• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ideas for New US Constitutional Amendments

Which Amendment idea(s) do you like the best?

  • 1

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 2

    Votes: 3 42.9%
  • 3

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 4

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 5

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • All of them

    Votes: 1 14.3%
  • None of them

    Votes: 3 42.9%
  • Not sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    7
  • Poll closed .

thmsprkns91

New member
Joined
Jan 30, 2019
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Location
Texas, USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Here are some ideas for New US Constitutional Amendments. I am posting this to try to see if the ideas have any point or merit of any kind and to expand and develop the ideas even further. These are only Ideas, Notes, Descriptions, and comments. Think these ideas would work in some way or form or not? Anything to be improved on or changed in some way? Know of anything to expand and develop the ideas further? There has got to be some areas for some refining and polishing up some where. Please let me know what you think of the ideas, so far.


1> State Governors after a High Majority of them, all in agreement as one (like 40 or 45 or even more State Governors) given some temporary limited US Presidential Authorities/Powers (all as one) on a issue by issue basis. [Examples: Executive Orders and Pardons]


2> Term Limits for US Congressional Senators and Representatives of a Maximum of 24 years. (Senators 4 terms, 24 years max) (Representatives 12 terms, 24 years max)


3> Balances and Limitations between Security, Privacy, and Liberty. (Too much Security would interfere with Privacy, and Liberty. Too much Liberty would cause Security to be of no effect or non-existent.)
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin [from refrigerator magnet]
(“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Benjamin Franklin) [Memoirs of the life & writings of Benjamin Franklin - https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/privacy]


4> Dynamic & Innovative Public Education / Evolving Public Education - Requirement to continually update and change the Public Education System to the most Optimum utilizable and applicable for all 50 states and otherwise allowing each state to form their own education system standards. (The current system is based from ideas that are from over a hundred years ago, and they do not work very well. Some states have a hard time keeping up with other states in Education.) (Public Grade School)


5> Anti-Censorship - Always providing an option in some way, shape, form or some other variation to be able to access censored Information or Content. People can view or access if they want and not if they do not want view or access whatever would normally be censored. It is understood that it is necessary to have somethings censored from public view, but what about special options to access censored information and content securely on the internet or some other option; with Exceptions for Currently Active Law Enforcement Investigations and real National Security concerns, and maybe possibly others. (This would definitely be related to Art, Entertainment, and any publications.) (The 1st Amendment does help with preventing some censorship, but it does not go far enough. Whatever the 1st Amendment does not protect, is what this idea is for and involves.)
 
Last edited:
To improve US democracy I'd like to see the Constitution rewritten to make the following basic changes:

1. Separation of the head of state and head of government.
The President should be an a-political figurehead - similar to that of the British Queen with no real power.

2. The head of the government should be elected by the House of Representatives and must be a member of said house - in much the same way that the head of the Britih/Irish/German governments is.

3. The position of VP to be abolished

4. Any government bill requires just a majority in the House and the Senate

5. Congressmen serve 5 year terms with all of them up for election at the same time.
 
To improve US democracy I'd like to see the Constitution rewritten to make the following basic changes:

1. Separation of the head of state and head of government.
The President should be an a-political figurehead - similar to that of the British Queen with no real power.

2. The head of the government should be elected by the House of Representatives and must be a member of said house - in much the same way that the head of the Britih/Irish/German governments is.

3. The position of VP to be abolished

4. Any government bill requires just a majority in the House and the Senate

5. Congressmen serve 5 year terms with all of them up for election at the same time.

Looks like you prefer a semi-parliamentary government. My advice? Move to Canada. :coffeepap:
 
To improve US democracy I'd like to see the Constitution rewritten to make the following basic changes:

1. Separation of the head of state and head of government.
The President should be an a-political figurehead - similar to that of the British Queen with no real power.

2. The head of the government should be elected by the House of Representatives and must be a member of said house - in much the same way that the head of the Britih/Irish/German governments is.

3. The position of VP to be abolished

4. Any government bill requires just a majority in the House and the Senate

5. Congressmen serve 5 year terms with all of them up for election at the same time.

To sum up, sounds like you are for tyranny of the majority. Exactly what America does NOT stand for. Then lets add little on job experience to insure mob rule. Sounds good to me.
 
Do you not see any advantage in separating the head of state from the head of government ?

In a word? NO!

