In light of Trump posting an article on Truth Social favoring a Convention of the States under Article V

<This OP will be three posts due to length. Necessary to give at least a rough idea of my proposal>

In light of Trump posting an article on Truth Social favoring a Convention of the States under Article V.

Lets just say that while we may both favor major Constitutional change, I have a substantially different view of what that change should be.

However, calling for a Convention of the States is an implicit declaration that the Constitution is broken, although I am certain that Trump and I greatly differ on the question of HOW?

I will not address in this thread what Trump wants, but what I would push for at an Article V Convention.

1. Neutering the Executive Branch in general and the President in particular. The Presidency has been far too powerful for far too long (since Abraham Lincoln and even before).

a. Limit the President to one four year term. (That would include an age limit of 65 at inauguration so that he would not reach age 70 while in office.) If he had previously served greater than two years of an unexpired term, he would be ineligible to run or serve as President again.

b. Creating separate Executive Branch offices of Attorney General and Comptroller (who would appoint the Treasurer).

c. All three offices would be directly elected by the people of the United States, including those living in DC, the territories and those overseas, using ranked choice instant runoff voting. Each party would internally nominate their candidates with no primary elections permitted. Power would be divided among the three officers and none would control the others, but would put a check on the executive branch by dividing up the executive power, as is done in most States.

d. The office of Vice President would be abolished and the Senate would elect its own President from its membership. Secession to the Presidency (and to the Attorney General and Comptroller) would come solely from the principal officers of their respective departments.

e. Congress would explicitly be able to make certain offices tenured and beyond removal by the President and require certain boards to have a partisan balance, explicitly rejecting the unitary executive theory, although the President would retain the ability to fire principal officers of the principal executive departments. Tenure would be restricted to multi-member regulatory bodies, generally those bodies that Congress has historically endowed with tenure.

f. The President and all other executive branch officers would be stripped of any real or imagined immunity recently granted by the Supreme Court and would be jointly and severally liable for all acts and omissions, including criminally liable.

g. The President would be required to spend ALL appropriated funds, unless the Congress EXPLICITLY grants impoundment authority.

h. The power of recess appointment would be explicitly abolished and constitutional limits on temporary appointments would be put in place to prevent a President from attempting to evade the requirement for advice and consent from the Senate.

g. The nomination of Article III Justices and Judges would be vested in judicial nominating commissions required to have a partisan balance and a supermajority requirement for nominations, ensuring that all nominees are in the mainstream. The President would make his appointment from a list of three nominees, without requirement for Senate advice and consent. The idea is that it would be impossible for Presidents of either party to stack the Article III Courts with ideological lapdogs.

<Breaking to next post.>

<Breaking from previous post.>

2. Fundamentally restructuring Congress to make it actually representative and functional.

a. Increase the size of the House of Representatives and elect members by party list proportional representation, so that if a party gets 42% of the vote, it gets 42% of the seats, no more, no less.

b. Change the Senate to be elected by Senate Regions, rather than States, with seats being apportioned by population. Senators would be elected in the same manner as Representatives.

c. As is the case in most nations, I would reduce the power of the Senate in relation to the House. For example, appropriations would solely be handled by the House and the Senate would have a limited role in budgeting. All legislation would be required to originate in the House and the Senate would have a review and revision role, similar to the House of Lords, with the House ultimately having the final say on legislation. The Senate would retain its advice and consent prerogatives for nominations and treaties, but otherwise would be subordinate to the House.

d. The President would retain a veto, but it would be suspensive, needing only a simple majority of the Senate and House to override, making it easier for Congress to claw back power from the President, in addition to generally shifting the balance of power in favor of Congress. An example of clawing back power would be repealing blanket tariff authorizations. Currently, the President can veto any repeals, preventing Congress from reclaiming its rightful power.

e. The House of Representatives would have to explicitly approve all executive branch regulations.

f. The term of office of Senators and Representatives would be four years, with an age limit of 65 at the beginning of the term, same as with the President. Senators and Representatives could serve unlimited terms, but only on an 8 year in, 4 year out basis. That would also apply to switching from the House to the Senate. If you were in the House 8 years, you would have to take a 4 year break before starting Senate service. Members could not run directly for the Presidency, but would essentially have to have a 4 year break from Congress prior to taking office as President.

