How Would You Change the Constitution?
I asked scholars, podcasters, and passersby how they'd change the nation's founding charter. Here's what they told me.

This Fourth of July, watching people fight over what the Constitution means, I ask people, if you could change the Constitution, what would you change?
"The forefathers knew what they were doing," said one woman.
But the Constitution originally accepted slavery. It's good that we can amend it.
So what should we change?
"Add a balanced budget amendment," suggests Glenn Beck.
David Boaz of the Cato Institute recommends 18-year terms for the Supreme Court. "Maybe confirmation fights would be less bitter and partisan."
Others suggest term limits for Congress. Stossel TV's Mike Ricci takes the idea further. "If your father, mother, siblings, uncle, cousins were elected to federal office, you can't be." That would curb Kennedy/Bush-like dynasties.
Several people said they want to eliminate the Commerce Clause. It gives government virtually unlimited power over the economy, complains tech journalist Naomi Brockwell, "forcing people to participate in federal pension programs…enabling the War on Drugs."
Some want an amendment to stop the growth of Washington regulatory agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and Federal Communications Commission. Economist Don Boudreaux calls them "a grave threat to Americans' liberties and prosperity."
The Supreme Court took a small step in restraining their power last week when it ruled that EPA bureaucrats can't set emission rules all by themselves. Congress has to vote on that.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.) proposes overturning Citizens United. He says that would stop those who "spend millions of dollars corrupting elections [and] would return our democracy to the town halls and citizen involvement that our founders envisioned."
I doubt that. Limits on political speech increase insiders' power.
Christina Martin of the Pacific Legal Foundation wishes the Constitution did more to protect the rights of the individual. "How about a right to earn a living? How about a right to not have the government steal from you?"
But some young people told us they want to eliminate rights already in the Constitution, like free speech.
"Being able to speak your mind is important," said one, "as long as it's not in a way that is going to be long-term harmful to people."
Ouch. Who decides what is harmful? Will he get to censor my videos?
The Bill of Rights also includes the right to bear arms. The Babylon Bee's Kyle Mann would add some lines to clarify that "you can't pass laws restricting ownership of firearms."
Others want to get rid of the Second Amendment. "We have police officers. We have a military," said one woman in Times Square. "So do we really need them? No."
I'm glad another person corrected her. "The only reason we stand on freedom is because we got the right to bear arms!" he says. "We're all a micro government in our own way [because of the Second Amendment]."
We are all "micro governments?" I like that.
The Goldwater Institute's Tim and Christina Sandefur would add "protections against the abuse of eminent domain" and "ban subsidies to special interests."
I like changes that might limit government power, and I wonder: How did government grow so powerful when the Constitution was created to limit government's power?
Podcaster Michael Malice says it's because the Constitution is often ignored.
"The First Amendment says the right of people to peaceably assemble shall not be infringed, [but] not even libertarians bothered to invoke that to fight the lockdowns and quarantining." Malice is an anarchist who says he'd put the Constitution "in the trash, where it belongs."
I disagree. So did most people we asked.
"Our founders wrote documents…designed to give you life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," says podcaster Dave Rubin. "Perhaps they should've done it in bold so more people would've paid attention."
More people should. My short videos are my attempt to let young people know that our Constitution limits government power and that rights belong to individuals. Most simply don't know that.
COPYRIGHT 2022 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Just for the chaos it would cause, I'd repeal the 12th. Imagine if the second leading vote-getter for president was the VP. You could have Biden with Trump as his VP right now. That would be a lot of fun.
Now THAT'S ranked choice voting I can get behind.
I actually have made $18k within a calendar month via working easy jobs from a laptop. As I had lost my last business, I was so upset and thank God I searched this simple job (wby-03) achieving this I'm ready to achieve thousand of dollars just from my home. All of you can certainly join this best job and could collect extra money on-line visiting this site.
>>>>>>>>>> http://payout11.tk
That's rhe first convincing argument I've ever seen for ranked choice.
4 years of Trump and Hillary followed by Biden Trump. Just imagine...
Then followed by Trump Musk
What am I missing that we can't vote for Vice President right now? We couldn't I run just for Vice President beside the way we've done it? What am I missing saying I can't do it now?
Isn't that how Gary Johnson got Bill Weld?
