PDA

View Full Version : Constitutional Amendments that will never happen but should



Odysseus
11-09-2012, 01:47 PM
Just a couple of thoughts:


Congress shall pass no law to which it exempts itself.
Congress shall not distribute any revenue, except in return for services rendered or goods delivered. No appropriation shall be made for any purpose except the necessary functions of government under the powers enumerated herein.
Congress shall make no law which infringes on the right of the people to create, use or dispose of property.
No person shall be seated in the Congress who has been convicted of a felony, or impeached from federal office.
The right of the states to enforce the laws of the nation shall not be abridged.

Wibbins
11-09-2012, 02:49 PM
Congress shall not have a budget that consists of deficit spending, except in times of war.

Or something like that

m00
11-09-2012, 03:19 PM
Congress shall not have a budget that consists of deficit spending, except in times of war.

Heh. This will be called the "times of war clause," and Congress will remain perpetually at war (war on terror, war on drugs, and so forth) so as they can constantly engage in deficit spending.

At first I thought we could change it to say: "Congress shall not have a budget that adds to the Federal Deficit"... but then, Congress would just stop passing Congressional Budgets... and invent something tortured like "ad hoc budgets" and then lawyers can argue whether they are technically budgets for purposes of this amendment. AFAIK, we haven't passed a budget in years.

So maybe... "Congress shall not engage in deficit spending"... but then they will redefine "engage"

What about... "It shall be prohibited for Federal Receipts to be greater than Federal Revenue in single fiscal year."

And then a thought struck me. We just need to stop electing Congressmen that redefine constitutional language so as to suit them, for any new constitutional amendments to matter.

Arroyo_Doble
11-09-2012, 04:14 PM
* A member of the House shall not represent a population greater than fifty thousand

djones520
11-09-2012, 06:17 PM
* A member of the House shall not represent a population greater than fifty thousand

New York City would end up with something like 150 Reps alone then. Even in rural area's you'd have a rep for every 1 to 2 counties.

Rockntractor
11-09-2012, 06:26 PM
New York City would end up with something like 150 Reps alone then. Even in rural area's you'd have a rep for every 1 to 2 counties.

Libs they like big government, that would certainly cut down on unemployment.

Odysseus
11-09-2012, 06:52 PM
New York City would end up with something like 150 Reps alone then. Even in rural area's you'd have a rep for every 1 to 2 counties.

Which would not be a bad thing. It's not often that Annoyo and I agree on something, but the idea of the House of Representatives was that people would know their representatives personally, and would be able to choose relatively decent neighbors to represent them. The original intent of the senate was that it would represent the governments of the states, which meant that the legislatures, in choosing one of their own, would pick someone that they knew and respected. We might not get less partisanship, but would any state legislature send someone like Joe Biden to the senate?

Rockntractor
11-09-2012, 06:58 PM
Which would not be a bad thing. It's not often that Annoyo and I agree on something, but the idea of the House of Representatives was that people would know their representatives personally, and would be able to choose relatively decent neighbors to represent them. The original intent of the senate was that it would represent the governments of the states, which meant that the legislatures, in choosing one of their own, would pick someone that they knew and respected. We might not get less partisanship, but would any state legislature send someone like Joe Biden to the senate?

No straight malt until after supper, i knew consumption would go up!

JB
11-09-2012, 07:19 PM
Congress shall pass no law to which it exempts itself.I asked everyone I knew that I thought was going to vote for Barry..."Doesn't exempting himself from Barrycare (the single greatest accomplishment of his presidency, in his mind) send up any kind of red flag for you?"

djones520
11-09-2012, 07:27 PM
Which would not be a bad thing. It's not often that Annoyo and I agree on something, but the idea of the House of Representatives was that people would know their representatives personally, and would be able to choose relatively decent neighbors to represent them. The original intent of the senate was that it would represent the governments of the states, which meant that the legislatures, in choosing one of their own, would pick someone that they knew and respected. We might not get less partisanship, but would any state legislature send someone like Joe Biden to the senate?

While I agree, when your looking at a population of 300 million, your talking thousands of representatives. How would anything ever get done?

Just from their pay alone, your looking at 8 billion dollars. Other costs incured? Our deficit the last few years would be a joke.

Hawkgirl
11-09-2012, 08:05 PM
* No president, senator or congressman/woman shall serve more than two terms.

Generation Why?
11-13-2012, 02:12 PM
* No president, senator or congressman/woman shall serve more than two terms.

I would be willing to go to four terms for Members of the House. Two for all others.

Madisonian
11-13-2012, 06:56 PM
The term of the President is limited to 1 6 year term.

No person may serve more than 3 consecutive 2 year terms in the House of Representing nor more than 2 consecutive 4 year terms in the Senate nor more than 16 years total.

The Office of the Vice President shall be the person that is first runner-up in the Presidential general election.

Any time a sitting House or Senate member spends campaigning shall be deducted from their pay.

House and Senate members shall be allowed 1 week paid vacation per calender quarter. Any time spent outside out Washington or their represented area shall not be compensated unless approved by their electorate.

House and Senate members shall only be reimbursed for expenses to the extent that ordinary citizens are allowed to deduct similar expenses on their taxes.