We've been doing fairly well since our system was established, and our Founders had the opportunity to create a parliamentary government way back when but chose not to.

I am content with our system, which despite all naysayers to the contrary, has served our nation well. :coffeepap:
 
My favorite Constitution Amendments are:

  • 1st
  • 4th
  • 5th
  • 6th
  • 13th - 15th, inclusive
  • 19th
  • 21st
  • 23rd
  • 25th
 
Here are some ideas for New US Constitutional Amendments. I am posting this to try to see if the ideas have any point or merit of any kind and to expand and develop the ideas even further. These are only Ideas, Notes, Descriptions, and comments. Think these ideas would work in some way or form or not? Anything to be improved on or changed in some way? Know of anything to expand and develop the ideas further? There has got to be some areas for some refining and polishing up some where. Please let me know what you think of the ideas, so far.


1> State Governors after a High Majority of them, all in agreement as one (like 40 or 45 or even more State Governors) given some temporary limited US Presidential Authorities/Powers (all as one) on a issue by issue basis. [Examples: Executive Orders and Pardons]


2> Term Limits for US Congressional Senators and Representatives of a Maximum of 24 years. (Senators 4 terms, 24 years max) (Representatives 12 terms, 24 years max)


3> Balances and Limitations between Security, Privacy, and Liberty. (Too much Security would interfere with Privacy, and Liberty. Too much Liberty would cause Security to be of no effect or non-existent.)
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin [from refrigerator magnet]
(“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Benjamin Franklin) [Memoirs of the life & writings of Benjamin Franklin - https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/privacy]


4> Dynamic & Innovative Public Education / Evolving Public Education - Requirement to continually update and change the Public Education System to the most Optimum utilizable and applicable for all 50 states and otherwise allowing each state to form their own education system standards. (The current system is based from ideas that are from over a hundred years ago, and they do not work very well. Some states have a hard time keeping up with other states in Education.) (Public Grade School)


5> Anti-Censorship - Always providing an option in some way, shape, form or some other variation to be able to access censored Information or Content. People can view or access if they want and not if they do not want view or access whatever would normally be censored. It is understood that it is necessary to have somethings censored from public view, but what about special options to access censored information and content securely on the internet or some other option; with Exceptions for Currently Active Law Enforcement Investigations and real National Security concerns, and maybe possibly others. (This would definitely be related to Art, Entertainment, and any publications.) (The 1st Amendment does help with preventing some censorship, but it does not go far enough. Whatever the 1st Amendment does not protect, is what this idea is for and involves.)

1: No chance in any way shape or form.

2: How about we just let the people vote for who they want period? Repeal the term limit for President would be more preferable.

3: Who decides what The Balance is? Those in power? Or the Mob rule route? Let's keep it on a case by case basis the way it is now. ;)

4: How would you determine that "optimum"? Personally I have suggested before that we examine that top rated 5-10 countries education systems, take the best from those, adjust it to the US's culture and implement them here.

5: Corporations wouldn't let this happen. It gives them too much power as it stands.
 
To improve US democracy I'd like to see the Constitution rewritten to make the following basic changes:

1. Separation of the head of state and head of government.
The President should be an a-political figurehead - similar to that of the British Queen with no real power.

2. The head of the government should be elected by the House of Representatives and must be a member of said house - in much the same way that the head of the Britih/Irish/German governments is.

3. The position of VP to be abolished

4. Any government bill requires just a majority in the House and the Senate

5. Congressmen serve 5 year terms with all of them up for election at the same time.

Such a style of government already exists. It sucks. No thanks. If you like it then you're quite free to move there if you wish.
 
Do you not see any advantage in separating the head of state from the head of government ?

To place em as a figure-head? Hellz no. Figureheads are just there to distract the people from the real goings on of the rest of the government. It's a sham.
 
To sum up, sounds like you are for tyranny of the majority. Exactly what America does NOT stand for. Then lets add little on job experience to insure mob rule. Sounds good to me.

The courts and the law keep us from becoming a mob ruled nation. The separation of powers attempts to prevent any one faction from dominating at the expense of others. However, since we are now a minority ruled nation (except the House thankfully), we do need some means of balancing the inherent advantages factions and small states have in controlling the lives of the majority of Americans. Our founding system is broken, we cannot sustain the current imbalance of power forever. As people move from rural to urban America, the breaking point will happen whether we like it or not. I am sorry but the majority of us really could care less about the few voters in Iowa or North Dakota or Montana that seem to insist we give them special unequal power over the rest of us.
 
