National Constitution Center Project Offers Constitutional Amendment Proposals with Broad Cross-Ideological Support

The proposals were agreed on by members of the conservative, libertarian, and progressive teams participating in the NCC's earlier constitution drafting project.

In 2020, the National Constitution Center sponsored a constitution-drafting project in which   it named three groups to produce their own revised versions of the Constitution: a conservative team, a libertarian team, and a progressive one - each composed of prominent academics and other experts on constitutional law issues. The exercised revealed some important points of agreement between the three teams (even though they also predictably  differed on other issues). This year, NCC reconvened the three teams and asked them to come up with a list of constitutional amendments they could jointly agree on.

This, they have now done, and the resulting consensus amendments are available here, along with introductions by three team leaders: Ilan Wurman (Team Conservative), Caroline Frederickson (Team Progressive), and Ilya Shapiro (Team Libertarian) [Note: despite the similar names, Ilya Shapiro is a different person from me].

Their list of proposed amendments is as follows:

1. Term limits for Supreme Court justices

This amendment would limit Supreme Court justices to 18 year terms, with a new justice to be appointed every two years. I summarized the advantages of Supreme Court term limits here. The amendment also fixes the number of justices at nine, thereby eliminating the risk of court-packing.

2. Making impeachment easier

This proposal would allow impeachment of the president and other high officials for "serious abuse of the public trust" as well as for "criminal acts" and would reduce the number of votes needed for a conviction in the Senate to a three-fifths majority (from the currently required two-thirds majority). It also requires a three-fifths majority for the House of Representatives to impeach in the first place (up from the current simple majority).

This makes conviction of a criminal, abusive, or malevolent president (or other high official) easier. But it also reduces the risks of beginning an impeachment process for frivolous reasons, by preventing the House from doing so with a bare partisan majority.

3. Legislative veto

This amendment would reverse INS v. Chadha (1983) and give Congress the power to negate most executive branch actions by a majority vote of both houses. Such "legislative vetoes" would not be subject to the presidential veto in the way other legislative enactments generally are. The point of this amendment is obviously to curb the growth of executive power over federal spending and regulation.

4. Eliminating the requirement that the president be a natural-born citizen

This amendment would make immigrants eligible for the nation's highest office. As the statements by the team leaders make clear, it was the issue on which the three teams came to agreement most easily. I outlined the case for getting rid of the natural-born citizen requirement in this 2020 USA Today op ed, co-authored with Harvard Law School Professor Randall Kennedy (a longtime advocate of this reform).

5. Making the Constitution easier to amend in the future

This measure would make it possible to submit a proposed amendment for ratification by the states if the proposal is supported by 3/5 of both houses of Congress, by a majority of the states, or by state legislatures representing two-thirds of the population. This is reduced from the current requirement of a 2/3 majority of both houses of Congress.

An amendment submitted this way could be ratified "by the legislatures or ratifying conventions of two thirds of the several States, or of States representing three fourths of the population according to the latest national census." This is reduced from the current requirement of ratification by 3/4 of state legislatures.

Another provision of the amendment makes it somewhat easier to propose and ratify amendments by using the mechanism of a convention of the states. This tool exists under the present Constitution, but has never been used (probably because success is so unlikely).

This amendment reflects the broad expert consensus that the US Constitution is too difficult to amend (indeed, harder, than the constitution of almost any other democratic society). That has, in turn, shifted constitutional change to other, more dubious, fora, including creative judicial interpretation.

I support all of these ideas, with the partial exception of the legislative veto. When it comes to the latter, I think it might be desirable to cordon off some types of executive actions from easy legislative reversal, such as - perhaps - certain types of military orders in wartime. But I am not sure exactly where to draw the line.

It's also worth noting, as I previously pointed out in my analysis of the original NCC constitution-drafting project, that the three teams also agreed on abolishing the Eleventh Amendment and getting rid of sovereign immunity, which protects federal and state governments from liability for many of their illegal actions. I do not know why this wasn't included in their list of amendment proposals.

Given the immense political difficulties of getting any constitutional amendment passed, it is unlikely that any of these ideas will be enacted anytime soon. But the exercise is worthwhile, nonetheless, because it highlights several improvements to our constitutional system that command widespread support among experts, cutting across ideological lines.

NOTE: The NCC Constitution Drafting project and these amendment proposals are distinct from its "Restoring The Guardrails of Democracy" project.  I was a co-author of the Team Libertarian Report for the latter. But I have no involvement in the constitution-drafting project.

Comments

[Kleppe]

I don't understand what this has to do with foot-voting.

[Mr. Bumble]

Somin has people move from state to state to influence legislators to approve preferred amendments.

[Enrique]

Either way, making it easier to amend the Constitution is a recipe for disaster; see: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2010183

[ImanAzol]

Yeah, "Harder to change than others" is a feature, not a bug.

[y81]

There is no possibility of making anything subject to a 3/5 majority, because people will invoke the 3/5 clause of the original Constitution. Totally tone-deaf. (I'm aware that the two items have nothing to do with each other, but that is not very relevant to democratic politics.) Other than that, these seem like good, though mostly minor, ideas.

[Krayt]

Good luck convincing the many tiny states that the problem with America is the giant coastal concrete canyons don't have enough power already.

[AmosArch]

There are plenty of current natural born citizens who would make a better President than probably anyone who has ever been in the office. The problem of bad Presidents isn't that we need to tap into a foreign talent pool for this issue.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

You should've read the linked article by Profs. Kennedy and Somin. They gave a number of good reasons for the change, and never mentioned widening the talent pool.

[Gandydancer]

There is no reason to read anything by Somin.

[tkamenick]

And yet, here you are.

[Patrick Henry, the 2nd]

There is no good reason for this change.

I don't want people who just come to the US to be able to run for President. They need to be here and acclimate and have their kids run.

[ImanAzol]

I'm an immigrant and I agree. Someone will game the system with popularity.

[Longtobefree]

" . . . or of States representing three
fourths of the population according to the latest national census."

So back to big states ruling over smaller states?
And giving the feds an even greater reason to fiddle with the census?
No.

[Krychek_2]

I think that legislatures representing 3/4 of the population is enough of a check on the majority.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

When did big states ever rule over small states? Small states had even more power under the Articles of Confederation. In fact, the small states agreeing to two independently voting senators from each state was quite a concession, since at the time of the convention House/Senate compromise, they still seemed to be thinking in terms of one state one vote.

[JasonT20]

So back to big states ruling over smaller states?

Thinking of "states" as being a distinct political unit with 'rights' or 'votes' in this way is, at best, anachronistic. People have rights, including the right to vote. States are just jurisdictional lines dividing up the geography of a large nation. People are far more mobile and much less tied to the state they live in than when the Constitution was drafted or even when the Civil War occurred. The need for a "state" to have representation in federal government is just not there anymore or justified. All it really does now is give the political machines within states the ability to strongly influence national policy. This is federalism done backwards.