The salary cap (including taxes, benefits and other mandated cost basis adjustments) for Senate and House member's staff shall not exceed 4 times the W2 wages of the member. Additional staff may be allowed, but at the member's expense and is not deductible in any manner and shall be considered personal employees of the member and the employing member is responsible for payment of all FICA, FUTA, Worker's Comp, Health Insurance, and retirement benefits, also non-deductible. Any person employed in such a manner will not be considered a Federal employee in any way, shape, manner or form.

Rockntractor
11-13-2012, 07:07 PM
I would settle for a feeble attempt to at least follow the constitution and amendments we have.

SarasotaRepub
11-13-2012, 07:23 PM
I asked everyone I knew that I thought was going to vote for Barry..."Doesn't exempting himself from Barrycare (the single greatest accomplishment of his presidency, in his mind) send up any kind of red flag for you?"


SLW and I were in line with 2 women who swore this wasn't true. I asked where they heard that. They say the internet...:rolleyes:

Retread
11-13-2012, 11:29 PM
* A member of the House shall not represent a population greater than fifty thousand

Not only no... but


HELL NO

Retread
11-13-2012, 11:33 PM
Which would not be a bad thing. It's not often that Annoyo and I agree on something, but the idea of the House of Representatives was that people would know their representatives personally, and would be able to choose relatively decent neighbors to represent them. The original intent of the senate was that it would represent the governments of the states, which meant that the legislatures, in choosing one of their own, would pick someone that they knew and respected. We might not get less partisanship, but would any state legislature send someone like Joe Biden to the senate?

And just what would happen to the electoral college? It would be as if it did not exist.

That is the final defense of us here in fly-over country.

NJCardFan
11-14-2012, 01:57 AM
* A member of the House shall not represent a population greater than fifty thousand

Leave it to you to come up with something this stupid.

NJCardFan
11-14-2012, 02:00 AM
Which would not be a bad thing. It's not often that Annoyo and I agree on something, but the idea of the House of Representatives was that people would know their representatives personally, and would be able to choose relatively decent neighbors to represent them. The original intent of the senate was that it would represent the governments of the states, which meant that the legislatures, in choosing one of their own, would pick someone that they knew and respected. We might not get less partisanship, but would any state legislature send someone like Joe Biden to the senate?

Unless you're willing to give up the Electoral College, this is still a dumb idea. This would essentially give the Democratic candidate near half the votes needed to win the presidency. With NY and Cali alone would put them almost at 300. This would leave the GOP, or any other candidate, needing to win every other state.

NJCardFan
11-14-2012, 02:02 AM
* No president, senator or congressman/woman shall serve more than two terms.

Not fair to congress critters unless you're willing to increase their term to 4 years instead of 2 and lower the senate term to 4. That said, I do agree with term limits.

Arroyo_Doble
11-14-2012, 09:56 AM
Unless you're willing to give up the Electoral College, this is still a dumb idea. This would essentially give the Democratic candidate near half the votes needed to win the presidency. With NY and Cali alone would put them almost at 300. This would leave the GOP, or any other candidate, needing to win every other state.

The Electoral College would consist of about 6300 electors. California and New York combined would have a great deal more than 300 (as would Texas).


Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:



Increasing the size of the House would necessarily increase the size of the College.

Generation Why?
11-14-2012, 01:24 PM
And just what would happen to the electoral college? It would be as if it did not exist.



I would like to revamp the Electoral College to 435 votes. you win the congressional district, you get the vote. It is a more accurate representation of the people in my opinion.

NJCardFan
11-14-2012, 01:51 PM
The Electoral College would consist of about 6300 electors. California and New York combined would have a great deal more than 300 (as would Texas).


Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:



Increasing the size of the House would necessarily increase the size of the College.

And the most populated cities would pick the president and as we all know, all urban areas are overwhelmingly Democrat. While the GOP would carry the midwest, rural, and most suburban areas, all of those would never stack up against places like NY and Cali. Carrying both of those states would sew up the White House for the Dems for eternity so it's easy to see why you think this would be a good idea.

Arroyo_Doble
11-14-2012, 02:00 PM
And the most populated cities would pick the president and as we all know, all urban areas are overwhelmingly Democrat. While the GOP would carry the midwest, rural, and most suburban areas, all of those would never stack up against places like NY and Cali. Carrying both of those states would sew up the White House for the Dems for eternity so it's easy to see why you think this would be a good idea.

How?

If there are over 6000 electors, you think California and New York get about 3000 of them?

Odysseus
11-15-2012, 02:49 PM
I asked everyone I knew that I thought was going to vote for Barry..."Doesn't exempting himself from Barrycare (the single greatest accomplishment of his presidency, in his mind) send up any kind of red flag for you?"
And their response?

I would like to revamp the Electoral College to 435 votes. you win the congressional district, you get the vote. It is a more accurate representation of the people in my opinion.
That would certain level the playing field. Right now, California and New York account for roughly one-third of the votes needed for an Electoral majority. That pretty much flies in the face of the original intent of the Electoral College. By breaking down to congressional districts, the states would be less monolithically blue and red, and candidates would have to campaign in swing districts, rather than swing states. It would also put parts of the bigger states into play and make the elections more competitive within them.

How?

If there are over 6000 electors, you think California and New York get about 3000 of them?
Roughly the same proportion as they get now. It wouldn't change anything, except the total number of electors, who would still be bound by the same rules.