If you could personally change the US Constitution, what changes would you make and why?

[msc545]

Updates

5 mo

Some changes that I would make would be to:
1. Completely remove presidential pardon power
2. Institute term limits for Supreme Court justices
3. Eliminate the electoral college
What would you change?

[goaded]

I like your update. I would make the pardon power conditional on a simple majority vote in the Senate, not eliminate it altogether.

Pardoning Vietnam draft evaders and commuting sentences for crack cocaine that exceeded powder were the right thing to do (I just looked it up, the latter was a law signed by Obama, but the point remains). Pardoning Jan 6 rioters wasn't. Make the collaborators publicly vote for freeing the people who terrorised them!

Yes to a SCOTUS term limit, but quite long, maybe 21 years, and more importantly requiring 60 votes in the Senate for confirmation. No more Thomases, Kavanaughs.

Eliminate the Electoral College, yes! The president should be elected by popular vote - they're supposed to represent everyone.

In addition, make instant-runoff voting the rule for elections, ensuring that every vote counts, especially the moderate ones; vote Sanders, Stein, Clinton, Cruz in 2016 and you never get a Trump. The requirement for inclusion being a certain percentage of voters nominating them in every state (replacing primaries).

It also reduces the power of the parties, they don't get to choose one candidate each.

Make it clear that corporations are not people with free speech rights. (The Citizens United decision can in fact be rendered ineffective without changing the constitution, by states simply stating that corporations do not have the power to spend money on elections or election-related activities.)

[msc545]

I like your suggestions a lot. However, I would completely eliminate the presidential pardon power because even with the majority of the Senate supporting a pardon, it just introduces too much political favoritism. The idea of the head of state being able to pardon criminals is an old and medieval concept that I think needs to go and has been abused by Trump far too much.

[AviatorTom]

The US Constitution is as perfect a document as one can find in history. In more than 200 years, it has only been amended 27 times, and 2 of them (Prohibition) canceled each other out, which means it's only been changed 25 times.

The only change I would is define what a citizen is and clarify that the decennial census should only count citizens, since the census is used to determine representation in Congress (only citizens can vote for Congressional candidates) and for Electoral College votes. Why should non-citizens play any role in determining who the President and Representatives are?

I would not abolish the Electoral College, it performs a useful and necessary role in making sure that a few large states do not determine the Presidency, providing some say to smaller states.

Term limits for Supreme Court justices could have unexpected consequences. A justice approaching a term limit could make decisions quickly, or differently than they might otherwise. It would also put undo pressure on the Senate to approve justices that would replace expiring Justices.

Presidential pardon can be a valid thing to do; it's essentially the same power that each state governor has to pardon state crimes, and the concept has been around for centuries. What would be useful is to limit that power (maybe by not allowing it for a lame-duck President ), since pardoning thousands just before a President's term expires (like Biden did with the questionable autopen) is not a good idea, and oversteps the separation of Power (Executive vs Judicial) between branches.

[msc545]

Non-citizens should play a role in determining who the President and Representatives are because the decisions of those people may affect non-citizens as well as they affect citizens. Anyone living in the United States, whether they are a citizen or not, is entitled to representation.

[AviatorTom]

@msc545 The Founding Fathers would disagree with you, especially Madison.

Using your logic, if I have a summer home in France, where I live for several months each year, I should be able to view for our against Macron. Im pretty sure most French would not like that. Let's see what @julie07 thinks about that.
What countries do you know that let non-citizens vote?

[msc545]

If you are a U. S. citizen, you shouldn't be able to vote for or against Macron as you wish since his decisions may affect your property rights in France.

I think you should just admit your racism and say that you don't want anybody who is not white and a U. S. citizen (and probably preferably male) to be able to vote.

[RandomGirl42]

I'm not sure but it seems it certainly does need an updating. I mean, it's not the 1700's anymore. Times have changed. We as a country should change with them. And maybe not have so many old people in there. Some of them look like they came from the 1700's too.

[strawberryapple]

I agree with you the ones you mentioned, but I would add ending birthright citizenship.

[msc545]

why? How else would you expect to get cultural diversity, genetic diversity, and new citizens?

[strawberryapple]

By doing it legally.

[msc545]

I see. What do you think the legal way is to do it, considering birthright citizenship is mentioned and actually mandated in the Constitution? I would say it is legal now and probably will remain that way.

[strawberryapple]

I'm sure our founding fathers intended birthright citizenship to be for people who were forced to come to America, and didn't just sneak in. The system is being abused. And look at struggling border hospitals that are forced to deliver free babies.

[msc545]

I'm sure that you have absolutely no knowledge of what was intended 300 years ago by founding fathers or others. As far as I know based on history, nobody was forced to come to America, and nobody didn't sneak in. There were no immigration laws at that point. Unfortunately, the real reason you don't like the birthright citizens clause in the Constitution is because you are a racist. I cannot think of anything more un-American than being a racist.