To improve US democracy I'd like to see the Constitution rewritten to make the following basic changes:

1. Separation of the head of state and head of government.
The President should be an a-political figurehead - similar to that of the British Queen with no real power.

2. The head of the government should be elected by the House of Representatives and must be a member of said house - in much the same way that the head of the Britih/Irish/German governments is.

3. The position of VP to be abolished

4. Any government bill requires just a majority in the House and the Senate

5. Congressmen serve 5 year terms with all of them up for election at the same time.

The President is just a figure head, look at the powers given to the President as opposed to the powers given to Congress.

The head of the government election is just fine the way it is, to give that power to the House would in essence make the Head of government cater to the House. This is why we have a 3 branch government with "Separate and Equal powers".

If you abolish the VP then who is in charge if the POTUS can not do their job?????

Most bills already require a majority of votes from both branches of Congress.

Senators and Representatives already have term limits, Senator is 6 years and a Representative is 2 years, it called voting them out of office.
 
My favorite Constitution Amendments are:

  • 1st
  • 4th
  • 5th
  • 6th
  • 13th - 15th, inclusive
  • 19th
  • 21st
  • 23rd
  • 25th

The point is about the ideas, not any of the current US Constitutional Amendments, that is irrelevant to the topic.
 
Here are some ideas for New US Constitutional Amendments. ... Anything to be improved on or changed in some way? Know of anything to expand and develop the ideas further? There has got to be some areas for some refining and polishing up some where. Please let me know what you think of the ideas, so far....

First:
General suggestions on how to improve the quality of your explications, OP-er.


  • [*=1]Write your ideas in complete sentences.
    [*=1]Develop a much clearer comprehension of loose and strict construction as it applies to the composition of Constitutional provisions and the notion of a "living" Constitution. This suggestion is offered because the nature of refinements your proposals entail will, to be well developed and implementable, require you to those two concepts in mind and apply them in the composition of your proposals.

    I've offered this suggestion because honing ideas 3-5 risks one's being overly precise. Composing jurisprudential proposals is as much art as science. This suggestion, then, advises that you develop your abilities in the art of doing so. Mind you, what you've composed thus far is too "artful" (vague), albeit in a haphazard way, but in abating that aspect, you'll need to be more artfully adept without discarding the art of it as you also incorporate precision and clarity into your proposals.
    [*=1]Consider carefully the nature and extent of what you aim to propose, and then express your ideas completely.

    • [*=1]It seems you've sacrificed expositive clarify and completeness for brevity. Such a trade-off may be inconsequential when sharing ideas with folks who know you and your political philosophy well enough to suss your meaning. When communicating to strangers, your brevity creates uncertainty.

    [*=1]Conduct rigorous research into the subject matters of idea one and ideas three through five. (See my comments in the following section for more detail in this regard.)
    [*=1]Develop rigorous argument for most of your proposed amendments. (Read the Federalist Papers to get an idea of what I mean.) You probably don't need to do much work for idea 2 because it's such a hackneyed notion. For that one, you need only (1) reference an extant term limits argument, (2) supplement it with (a) your own case for the temporal limit you specified and (b) whatever ways and means you'd implement to mitigate the downsides of term limits.

Second:

  • Idea 1 suggestion --> Rewrite this proposal so it's clear what exactly you're proposing.
  • Idea 2 --> This proposal is fairly clear. It's not clear whether you mean 24-years in total or 24 successive years.
  • Idea 3 --> Legislators and policy makers have, for as long as they've been writing and enacting laws/policies, applied the principle you've described in this proposed amendment (AMDT). Insofar as they have, your proposal needs to delineate terms for things such as, but not limited to:
    • Scope of noted balance's applicability. Two but hardly the only traits of the AMDT's scope are:
      • Qualitative circumstances wherein security concerns must obtain primacy over privacy
      • Qualitative circumstances wherein privacy must obtain primacy over security concerns
      • What individuals, entities and groups' security/privacy holds primacy over that of other individuals, entities and groups
    • Temporal factors pertaining to any laws/policies enacted or rescinded and that constrain privacy/tighten security.
  • Idea 4:
    • Describe clearly what be the nature of (1) dynamism, (2) innovation and (3) evolution you would see Constitutionally codified.
      • Present a case for codifying at a Constitutional level whatever those things be.
    • Be sure to propose something that isn't already happening.
    • Questions:
      • Insofar as the management and delivery of public education systems falls under the authority of the states, not the federal government, what makes you think states will yield that authority?
      • Insofar as public school systems are overwhelmingly funded by property taxes, how, if the federal government is going to do more than promulgate minimum qualitative education standards, do you foresee funding the implementation of the amendment you've proposed in idea 4?
  • Idea 5: The following are the types of unprotected speech as per the 1st Amendment:

