We need a Convention of States to amend the U.S. Constitution. What amendments do you support?

[Osiris-ODS]

Just thought of another one. TERM LIMITS. We need more turnover in the House and Senate.

That alone should be numbers 1 through 5. It's that important.

 

[Rogue AI]

Not everyone in the country have the same exact medical benefits. Most people's medical benefits are dependent on what they have negotiated with the company that provides those benefits.

Fair enough, while they serve in Congress let them receive the same care as our veterans.

 

[Votto]

How would you enforce a balanced budget amendment? Hadn't though of that, did you?

A balanced budget amendment would like result in more economy-crippling taxes!

They would ignore it, of course, like they do the laws on illegal immigration or just like they do the "budget ceiling" they always talk about having to raise

Well guess what, it's no ceiling, it's just the never ending sky.

But at least it would be a start. Something needs to be done, or at least try to be done to contain the largest debt in human history. Those in Congress are like crack addicts, always wanting another hit with a stimulus package. They are out of control and need an intervention, and the states are the only ones that can do it. It is either that or let them destroy the Republic.

Had it ever occurred to you that the reason they have the gonads to spend so much is because they know they can do it and not raise taxes to pay for it?

 

[Mac1958]

All microbreweries should be allowed to operate without taxes, of any kind, in perpetuity.

 

[kyzr]

No, they would be a gathering of ALL legislatures, dumbass!

Election reform - the federal government is not responsible for any elections.

Balanced budget amendment - Flunked economics did we?

Filibuster - is a Senate rule and cannot be part of the Constitution.

Line Item veto - This I would support.

Mandatory retirements - I oppose. Many older people are still fully functioning and do not deserve discrimination by ageism.

Term limits - We already have term limits. They are called elections.

Politicians medical care - They do get the same medical coverage as everyone else who is a government employee. My wife's coverage from the private sector was better than mine when I worked for the federal government and cheaper.

Clarify the 14th Amendment - I would support.

The Supreme Court - I would support limiting it to 9 justices.

So there are three on your laundry list that make sense. That is not worth a Constitutional Convention which could result in a free for all of changes we don't want.

It takes 34 states to call a COS and 38 to pass a new Amendment:

Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, also called an Article V Convention or amendatory convention, applied for by two-thirds (currently 34) of the state legislatures, is one of two processes authorized by Article Five of the United States Constitution whereby the United States Constitution may be altered. Amendments may also be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.[1]
To become part of the Constitution, an amendment which has been formally proposed must then be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-fourths (presently 38) of the states, or state ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states. Thirty-three amendments to the United States Constitution have been approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. Twenty-seven of these amendments have been ratified and are now part of the Constitution. As of 2021, the amendment convention process has never been used for proposing a constitutional amendment.

Responding to your comments:
No, they would be a gathering of ALL legislatures, dumbass! True, but after 2022 the GOP should have at least 38 (to 12 for dems)
Election reform - the federal government is not responsible for any elections. Ever heard of HR-1?
Balanced budget amendment - Flunked economics did we? Would it be legal or not? $30T in DEBT is flunking economics.
Filibuster - is a Senate rule and cannot be part of the Constitution. Why not?
Line Item veto - This I would support. OK
Mandatory retirements - I oppose. Many older people are still fully functioning and do not deserve discrimination by ageism. Many are not, look at Biden and the old folks home we have in the Senate and House.
Term limits - We already have term limits. They are called elections. Yeah, that's why 99% of incumbents get re-elected, we disagree.
Politicians medical care - They do get the same medical coverage as everyone else who is a government employee. My wife's coverage from the private sector was better than mine when I worked for the federal government and cheaper. OK
Clarify the 14th Amendment - I would support. OK
The Supreme Court - I would support limiting it to 9 justices. OK
So there are three on your laundry list that make sense. That is not worth a Constitutional Convention which could result in a free for all of changes we don't want. If the GOP has a super-majority a COS would be a great idea.

You didn't comment on:

To ensure that apportionment of Representatives be set by counting only citizens​

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Don't see how. Once it becomes an amendment it is part of the Constitution. By definition it could not be unconstitutional. Any conflicts would have to be reconciled by separate amendments.

No. It would require a repeal of the conflict in the new amendment. Check out the 18th and 21st Amendments.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It takes 34 states to call a COS and 38 to pass a new Amendment:

Convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, also called an Article V Convention or amendatory convention, applied for by two-thirds (currently 34) of the state legislatures, is one of two processes authorized by Article Five of the United States Constitution whereby the United States Constitution may be altered. Amendments may also be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.[1]
To become part of the Constitution, an amendment which has been formally proposed must then be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-fourths (presently 38) of the states, or state ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states. Thirty-three amendments to the United States Constitution have been approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. Twenty-seven of these amendments have been ratified and are now part of the Constitution. As of 2021, the amendment convention process has never been used for proposing a constitutional amendment.