Hillary would have had Her Turn (after Trump met an unfortunate and totally not suspicious ending)
Typical suicide; eight shots in the back of the head.
Vince Foster looks up. "What was that"?
Ron Brown epic too. Shot in the back of the head *and* plane crashed
We haven't had a presidential assassination in 60 years, we're overdue.
Also, you want to talk about adding civility back into politics, imagine knowing your greatest political rival is only a heartbeat away from displacing you. It certainly is more incentive to not try to piss off 50% of the voting population.
Is it really workable? Probably not. But there's a reason it was imagined by the nation's architects.
That would encourage assassinations and impeachments.
The VP should be a separate primary in each party, rather than a choice of the candidate. Perhaps the 2nd choice of the party convention. Hence no Pence or Kamaltoe.
I like it.
We need prohibitions on the practice of Marxism.
Others want to get rid of the Second Amendment. "We have police officers. We have a military," said one woman in Times Square. "So do we really need them? No."
I would remind this lady that Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, communist China, Castro’s Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, North Korea, Hussein’s Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and every other murderous oppressive regime has/had police officers and a military - not surprisingly all of these dictatorships mobilized those police and military agains their unarmed citizens.
Give any citizen the right to challenge the constitutionality of a law in court. No more waiting until someone with "standing" goes to court.
"standing" isn't in the constitution it was made up by the court to ignore people
I'd have a jury of 12 random citizens, and if they do not all agree on a law or regulation's meaning or its constitutionality, it is void, with no chance of appeal.
Along with that, people need to be able to prosecute crimes which political prosecutors won't.
Also along with that, if 1/3 of state legislatures (without governors being able to veto) pass resolutions opposed to any federal law, regulation, executive order, etc, it is void.
Appeals court decisions must be unanimous. There is something bizarre about telling some poor schmuck he loses because he didn't understand the law which several judges just spent months debating and still couldn't agree on.
Legislative bills have to be open for public review for 30 days before they can be voted on; any changes restart the 30 day clock. Any constitutionality challenges must be settled before a vote, and also restart the 30 day clock. Or perhaps let challenged bills finish out the 30 day review and have their vote, but any legislator who voted for passage while a constitutional challenge was pending is thrown out of office, loses the right to vote, and loses all pension etc benefits from his time in office.
All laws expire 500 days later and cannot be combined in a single omnibus bill for renewal. (500 days allows for holidays, weather delays, etc.)
Those are some pretty awful ideas that would increase cronyism.
Always think of your suggestion in the hands of the most despicable politician or citizen you can imagine - Wilson, FDR, Obama, Biden, Schumer - and think how that would work out. Because some day that moron will be in power.
A balance budget amendment would be useful, and the delays before voting have some merit.
I want all politicians to have to personally pay to defend the laws they write. And politicians pay is voted on by the people in their district.
how's about we try following it for a year or two & see what happens
There you go!
They followed it decently well for 50 years.
Sheesh, what are you, some kind of right-wing reactionary domestic terrorist?
nice to see you. taking my mom to KSU@ISU in October
Nice! I might be there too... I'll be the guy wearing purple.
Getting stoked for the season. Six Cats on preseason all-Big 12 team. Most in the conference.
Without the commerce clause we would have trade wars between states.
Perhaps we just need cleaner language that specifies no trade barriers between states.
Or perhaps we accept that abuse of the commerce clause was always disingenuous bullshit and they'd just make up a different reason.
Yeah, I was going to say something similar. That while we hate how the commerce clause is expansively interpreted, the original intent was to "keep commerce regular" between the several states. And by 'keep it regular' it meant, keep it moving. Absent the commerce clause, states could collude against other states, and that wouldn't be a pretty situation.
Randy Barnett goes into the meaning of "regulate" in great detail in "Restoring the Lost Constitution". Basically "regulate" would be "standardize" in contemporary American usage, i.e. one rule for all, and clearly under the previous phrase about commercial traffic and buying and selling , not the "anything Ted Kennedy wants it to mean" version.
isn't the state of California already violating the commerce clause by not allowing contracts from states that California disagrees with. so again we have selective enforcement of a law which is also illegal
So explain the CA laws on pigs and chickens
Very possibly unconstitutional, but someone has to bring a case.
While this is nominally true, I would take that outcome far more than the current one where it justifies the intervention in wholly local markets.