    -- Obscenity
    -- Fighting words
    -- Defamation (including libel and slander)
    -- Child pornography
    -- Perjury Blackmail
    -- Incitement to imminent lawless action
    -- True threats
    -- Solicitations to commit crimes

    Which of them do you suggest be not proscribed? You'll need to identify them and explain why they should not be "censored."
 
A new branch of Congress whole sole job is to repeal legislation. Still requiring a Presidential signature.

We have entirely too many overlapping laws and there does not need to be a law for every little thing.
 
1: No chance in any way shape or form.

2: How about we just let the people vote for who they want period? Repeal the term limit for President would be more preferable.

3: Who decides what The Balance is? Those in power? Or the Mob rule route? Let's keep it on a case by case basis the way it is now. ;)

4: How would you determine that "optimum"? Personally I have suggested before that we examine that top rated 5-10 countries education systems, take the best from those, adjust it to the US's culture and implement them here.

5: Corporations wouldn't let this happen. It gives them too much power as it stands.

1> Your welcome to your opinion. The intention would be for the actual use of the Amendment is to be near impossible and extremely rare. The level of power or authority that it would give would be probably very appealing to states and governors.

2> For one thing, power goes to the politicians heads, and they start to control and manipulate the people that are voting for them. It is not good to have the exact same people re-elected endlessly over and over again; it is good when it is someone you like being in office, and it is not good when it is someone you do not like being in office. I do not think people should be able to make a political office some kind of endless career or anything else of the similar, but a temporary stay in office. Most voters do not care and only re-elect the incumbent endlessly until they retire, die or they tick-off the voter enough to vote against them in some way or another, and that is endless non-sense to me. There should not be people in office continually ever since a different political era, like the cold war. Sometimes old ways, standards, status-ques, systems, political stagnations/ruts, mentalities, political philosophies, so on and so forth, all need to be able to change and come to an end, when and as necessary. And why not when and if there are possibilities of something better, more effective, more efficient, applicable, so on and so forth. Anyway, I would not mind there being some kind of basis for US Presidential term extensions. But, for most part, I think the 2 4-year terms limit is not necessarily a bad thing to have in place as it is right now.

3> I know that the idea needs to be developed further. But, it definitely defeats the whole point of the idea if it was decided by those in any power or authority, and especially if it was any mob rule, the whole idea is to prevent that sort of thing in the first place. It is not good to wait until it is way too difficult to pass an amendment when something actually becomes more necessary to be an amendment; the 2nd amendment would have never passed today for example. (Not that I am against the 2nd amendment or anything like that.) I just think it would be best to have an amendment to have Balances and Limitations in place for Security, Privacy, and Liberty to Prevent and Avoid possible future problems involving Too much Security, Invasion of Privacy, and a lack of Liberty.

4> I was not sure what way would have been best idea or suggestion, I was still sorting things out and debating with myself from time to time, but that would be a likely way to go for a possible amendment, so I can agree with exactly that as a option.

5> This is Anti-Censorship not Anti-Copyright, the intention would be to further limit or prevent what can be hidden or suppressed from public view or access. People and Corporations would still hold their copyright, they just would be limited to what can actually be Copyrighted and also be hidden or vaulted away out of public view or access. With this intended idea however, some parts of copyright law would come to no effect, nonetheless. Archiving or Setting up Databases for absolutely anything which are usually censored for even being Obscene, Vulgar, Inappropriate, Unsightly, Ungodly, hateful, etc. I am against anything being censored, but I understand that I that things sometimes need to not be so easily seen on accident in any manner of speaking.
 
To sum up, sounds like you are for tyranny of the majority. Exactly what America does NOT stand for....

Remind me again, why shouldn't the majority have their way ?