[strawberryapple]

You're right. I don't know what the founders were thinking 300 years ago because they weren't born yet.
So based on history you don't know anybody who's been forced to come to America? Do a Google search and type in slavery.

[msc545]

Well, yeah, you're correct about that. I forgot about those. That doesn't change the meaning of what he said at all.

[msc545]

Of what you said.

[Snakeyes7]

• Term limits for all elected and appointed officials.
• Amend birthright citizenship to only require at least one parent to be an American citizen
• Expand the Bill of Rights to include institutions like corporations and private businesses (instead of just the government) to be held accountable when they make policies with their products that defy any of the amendments. All of this Palantir's flock cameras and biased social media algorithms will fuck right off.
• Remove federal income tax
• Ban usury. The idea is to remove loans and would make things that people often get loans for to get cheaper due to the loss of demand.
• No country gets government money unless a military draft is in place.
• Voting must be done by household (specifically a family) w/ children. The idea is that voters make more well informed decisions when they have more at stake. The fact that many states don't (or at least once did) require proof of citizenship to vote should scare those who care about America's well-being.
• Asylums should return, which gives a place for those who plead insanity to be held instead of being let back out on the street.
• Many government organizations will be abolished but I don't think that has anything to do with the constitution explicitly.

[msc545]

Your racism and your hostility toward democracy are showing.

[Snakeyes7]

I am the one showing hostility towards democracy? You are the one who wants the Electoral College gone. Also where have I mentioned race at any point?

[msc545]

Why do you want a military draft?

[Snakeyes7]

I don't but I think that is the only thing I can think of that justifies sending money to other countries.

[msc545]

I don't quite understand what those things have to do with each other. Please explain.

[Snakeyes7]

Because during the event of a war that presents enough of an existential threat to the US that a draft must be in place, we will likely have allies. I think these allies should exceptions to that rule.

[RavVid]

If you don't mind me giving an external commonwealth perspective...

The US constitution is a product of it's time.

The American Revolution was after the English Revolution (which is how I like to rebadge the English Civil War) and the (English) Glorious Revolution.

Now the Stuarts were dinky di absolutist Tyrants. The English Revolution was fundamentally about no taxation without representation. (So was the French. Both provoked by Kings wanting more money).

The Glorious (English) Revolution in 1688 set England on a path where parliament was supreme but Monarchy retained executive functions and Ministers were still personal functionaries of the Monarchy.

It took well into the 19th century till cabinet gov't and ministers answerable to parliament was established.

Had the US constitution been written in 1876 instead of 1776. I think executive powers would have been within Congress rather than having an elected King for 4 years.

[msc545]

You might be right about this.

[RavVid]

I think your founding fathers were fearful of a strong man arising and being able to dominate Congress and would be unchecked. Someone like Cromwell. A legit concern. Cromwell was within living memory back then.

[msc545]

I agree with you. I think they were very much afraid of that. Unfortunately, they didn't go far enough. For instance, our federal courts have no police and no way of enforcing their decisions if someone doesn't like them. We are finding that out the hard way.

[Dargil]

There are many more, but I will start with these.

1 Service time and age based term limits on legislative and judicial branches.
2 Reversal of the 17th Amendment of the Constitution.
3. A National elections take place only on one day, voting in person, with all votes counted by 9:00 PM local time except for those absentees living overseas and requiring a picture ID connected with an authenticated. Social Security number to vote.

Who could possibly oppose any of this?
I understand that disabled people would have a problem with voting. It would be up to friends or family members to find a way to get them to the polls during voting hours. We live in a world of deadlines. And some people just don't make it.

[msc545]

What is the problem with the 17th Amendment?

[NaultD]

2 and 3 I'd agree with you.

For myself changing second amendment from "right" to "duty" or potentially right to duty ownership of guns. Smallest change for largest impact.

[msc545]

Why duty?

[NaultD]

USA has has positive freedom down to a science. We get it.

USA is completely ass backwards on negative freedom. Just changing "right" to "duty" would change usa to wanting to be a perfect beacon top of the hill to being the perfect beacon on the hill.

[NaultD]

I'm also for mandatory service at 18 year olds for 24 months. Military basic training could be a pick but I'd hope we can figure out other government public services to do with the military as a role model to get youngsters outside of there towns and bubbles and see the outside world.

[msc545]

This was tried once before with the introduction of the military draft. Do you remember how that ended and why?

[slatyb]

I would make the second amendment completely clear, so that people could not own military grade weapons for personal use.

[slatyb]

And eliminate the electoral college. And do something so that 10 million people in rural states don't have more power in Congress than the 40 million in California.

[DrPepper12]

Start over. Parliamentary system. Multi vote, ranked choice voting, public campaign finance, independent redistricting, every (felons too) citizen over 18 suffrage for starters

[Bloodparadise]

I would change the importance of dollar being the standard medium among economy and currency

[blackeagle007]

Term limits on ALL elected officials. And judges

[Staximus]

Term limits for Congress and Senate

[msc545]

Very good idea.