[Krychek_2]

Not only is it anachronistic, it's something conservatives and libertarians should oppose because it means I vote, not as an individual, but as part of a collective. The collective gets a vote; I don't. Same with the electoral college.

[Brett Bellmore]

But you're making the same mistake the left does so often: Evaluating institutional arrangements on moral rather than practical grounds.

The federal government is too damn large to function efficiently as a unitary government, it NEEDS to be a federal system. But maintaining the federal character of the system requires that the states, as institutions, have some degree of leverage over the federal government, which naturally tries to centralize all power it its own hands.

So, yes, it may seem a form of collectivism to have states with 'rights', but the alternative is just a larger scale and worse collectivism.

[Krychek_2]

I'll remember you said that next time we have a conversation about the practicalities of amending the Constitution, since I agree with you that practicalities often trump other concerns. Not always.

The reasons for having a federal system in 1789, and in 2022, are not the same, and the error conservatives make is to assume we live in the same world that existed in 1789. There are things done more efficiently at the state and local level -- no one is suggesting the feds fix potholes or run the local fire department -- and that is more than sufficient reason not to abolish the states and municipalities.

But, as Ayn Rand pointed out (and I can't believe I'm quoting her), states don't have rights; only individuals have rights. And the states, as states, haven't had the kind of leverage over the federal government you're suggesting since the income tax and direct election of senators. That kind of federalism is long dead. May it rest in peace. If we ever got the minimalist federal government you're advocating, the economy would probably collapse, the seniors who rely on social security and medicare would starve, and the red states that mostly run on federal money would bankrupt. Practicalities, dear boy, practicalities.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I agree that states can not have "rights" properly understood, just prerogatives. States' "rights" is just a shorthand term which should be avoided.

[Krychek_2]

Fine, prerogatives. That changes nothing about my larger analysis.

[tkamenick]

"Thinking of “states” as being a distinct political unit with ‘rights’ or ‘votes’ in this way is, at best, anachronistic."

Do you think the same way about the UN? Should India and China have 4-5 times the voting clout as the US? Should the US agree to be part of the UN if that were the case?

Sovereignty matters, and states are still sovereign. They agreed to join together subject to the conditions in the Constitution.

[Krychek_2]

Which conditions have changed. This is not the country it was in 1789, and furthermore, you wouldn't want it to be.

The UN isn't a good analogy anyway because the UN lacks the ability to make any of the larger countries do much of anything, as we're finding out with Russia and the Ukraine. If the US Supreme Court tells California or New York that it must act or refrain from acting, California and New York will comply, and we already had a civil war about it. If the UN Security Council or General Assembly condemns the war in the Ukraine, Russia will tell them to go screw themselves.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fine, then: Propose to change the basis of the Constitution, and every state gets a free ticket to opt out of the federation rather than have the terms altered to their disadvantage. Bust the country up into separate states, and see which of them want to join your new federation.

[Krychek_2]

The issue isn't that it's to the disadvantage of the small states. The issue is that the small states have had an egregiously unfair advantage all along, and it's time to level the playing field. I might agree to let states leave if they reimburse the federal government for all the net federal funds they've taken measured against how much their taxpayers have actually sent to Washington.

[damikesc]

"If the US Supreme Court tells California or New York that it must act or refrain from acting, California and New York will comply"

NY is still trying to ignore them over gun rights. So, no, they will not simply comply.

[Krychek_2]

New York is testing just how firm a line in the sand the Supreme Court drew, which up to a point is legitimate. But what you will not see is New York flat out defying that line wherever it ends up being drawn. New York is not going to say, "It's interesting that the Supreme Court thinks that but we're banning all guns anyway."

[Brett Bellmore]

No, they're not going to say that. They will, however, keep spamming out unconstitutional gun laws, on the Reinhardtian theory that the Supreme court doesn't have enough time to strike them all down, and that each one will have some effect before being enjoined, and the next enacted.

It was this sort of behavior that led to the VRA instituting preclearance. But I don't think there's the Congressional will to create a 2nd amendment analog, and the earliest we could see that happen is 2025.

So, until then, NY is just going to keep pumping them out.

[bevis the lumberjack]

New York is stomping all over the line in the sand. With both feet.

[ImanAzol]

Ukraine is a nation. Under the USSR, it was "the Ukraine." It is not a possession, it is a sovereign nation.

[Krayt]

The EU is currently cruising to turning France and Germany into anacbronistic states as we speak, and at a much greater rate than the US.

They have been warned. They will be shocked, shocked some day.

When you introduce a new layer of government, you introduce a new crop of politicians who will work to increase their power by gathering to themselves more and more power.

That some here do not realize this shows what patsies you are. See also independence for Quebec, for Scottland.

"You are hereby ordered, by the power hungry, who grew federal power, to think of yourselves as US citizens with respect to legislation, where all the big stuff is done at the federal level now."

I guess it doesn't matter until its all over, like the frog in the slowly-warming pot.

Frog: "How dare you lament the cool water!"

[GKHoffman]

The nation did not create the states. It was the states that created the nation. But they imposed limits. The states gave the nation only such powers as are enumerated in the governing document. The remaining powers the states reserved to themselves. Not to their inhabitants individually, but to the states. So of course the states as distinct political entities have rights; always did have.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Not to their inhabitants individually, but to the states."

To the inhabitants individually, or the states, depending on the details of their own state constitutions, actually.

[David Nieporent]

The nation did not create the states. It was the states that created the nation.

No, it was (we the) people of the United States.

But even if you think states did create the nation, it was only 13 of them. A couple of others (Vermont, Texas) predated the U.S.; the rest were created by the nation.

[Davy C]

Making impeachment easier: No. Why would we want to do that? If it's going to be partisan then it's going to be partisan no matter whether it's 1/2 or 3/5; the only difference is whether one party manages to get 3/5. For me it has to be so bad that impeachment gets serious bipartisan support and not just one guy from the other party to get it to 60%. I wouldn't oppose making it 3/5 or 2/3 of the House to start the process, though, or language making it more clear that there doesn't have to be an actual *crime*.

Legislative veto: Eh... maybe limit this to regulations. Most of those should really be laws anyway.

Eliminating the requirement that the president be a natural-born citizen: No. We have hundreds of millions of natural born citizens. It's not like we need a larger pool. You can be anything else if you were born in a foreign country, but not commander in chief.

Making the Constitution easier to amend in the future: No. Every failed amendment that got to the point of states seriously voting on it was bad. We have people actively wanting to repeal the Second Amendment and wanting to narrow the First. I can only imagine what transgender activists would do if the ERA passed.