States that engage in trade wars will ultimately hurt themselves. I don't mind a more tailored clause of the constitution to limit the interim damage, but it is clear that the commerce clause was the back door into some of the most ridiculous New-Deal-and-Beyond bullshit that has hurt the liberty of US Citizens.
The only issue with the commerce clause is the abuse it's gotten. Here's the full text:
"to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."
Where the hell do they get the whole forced commerce on individuals that Wickard v. Filburn kicked off? It's been totally tortured to make it seem like what you grow, buy, or sell among individuals, whether across state lines or not, is commerce "among the several states". It's always commerce between individuals and it's clear the intent was the states were to treat transactions between individuals without regard to which state they're from.
It needs clarification to kick judges in the head as to the rather plain meaning of the clause.
David Boaz of the Cato Institute recommends 18-year terms for the Supreme Court. "Maybe confirmation fights would be less bitter and partisan."
That's reasonable.
Some want an amendment to stop the growth of Washington regulatory agencies like the Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and Federal Communications Commission. Economist Don Boudreaux calls them "a grave threat to Americans' liberties and prosperity."
They're unconstitutional now. You don't need an amendment for that.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D–Calif.) proposes overturning Citizens United. He says that would stop those who "spend millions of dollars corrupting elections [and] would return our democracy to the town halls and citizen involvement that our founders envisioned."
That's not what we asked you... *checks notes* Ro Khanna... we asked you how you'd change the constitution. If what you meant was repeal the first amendment, then just come out and say that.
If what you meant was repeal the first amendment, then just come out and say that.
With bonus points for explaining The Disney Exception to "corporations don't have free speech rights."
They have rights. Exercising rights has consequences.
Christina Martin of the Pacific Legal Foundation wishes the Constitution did more to protect the rights of the individual. "How about a right to earn a living? How about a right to not have the government steal from you?"
You do have a right to earn a living. You have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As far as stealing from you, you're going to have to define that.
Taxation is theft.
word.
Actually it's robbery because of the threat of violence.
If you take that as the various liscencing, permitting and regulatory hurdles getting in the way, then he has a real point. Answers like that can also be taken to be a right to welfare or make-work programs of no value.
My amendment: "Congress shall make no law. And we mean it this time!"
This is the SQRLSY One, and I approve of this message!
The First Amendment says the right of people to peaceably assemble shall not be infringed, [but] not even libertarians bothered to invoke that to fight the lockdowns and quarantining." Malice is an anarchist who says he'd put the Constitution "in the trash, where it belongs."
Malice is talking about you, Reason.
But also, I'm really not a fan of fucking anarchists. They don't make for good allies for libertarians.
Not a libertarian, but I get what you mean.
Anarchy tends to produce warlords. Whoever's biggest and meanest rules the block.
I tend more to subscribe to a principle -- maybe I'll call it informed by libertarianism -- that some government is a necessary evil. But a necessary evil is still evil and needs to be checked and limited at all stages.
Anarchists have a vision of the world, and history shows that when they get their way they will impose it on others by force. I see no indication that AnCaps would be any different if they got their chance. Someone yelling in my face at PorcFest about how the world will work under to libertopia is just the kind of person to use force to get their way.
And you really don't want an aspy with a ponytail to be in charge.
Humanity tends to produce warlords. Regardless of the presence or absence of government. The Conststution was designed to prevent this.
This idea is shared by most people.
It's Rational Anarchy. While the speaker has no need for rules to make him/her fit to live with other people DO seem to need rules--so the speaker seeks to help them be unobtrusive and as minimal as possible.
The speaker. naturally will do as they please, obeying what they think is a good idea and ignoring the rest.
Democracy also tends to produce warlords and that was what the founders recognized when writing the Constitution.
Anarchists are always the vanguard of communists, whether they know it or not
No.
Communists use a vanguard that calls itself 'anarchist'--but it is not.
It is a vanguard of communism.
Anarchists, actual anarchists, do not go near the all encompassing state that communists seek to create.
I have never been able to understand why normally intelligent people, who know communists lie about literally everything, seem so accepting when communists claim of disavow things.
'People who want no government want OUR totalitarian government'
or
'People who want total governmental control of all aspects of life, and collectivism, just like us, are actually the far RIGHT, not the far left'
I disagree. My ideal government is so small, that most would probably call me an anarchist. If I am going to be put on the bench with them, might as well make it cordial.