[exitseven]

Make term limits for senators and congressmen

Negate birthright citizenship

[msc545]

I agree with your first idea, but the second one is terrible. It would result in us not having new citizens from other cultures, and it is important to our homogeneous culture that we have that.

[exitseven]

we can have new citizens from other cultures. The birthright citizenship was created so slaves could be citizens not as a way to circumvent our immigration laws.

[AviatorTom]

@msc545 Most other countries do not have birthright citizenship, and they get new citizens over time, legal immigrants who follow the rules to become citizens.

[msc545]

@AviatorTom so what? We don't follow the traditions of other countries in many ways. For instance, they do not let convicted felons, child abusers, or sexual criminals become president or prime minister. We don't. The only reason the right wing doesn't want birthright citizenship is because they want to get rid of as many non-white people as they possibly can because they think that somehow in doing that they will do better. They won't.

[AviatorTom]

@msc545 Feel free to keep enjoying the Kool Aid. Just remember that its our sugar and not good for you.

[msc545]

@AviatorTom keep thinking that you're going to keep getting away with these little tricks in order to hide your racism. We see what you're doing, everybody sees what you're doing, and as time goes by, these tricks are going to work less and less frequently. You're also about to lose your cult leader, and when that happens, your entire movement will go right down the tubes. Happy midterms. This time next year, we will own you, and we will own this country.

[AviatorTom]

@msc545 You must be thinking of someone else. I'm an Independent, not part of any political party, and I voted for minor candidates in each of the last 3 Presidential elections.

[msc545]

@AviatorTom you write like a cult member.

[Mike_Hum]

Get rid of the 19th amendment and change voting laws so that only citizens paying federal tax can vote in federal elections

[msc545]

You forgot the part about wanting to get rid of voting for anybody who isn't white.

[Mike_Hum]

That sounds racist. You should be ashamed of yourself for suggesting that.

[msc545]

Yeah, it is really racist, but you should be ashamed of yourself for implying that.

[msc545]

I don't understand why you want to link voting with paying taxes. That ensures that people who don't make enough to pay taxes can't vote, and I think that's a bad idea. Please tell me why you think it's a good idea.

[Mike_Hum]

I never did. Unless you think minorities don't pay taxes.

[Mike_Hum]

People who take tax dollars from people who pay tax dollars shouldn't get to vote to give themselves more from the people who pay taxes. It's that simple. Just like I don't want congress voting itself raises.

[msc545]

You said, "change voting laws so that only citizens paying federal tax can vote in federal elections" Why did you incluse this?

[Mike_Hum]

I just explained it. People who get tax dollars as federal benefits should not be able to vote to give themselves more money.

[msc545]

I see that's an interesting take on the situation and difficult to refute. What would you do about lobbyists?

[Mike_Hum]

I'm more concerned why you think minorities aren't capable of holding jobs where they pay taxes.

[msc545]

I don't think I said that, or if I did say that, I didn't mean to. Can you t quote the part where I said that or implied it?

[Mike_Hum]

Your first reply indicated I wanted to prevent non-whites from voting. Absolutely nothing I typed indicated race. That was your thought process.

[msc545]

My apologies if that is not true. That is what I inferred from what you wrote, but perhaps I was wrong. If that is not correct, then please tell me a little bit more about what you wrote in that instance.

[Mike_Hum]

That's because you have the soft bigotry of low expectations.

I'm not telling more. I've made it as simple and crystal clear as possible.

[msc545]

My expectations are not particularly low, except perhaps in your own opinion. Anyway, if you've had enough of this, then I understand and I appreciate your participation in our discussion today.

[Mike_Hum]

might be time to examine why you quickly jumped from "not paying taxes" to "minorities can't vote". IT reveals a lot.

[msc545]

Please explain what you think it is I said that indicated a jump from those two concepts. I don't see it, sorry.

[888theGreat]

The federal election stuff I mentioned.

[msc545]

If you did mention it somewhere, I don't recall what it was. Could you repeat it please?

[888theGreat]

you agreed with it and added to it

[msc545]

Do you have a link to it? I just looked and I can't find it

[DryGermanGuy]

Upper age limits for important offices.

[blackeagle007]

That I like

[msc545]

@blackeagle007 there is no reason for it.

[blackeagle007]

I wouldn’t want someone who’s barley an adult commander n chief.

[blackeagle007]

Oh shit. Forget I said that, too late 😆

[msc545]

@blackeagle007 well, right now you have a mentally ill, convicted criminal who would not necessarily have been stopped because of his age. Stopping people because of their age has no value.

[blackeagle007]

That’s true. I’m against his orangeness. But still just being a certain. What if it was someone who just turned 18?

[msc545]

@blackeagle007 just like anyone else, it would depend on their qualifications.