Term limits for Supreme Court justices: I feel like then we get into the realm where someone delays or rushes a case because they *know* a particular justice is going to leave and be replaced by someone nominated by the other party at a particular time. And it won't solve any issues caused by partisanship. So, no - although setting the number of SCOTUS seats to 9 *might* make sense.

[Patrick Henry, the 2nd]

You've summed up my feelings nicely on this.

[F.D. Wolf]

"Broad cross-ideological appeal" within the elitist academic bubble does not mean broad appeal among the nation at large. Make impeachment easier? Hah! (They are still Trump-obsessed prisoners of the moment). Impeachment is now a joke. House Democrats have introduced articles of impeachment against every Republican president since Eisenhower. On January 20, 2017, at 12:19 PM, the Washington Post posted a story entitled "The Campaign to Impeach Trump Has Begun." At that point, Trump had been President of the United States for nineteen minutes. If the Republicans have a House majority next year, which they almost certainly will, they will probably impeach President Biden, Attorney General Garland, and/or HHS Secretary Mayorkas. Somin will then be leading the howls of protest.

Impeachment easier? If anything, it should be more difficult, or even eliminated altogether, as it has become completely partisan. Perhaps it always was. I suppose I would retain it for judges, given their lifetime appointments, and, historically (for the most part), the impeachment of judges has not been an entirely partisan affair.

[Dick King]

The one-justice-every-two-years crowd doesn't seem to have considered the fact that one Justice is the Chief Justice. The proposed amendment does not appear to have thought through this issue at all. If a Justice is elevated to Chief, how does that affect the rhythm. Do they serve the rest of their term, or start a new one?

One problem with limiting Supreme Court justices' terms is that we DON'T want them thinking about their next gig. The text above doesn't say whether the sitting president could renominate a Justice who was ending hir term, but either way has a Justice nearing the end of their term looking for their exit strategy. Any Justice who is still serving at the start of hir nineteenth year rather than retiring is by definition someone who would have made a cognitive decision what their next act would be after Year 18 if that were the limit.

Also, the pleasing rhythm of one Justice every two years gets disturbed by an untimely retirement or death. If we decide to impose a one-and-done rule, and we decide to restore the rhythm after an early vacancy by stating that the new Justice only serves the rest of the term, nobody will take that temp job. If we decide to allow multiple terms as long as they are renominated and confirmed, then Justices will groom themselves for a second term.

I do agree with fixing the number of Justices to 9 including the Chief Justice.

There's a small case to be made for not allowing the Senate to not hold hearings, but I don't support not allowing the Senate to explicitly reject multiple nominees, lest presidents effectively if not exactly renominating the same [type of] candidate multiple times.

-dk

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I would favor some type of scheme where Supreme Court Justices were elevated for a fixed number of years out of the pool of Federal Court of Appeals judges. After their term, they go back to the circuit court. Not quite sure how the mechanics of that would work.

[Brett Bellmore]

Perhaps you just want to let the justices themselves pick the Chief justice. He doesn't, after all, have very much power, so it wouldn't be a big deal.

[David Nieporent]

The one-justice-every-two-years crowd doesn’t seem to have considered the fact that one Justice is the Chief Justice. The proposed amendment does not appear to have thought through this issue at all. If a Justice is elevated to Chief, how does that affect the rhythm. Do they serve the rest of their term, or start a new one?

You know that "Chief Justice" is mostly a matter of getting a better parking space, right? (It's hyperbole, but not much: the difference between Chief Justice and other justices is primarily a bunch of administrative duties.) Just have the senior justice at any given time serve as Chief Justice for two years. Voila: problem solved.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think the amendment amendment is a mixed bag. Congress has basically ceased originating amendments, the last one they actually bothered sending to the states was the DC vote amendment in 1978, 44 years ago. Since then, zip. Occasionally one gets drafted and voted on, but mostly as a PR move, not a real attempt at amendment.

So an improved process for originating amendments would be in order, to circumvent Congress' lack of interest in the whole topic.

The evidence that there's a problem on the ratification end of things is rather more lacking. Kind of hard to generate such evidence, when Congress hasn't been sending the state amendments, after all. But the last failure, that DC vote amendment, tanked so badly no defensible ratification procedure would have saved it. And the ERA before it was actually losing states as the ratification deadline approached. in the end it only had the support of 30 states, less than your 60%, (I haven't checked populations.) and likely would have kept losing states if the expiration of it's ratification period hadn't rendered it moot. People had just changed their minds about the amendment, and shouldn't that matter?

So it would seem to me that the crucial amendment is just one that alters the origination process, and nothing more. There's nothing about easing the origination process that 2/3rds of the states need to fear, after all, so getting to 2/3rds of the states on the ratification end would be easy. Whereas your proposal would allow the 10 most populous states to ratify an amendment over the objection of the other 40; Why would the states that make the difference between 38 and 10 or 32 care to lose their say in the amending process?

The flip side of that is that, why would Congress originate any of these amendments, and particularly the amendment amendment? What's in it for them? Just a series of amendments they would not have willingly originated.

The only way you get any of these amendments is via a Convention. And I suspect a Convention would demonstrate that we have no trouble on the ratification end of things, it's just that Congress has lost it's interest in amending the Constitution in ways the states might approve of.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Indeed.

[Gandydancer]

“People had just changed their minds about the amendment, and shouldn’t that matter?”

My recollection is that the pro-ERA folks said it didn’t and that States COULDN’T withdraw their ratifications. So that if it got the necessary number of ratifications (gross, not net) it was in the Constitution even if few States still wanted it.

I bet Somin got a spot on the “Conservative” team. So this is a hoax.

[JasonT20]

I bet Somin got a spot on the “Conservative” team. So this is a hoax.

Maybe the note wasn't on there when you wrote this, but Somin said at the end that he had no involvement in this project.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, that's what the pro-ERA folks say. Based on a Civil war era (what else?) precedent, where Confederate state legislatures had ratified the 14th amendment literally at gun point, and then rescinded the ratification once the soldiers left the room.

They also claim that the ratification time limit is of no effect, and that the ERA was finally ratified in 2020 by Virginia.

They claim a lot of things.

[Dick King]

I would like each state to have THREE Senators.

The fact that we have two Senators per state but six year terms causes states to have “off years”, years during which the states’ voters have no say over the Senate, and there’s no value added by this quirk.

This change does not violate the Article V prohibition against changing the states' relative representation in the Senate. Each state has to have the same number of Senators, but we can amend that number.

-dk

[Brophy]

The big Democratic states would hate that even more than the Electoral College.

[JasonT20]

This change does not violate the Article V prohibition against changing the states’ relative representation in the Senate.