3. Reforms to the Judicial branch.

a. Requirement of 15 years uninterrupted or cumulative legal service post law school graduation for appointment to any Article III office. That would include private practice, with experience in Federal Court prioritized. State Judicial service. State attorney or public defender service, with prioritization for those with substantial experience on both sides. Law clerk experience with Federal clerking service prioritized. Broad Federal civil trial experience, with prioritization to those who have substantial experience both on the plaintiff's and defendant's side and limiting those whose experience is almost solely on the civil plaintiff's. Candidates with broad experience in both criminal and civil matters would be prioritized. Candidates with more overall experience would be prioritized, unless the younger candidate has truly outstanding credentials. While 15 years would be the minimum, most selected candidates would be expected to be in the range of 20 to 30 years of experience, meaning that most appointees would hit the bench between 45 and 55 years of age, helping to limit overall tenure.

b. Retirement would from active status would be mandatory when a Justice/Judge reaches the age of 65, has reached 10 years of service and the total of his age/tenure = 80. For most individuals, that would result in retirement from active status between 65 and 70 years of age. Retirement from senior status would be mandatory at 75, though a Judge would be permitted to stay on duty after 75 long enough to clear his docket, generally about 3 months or so.

<Breaking to next post.>

<Breaking from previous post.>

4. General reform to the Federal government.

a. Heavy limitations on the tariff power, with tariffs having to be authorized and reauthorized in specific circumstances for no more than 90 days at a time and generally restricting tariffs to TRULY extreme situations. Standing tariffs would be forbidden.

b. Restrictions on protectionism, for example, essentially banning legislation such as the Jones Act.

c. Forbidding direct taxation by both the Federal and State governments, to include capitation taxes, wealth taxes, personal property taxes and (for the Federal Government only) real property taxes. States would retain their needed ability to levy real property taxes.

d. All indirect taxation, including income taxes, would remain fully legal.

e. The Federal Government would gain the sole and exclusive power to regulate the food and drug supply of the United States, as well as the sole and exclusive power to regulate agriculture.

f. The Federal Government would have the power engage in revenue sharing with the States for the purpose of funding education, but would be required to allocate spending to school districts on a per capita basis and would be forbidden to withhold or reduce funding to any district in an attempt coerce the district in any way. The Federal Government would be allowed to issue non-binding guidance to the States on education, but would be forbidden from issuing any binding regulation on the States or school districts.

g. The Federal Government would gain explicit power, concurrent with the States, to create and administer a social safety net.

h. The Federal Government would gain explicit power to create and maintain national parks, forests, wilderness and monuments as well as administer its owned land in the public interest. Public land could only be sold with an Act of Congress.

i. The Federal Government would be required to surrender its monopoly on First Class Post with 5 years and other companies could compete. The requirement for 6 day delivery and universal delivery would be repealed. Yes, people like ME would be required to get off our asses and drive to the post office to send and receive First Class Post. I can live with that. Probably because I already do so.

j. I would establish a much more robust Bill of Rights.

k. I would tweak the commerce clause to make it impossible for States (particularly California) to attempt to extend their regulatory authority beyond State lines.

l. I would require the Comptroller of the United States to ensure that the obligations of the full faith and credit of the United States are satisfied, including the authority to borrow money to ensure the debt obligations of the United States are paid on time and the United States never defaults.

5. And a bunch of other stuff.

I will take Mr. Trump up on that Convention of the States. And I will do as the founders did. They dumped out the Articles of Confederation and wrote a Constitution from scratch. I would dump out the current Constitution and write a new Constitution from scratch, one that is fit for the challenges of the 21st Century and beyond, not the needs of a tiny, slave holding, agricultural republic.

Craziness.


A key uncertainty surrounding a constitutional convention, specifically an Article V convention, is the lack of defined rules and procedures in the Constitution itself. This means there's no clear guidance on how the convention would be organized, how it would be governed, or what the scope of its work could be, potentially leading to a "runaway convention".