Responding to your comments:
No, they would be a gathering of ALL legislatures, dumbass! True, but after 2022 the GOP should have at least 38 (to 12 for dems)
Election reform - the federal government is not responsible for any elections. Ever heard of HR-1?
Balanced budget amendment - Flunked economics did we? Would it be legal or not? $30T in DEBT is flunking economics.
Filibuster - is a Senate rule and cannot be part of the Constitution. Why not?
Line Item veto - This I would support. OK
Mandatory retirements - I oppose. Many older people are still fully functioning and do not deserve discrimination by ageism. Many are not, look at Biden and the old folks home we have in the Senate and House.
Term limits - We already have term limits. They are called elections. Yeah, that's why 99% of incumbents get re-elected, we disagree.
Politicians medical care - They do get the same medical coverage as everyone else who is a government employee. My wife's coverage from the private sector was better than mine when I worked for the federal government and cheaper. OK
Clarify the 14th Amendment - I would support. OK
The Supreme Court - I would support limiting it to 9 justices. OK
So there are three on your laundry list that make sense. That is not worth a Constitutional Convention which could result in a free for all of changes we don't want. If the GOP has a super-majority a COS would be a great idea.

You didn't comment on:

To ensure that apportionment of Representatives be set by counting only citizens​

Calling a convention can be attended by all states.

You think 99% of incumbents get reelected? Better check your math and the election results. In 2020, how many were reelected? That gave Democrats control of the House and Senate. If 99% of incumbents were reelected, how did that happen?

HR-1 is unconstitutional.

A balanced budget amendment would be just lip-service and impossible to manage because you have no idea what your tax revenues would be.

The Constitution has a purpose. Senate rules are NOT part of it.

Voters decide if someone is too old. Not you making a rule.

I accidentally skipped that one. As to counting citizens only, I agree but that is simply a law and doesn't need to be part of the Constitution.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Fair enough, while they serve in Congress let them receive the same care as our veterans.

Many of them do! If they are not a veteran, they have no business clogging up the system and using resources they are not entitled to use.

 

[22lcidw]

Amazing how many of you focus on all the wrong things.

Instead of improving the Constitution to bring it into the 21st Century, you’re focusing on stupid shit birthright citizenship and voter ID.

Your obsession with illegal voting is the biggest waste of time and energy in the world.

People are not coming to your country to vote against Republicans. Every other nation in the world is making it easier for their citizens to vote not more difficult.

The American republican party is afraid of Americans voting. Perhaps they should consider getting a platform that doesn’t impoverish their voters.

This is not the Democratic Party. This is the Progressive Socialist Party that is moving towards Communism when the time comes. They champion massive changes in the Constitution and long standing ways of governing. That means revolution without violence to stop it. And then the results is what we live with. Since there is massive poverty after spending tens of trillions of dollars on eliminating it as one example can you explain why we do? And also explain how people can go to bed hungry after spending this amount of resources. most cities have this massive poverty issue. Many rural areas have theirs. Hunger! In America with a tax system that is abusive and high.

 

[kyzr]

Calling a convention can be attended by all states.

You think 99% of incumbents get reelected? Better check your math and the election results. In 2020, how many were reelected? That gave Democrats control of the House and Senate. If 99% of incumbents were reelected, how did that happen?

HR-1 is unconstitutional.

A balanced budget amendment would be just lip-service and impossible to manage because you have no idea what your tax revenues would be.

The Constitution has a purpose. Senate rules are NOT part of it.

Voters decide if someone is too old. Not you making a rule.

I accidentally skipped that one. As to counting citizens only, I agree but that is simply a law and doesn't need to be part of the Constitution.

1. Re-election rates for members of the House run between 90-98%. I used 99% as a slight exaggeration. I want high turnover so they know what its like making a living in the real world, not just living in their pampered DC bubble.

Do Members of Congress Ever Lose Re-Election?

Find out why the re-election rate for Congresspeople is so high, and why incumbent members of the house of representatives almost always win.

www.thoughtco.com

2. HR-1 was passed in the House. I'm sure an Amendment minimizing voter fraud would be popular.

3. We need to stop spending so much, the interest on the $30T will be a major burden. An alternative might be long term (50-yr bonds?) How else can we slow spending except a Balanced Budget Amendment?

4. OK, no filibuster amendment

5. We need more turnover, remember Biden saying to play records for the kids? Old geezers just can't keep up.
Knowledge doubles every 12-hours.

6. OK, but we need the Amendments because the Senate filibuster would block it otherwise.

Amendments you support:​

Clarify the 14th Amendment - (no anchor babies)
Line item veto for the president
The Supreme Court - limiting it to 9 justices.
Ensure that apportionment of Representatives be set by counting only citizens

Amendments I support that you disagree with:
Election reform
Balanced Budget
Mandatory retirement age(s) & Term Limits

 

[BluesLegend]

My amendment, if an elected politician lies 10 years in Federal prison.