The prohibition isn't total. It is just that no state can be deprived of equal representation without its consent. As a practical matter, yes, that seems like a total prohibition, as what state legislature would accept having its state lose representation in the Senate?

[Michael D]

I agree with the 3 senators but I go further:

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of three Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years, with a power reserved to a two-thirds majority of each legislature to recall its Senators, or any of them; and each State shall have one vote except in trials of impeachment when each Senator shall have one vote. They shall be divided equally into three classes, each class composed of one member of each state delegation so that one third may be chosen every second year."

[Yogis_dad]

Not one sound proposal in the batch.

[Armchair Lawyer]

No.

The short answer is, many of these proposed amendment would have the effect of weakening the protections inherent in the Constitution against abusive practices and abuse against the system of democracy, while simultaneously increasing the power of bare partisan minorities and increasing the partisan behavior.

1. SCOTUS term limits. -There's a reason judges have lifetime appointments. It sidesteps the inevitable potential influence/corruption issues that occur when a judge has to decide what they will do when they can't be a judge anymore. Moreover, it's easy to see how Congress and partisan minorities will "play" the system if they can anticipate when key justices will leave. And changing the rules won't lessen the potential impact of court packing...if anything it will encourage it. Because if they can change the rules once, they can do it again.

2. This just encourages partisan impeachments. It also leads to a weird issue with Presidential vetoes, where if Congress passes a bill, and the President vetoes it, Congress can then impeach and remove the president, which would be easier than overriding the veto.

4. No. This is a sensible precaution.

5. No. The Constitution is supposed to be difficult to amend. It's designed as a limit.

[Brophy]

The Constitution is hard to amend so Presidents appoint justices to ignore it. Amendments are made formally or informally.

[Brett Bellmore]

You'd expect Presidents to appoint justices who'd ignore the Constitution regardless of how easy it was to amend; Even the easiest procedure wouldn't permit amendments that were affirmatively unpopular, after all.

The real issue is that the direct election of Senators means that everybody involved in the process of selecting justices is a federal officeholder, and thus has no institutional interest in defending the states against aggrandizement of federal power: It's THEIR power that's being aggrandized!

If you want a fix for that, you need to either get rid of the 17th amendment, or create some state level body that takes over the Senate's confirmation authority. Maybe require justices to be confirmed by a majority vote of state Governors.

[Michael D]

"Moreover, it’s easy to see how Congress and partisan minorities will “play” the system if they can anticipate when key justices will leave."

This is my concern about term limiting judges. I like the idea of term limiting them so I would prefer to depoliticize the entire judicial nomination process. As I see things, that requires two rather "radical" (at least for the US) changes:

1. Depoliticize the Senate, thusly:
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of three Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years, with a power reserved to a two-thirds majority of each legislature to recall its Senators, or any of them; and each State shall have one vote except in trials of impeachment when each Senator shall have one vote. They shall be divided equally into three classes, each class composed of one member of each state delegation so that one third may be chosen every second year."

2. Depoliticize the presidency. To accomplish that, the office must become the head of state, ONLY and the head of government must be a separate office. In other words, follow a model used in every other advanced democratic system outside the US and the African kleptocracies and South American Caudillo states.

[Jerry B.]

I don’t care for any of those proposed amendments. Government should be hard to change.

[Bubba Jones]

These are what you’d expect from an academic discussion. Not horrible but largely pointless.

3 is the only one that could conceivably add value but you didn’t include any specifics on how this would work.

The others are just mental masturbation with no real benefit.

[Stephen Lathrop]

The most important unmet need for American constitutionalism is to get government officeholders out of every influential role with power to affect election outcomes. Something structural needs to be done to further empower the sovereign People, as an entity separate from, and superior to government. Elections should belong to the People themselves. Election standards and practices should be set by the People. Ongoing election supervision should be conducted by the People. Vote counting should be reserved for the People, and conducted under their supervision, not under government supervision.

In every case, public office should be treated as a gift of the People, made at pleasure; it should never be treated as a right of the candidate. Elected officials should at all times be made to conduct themselves as subordinates of the People, and not permitted latitude to set themselves up as rivals for sovereignty.

[JasonT20]

I agree, in principle, with what you said here. But I am not sure how that would work, in practice. I think that having the administration of elections insulated from partisan politics is clearly necessary. (Something both sides would agree on, even if they identify the other side as the source of current problems.) Each side sees the other as a threat to democracy, and it is dangerous for that view to have become so widespread. It weakens partisan voters' acceptance of results that go against them, and encourages them to think that if the other side is going to cheat, then we need to stop them by any means necessary.

The real source of the problem then, in my mind, is that running elections is itself seen as a political football. We really need for majorities within each side to value clean elections more than their side winning.

[Lawman45]

None of these suggestions is compelling. Just makework for bored professors.
No, no, a thousand times NO.

[Krayt]

1. Term limits for justices Is this even a problem? If you want to fix the total at 9, fine, but no politician is going near actually changing it, after the shellacking dear FDR took when trying to change it. Hot air, sure. Just ask the Rev. But make a serious attempt? Well, let’s send it to a committee and hey where did it go?

As for term limits itself, again, is it a problem? Or will it just double down on the political nature of the court? I thought so.

Also, this crypto legislature-as-party-prize wasn’t a problem while the Republicans played the long game over 50 years. Now that they succeed (wrongly, IMO) it suddenly is a problem?

Sure, no political motivation seething there.

Stinks like the dead squirrel the cat left on the step, two days later.

2. Making impeachments easier The whole point they are hard orients around needing to convince his supporters he needs to go. This was achieved with Nixon. Not with Clinton. Not with Trump.

How the hell does making it easier for political opponents to remove him do anything other than furiously (censored) the disasterbation fantasies of the dictatorial impulse of those who should know better?

Yeah, that’ll calm the country.

3. Legislative veto Congress and the Supreme Court claim this exists already, as part of the supporting lie that it’s ok to cast off legislative power to the executive because, among other things, Congress can call up the regulators as supervisory actions.

Which itself is BS and more in their role as corruption doing things on behalf of interested parties. But that’s what it’s all about anyway.

The real solution to yanking back power is to yank back power.

4. President doesn’t need to be natural born You might have a case for a little kid. And there’s something to be said for Ernest Borgnine standing there as a Russian American, who, responding to accusations of being unamerican, replies, “I am American by choice, not by accident of birth!”

This change, like the others, seems motivated by something hidden, which makes me nervous. So, no. The other changes are at least baldfaced, naked power grabs (which will probably backfire.) Which leads to…

5. Make it easier to amend the Constitution This is difficult to do, deliberately. This is how, and what types of laws may be created. If you can’t get a supermajority to agree, it probably shouldn’t be granted to glvernment.