Here's a breakdown of the major uncertainties:

No Guidelines for Representation:
The Constitution doesn't specify how states would be represented at a convention, leaving open the possibility of unequal representation (e.g., based on population or equal representation per state).

Uncertainty about Voting Rules:
No clear rules exist on how votes would be counted or how amendments would be proposed, potentially leading to protracted debates and disagreements.

Potential for "Runaway Convention":
The Constitution doesn't limit the scope of a convention to specific issues, meaning it could expand beyond the original purpose and propose amendments on any topic, potentially undermining fundamental rights and principles.

Uncertainty about the Ratification Process:
The Constitution requires three-fourths of states to ratify amendments, but there's no guarantee that a convention could define the ratification process to make it easier to pass new amendments.

Loulit01 said:

Craziness.


A key uncertainty surrounding a constitutional convention, specifically an Article V convention, is the lack of defined rules and procedures in the Constitution itself. This means there's no clear guidance on how the convention would be organized, how it would be governed, or what the scope of its work could be, potentially leading to a "runaway convention".

Here's a breakdown of the major uncertainties:

No Guidelines for Representation:
The Constitution doesn't specify how states would be represented at a convention, leaving open the possibility of unequal representation (e.g., based on population or equal representation per state).

Uncertainty about Voting Rules:
No clear rules exist on how votes would be counted or how amendments would be proposed, potentially leading to protracted debates and disagreements.

Potential for "Runaway Convention":
The Constitution doesn't limit the scope of a convention to specific issues, meaning it could expand beyond the original purpose and propose amendments on any topic, potentially undermining fundamental rights and principles.

Uncertainty about the Ratification Process:
The Constitution requires three-fourths of states to ratify amendments, but there's no guarantee that a convention could define the ratification process to make it easier to pass new amendments.

Click to expand...

I think, one way or another, its going to happen, since the current Constitution has clearly shown it is not up to job anymore. Obviously it will be a big deal as to WHO gets elected and ultimately controls the Convention.

But it is only a matter of time.

The current Constitution had a good run, but it is just not up to the realities of 2025.

Potential for Abuse and Special Interests:
Influence of Special Interests:
A convention could be influenced by wealthy groups and special interests, potentially leading to amendments that serve their own agendas rather than the public good.
Lack of Public Input:
The lack of rules for public input could mean that the convention process is dominated by a select group of delegates, potentially excluding the voices of ordinary citizens.

• No Clear Authority to Resolve Disputes:
  There's no clear judicial, legislative, or executive body with authority to resolve disputes about the convention, potentially leading to legal battles and political chaos.
  
  
• Potential for Unstable Democracy:
  The lack of clear rules and the potential for a runaway convention could threaten the stability of our democracy and lead to long and costly legal disputes.

4. Historical Precedent and Fear of Change:
Since no Article V convention has ever been held, there is a lack of historical precedent to guide the process, creating uncertainty about how it would function.

• Fear of Radical Change:
  Many people fear that a convention could lead to radical changes to the Constitution, potentially undermining its fundamental principles.

In essence, the major uncertainty surrounding an Article V convention is the lack of defined rules and procedures, which could open the door to a "runaway convention," influence from special interests, and potential for legal disputes and political instability.

From AI

The OP has this Pollyannaish view of what will happen. I don't understand it.

Safiel said:

<This OP will be three posts due to length. Necessary to give at least a rough idea of my proposal>

In light of Trump posting an article on Truth Social favoring a Convention of the States under Article V.

Lets just say that while we may both favor major Constitutional change, I have a substantially different view of what that change should be.

However, calling for a Convention of the States is an implicit declaration that the Constitution is broken, although I am certain that Trump and I greatly differ on the question of HOW?

I will not address in this thread what Trump wants, but what I would push for at an Article V Convention.