I'm a localist, nothing bigger or more powerful than a county or MD.
Depends on the anarchist. Malice seems like a pretty good complement to libertarians.
The way I see it, anarchy is just reality. Yeah, governments exist, but they are just people doing things. An individual can't be governed unless he allows himself to be governed. And everyone is morally responsible for his own actions, even if acting as an agent of the state.
An amendment that says the cunts-tits-tuition means what it says? Especially the 9th? AND no more emanations, apparitions, and penumbras are allowed? (In testimony for persuading the legislators to approve this new amendment, maybe we could make a VERY special exception to the new rules, and allow "spectral witness testimony" from the Founding Fathers?)
(This suggestion was brought to y'all through me, by the Ghosts of Trumpsmas Past, Present, and Future!)
Fuck, man, see your doc about adjusting your meds.
"Meds" implying mental illness, of course...
"Mentally ill", my ass! Whoever disagrees with totalitarians is "mentally ill"! That makes YOU just like the communist totalitarian assholes of the USSR who used psychiatry to punish political dissidents, asshole!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_abuse_of_psychiatry_in_the_Soviet_Union#:~:text=During%20the%20leadership%20of%20General,that%20contradicted%20the%20official%20dogma.
Stop being so obsessed over Trump. It's not healthy. Your party won, enjoy it while it lasts.
The libertarian party won? Who knew?!?!? Why didn't they tell me?
I just "channeled" the Ghosts of Trumpsmas Past, Present, and Future, and they told me that the libertarians actually WON the elections, but the elections were stolen from us libertarians, by mind control from the Lizard People! So now I know! (So thanks, but, no need to respond to my question, then.)
"Our founders wrote documents…designed to give you life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," says podcaster Dave Rubin. "Perhaps they should've done it in bold so more people would've paid attention."
Whatever you say, Hitler.
“Let's just make this easy. I'm in favor of a Constitutional amendment that would read something like this:
'Neither the federal government, nor any state or local government shall make any activity a crime unless said activity violates another person's right to life, liberty, or property, either through force or fraud.'
Could you live with that? Could you live with the thought that anyone in your community could do pretty much what they wish, so long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else? Now there's a definition of freedom--and it's something I suspect most of you just couldn't go along with.”
― Neal Boortz, Somebody's Gotta Say It
I could go along with it.
Cut out the middle man, require victim prosecution. Add in loser pays everything, including the cost of collecting, not only to discourage vexatious litigators, but if the rich and powerful pick on the poor, lawyers would come out of the woodwork to assist the poor, since they'd know they'd be paid.
I could go along with it, though I still don't go along with Boortz' so-called "Fair Tax."
Set the Supreme Court at 9 justices.
Each term, the President can nominate a new justice (subject to senate approval), to become effective at the end of that term. Additional nominations in the case of unexpected death/retirement.
When the new justice comes on board, the longest serving justice leaves.
I heard that on The Political Orphanage last week.
Unicorn Abattoir has been pushing it for a few years.
This idea was similar, but not quite the same now that I reread. There were a few. It's a good listen if you like that sort of thing. I mostly do when driving.
https://politicalorphanage.libsyn.com/packn-the-court
garbage in garbage out lol
Speaking of, they canceled their next two shows. Maine and NH. Guess who had tickets?
What problem does this solve? A 36 year term limit isn’t very helpful.
It's better than 18, IMO, which basically puts any 2-term president a single death or unexpected retirement away from being able to to dominate the court for the next decade.
What if the Senate refuses to vote on the nomination? I suggest you add that the following;
No justice can be nominated in the period three month before a Presidential election.
And any nomination must be voted on within a 3-month period of following formal nomination. Failure to vote is accepted as approval.
How about 50 justices appointed by each state. Nominated by Governor approved by their Senates and not by popular vote. The President can appoint one for chief justice.
Well I should have read the responses before I came up with my good idea.
"50 justices appointed by each state" times 50 states gives you a court of 2500 justices.
Imagine the opinions, concurrences, and dissents! Imagine trying to keep track of the prior decisions for stare decisis.
Set the Supreme Court at fifty justices. Each appointed by a state legislature for 10 years. All fifty hear and rule on each case.