It is to avoid the tyrant’s effortless manipulations of the blowing winds of political passion, their stock in trade. Thus changes should not only need most to buy in, but to do so years down the road, after minds have cooled.

“Never let an emergency go to waste” is an ignoble thought. It’s bad enough with prosaic legislation. Keep it away from constitutional changes.

Amd for all of it, the shoe is on the other foot from time to time. Like the “nuclear option”, don’t do it. It feels righteous to blowhard to the commoners, but they’re fickle.

[Moderation4ever]

Agree with the number 3 response. Congress already has veto power over the President's actions, they simply need to use that power.

[Brett Bellmore]

" If you want to fix the total at 9, fine, but no politician is going near actually changing it, after the shellacking dear FDR took when trying to change it."

They'll never do it, until they do it, and then it will be too late to stop.

As I keep saying, nobody is going to JUST pack the Court. That there would be a massive blowback followed by tit for tat is obvious. It only makes sense as the opening move to making the country a one party state: You turn the Court into a rubber stamp, and then have it rubber stamp legislation putting your party beyond the reach of voter retaliation.

I'd like us to close this particular barn door BEFORE the horses have left the barn.

[Krayt]

Holy shit. Editing removes not just quote html, but all. Including br tags, which is carriage returns. Which I did not add, but rather their stream auto formatter. So it converted normal typinc CRs to BR html, then removed them on edit!

Can whomever did this at Reason fix it? Why isn’t this fixed immediately? Does this place have no money, no programmer, no competent web guy or girl?

[Gandydancer]

It does not. Or it wouldn't have taken so long to get any editing capability at all.

I can live without fixing the tag deletion for a while if I can get notification of replies instead.

[Brett Bellmore]

It’s strange, because I’m not seeing the tag deletion. Let’s see:

strikethrough

Hyperlink

Italics

Bold

Yes, let’s see.

OK, that’s crazy, it did remove the carriage returns. But it's just fine if you put in an intervening line to create paragraphs.

[JasonT20]

The one of these that is the most necessary, to me, is the term limits for the Supreme Court. (Though I would add all federal judges.)

One argument against it here has been thinking that judges shouldn't be thinking about what to do after they are done judging. Which is really kind of silly, when you look at the Supreme Court in particular. When was the last Justice to retire before turning 70? If they don't have lifetime appointments, then the incentive to pick nominees in their 40's is greatly reduced. Then, the question would be why should anyone care what a former Justice does after their term is up? If they were really motivated by making lots of money, would they even accept an 18 year job at government pay with ethical rules and scrutiny of their personal finances? (Which brings up that Justices should be subject to the same ethical rules as other federal judges, of course.)

The incentives for Presidents and Senators to look at the partisan leanings of candidates for federal judgeships has gotten too great. Any restraint for Presidents not to pick people obviously partisan is gone, and senators know that and no longer defer to a President's judgement. The days when Scalia and Ginsberg could be confirmed 98-0 and 96-3, respectively, are similarly long gone.

If we can't return to a consensus of seeking non-partisan judges for the federal bench and Supreme Court, then term limits are a necessity. If though that non-partisanship was never true in practice, because people are human, it was still plausible for most judges and justices and there was fairly broad agreement that it should be the ideal. That is certainly not true now.

[MatthewSlyfield]

"If we can’t return to a consensus of seeking non-partisan judges for the federal bench and Supreme Court, then term limits are a necessity."

I have to disagree with this. Term limits are, in my opinion, likely to make the problem of partisan judges worse, not better.

[JasonT20]

I have to disagree with this. Term limits are, in my opinion, likely to make the problem of partisan judges worse, not better.

Term limits would mean that a bad choice would be more limited in time, instead of them being there until they decide to retire when a like-minded President is in office or they drop dead.

But term limits are only something that I view as necessary if we can't find a path to moderate the partisanship of judges that we see now, anyway. As I see it, we have the worst of both worlds. Partisan hack judges and they get to stay on the bench for decades.

[JasonT20]

Impeachment: I agree with most other commenters here. It should not be "easier" to remove someone from office. Making it clear that it doesn't have to be a criminal act, but a "breach of public trust", clearly unconstitutional act, or other corruption could be a good idea, though. Upping the requirement in the House to 3/5 or 2/3 would be good, though, I don't agree with any reduction in the amount of Senators needed.

Legislative veto: I would limit this to regulations issued by executive agencies. Which, doesn't something like this already exist? Even things like tariffs and such that Presidents have abused and taken from Congress could be taken back by Congress if the will to do it was there.

Ones not mentioned that I would submit:

No filibuster. The Constitution only requires supermajorities for three things: ratifying treaties, removing people from office, and proposing and ratifying amendments. Ordinary legislation and other actions within Congress's enumerated powers should not require a supermajority.

One that I would add that is practically impossible is to remove the equal representation in the Senate. (Every state that would get less than an equal share would have to agree, so that seems pointless to even try.)

Electoral College: No actual "electors" voting. (Remove even the possibility of faithless electors.) Make each state's electoral votes given to candidates proportionally to the popular vote in the state.

Corollary: Reform the role of Congress in Presidential elections - make it clear that Congress has no power to reject electoral vote results of a state once certified by that state's designated authorities. In the event of no candidate getting a majority of Electoral Votes, the members of the House will vote individually. (Each state getting one vote is ludicrous, in my view.)

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

I would prefer the filibuster to be enshrined in the constitution. It’s function is to prevent large by small majorities. Only to be reversed two years later. That is a societal good.

[MatthewSlyfield]

But which version of the filibuster should be enshrined in the constitution?

The original rule which required filibustering Senators to actually hold the Senate floor and keep talking, under which filibusters were rare and even more rarely successful. The longest ever filibuster under this rule lasted just shy of 24 hours.

Or the rule that the Democrats created in the 1970s which allows a single Senate action to be blocked indefinitely at basically zero effort and which the Democrats now wonder why it has become so popular.

[JasonT20]

I would prefer the filibuster to be enshrined in the constitution. It’s function is to prevent large [I assume you meant to write "changes" here] by small majorities. Only to be reversed two years later. That is a societal good.

No, because what it really does is give a minority a veto over ordinary legislation. Getting a majority of both the House and Senate and a having a President willing to sign a bill is already something that requires substantial effort and agreement. The zero-effort filibuster that exists now is too much obstruction of what a majority of the country wants. The filibuster was a historical accident in the first place. It was never part of the constitutional design.

[MatthewSlyfield]

” It was never part of the constitutional design.”

The original constitutional design, explicitly lets both the House and the Senate define whatever rules they want for their internal operation.

Also, the current zero-effort filibuster rule was created by the Democrats in the 1970s. I have zero sympathy for Democrats whining that the filibuster is broken when they are the ones who broke it.