But in direct answer to you, you'd still have the House and the Senate, so a party would need the necessary majority in BOTH. And if it would make you feel better you can make it so the Senate needs a 60-40 margin.
But isn't this handing power to a minority?
Is that what the USA stands for?

And just for completion's sake, where and when has there ever been a "tyranny of the majority" in a Democracy ?

(I suppose you're going to say in the land of Ancient Greece....
gfm7175 said that...I asked him for a source on the "tyranny of ancient Greek democracy and he said his source was "history" )



...then lets add little on job experience to insure mob rule. Sounds good to me.


I think you mean "ENSURE". Perhaps you need to take Trump's advice and go back to school before debating with the adults.

When you say mob rule, are you referring to incidents like Chancellorsville ?
Or perhaps southern lynch mobs ?
 
In a word? NO!

We've been doing fairly well since our system was established, and our Founders had the opportunity to create a parliamentary government way back when but chose not to.

I am content with our system, which despite all naysayers to the contrary, has served our nation well....


And with Trump as the USA's head of state and official representative overseas....you still say that with a straight face?


No, there are definite advantages of having a separate head of state to the government.


The head of state doesn't get his/her hands dirty. They command universal respect when the head of the government may well be hated by half the population.
 
Such a style of government already exists....

Yes, as I stated


...it sucks....


Care to elaborate ?

What are its flaws ?

In which government, with such a system, have you seen bad government ?
And when ?
And precisely why was it bad ?

You don't know do you ? You just spouted a right wing "USA is best" piece of jingoism.
Try explaining what you mean and why and perhaps you'll be given some credibility.


Combining the head of government and head of state is what totalitarian regimes like Russia do.
 
The President is just a figure head, look at the powers given to the President as opposed to the powers given to Congress...

The President rules through Congressional approval.

The President is the head of the Executive branch - he/she determines policy...initiates laws/treaties...

Congress just votes on them.

Take all that away from the President. Make him a figurehead...go on foreign visits, open bridges, launch ships, meet and entertain visiting dignitaries...that kind of thing.
Think HM The Queen.



...the head of the government election is just fine the way it is...

You think it's a good thing that the President of the USA is reviled and derided, both home and overseas ?


Let the leader of the House (the speaker) be the head of the government. He/she can appoint the cabinet members (who must all be members of Congress).



If you abolish the VP then who is in charge if the POTUS can not do their job?????

Most bills already require a majority of votes from both branches of Congress.

Senators and Representatives already have term limits, Senator is 6 years and a Representative is 2 years, it called voting them out of office.[/QUOTE]
 
I misread poll, thought it was voting on the US constitution and which amendments I liked best.
 
Do you not see any advantage in separating the head of state from the head of government ?

You essentially want to create a new head of state while retaining the old one as a vanity position. I think a better idea would be for Congress to stop delegating their powers to the President and take back what they have already passed over to him. You are right that the President should largely be more of a figurehead, so go after the lazy congress that would rather pass on their duty to the executive branch and force them to actually do their jobs.
 
You essentially want to create a new head of state while retaining the old one as a vanity position....

I don't know if I'd call it a "Vanity Position". I'd strip a lot of the trappings of the Presidency away like Air Force One, the White House - which i would make the official residence of the Speaker of the House.


...I think a better idea would be for Congress to stop delegating their powers to the President and take back what they have already passed over to him. You are right that the President should largely be more of a figurehead, so go after the lazy congress that would rather pass on their duty to the executive branch and force them to actually do their jobs.


Start by having the Speaker of the House appoint the cabinet - who must all be members of Congress.

The Speaker is at the political "coal face" getting his/her hands dirty on a day to day basis and basically running the country.

The best thing about this arrangement is that if the Speaker loses support in the House, they are replaced. we would never have a situation like we just had where the head of the government (the PotUSA) was locking horns with Congress.


Take Obama, a decent human being but a useless president because he was emasculated by a hostile Congress. You essentially get a lame duck president and 4-8 years of political inertia.
 
My favorite Constitution Amendments are:

  • 1st
  • 4th
  • 5th
  • 6th
  • 13th - 15th, inclusive
  • 19th
  • 21st
  • 23rd
  • 25th

I like them all. Some of them are administered heavy handedly, but that's what you get...
 
"When you say mob rule, are you referring to incidents like Chancellorsville ?
Or perhaps southern lynch mobs ?"

That's what you get with "Majority rules...
 
Back
Top Bottom