Who breaks a 25-25 tie? The mayor of Omaha?
Every justice rolls two dice. The only ones sitting on any given case are those who roll 7, everyone else sits out. If there are an even number they continue to roll in order of seniority and the first one to roll 7 in the following rounds also sits out.
I would mandate every Wednesday and Friday be boneless chicken "wing" night at $0.50 per piece. I would also adjust the Second Amendment to clarify that only well regulated, fast food militias are allowed to keep and bear arms. The Burger Wars are about to get real!
Toss wings in soy sauce mixed with a little bit of sesame oil. Roast for 45 at 425 on a cookie sheet lined with parchment paper for easy cleanup. Serve with sweet chili sauce.
I would mandate everyone try collard greens at least once! I've gotten multi-culti lately and tried them... Butter or grease, a bit of meat of your choice (smoked meat is best IMHO), sliced-up onions galore, lots of collard greens of course, sliced celery, touch of peppers in vinegar, add whatever stuff-and-stuff you like... Slowly simmer it all down... And OMG! To die for! And healthy to boot!!!
ALSO this!!! EVERYONE should also try green eggs and ham at least ONCE!!! (With or without a goat, on a boat in a moat, if that floats your boat, with or without a big swish-swish of your Ish-fish wish-dish... all that sort of stuff-and-stuff is optional, for variety, which is the spice of lice!)
Thank you for that.
*taking notes*
Go with screens in an air fryer and save 15-20 minutes. Just remember to pull the smoke alarm first - they have a thing for "air fried" chicken.
We know Taco Bell wins
Whats your boggel?
"Being able to speak your mind is important," said one, "as long as it's not in a way that is going to be long-term harmful to people."
That was a really faggy hat that pussy was wearing.
Being able to speak your mind is not something this person actually cares about.
Well, anyone who takes fashion cues from mid 80s Boy George is probably not someone whose opinion anyone will actually care about.
Hey now! I'd never wear a Cappella Romano or a Hoiche hat while taking a strap-on! Nothing but a good ol' Atheist Fedora for me!
"God...*Umph!*...does...*Umph!*...not...*Umph!*...not...*Umph!*...exist...*UMPH!...M'Mistress!" 🙂
And needless to say, I'm all for free speech, even hurtful speech, as long as it "Hurts So Good!" 😉
Ponies all around.
I expect you could definitely count on the brony vote with that campaign platform.
We have that already, with all the wild mustangs on Federal lands.
Tear it up. Go back to the Articles of Confederation.
No, the Code of Hammurabi.
Obviously besides repealing the amendment that banned alcohol and the one that let women vote, how about repealing the income tax amendment? Replace it with a system where the federal government can only get tax revenue from states. The point is that the states hold on to that money until they decide to give it to the federal government instead of the other way around, so that carrot-and-stick dynamic of funds flowing between state and federal is inverted.
I might support tariffs if they was the sole source of federal revenue. If the federal government exists to protect the entire nation, why not charge a fee when stuff crosses the border that that government controls? If tariffs make stuff too expensive people won't buy it, and the government won't get revenue. So tariffs would be forced to be somewhat sane. It goes against the principles of free trade, but governments are going to tax something. Why not limit it to imports? Just a thought.
Go back to having the State legislatures elect the senators. The People already have a direct voice in the House. The idea was to have as many different, feuding (diverse?????) entities electing the Congress as possible.
Don't allow men to vote either.
Only trans women, trans men, and hermaphrodites.
Or limit it to 10% of each individual.
First get rid of chevron.
Every law mist be specific and pass through congress with a 10 year subset. Vague laws automatically struck down.
Government pays for lawyers of any case it pursues and loses.
Fines go directly to treasury to offset debt only. No directed payments like Obama would do on settlements.
Get rid of impoundment allowing for reduction. Of spending as long as the tenets of allocated funds are met.
Maximum 10 years of federal employment.
Return senator voting back to state legislatures.
10 year sunset *
You must not be from around here; our sun sets every night.
Any federal funding of education goes to the individual, not the institution.
No tying any spending to behaviors at the federal level. Especially to states.
Any day spent on campaign trail for a sitting rep or senator gets deducted from their congressional pay except weekends.
Any day they spend talking to their constituents?
What?
Campaign trail is actively talking to donors and lobbyists. Not talking with constituents. See every politician out there. As soon as they ask for or charge a dime it is a campaign event.