[JasonT20]

The original constitutional design, explicitly lets both the House and the Senate define whatever rules they want for their internal operation.

Of course. But that doesn't change the fact that the filibuster was an accident when the rule was first made regarding ending debate. It was also used as an obstruction tactic fairly rarely. The two-track system, established in the 70's that you seem to refer to, is that trying to break a filibuster doesn't have to stop all Senate business. That did make it easier, politically, to maintain a filibuster, but it should be noted that it was failed filibusters against various civil rights legislation that primarily led to this. That the filibuster wasn't being used to preserve "minority rights", but to block efforts to protect minorities from being discriminated against, is a sign of the problem with it.

Also, the current zero-effort filibuster rule was created by the Democrats in the 1970s. I have zero sympathy for Democrats whining that the filibuster is broken when they are the ones who broke it.

That is why your charge here is off target. But it does seem typical of how Republicans argue about these things. You seem to justify abuses of procedures with a "but they started it" kind of argument, rather than defend it on its own principles. The new principles of the Republican Party can best be summed up by Dana Loesch. "Winning is a virtue." Whatever it takes to win is justified by winning.

[Brett Bellmore]

A better way to do it would be to require a law to be enacted in two different sessions of the legislature, with an intervening election, unless you have a supermajority vote in favor of it. In which case the law would take immediate effect, but sunset if not reenacted. So that they have to vote for the law, go before the voters, and then the legislature resulting from that election gets to decide whether to enact that law. With the supermajority option as an escape hatch for things that are agreed to be too urgent for that.

[apedad]

1. Term limits for Supreme Court justices; sure, OK.
The amendment also fixes the number of justices at nine; no.
2. Making impeachment easier; no.
3. Legislative veto; no.
4. Eliminating the requirement that the president be a natural-born citizen; OK, but then I would increase the residency requirement to 30 years prior to their candidacy.
5. Making the Constitution easier to amend in the future; oh hell no.

[Moderation4ever]

I agree with all of these except #3. As Krayt commented above Congress already has a veto on the President's EOs they just need to use that power.

[Brett Bellmore]

On the natural born citizen amendment, I suppose I could go along with just requiring 35 years having been a citizen, rather than 35 years of age, if we had to change things. But I don't think the problem here is a shortage of good natural born citizen candidates, such that we desperately need to widen the talent pool. The problem is that something about the modern approach to finding candidates is attracting the wrong sort of people, and driving away the right sort. We might be better off repealing campaign finance laws, frankly, rather than amending the Constitution; They tend to select for candidates who are really good at raising money, ironically, by precluding the option of just persuading a few wealthy people to support you. Which is, after all, how things used to operate.

The invidious discrimination argument is a non-starter. It's discrimination, yes, but hardly invidious. We want Presidents to be culturally American, and there's nothing invidious about that at all. The idea that they chose to be Americans, and thus might even be more loyal than 'accidental' Americans misses the point: What SORT of America are they loyal to?

You might end up with a President, (To pick some completely random example...) who prioritized the interests of immigrants, even illegal ones, over the interests of existing Americans. Somebody who effectively wanted to erase our national borders. That's the sort of viewpoint that is much more likely to be found in a President who is themselves an immigrant. 😉

This is a great threat with the Presidency, because it's an office with, frankly, way too much power, meaning even one energetically bad President can cause huge damage. This is less of an issue with other offices.

[SRG]

We want Presidents to be culturally American,

Shouldn't it be up to voters to decide whether they want that? If indeed the voters don't want a non-native as president, they can express their preference by not voting for him.

FWIW I do not feel deprived knowing that I can't run for president.

[Brett Bellmore]

Shouldn't it be up to voters whether Presidents are adults, too? Who knows, maybe Baby Einstein will run for President.

And maybe Baby Einstein is actually a citizen of Venezuela. Should we deprive the voters of that choice?

You're basically arguing against qualifications, period.

[SRG]

You’re basically arguing against qualifications, period.

Well, I'm arguing that you have to make a far better case when you want to deprive the People of making a choice.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't need to make much of a case at all, in this case, because I'm not the one advocating altering the status quo.

As I said, if it were proposed to change the 35 year age requirement to 35 years of being a citizen, I'd find it difficult to argue against that. But I don't see much of a case for changing things to begin with.

[Krayt]

We want Presidents to be culturally American,

Shouldn’t it be up to voters to decide whether they want that? If indeed the voters don’t want a non-native as president, they can express their preference by not voting for him.

Sure. Currently a supermajority do not, though. Please convince us why.

“We think this is yet another thing that should wildcat around with a 50.1% majority, the forte of those with the gift of gab, who want this power, because _________________.”

Eta: 4th edit because blockquote clobber.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" We want Presidents to be culturally American, "

For most Americans in modern America, that would mean no more clingers.

No more Republican racists.

No more conservative xenophobes.

No more right-wing misogynists.

No more Republican Islamophobes.

No more superstitious right-wing gay-bashers.

Losing a culture war has consequences, clingers.

[MatthewSlyfield]

The argument isn't lack of talent, but that the rule is difficult to administer/adjudicate.

[SRG]

Remove the first clause from 2A. Whether you're pro gun rights or gun control, that clause is so obviously misleading if not useless, better to get rid of it.

Also, fix the current unconstitutional status of the USAF and the United Federation of Planets Space force. At present, Congress has no power to legislate about either, nor has the president the power to command them, and it is well past time - particularly for the USAF - that this situation be remedied.

[Brett Bellmore]

"[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;"

Since, constitutionally, multiple armies are permissible, the Air Force and Space force can be considered to just be armies that operate airplanes and rockets. The only downside of this would be the appropriations limit, and is Congress even bothering to follow that anymore?

[SRG]

No . armies are armies, and navies are navies. Further, the Constitution also specifies land and naval forces so excludes air and space forces.

From Art 1: To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

Look, it would take about 10 minutes to pass an appropriate amendment, so there's no need to pretend that the Constitution covers what it manifestly does not.

[JasonT20]

No . armies are armies, and navies are navies. Further, the Constitution also specifies land and naval forces so excludes air and space forces.

Air and space forces were not even conceivable at the time, just like radio, TV, and the internet. Are you going to say that Freedom of the Press doesn't apply to web-only news organizations because they don't use a printing press?

[SRG]

The free speech clause works just fine. Also, as a general principle of Constitutional jurisprudence, a recognised right should be viewed expansively while a delegated power should be viewed narrowly. The Constitution does not, after all, endow rights.

And as far as flight is concerned, flights had already taken place in Jefferson's time, and that he had not the wit to realise the military consequences isn't relevant.

[JasonT20]

The free speech clause works just fine.

If Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press were the same thing, then there wouldn’t have been need for both to be included in the 1st Amendment. You seem to be advocating altering the meaning of the 1st Amendment to make Freedom of the Press redundant with Freedom of Speech. I disagree with that.

The first hot air balloon took flight in 1783, from what I can find. That they didn’t anticipate military uses of something that had only been invented a few years prior to the drafting of the Constitution, especially given how information disseminated more slowly then, is absolutely relevant.

The larger point here is that you are completely missing that the Constitution was not intended, nor could it possibly be, a document meant to be taken so literally as to defy common sense. At the time, there only existed armies and navies, so that the Constitution mentions only them, should not cause people now or in the post-WWII era to think that the Constitution needed to be amended to allow for the creation of an Air Force as a separate branch of the military. That isn't "narrowly" construing a grant of power, it is just ridiculously pedantic.

[Brett Bellmore]

Right, the only real question is whether it falls under the prohibition of long term appropriations.

The reason for that was that the Navy required capital expenditures to maintain a fleet, you couldn't just throw one together in an emergency. Whereas the Army largely could be thrown together in a hurry, while the militia bought you time.

They didn't want a standing army because you could use one to oppress the public, while a standing navy wasn't as big a deal because it couldn't reach inland. They wanted a militia to deal with emergencies, and give time to raise an army as needed.

Today, of course, we actually do have a standing army, (In large part for one of the reasons they didn't want us to have one: Foreign adventures!) and all branches of the military as a practical matter require large capital expenditures with significant lead times. But that appropriation language is still there...

[JasonT20]

The language in the Constitution is about money only being appropriated from the Treasury for up to a two year period. I don't think that would prohibit having longer-term contracts than that. Basically, defense contractors are just taking it on faith that Congress will continue to appropriate money for the decades-long contracts that they get.

[David Nieporent]

And as far as flight is concerned, flights had already taken place in Jefferson’s time, and that he had not the wit to realise the military consequences isn’t relevant.

What does Jefferson have to do with the discussion?

[Voize]

Air and space forces were not even conceivable at the time.

Military use of balloons (mostly for reconaissance) was not at all uncommon in the 18th century.

[David Nieporent]

Look, it would take about 10 minutes to pass an appropriate amendment, so there’s no need to pretend that the Constitution covers what it manifestly does not.

I can't tell if you're trolling or not.

The Air Force is an army. It's an army that operates aircraft. Hell, it used to be administratively a wing (no pun intended) of the U.S. Army. An administrative change is not a constitutional issue.

[Toranth]

Defining the Air Force as "an army" is a facile argument that applies equally well to the Navy - yet the Constitution clearly differentiates those two.
In fact, the Air Force has more in common with the Navy than the Army - large capital expenditures that require significant time, small number of individual craft, combat away from fortifications, etc.
And while you can play the "definitions" and "similarities" game forever, I'd say the real argument against making such a change is much simpler:
There is no reason to.
There is absolutely no meaning to that clause any more, and hasn't been for a long time.

[SRG]

BTW I always wondered whether, owing to the appropriations clause, any agreement by the Feds to do with the army that committed it to paying out funds for more than two years, whether a supply contract or service contracts, were ultra vires,

Or rather, I know what the answer should be but isn't...

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

The census is conducted by the executive branch and is therefore subject to political manipulation. Debates about the causes of over counts and undercounts are never ending. Using what amounts to an estimate as a basis for constitutional change is cringeworthy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nominally the last Census wasn't an estimate, but it appears that the Census was systematically in error with serious political implications; They over-stated the population of 'blue' states, and understated that of 'red' states, enough to increase the former's representation in the House by several seats.

2020 Census Undercounts in Six States, Overcounts in Eight

The errors ranged as high as undercounting Arkansas by 5%, and over-counting Hawaii by nearly 7%. They were simply enormous by the standards of modern census'.

[Longtobefree]

Most of these issues are because the census has become free marketing research for corporations, and a crutch for lazy lawmakers to allocate freebies.
The constitutional basis for the census is to apportion congress. To do that, all that is necessary is the send a postcard to each state asking how many registered voters they have.

[Brett Bellmore]

If the errors were randomly distributed, I might accept that explanation. The problem is that they were pretty systematic; ALL six undercounted states were "red" states, and seven of the eight overcounted states were "blue" states. (The exception being Utah.)

[David Nieporent]

To do that, all that is necessary is the send a postcard to each state asking how many registered voters they have.

Since the constitution specifies residents (with two caveats, one of which has been superseded and the other of which is obsolete) rather than "registered voters," that would not actually be "all that is necessary."

[questioner7]

"impeachment of the president and other high officials for "serious abuse of the public trust"" -- that seems dangerously ill-defined. What was this meant to cover, and what principles would give the application of this?

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

It is a purely political standard, not a legal standard. As such it all depends on the politics of the moment.

[Longtobefree]

The current reality is that a president can be impeached for anything the representatives want, and convicted by the senate for whatever the representatives made up.
So what would change?

[David Nieporent]

It would obviate the debate over whether malfeasance that does not line up with any specific penal statute can be grounds for impeachment. People who didn't want to impeach would have to overtly make the argument that what the official in question did wasn't wrong rather than hiding behind a legalism.

[valueLiberty]

1. Term limits for Supreme Court justices — I don’t see a net benefit here. This would make for faster swings in precedence and create more circus confirmation hearings.

2. Making impeachment easier — We have now entered the era of using impeachment to damage the elected president. We should not incentivize this destabilizing activity further.

3. Legislative veto — The presidency is too strong, largely because Congress has abdicated too much authority to the administrative branch. I fear this change would see popular decisions reversed to prevent the president and his party from getting a “win” before the next election.

4. Eliminating the requirement that the president be a natural-born citizen — We have over 100 million qualified individuals for president. There are good candidates, they aren’t being chosen by the electorate. Adding foreign born candidates won’t change that.

5. Making the Constitution easier to amend in the future — What we’ve seen from states with an easier amendment process is convoluted constitutions and amendments that should have just been bills. No thank you.

An amendment I’d like to see, and would have popular support, is term limits for congressional members. The current system boosts mediocre incumbents, some in cognitive decline, that are detached from their constituents.

[Krayt]

That this is a fine cross section of left, right, and Libertarian is a joke, when these are compensations for the Constitution doing exactly what it was deisigned to do: slow the politically motivated from abusing the power government.

So what jokers are pretending to be of diverse political persuasions lining up to make this easier for not-their-side?

[Krayt]

That this is a fine cross section of left, right, and Libertarian is a joke, when these are compensations for the Constitution doing exactly what it was deisigned to do: slow the politically motivated from abusing the power of government.

So what jokers are pretending to be of diverse political persuasions lining up to make this easier for not-their-side?

Oh wait! “Trump is not their side.”

I agree, but step away from trashing protections because it hurts your mechanations.