1. Neutering the Executive Branch in general and the President in particular. The Presidency has been far too powerful for far too long (since Abraham Lincoln and even before).

a. Limit the President to one four year term. (That would include an age limit of 65 at inauguration so that he would not reach age 70 while in office.) If he had previously served greater than two years of an unexpired term, he would be ineligible to run or serve as President again.

b. Creating separate Executive Branch offices of Attorney General and Comptroller (who would appoint the Treasurer).

c. All three offices would be directly elected by the people of the United States, including those living in DC, the territories and those overseas, using ranked choice instant runoff voting. Each party would internally nominate their candidates with no primary elections permitted. Power would be divided among the three officers and none would control the others, but would put a check on the executive branch by dividing up the executive power, as is done in most States.

d. The office of Vice President would be abolished and the Senate would elect its own President from its membership. Secession to the Presidency (and to the Attorney General and Comptroller) would come solely from the principal officers of their respective departments.

e. Congress would explicitly be able to make certain offices tenured and beyond removal by the President and require certain boards to have a partisan balance, explicitly rejecting the unitary executive theory, although the President would retain the ability to fire principal officers of the principal executive departments. Tenure would be restricted to multi-member regulatory bodies, generally those bodies that Congress has historically endowed with tenure.

f. The President and all other executive branch officers would be stripped of any real or imagined immunity recently granted by the Supreme Court and would be jointly and severally liable for all acts and omissions, including criminally liable.

g. The President would be required to spend ALL appropriated funds, unless the Congress EXPLICITLY grants impoundment authority.

h. The power of recess appointment would be explicitly abolished and constitutional limits on temporary appointments would be put in place to prevent a President from attempting to evade the requirement for advice and consent from the Senate.

g. The nomination of Article III Justices and Judges would be vested in judicial nominating commissions required to have a partisan balance and a supermajority requirement for nominations, ensuring that all nominees are in the mainstream. The President would make his appointment from a list of three nominees, without requirement for Senate advice and consent. The idea is that it would be impossible for Presidents of either party to stack the Article III Courts with ideological lapdogs.

<Breaking to next post.>

Click to expand...

LOL, not going to happen. Your wish is to strip one of the 3 branches of it's authority. We already know dems want to do same to the SCOTUS, I suppose they want the Congress to rule.

Safiel said:

I think, one way or another, its going to happen, since the current Constitution has clearly shown it is not up to job anymore. Obviously it will be a big deal as to WHO gets elected and ultimately controls the Convention.

But it is only a matter of time.

The current Constitution had a good run, but it is just not up to the realities of 2025.

Click to expand...

There will not be a constitutional convention. It's not going to happen.

Integrityrespec said:

LOL, not going to happen. Your wish is to strip one of the 3 branches of it's authority. We already know dems want to do same to the SCOTUS, I suppose they want the Congress to rule.

Click to expand...

Actually, I DON'T wish to do the same to the Supreme Court. I would reform the selection procedure to ensure NEITHER party can load it with lap dogs. I do not propose to reduce the judicial power.

I do wish to greatly reduce the power of the executive branch in general and the President in particular.

I greatly despised Biden's unilateral actions, such as student loan forgiveness. And of course I despise tariffs on the general principle. I simply want Congress to have a MUCH tighter leash on the President, regardless of party.

I like my own State, North Carolina, that has TEN executive branch officials.

A TEN WAY division of power.

I only propose a three way division for the United States.

And I would NOTE that it is TRUMP who is pushing for this.

If he gets his wish.

It may work out as he wishes.

It may blow up in his face.

Safiel said:

<Breaking from previous post.>

4. General reform to the Federal government.

a. Heavy limitations on the tariff power, with tariffs having to be authorized and reauthorized in specific circumstances for no more than 90 days at a time and generally restricting tariffs to TRULY extreme situations. Standing tariffs would be forbidden.

b. Restrictions on protectionism, for example, essentially banning legislation such as the Jones Act.

c. Forbidding direct taxation by both the Federal and State governments, to include capitation taxes, wealth taxes, personal property taxes and (for the Federal Government only) real property taxes. States would retain their needed ability to levy real property taxes.

d. All indirect taxation, including income taxes, would remain fully legal.

e. The Federal Government would gain the sole and exclusive power to regulate the food and drug supply of the United States, as well as the sole and exclusive power to regulate agriculture.