They already have the bonus of public persona. They shouldn't campaign while working.
Get rid of chevron? The goat meat or the oil firm?
Either way, what are you, a goat-ophobe, Eco-Wacko Communist?
Being against Chevron deference in executive rule making is being a communist how exactly?
Now that ML explained Chevron deference, sorry for the misunderstanding.
Keepinng the Alphabet Soup agencies in check is very anti-Communist, anti-Socialist, and cromulent with Libertarianism.
Here lately, a lot of my attention has been towards replacing a Catalytic Converter that some "quality person" tried to saw off my new vehicle. (Ain't "The War On Drugs" and Progressive DAs just grand?) and getting a new alternator and security system. I may need the old alternator to pedal-power charge batteries for SHTF power.
I assume your joking around. A little merriment.
But just in case, the Chevron deference is an administrative law principle that forces federal courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute that Congress delegated to the agency to administer.
Oh, I see. I'm all for limiting, minimizing, and eliminating administrative agency power. As long as those agencies exist, they should be limited only to enforcing explicit, clear Congressional law and shouldn't have any independent policy-making power. And if Congressional law isn't clear enough, leave it unenforced.
Speaking of Chevron and executives, I think Chevron CEO Mike Wirth is far too conciliatory to Biden and needs both a good free-market lesson in the nature of inflation from the late Henry Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson and a backbone to stand against Biden's "Putin ate my oil reserve" and Green New Deal crap. (While Putin is an asshols, but inflation and gas prices clearly went up before the Ukraine invasion.)
All this said, please don't abolish the Chevron goat meat or the Chevron oil company outright. I may want to eat a roller-grill Kabob with my fill-up at the pump. 🙂
"Maximum 10 years of federal employment."
Or else make it illegal to join any corporate boards or management, run corporate consultancies, or do corporate advocacy for ten years after public sector retirement.
Way too many bureaucrats are busy setting up post civil service careers and feathering future nests.
Federal employees do not vote.
State and local government employees vote counts 1/2.
The Bill of Rights also includes the right to bear arms. The Babylon Bee's Kyle Mann would add some lines to clarify that "you can't pass laws restricting ownership of firearms."
I suggest "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
They can have black powdered muskets!!!
You'd have to add a clause that arms includes any non explosive (not including bullets) a regular in the military carries.
One of the purposes of the 2nd Amendment was to block what we now call "militarized police" - the founders were familiar with the concept if not the modern term. So prohibit any restriction on possessing or carrying weapons that don't also apply to uniformed law enforcement or plainclothes government agents, without any exemptions, exceptions, or loopholes whatsodamnever.
The problem is that the anti-gun side would like to strike down the 2nd Amendment as unconstitutional, and they'd feel the same way about any 'enhanced' 2nd Amendment.
No more running for re-election to federal office. One term, but make the terms longer. I'd suggest six years in the House, eight years in the Senate and White House.
Other than the commerce clause, I'd set the Supreme Court at a very high number of members, maybe house of representitives high.
That was, each individual seat doesn't mean that much.
A cap on the number of words the US legal code, including the Constitution.
Also, an official new motto: Mind your own fucking business.
And voting weighted by net taxes paid.
And all the words in the law have to be written and read in the vernacular. (Good luck getting that one past the Lawyer majority comprising the Legislatures.)
The motto original Dollar Coin of the First Continental Congress was not "In God We Trust," but "Mind Your Business." Adding the word "Fucking" does give heft to the command, though.
As for the voting rule, it would eventually translate back to "one person, one vote" as the taxes would go down. Maybe the vote could disappear with no taxes. (We can dream, can't we?)
Alternative new motto: There Ain't No Such Thing as a Free Lunch!
"A cap on the number of words the US legal code, including the Constitution."
And an increase in the official commentary on the law (if such a thing were imaginable)
1: Abolish the House, wholesale. Reduce the Senate down to 1 rep per state, decided entirely by state legislatures. Now we add in extra senators, tied to population of the states, 2 for the two largest (no ceiling), 8 for the smallest (1 each), and 7 for the median (3 up and 4 down from the median). If after 100 years, population changes in the middle is less than noise (ie, greater than 2.7%), we axe these extra reps.
2: Maximum age limit set at 73.