[Krayt]

“People are scared of removing presidents for purely political reasons.”

“I know, make it even easier to remove for political disagreements!”

“People distrust the Supreme Court.”

“I know, make it even easier to manipulate it as a crypto, political mini-legislature!”

“People want amendments.”

“I know, make it even easier!”

Like term limits?

“We didn’t mean that!”

And a balanced budget amendment?

“WE DIDN’T MEAN THAT EITHER!!!”

[Krayt]

And as much as I would love to see those amendments, even if a genie promised they'd immediately pass, such a change to the amendment process is too great a price to pay. Most should buy in, and do so years down the road after heads have cooled. Not a transient simple (or smaller) majority.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Some form of legislative veto sounds good. Indeed, on the Chadha thread, I suggested that a constitutional amendment would be the only legitimate method to adopt this useful reform.

Amending the amendment process - I think the best way to revive the amendment process is to stick to the constitution as written even when there's some short-term frustration from would-be reformers.

Some constitutional reforms (like legislative veto) are good ideas, and it's frustrating if we imposed patience on ourselves to wait for the amendment process.

Some constitutional "reforms" are really bad ideas, and enforcing the constitution as written would actually be substantively good for the country.

[Publius_2020]

A quick check of the 2020 census figures in order to determine just how few states would be required to meet the 2/3 and 3/4 of population requirement for the proposed "amendments" rule:

1. 2/3 is currently 16 states, but might become 15 states with population movement in the next 8 years.

2. 3/4 is currently 21 states, but will almost certainly be 20 states after the next census.

Thus, in theory, the 15 largest states could propose eliminating the Senate (or changing the allocation rules in a way that favors large states), and it would take only 20 states to pass that Amendment.

Looking at it from the perspective of partisan political affiliations, the Democrats might get close to having 2/3 total population with the right combination of 28 states, BUT that would require them to pull in several states that are often under Republican control, AND they would have no chance of hitting the 3/4 mark for approval without a bunch of GOP controlled states.

[Brett Bellmore]

If you propose the Article V amendment allowing ratification on the basis of population, you think the state legislatures can't do this math? It is seriously contrary to the interest of more than enough states to block a constitutional amendment, that this proposed amendment never be ratified. It basically amounts to a poison pill.

The part of the amendment allowing the states to originate amendments, on the other hand, has no such problem. Inherently enough states to ratify would favor it, because they'd know that only amendments they wanted could be ratified.

[damikesc]

The Constitution is as difficult to change as it needs to be.

Keep in mind --- all of these "popular" amendments are less popular than banning alcohol was.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I don’t want any of things. The constitution, particularly the bill of rights, is there to protect me from the government. From bullying by the majority that thinks they can make better decisions for me than I can.

All of these suggestions just give more power to the bullies. Screw off with that.

[SRG]

From some of these responses one would think either that the Constitution was like "the laws of the Medes and the Persians, which cannot be altered" or was God-given.

FFS it was the result of compromises, some of which need no longer be made, by people who understood it was imperfect (cf. the forward to the KJV...) under circumstances very different, and cannot be expected to cover situations unimaginable to the FFs.

[bevis the lumberjack]

I give zero shits about its origin story or what applies today or doesn’t. It was written to protect us from government oversight and frequently actually does.

Anything that today’s busybody zealots that know what is better than for me than I do is going to be (intentionally) much less protective of my rights.

So you’ve got me wrong. My desire here is completely practical and has nothing to do with thinking what we’ve got is holy writ. Anything our “elite” write today will be certain to be less protective of my rights than what we’ve got. Sorry, I don’t want people like you given power to bully people like me using the power of the government.

[Brett Bellmore]

I think there are actually a fair number of mistakes, or just bad calls, built into the Constitution.

But you can't permit those to be informally edited out, without the good stuff being rendered just as vulnerable, and the good stuff is more of a target than the bad stuff.

I'd rather keep the package, if it comes to it, and require a high bar for approving changes. I'm not so concerned about having a high bar for proposing them.

[OtisAH]

Number 2 is basically “We’ll lower the threshold for criminal murder conviction to a majority of jurors but only first degree murder will be a crime.”

[jdege]

With respect to #3, Legislative Veto, it requires President and Senate and House to make law. I'd prefer that enacting regulations that have the force of law require positive action by all three, rather than the current system of having them become law by default, if Congress does not act.

But given the realities of our current situation, where having Congress actually do it's job is considered an extreme position, at a minimum I'd want a Legislative Veto by either house. It takes both of them to say yes to pass a law. A veto by either should kill a regulations.

And I'd want an explicit grant of power to the President to veto any regulation - regardless of the opinions of the apparatchiks.

[Marc St. Stephen]

I can think of a few Amendments to the constitution that would be much more useful than these:

- Each and every regulatory deeming rule must be voted upon by congress exactly the same way a bill is before becoming law
- No more package bill deals - no more slipping shit into a bill that has nothing to do with a bill.
- While a tax decrease or expansion of a freedom requires a simple majority to pass, any tax increase or taking of a freedom will require 2/3rds to pass.
- Any tax increase or freedom restriction targeting a minority of citizens can only pass into law with a percentage of votes that represents all unaffected citizens plus 51% of affected citizens.
- Elected office holder recall ability - all levels - triggered especially when an office holder breaks any campaign promise.
- Ranked choice voting

[Kosanke]

Repeal of the 16th Amendment (income tax) should be first on the list. It allows the states to determine the source of funds, and gives them back their teeth.

According to a recent Rasmussen poll on the subject, most Americans support repeal of the 16th Amendment, which authorized a federal income tax: 62% of independents, 56% of Republicans, and even 42% of Democrats. 54% of those earning less than $75,000 annually would like to see it repealed.

Since there are currently 15 outstanding State applications for an Article V Convention for repeal of the Income Tax Amendment (28 if you don’t count “rescissions” - which are not specifically authorized under Article V), it won’t be necessary to start from scratch. The remaining States (to achieve 34 for a call and 38 for passage) merely need to enter the Compact. Most of the States that rescinded their applications are on the fence, and an additional 34 states have applied for a convention regarding a balanced federal budget, so these states should be targeted.

Here is a link to the CRITA (Compact for Repeal of the Income Tax Amendment). Comments are welcome on the doc.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LIr9h4h4kpUggGNrm9qq033B3EbdKhMECURtjPMkHXE/edit?usp=sharing

[Voize]

"Making impeachment easier" is a misstatement, actually the proposal is to make conviction somewhat easier but impeachment harder, so it can't be accomplished by a simple majority of the House.

The bit about not requiring criminal acts isn't really a change at all, just a clarification for readers who don't understand that "high crimes and misdemeanors" already includes serious abuse of the public trust.