f. The Federal Government would have the power engage in revenue sharing with the States for the purpose of funding education, but would be required to allocate spending to school districts on a per capita basis and would be forbidden to withhold or reduce funding to any district in an attempt coerce the district in any way. The Federal Government would be allowed to issue non-binding guidance to the States on education, but would be forbidden from issuing any binding regulation on the States or school districts.

g. The Federal Government would gain explicit power, concurrent with the States, to create and administer a social safety net.

h. The Federal Government would gain explicit power to create and maintain national parks, forests, wilderness and monuments as well as administer its owned land in the public interest. Public land could only be sold with an Act of Congress.

i. The Federal Government would be required to surrender its monopoly on First Class Post with 5 years and other companies could compete. The requirement for 6 day delivery and universal delivery would be repealed. Yes, people like ME would be required to get off our asses and drive to the post office to send and receive First Class Post. I can live with that. Probably because I already do so.

j. I would establish a much more robust Bill of Rights.

k. I would tweak the commerce clause to make it impossible for States (particularly California) to attempt to extend their regulatory authority beyond State lines.

l. I would require the Comptroller of the United States to ensure that the obligations of the full faith and credit of the United States are satisfied, including the authority to borrow money to ensure the debt obligations of the United States are paid on time and the United States never defaults.

5. And a bunch of other stuff.

I will take Mr. Trump up on that Convention of the States. And I will do as the founders did. They dumped out the Articles of Confederation and wrote a Constitution from scratch. I would dump out the current Constitution and write a new Constitution from scratch, one that is fit for the challenges of the 21st Century and beyond, not the needs of a tiny, slave holding, agricultural republic.

Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you've said.....here's my question....when and where can I vote for you?

If you arent already involved in politics, you missed your calling badly.......

A quick search found threads about a constitutional convention on this website as far back as 2012. It's one of those things that pops up every so often because people are unhappy about how things are and are looking for a way to fix them. An Article V convention is not the way. It's a terrifying idea.

Luckily, it's not going to happen.

Safiel said:

<Breaking from previous post.>

4. General reform to the Federal government.

a. Heavy limitations on the tariff power, with tariffs having to be authorized and reauthorized in specific circumstances for no more than 90 days at a time and generally restricting tariffs to TRULY extreme situations. Standing tariffs would be forbidden.

b. Restrictions on protectionism, for example, essentially banning legislation such as the Jones Act.

c. Forbidding direct taxation by both the Federal and State governments, to include capitation taxes, wealth taxes, personal property taxes and (for the Federal Government only) real property taxes. States would retain their needed ability to levy real property taxes.

d. All indirect taxation, including income taxes, would remain fully legal.

e. The Federal Government would gain the sole and exclusive power to regulate the food and drug supply of the United States, as well as the sole and exclusive power to regulate agriculture.

f. The Federal Government would have the power engage in revenue sharing with the States for the purpose of funding education, but would be required to allocate spending to school districts on a per capita basis and would be forbidden to withhold or reduce funding to any district in an attempt coerce the district in any way. The Federal Government would be allowed to issue non-binding guidance to the States on education, but would be forbidden from issuing any binding regulation on the States or school districts.

g. The Federal Government would gain explicit power, concurrent with the States, to create and administer a social safety net.

h. The Federal Government would gain explicit power to create and maintain national parks, forests, wilderness and monuments as well as administer its owned land in the public interest. Public land could only be sold with an Act of Congress.

i. The Federal Government would be required to surrender its monopoly on First Class Post with 5 years and other companies could compete. The requirement for 6 day delivery and universal delivery would be repealed. Yes, people like ME would be required to get off our asses and drive to the post office to send and receive First Class Post. I can live with that. Probably because I already do so.

j. I would establish a much more robust Bill of Rights.

k. I would tweak the commerce clause to make it impossible for States (particularly California) to attempt to extend their regulatory authority beyond State lines.

l. I would require the Comptroller of the United States to ensure that the obligations of the full faith and credit of the United States are satisfied, including the authority to borrow money to ensure the debt obligations of the United States are paid on time and the United States never defaults.