3: Legalize dueling again. Anyone who refuses to gets branded (the real branding, tatt or iron) with a capital C for coward.
4: Abolish universal suffrage.
Duelling is just Snowflakery with black powder pistols and swords. No one's mere words can take genuine Honor. And anyone who has to have to have someone hold down another to brand rhem is the real coward. Lay off the old Westerns for a little. 🙂
Somewhat on topic: Sad to say, he's right:
Bill Burr Rants About Seeing the Word ‘Freedom’ On a Pickup Truck: Freedom ‘Went Out The Window’ Decades Ago
Candice Ortiz
https://www.mediaite.com/entertainment/bill-burr-rants-about-seeing-the-word-freedom-on-a-pickup-truck-freedom-went-out-the-window-decades-ago/
Not that things are totally hopeless, but we libertarians have our work cut out for us and the Founders did say "Eternal Vigilance" was the price.
How would I change the Constitution? By amendment, what about you.
I guess that makes me the sucker.
I wonder how many people in the street actually know what is in the Constitution? There are 27 amendments. Do people know the name of the first 10? Do they know more than the first and second?
People are all idiots and blind sheep. They're not highly intelligent like you Moderation4ever.
You're special. You see things how they really are.
My suggestion would be to shoot big and address representation. With the 10-year census the state with the largest population must divide into two states. The two states with the lowest population must combine into a neighboring state. They could combine into one or each low population states could combine with neighboring states.
So every 10 years, you gain one and usually lose two (if the two smallest aren't neighbors) or rarely one (if they are neighbors). So you are systematically reducing the number of states each cycle.
Eventually you get to where there are only three states and your rule contradicts itself.
No money paid to any representative once they leave office. No pensions, no medical plans, no office allowance. They can set up and pay into a retirement account like the rest of us.
Politicians forbidden to run PACS particular for interference in other states or districts or prowling other states, not their own soliciting campaign contributions
Either get rid of the civil service or limit their terms to five years and no rollover to different departments. Exceptions made for certain jobs like the printers at treasury.
Again, no pensions
Put a leash on Congress regarding the commerce clause (or claws in their case)
Put a leash on the President regarding executive orders.
Bills must be single issue bills or the president must have a line item veto.
Best list I've seen yet.
Politicians forbidden to run PACS particular for interference in other states or districts or prowling other states, not their own soliciting campaign contributions
Maybe, campaign funds spent in a state (including broadcasts into a state) must be raised from voluntary contributions from individual voters or groups of voters who reside in that state.
The best chamges were those proposed by the Workers (Communist) Party in its 1928 platform: https://twitter.com/tenner_david/status/1398639294416306179
https://www.zerohedge.com/commodities/corporate-media-insists-eating-insects-really-delicious
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/oil-us-reserves-head-overseas-gasoline-prices-stay-high-2022-07-05/
More than 5 million barrels of oil that were part of a historic U.S. emergency reserves release to lower domestic fuel prices were exported to Europe and Asia last month, according to data and sources, even as U.S. gasoline and diesel prices hit record highs.
If you had North Korea and the Soviet Union infiltrate America in order to destroy it from within, I don't think that they'd do anything different than the Democrats.
Fix the size of the Supreme Court at 9 justices - take court-packing off the political table.
Repeal the 17th Amendment - go back to the States choosing Senators.
Overturn Reynolds vs Simms and void the changes to State Senates that were made after that decision. Allow State Senates to mirror the US Senate rather than requiring equal-population districts.
2nd Amendment = The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Get rid of that "militia" stuff.
Return libel and slander to it's original common law and pre 'actual malice, public vs. private figure' BS that S. Ct. pulled out their rear ends; then expand 1st Amendment rights to the 'public square' that includes all electronic communications; no federal reserve of course - Founders didn't have the 16th for reasons a 12 year old would understand - find a way to get rid of it for good.
1. Articles and amendments addressing a militia are null and void since the militia no longer exists and hasn't for at least a century and a half.
2. The duty of the Senate to advise and consent presidential appointments is not an option but a requirement of office. Failure to perform is punishable by removal from office and replacement by the President.
3. Super majorities for passage of bills in the Senate are stipulated in the constitution and no new types may be added without Constitutional amendment.
