Next Three Constitutional Amendments

[d0rkyd00d]

I'll ask this as a two part question, feel free to answer one or both!

What are three U.S. Constitutional amendments (very sorry I cannot speak from an international perspective for non-U.S. members) would you add if you could, effective today?

and

What are three U.S. Constitutional amendments you think you could convince a large majority of Americans from all political stripes to endorse, effective today?

[Ecmandu]

1.) Teach people how to think critically.

That’s all you need.

[obsrvr524]

I'll ask this as a two part question, feel free to answer one or both!

What are three U.S. Constitutional amendments (very sorry I cannot speak from an international perspective for non-U.S. members) would you add if you could, effective today?

and

What are three U.S. Constitutional amendments you think you could convince a large majority of Americans from all political stripes to endorse, effective today?

I can add more than three but what should be done for sake of the nation and what can be done for sake of the nation are very different.

As to the first question -

• Require a 2/3rd majority of the Senate and separately of the House to change the rules for each respectively. - not likely to happen
• Allow the DOJ to impeach members of Congress and SCOTUS justices for perjury (at least) - both requiring the Senate to judge outcome. - not going to happen
• Restrict freedom of speech only by anti-trust laws - no more MSM cabal and no more punditry from universities. - not likely to happen
• Minimum merit based qualifications for ALL federal offices (it is amazing how many US Congressmen don't even know the US Constitution). - not likely to happen
• Forbid permanent government employment. - not going to happen
• Require a minimum civics education (and testing) for the right to vote. - not going to happen
• Require citizenship for right to vote. - might possibly happen some day
• Require the majority of any corporation's labor to be homeland. - not going to happen
• Any secret court (FISA) MUST have an advocate for the defense present and heard by the court - not likely to happen

As to the second question -

• None. - that is what is actually going to happen

[Peter Kropotkin]

I'll ask this as a two part question, feel free to answer one or both!

What are three U.S. Constitutional amendments (very sorry I cannot speak from an international perspective for non-U.S. members) would you add if you could, effective today?

and

What are three U.S. Constitutional amendments you think you could convince a large majority of Americans from all political stripes to endorse, effective today?

I can add more than three but what should be done for sake of the nation and what can be done for sake of the nation are very different.

As to the first question -

• Require a 2/3rd majority of the Senate and separately of the House to change the rules for each respectively. - not likely to happen
• Allow the DOJ to impeach members of Congress and SCOTUS justices for perjury (at least) - both requiring the Senate to judge outcome. - not going to happen
• Restrict freedom of speech only by anti-trust laws - no more MSM cabal and no more punditry from universities. - not likely to happen
• Minimum merit based qualifications for ALL federal offices (it is amazing how many US Congressmen don't even know the US Constitution). - not likely to happen
• Forbid permanent government employment. - not going to happen
• Require a minimum civics education (and testing) for the right to vote. - not going to happen
• Require citizenship for right to vote. - might possibly happen some day
• Require the majority of any corporation's labor to be homeland. - not going to happen

K: your answer just fails to identify reality.. for example, to allow the DOJ to impeach members
of congress and the SCOTUS goes against what the constitution directly says.. that the house of
representatives shall have sole power of impeachment...
not the DOJ... Article one, section 2 of the constitution...
and we can see the wisdom of this by the contemptible actions of IQ45 and the DOJ...
IQ45 turned the DOJ into his own personal lawyers instead of the lawyers of the entire
country...so he would have, if he could have, turned the DOJ into trying to impeach everyone
who he had a grievance with, which is pretty much everyone at this point...

and the second part... restrict freedom of speech to anti-trust laws violates
the very first amendment which is about government attempt to limit free speech,
to the content of free speech, to the ability to speak, but also protects the right to
receive information....and prevents the government from requiring individuals
and corporations to speak or finance certain types of speech with which they do not
agree....your limits on the first amendment which restrict free speech in all area's...

let us take this addition you suggest, no more permanent employment...
that is quite short sided... take Dr. Fauci for example...you would take him
out of office and he has been a clear voice of reason during this year..
so how long would you suggest that people get kicked out of the government?
5 years, 10 years, 15 or 20 years?

and your other suggestions are also short sided... for example, requiring that a business
can only employ U.S Citizens or a majority of them...means that we keep useful
and qualified employees from working in the U.S... that seems to be short sided....
so to be fair, which business or companies have workers from overseas as
a majority working for them in the United States? take your time... I can wait...

and your citizen testing... could you pass a current citizen test?

I doubt it...hence you would be banned from voting under your own rules.....
that doesn't seem to be fair, is it?

in fact, I would suggest that your opinions lie from your racist
and bigoted beliefs... as it evident from your attempts to limit the constitution
in a very certain way...

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

I'll ask this as a two part question, feel free to answer one or both!

What are three U.S. Constitutional amendments (very sorry I cannot speak from an international perspective for non-U.S. members) would you add if you could, effective today?

and

What are three U.S. Constitutional amendments you think you could convince a large majority of Americans from all political stripes to endorse, effective today?