5. And a bunch of other stuff.

I will take Mr. Trump up on that Convention of the States. And I will do as the founders did. They dumped out the Articles of Confederation and wrote a Constitution from scratch. I would dump out the current Constitution and write a new Constitution from scratch, one that is fit for the challenges of the 21st Century and beyond, not the needs of a tiny, slave holding, agricultural republic.

Click to expand...

Good luck with that.

As a journalist I covered the constitutional talks in Canada from 1969 through 1986, and attended the signing of the resulting document by Her Majesty Queen Lizzy in 1987. 18 years and 25 "First Ministers" meetings, of the Ten provincial premiers and the Prime Minister. About $35 million or $770 million in today's dollars

Lugubrious, tedious, long winded and redundant.

The US will have at least 51, more if territories are involved at the table. And don't forget each of the 'Indigenous nations" as they will insist on a say.

Again, good luck with that.

Jessie C said:

I agree with most of what you've said.....here's my question....when and where can I vote for you?

If you arent already involved in politics, you missed your calling badly.......

Click to expand...

I actually am heavily involved in politics, mostly because of my agri-business career. Talked to many politicians of both parties, have donated to candidates of both parties.

I am a little (actually a lot) to blunt to make a good politician myself.

I was a Pennsylvania Township Supervisor for about 20 months, completing the term of the deceased incumbent, but I was appointed by the other two Supervisors, not elected and I did not run for election at the end of the term.

Safiel said:

I actually am heavily involved in politics, mostly because of my agri-business career. Talked to many politicians of both parties, have donated to candidates of both parties.

I am a little (actually a lot) to blunt to make a good politician myself.

I was a Pennsylvania Township Supervisor for about 20 months, completing the term of the deceased incumbent, but I was appointed by the other two Supervisors, not elected and I did not run for election at the end of the term.

Click to expand...

God help you..if you're involved in this country's agriculture, my heart goes out to you and every one of our farmers.

Too blunt makes you the best kind of politican, but in these times it could be a death sentence...

I was born in Luzerne County and raised in the Lehigh County of PA. Most of the peeps in my life were East coast/Philly folks..

Jessie C said:

God help you..if you're involved in this country's agriculture, my heart goes out to you and every one of our farmers.

Too blunt makes you the best kind of politican, but in these times it could be a death sentence...

I was born in Luzerne County and raised in the Lehigh County of PA. Most of the peeps in my life were East coast/Philly folks..

Click to expand...

I was born in Bradford County and lived for a period of time in Luzerne County and a longer period of time in Wyoming County.

I would do an alternate proposal.

To wit.

Congress passes and the States ratify the following Article of Amendment.

Amendment ???

Section 1. The following text of Article V is hereby stricken and repealed, to wit "; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate". The trailing period shall not be stricken and repealed.

Section 2. The following paragraph shall be inserted in Section V, to follow the existing paragraph:

"Upon the application of the legislatures of fifteen States of a proposed amendment, all being identical in form, the Secretary of State of the United States shall submit certified copies of the proposed amendment to all States of the United States. Within four years of receipt of the proposed amendment, each State shall submit the proposed amendment to the voters of their State, which vote shall coincide with a general election of United States Representatives. If the people shall approve the proposed amendment, the respective State shall submit an instrument of ratification to the Secretary of State of the United States within thirty days of the election. If the proposed amendment shall be ratified by a combination of States comprising a majority of the total population of the United States at the previous census or by three fifths of the total number of States, such amendment shall immediately be proclaimed as part of the Constitution. In lieu of application by the State Legislature, the people of the State, by submission of a petition of one percent of the total registered voters of their State, may propose an amendment which shall have the same effect as the proposal of an amendment by the State Legislature.

Section 3. This amendment shall be effective immediately upon ratification and shall be self executing.

The Constitution is stupidly hard to amend.

Part of the reason we are in this predicament.

That proposal would make it far easier to amend, as well as giving the people a much bigger say in the process.