4. State electors to the electoral college must be proportioned and representative of the popular vote within the state. A tie at the electoral college shall be resolved in favor of the winner of the national popular vote. The means and operation of federal elections shall otherwise be the responsibility of the states according to rules and oversight set by the Congress.
And that comment raises this question: could we have a minimum IQ requirement for voting and holding office?
So sayeth The Party Stooge.
That's an easy one, apply the NAP and prohibit government from initiating force with this amendment, "Government shall not initiate force."
Unless you fix the courts, "initiate" and "force" would be litigated until the end of time.
To fix the courts, I like the "no standing required to challenge a Constitutional provision" addition, although we have to limit this somehow. Imagine 100,000,000 people filing cases against the 2nd amendment, all of which the federal courts have to hear on the merits.
I like the standardized Supreme Court term and appointment, instead of until death. But once per Presidential term isn't quite right. How about rotating 9 year justices, 18 year terms, appointed every 2 years (so each President gets 2, if he dies his successor from same party will get the same thing), longest-tenure one drops off every 2 years.
It should also be extremely easy to impeach a justice that makes up penumbras and emanations, for not following the Constitution.
*9 justices not 9-year justices. 18 year terms.
I'm pretty sure "initiate" and "force" are defined in Black's Law Dictionary.
I don't suppose it needs changed. Since it's massively ignored already.. Perhaps a way to keep it from being ignored by politicians and/or manipulated?? A new trend initiated by FDR and his New-Deal that just keeps growing...
I'd suggest treasonous charges filed on every politician who votes in a bill held to be in violation of the U.S. Constitution. If there is no penalty for treasonous actions by politicians they just keep trying and trying and trying till the judiciary gives up fighting them; I guess. There is absolutely ZERO authority for 95% of what the feds are doing. How did they gain that authority?
1. Modified Stossel amendment: The totality of the federal code is capped at X characters. Spaces and punctuation count.
If Congress wants to pass a new law, they have to repeal enough old laws to create enough room under the cap for the new law.
2. Statutes that are unreadable due to insufficient whitespace and punctuation are void.
3. The entirety of the federal code will expire (yes, all at once) one month after inauguration following every fourth presidential election.
Good luck rebuilding the administrative state from scratch every 16 years. 🙂
I like Heinlein's version of one better. For every law passed two have to be repealed. But your list is great. Especially number three.
I'd put a "term limit" such that failing to vote for a balanced budget makes one ineligible to run for reelection as a congress critter.
The amendment process itself needs amendment. There should be a way to get around Congress without the risk of invoking a full-up unrestricted convention.
I'd suggest that an identically worded amendment passed by 3/4 of the state legislatures should take effect automatically, without the need for any enabling action by Congress.
"No person under the age of 30 years old, not a high school graduate or equivalent and no more than a four year college degree shall be appointed, elected, hired or serve in the capacity of judge or justice for the U.S. government or any political subdivision thereof including but not limited to states, cities, counties or territories."
"Any losing party that brings brings suit in a court of law shall be responsible for the legal fees of the defendant. This includes any criminal prosecution. If the defendant is not guilty on any charge the legal fees of the defendant shall be paid out of the budget of the prosecuting agency. No defendant in any court or trial proceeding shall be liable for the opponent's legal fees no matter the outcome."
"Double jeopardy shall apply to the same conduct. Separate agencies shall not have the ability to try someone for the same conduct."
"Before any property may be forfeited the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the property in question came from illegal activity that the property owner has been convicted of in a court of law and the forfeiture must be part of the sentence."
"From this date forward the Second Amendment shall read "The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I could go on but those are enough for now.
Almost forgot. Any behavior not specifically outlawed is legal.
If I could add only one word to the Constitution, it would be to add the word “explicitly” before “delegated” in the Tenth Amendment. (This change was suggested by the late great libertarian L. Neil Smith.)
This one word change would eliminate the so-called “Administrative State”.
Craig
A far sighted and far reaching change would be the “Madison Amendment”:
“Madison wanted to insert into the Constitution a new Article VII: “The legislative department shall never exercise the powers vested in the executive or judicial; nor the executive exercise the powers vested in the legislative or judicial; nor the judicial exercise the powers vested in the legislative or executive departments.”
— Ratification: The People Debate the Constitution, 1787-1788 by Pauline Maier
This would eliminate the so-called “Administrative State”!