to an obscene degree.
by Factotum on October 17th, 2009
why were there no term limits in the original Constitution?
.
why was there no line item veto in the original Constitution?
by purplecows on October 31st, 2009
I put it to you, Cow, that the term limits in the Constitution were the expected mortality rates of citizens at the time and that the line-item veto was based on the idea that Congress didn't have rules for secret votes and was made up of men who, if not more moral than us at least didn't collude in manufacturing pork. Remember they didn't have a federal income tax. The simply didn't have obscene amounts of tax money to misuse. Their job was to protect the interests of their particular states as balanced against the interests of the country as a whole, not to 'bring home the bacon'.
by Factotum on November 1st, 2009
there are term limits in the Constitution. they are called elections.
I think that some of the people who have "made a career out of it", who have dedicated their lives to congress, have done the most for the people, and some of them are very in touch. you don't get in touch or out of touch by how long you work in washington. it's part of who you are, what kind of politician you are, what kind of person. and there's no law or limit that can help with that. john q. adams went from the presidency back to congress, being a voice for the people. and he did a lot of good too. was he out of touch from spending so much time in washington? from having been president? or did he dedicate his life to his country?
we have elections, why are they not good enough?
by Slightly less anonymous on November 1st, 2009
Why are they not good enough? Because we have a lazy electorate that mostly doesn't take the time to study the issues and actually vote. You can look at what is happening right now in Congress. The polls are turning more and more against the policies that they are pushing, but the leadership there is ignoring the will of the people. They seem to think that they know better than we do what is good for us and are bound and determined to shove their changes down our throats despite the increasing opposition among the people. That is being out of touch with what people want.
by Glenn Blaylock on November 1st, 2009
I take your point, Anon and it's a good one. But as long as committee positions can be used to bring home pork we will have the kind of behavior we see now.
.
It's kind of telling that no other presidents have returned to serve in Congress.
by Factotum on November 1st, 2009
yes, they have. a list of the other presidents who have returned to serve the federal government after leaving presidential office
john tyler (who served out william henry harrison's one term after his death), didn't run for a term of his own. he served as president from 1841-1845. In february of 1861, he was elected chairmen of the peace convention in D.C. (trying to stave off the civil war). he did however at the end of the month suggest that virginia secede...and so he joined the Virginia Convention on Policy. In May he was elected to the Provisional Congress of the Confederacy, and later that year, elected to the permanent Congress of the Confederacy...but he died before he could take his seat, so technically, he gave his life to serving his country, sorta.
continued..
by Slightly less anonymous on November 1st, 2009
andrew johnson served in the senate after his presidency. actually, he ran for the house of reps, lost, the senate, lost, but in 1874, the tennessee legislature appointed him to the senate, and he served in the senate from March 4, 1875 until he died from a stroke on July 31 that year. In his first speech since returning to the Senate (he's served before his presidency), which was also unfortunately his last, Johnson spoke about political turmoil in Louisiana. His passion aroused a standing ovation from many of his fellow senators who had once voted to remove him from the presidency
Ulysses S Grant, spent two years traveling with his wife after leaving the presidency. He then came back and attempted to run again for a third term but lost the nomination to Grant, whom he then campaigned for. In March 1885, now President Grant returned him to the generals list (he was a general before a president) with full pay. He died in June.
continued...
by Slightly less anonymous on November 1st, 2009
William Howard Taft had a great legal and judicial career before becoming president. In 1890, President Benjamin Harrison appointed him Solicitor General of the United States. He served on the newly created United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in 1891. He was on track to serve on the Supreme Court, Chief Justice, that's what he wanted.
But, in 1900, President McKinley appointed Taft chairman of a commission to organize a civilian government in the Philippines. He accepted the appoint reluctantly, serving as the first civilian Governor-General of the Philippines.
In 1903, President Theodore Roosevelt offered Taft the seat on the Supreme Court he wanted, but he reluctantly declined since he viewed the Filipinos as not yet being capable of governing themselves and because of his popularity among them.
continuing...
by Slightly less anonymous on November 1st, 2009
He later served as President Roosevelt's Secretary of War, then as President himself. When he finally left the white house--job after job he didn't want, including president, he had served his country over and over again, never getting the job. Serving three presidents, serving as president, and never getting the chance to do what he wanted to. He appointed 6 justices, including Chief Justice during his term. He gave 6 people the job he'd aspired to all his life.