There was a period when Trump seemed to say crazy things all the time that wouldn't come to anything, so people would tune him out. I think that period is over though - now he tries to do everything.

MAGA's principles are a rapidly-moving target, but I think we can pretty much guess the sort of proposals they would gravitate toward when it's time to put ink to paper. No term limits for Republicans, death penalty for criticizing the Supreme Leader, death penalty for LGBT. Having an AI drone decide that it doesn't like the cut of your jib because of your forum posts, so it drops a bomb on you, definitely counts as "due process of law". Yearly audit of individual assets - anyone with a less than a certain value gets microchipped and sold into hereditary chattel slavery. Etcetera. I imagine there are some things too radical for me to predict just yet.

There should still be a chance for a counter-proposal of simply disbanding the United States and leaving the states as sovereign nations. Just don't let the sun set on you in the South after that.

The DOJ and the FBI should answer to the SCOTUS.

Citizens United would be overturned. New Constitutional prescriptions would prevent big money from buying government.

The American Anti-Corruption Act would become law.​

New guardrails to prevent anybody like Trump from ever happening again. I love it!

Safiel said:

<This OP will be three posts due to length. Necessary to give at least a rough idea of my proposal>

In light of Trump posting an article on Truth Social favoring a Convention of the States under Article V.

Lets just say that while we may both favor major Constitutional change, I have a substantially different view of what that change should be.

However, calling for a Convention of the States is an implicit declaration that the Constitution is broken, although I am certain that Trump and I greatly differ on the question of HOW?

I will not address in this thread what Trump wants, but what I would push for at an Article V Convention.

1. Neutering the Executive Branch in general and the President in particular. The Presidency has been far too powerful for far too long (since Abraham Lincoln and even before).

a. Limit the President to one four year term. (That would include an age limit of 65 at inauguration so that he would not reach age 70 while in office.) If he had previously served greater than two years of an unexpired term, he would be ineligible to run or serve as President again.

b. Creating separate Executive Branch offices of Attorney General and Comptroller (who would appoint the Treasurer).

c. All three offices would be directly elected by the people of the United States, including those living in DC, the territories and those overseas, using ranked choice instant runoff voting. Each party would internally nominate their candidates with no primary elections permitted. Power would be divided among the three officers and none would control the others, but would put a check on the executive branch by dividing up the executive power, as is done in most States.

d. The office of Vice President would be abolished and the Senate would elect its own President from its membership. Secession to the Presidency (and to the Attorney General and Comptroller) would come solely from the principal officers of their respective departments.

e. Congress would explicitly be able to make certain offices tenured and beyond removal by the President and require certain boards to have a partisan balance, explicitly rejecting the unitary executive theory, although the President would retain the ability to fire principal officers of the principal executive departments. Tenure would be restricted to multi-member regulatory bodies, generally those bodies that Congress has historically endowed with tenure.

f. The President and all other executive branch officers would be stripped of any real or imagined immunity recently granted by the Supreme Court and would be jointly and severally liable for all acts and omissions, including criminally liable.

g. The President would be required to spend ALL appropriated funds, unless the Congress EXPLICITLY grants impoundment authority.

h. The power of recess appointment would be explicitly abolished and constitutional limits on temporary appointments would be put in place to prevent a President from attempting to evade the requirement for advice and consent from the Senate.

g. The nomination of Article III Justices and Judges would be vested in judicial nominating commissions required to have a partisan balance and a supermajority requirement for nominations, ensuring that all nominees are in the mainstream. The President would make his appointment from a list of three nominees, without requirement for Senate advice and consent. The idea is that it would be impossible for Presidents of either party to stack the Article III Courts with ideological lapdogs.

<Breaking to next post.>

Click to expand...

Want in one hand and shit in the other. Complete self masturbatory fantasies.

Peacenik said:

New guardrails to prevent anybody like Trump from ever happening again. I love it!

Click to expand...

Exactly who do you think will be passing your lovable legislation?

If we go to a Constitutional Convention, kiss any freedom goodbye. Remember a majority of States are Red. And each state would have "equal say" in such a situation. So the RW would just create the dictatorship they want, and America would fall apart on that day.