K: the biggest takeaway from the last 20 years of elections is the failure of the
electoral collage... that would be front and center of any attempt to change
the constitution....end the electoral collage and have the majority of American's
vote be the decision for who is the president...not some outdated
and antiquated system that has failed twice in over 20 years....

just as every single election in America is decided by a majority of votes,
the Presidency should also be decided by a majority of votes....
not the EC....I would agree with term limits on both congressmen
and judges...but the term agreed to would certainly have to be
negotiated... perhaps 10 years for congressmen, 12 for
senators and 15 years for judges...
but again, not in the civil service as that experience is quite useful
in civil service....

Kropotkin

[obsrvr524]

I'll ask this as a two part question, feel free to answer one or both!

What are three U.S. Constitutional amendments (very sorry I cannot speak from an international perspective for non-U.S. members) would you add if you could, effective today?

and

What are three U.S. Constitutional amendments you think you could convince a large majority of Americans from all political stripes to endorse, effective today?

K: the biggest takeaway from the last 20 years of elections is the failure of the
electoral collage... that would be front and center of any attempt to change
the constitution....end the electoral collage and have the majority of American's
vote be the decision for who is the president...not some outdated
and antiquated system that has failed twice in over 20 years....

just as every single election in America is decided by a majority of votes,
the Presidency should also be decided by a majority of votes....
not the EC....I would agree with term limits on both congressmen
and judges...but the term agreed to would certainly have to be
negotiated... perhaps 10 years for congressmen, 12 for
senators and 15 years for judges...
but again, not in the civil service as that experience is quite useful
in civil service....

Kropotkin

Most definitely not. And for damn good reason.

That electoral college is what protects the US against dictators. Without it, there is a war between the states guaranteed (which would be why the ILP Commie club president favors being rid of it).

If you want to see direct slavery, revolt, and civil war (exactly what the socialists want), just get rid of that electoral college so they can be kings and queens.

[d0rkyd00d]

If you want to see direct slavery, revolt, and civil war (exactly what the socialists want), just get rid of that electoral college so they can be kings and queens.

By that logic, there are a lot of socialist Trump supporters out there. I can see why you are so concerned if that is the case.

Amendments:

Congressional term limits would be at the top of the list for me.
Perhaps an amendment regarding lobbyists, or something equivalent that would keep the influence of money out of politics to the greatest degree possible.

[obsrvr524]

If you want to see direct slavery, revolt, and civil war (exactly what the socialists want), just get rid of that electoral college so they can be kings and queens.

By that logic, there are a lot of socialist Trump supporters out there. I can see why you are so concerned if that is the case.

There are a lot of globalist Republicans out there although not nearly as many as Democrats. I don't see Trumpers trying to be rid of the electoral college - quite the opposite.

Amendments:

Congressional term limits would be at the top of the list for me.
Perhaps an amendment regarding lobbyists, or something equivalent that would keep the influence of money out of politics to the greatest degree possible.

Yes I agree with both of those concerns but trying to word them properly could be nearly impossible. And there are many more things that would make the US Constitution even more stable. But when dealing with (as James called it - ) the "Planet of the Apes in the Land of Lies" how could anything better be expected?

[WendyDarling]

In the House of Representatives, one law or one issue per bill. No edicts, riders, add-ons, etc. And bills cannot be longer than three pages.

[obsrvr524]

In the House of Representatives, one law or one issue per bill. No edicts, riders, add-ons, etc. And bills cannot be longer than three pages.

Oh yes for sure. I forgot about that one.

[d0rkyd00d]

In the House of Representatives, one law or one issue per bill. No edicts, riders, add-ons, etc. And bills cannot be longer than three pages.

Hey Wendy, I'm with you on this one for sure. That so many bills have been passed, for so long, without giving Congress the opportunity to review (but who would sit through 5K pages of legislation without falling asleep?), is unacceptable.

[WendyDarling]

An amendment to include non violent coups.

[d0rkyd00d]

An amendment to include non violent coups.

And in what way will that strengthen our union and help maintain checks and balances on the carefully constructed government we have?

[WendyDarling]

An amendment to include non violent coups.

And in what way will that strengthen our union and help maintain checks and balances on the carefully constructed government we have?

I think this would greatly cut down on intergovernmental conspiracies by elected officials or political parties wasting tax dollars and misappropriation of working government hours acting in bad faith to unseat a duly elected official or officials trying to usurp authority due to political prejudice. Any legal actions brought forth to usurp an elected official's political standing and authority had better prove legitimate in court or the accusers face charges for sedition. So if you or your team doesn't have iron clad proof of wrong doing, don't undermine the government which brings me to...

Misuse of public office, another great amendment or it could be combined with the stuff above which would also include contractual obligations signed by elected officials based on their platform promises and if the officer fails to take visible steps to pursue their promises in good faith or they vote against the goals of their platform, they are tried in court for fraud.

[WendyDarling]

Another amendment against discrimination based on personal views presented in one’s appearance as completely, legal symbols or language. Not sure how to word it and it can apply to more than political or religious symbols and language, for instance the actual dress style such as unseemly but legal breast or buttocks exposure or pants that are worn below the buttocks that signify elements society looks down on or fears that are denied service. It might also cover attempts to impede cultural appropriation.