After his presidency, he returned to the law. He taught, he wrote, he advocated. Even before WWI broke out he promoted the idea of a League of Nations. When war did break out, he founded the League to Enforce Peace, and was co-chairmen of the National War Labor Board between 1917 and 1918. Finally, June 30, 1921, following the death of Chief Justice Edward Douglass White, President Harding nominated Taft to take his place. He served until 1930. He retired due to ill health and died five weeks later.
by Slightly less anonymous on November 1st, 2009
You got me. Two more presidents, so three out of 44.
by Factotum on November 1st, 2009
Dwight D. Eisenhower, had his military rank restored after leaving office. On March 22, 1961, his commission on the retired list was was commissioned a five-star general in the United States Army, by President Kennedy.
by Slightly less anonymous on November 1st, 2009
fine then, let's start at the beginning:
George Washington:
commander of the Continental Army: 1775–1783
President: 1789–1797
oh, and in between, in case you were worried he had time off, he was busy, you know, creating the country
"On July 4, 1798, Washington was commissioned by President John Adams to be Lieutenant General and Commander-in-chief of the armies raised or to be raised for service in a prospective war with France. He served as the senior officer of the United States Army between July 13, 1798, and December 14, 1799. He participated in the planning for a Provisional Army to meet any emergency that might arise, but did not take the field."
Why did his duties end on December 14, 1799? Because he died!
by Slightly less anonymous on November 1st, 2009
I could seriously go through just about every President. You'll find out they either died in office, or shortly after or served their country in some way afterwards. Maybe it wasn't the senate. Maybe the current President asked them to go on a peacekeeping mission. Or meet with world leaders that they couldn't, that no one "official official" could, but they wanted someone of similar standing to. You think President Clinton just drops by foreign countries for fun? Sometimes, you get a call. And the call says, I can't do this, I can't be seen as being a part of this, but you have the right amount of legitimacy and not. I need you to.
And, frankly, I think our leaders should get to retire. Washington deserved the joy he got from farming. He didn't want to serve a second term. He did so reluctantly. Some of our best leaders have been reluctant ones. But we don't notice that so much.
by Slightly less anonymous on November 1st, 2009
One last thing, because I'm not going to waste my time going through every president--you want to learn from history you can learn how to read yourself.
Elections work. You don't like our leaders? You don't like our voting system? Or how uninformed people are? Or some other part of the system? Then do something about it. Start by saying something about it. Do I see problems? Damn straight I do. But I don't see any problems that term limits are the solution to. And the things you've been complaining about-I don't see how term limits help. So complain. Tell me what the problems are. Tell me why term limits are the solution. Do SOMETHING. Don't just repeat term limits over and over again. Then you sound like a duck. And we have more than enough of those to go around.
History is great. Learn from it. I get being jaded and assuming life doesn't change. But assuming you know what happened when it's at your fingertips? When you can look? The point of history is to learn
by Slightly less anonymous on November 1st, 2009
What do you have to say about the Congressional fiefdoms and the uneven distribution of power that comes from the seniority system? Does the fact that certain Congressmen wield special bill-crushing power not fly in the face of the whole idea of representation by state and by populace?
by Factotum on November 2nd, 2009
Ok...I feel like a teacher pulling teeth trying to get a student to make an argument. Pretend you're writing a paper, or trying talking to someone who knows nothing about this. You can't just make a statement and assume that from that, everything, including your position is obvious and falls into place.
But, you've started. You've finally made a complaint. I'm not going to argue over the validity of it or whether or not I agree. Pretend it's true, absolutely factual--it IS a problem. Now, how will term limits help? How will they stop this from happening? Make your case. Go for it. Give me the complaint. In detail. Tell me what's wrong, tell me why, and tell me why and how term limits will fix this problem. Tell me why they are the best fix for the problem. Then, then I'll respond. But until you do that, you're just spastically throwing out complaints and half arguments. There's nothing to argue against, no one to debate with until you do this. Go ahead. Make your case.
by Slightly less anonymous on November 2nd, 2009