 

[Rogue AI]

No. It would require a repeal of the conflict in the new amendment. Check out the 18th and 21st Amendments.

The 21st repeals the 18th, there is no conflict. Conflict could only occur if a new amendment was added that touched on existing amendments without actually addressing them directly. The new amendment would be Constitutional regardless if it created conflict or not.

The 18th and 21st address a single issue, whereas other amendments are much broader and cover multiple issues, such as the 1st. If a convention occurred it is conceivable that unrefined amendments could be added in the rapidity and zeal of the moment. One would hope it wouldn't happen, but certainly it could.

 

[Rogue AI]

Many of them do! If they are not a veteran, they have no business clogging up the system and using resources they are not entitled to use.

Merely a suggest that would ensure our veterans received the best care possible. Do you honestly believe the conditions of VA hospitals could have reached the wretched conditions they did if all congresscritters had to use them? There would be no lack of resources. I concede on the point of entitlement.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

1. Re-election rates for members of the House run between 90-98%. I used 99% as a slight exaggeration. I want high turnover so they know what its like making a living in the real world, not just living in their pampered DC bubble.

Do Members of Congress Ever Lose Re-Election?

Find out why the re-election rate for Congresspeople is so high, and why incumbent members of the house of representatives almost always win.

www.thoughtco.com

2. HR-1 was passed in the House. I'm sure an Amendment minimizing voter fraud would be popular.

3. We need to stop spending so much, the interest on the $30T will be a major burden. An alternative might be long term (50-yr bonds?) How else can we slow spending except a Balanced Budget Amendment?

4. OK, no filibuster amendment

5. We need more turnover, remember Biden saying to play records for the kids? Old geezers just can't keep up.
Knowledge doubles every 12-hours.

6. OK, but we need the Amendments because the Senate filibuster would block it otherwise.

Amendments you support:​

Clarify the 14th Amendment - (no anchor babies)
Line item veto for the president
The Supreme Court - limiting it to 9 justices.
Ensure that apportionment of Representatives be set by counting only citizens

Amendments I support that you disagree with:
Election reform
Balanced Budget
Mandatory retirement age(s) & Term Limits

Election reform is a state function. The Constitution has zero laws regarding elections. You do not believe in state's rights?

You cannot tell me how a balanced budget amendment would work. Therefore, it is a non-starter.

Mandatory retirement ages are discrimination. You also failed to consider how that turnover would affect the Congress and Courts, plus you failed to mention an age.

I don't want term limits because my Congressman does an excellent job and ran his families auto parts manufacturing plant before getting elected. My junior Senator was a Doctor and still practices, and the senior Senator is a career politician that is the Minority leader in the Senate. Why would I want to change that?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Merely a suggest that would ensure our veterans received the best care possible. Do you honestly believe the conditions of VA hospitals could have reached the wretched conditions they did if all congresscritters had to use them? There would be no lack of resources. I concede on the point of entitlement.

I am a veteran and have visited several facilities as my son is a permanently disabled veteran. Every one of those facilities are excellent and my son has no complaints about his care. This is another topic where hyperbole overrides facts. Are there problems in the VA? Absolutely, but it is nowhere as bad as when Democrats ran it before Trump.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The 21st repeals the 18th, there is no conflict. Conflict could only occur if a new amendment was added that touched on existing amendments without actually addressing them directly. The new amendment would be Constitutional regardless if it created conflict or not.

The 18th and 21st address a single issue, whereas other amendments are much broader and cover multiple issues, such as the 1st. If a convention occurred it is conceivable that unrefined amendments could be added in the rapidity and zeal of the moment. One would hope it wouldn't happen, but certainly it could.

No, you are simply dead wrong. The Constitution cannot contradict itself. To do so would be ridiculous and stupid! Are you really that ignorant?

 

[Rogue AI]

I am a veteran and have visited several facilities as my son is a permanently disabled veteran. Every one of those facilities are excellent and my son has no complaints about his care. This is another topic where hyperbole overrides facts. Are there problems in the VA? Absolutely, but it is nowhere as bad as when Democrats ran it before Trump.

The 2014 scandal involving conditions in VA facilities was hardly hyperbole. The only VA facility I've ever used was in fair condition, although through recent construction and upgrades it is now greatly improved.

 

[BlindBoo]

You need to start where most support you.

#1. Term limits for Congress

The Return of Term Limits | National Review

The gulf between incumbent officeholders and the American people is never bigger than on the issue of term limits.

www.nationalreview.com

75% of Americans support term limits


#2. Some sort of restraint on spending.

Poll: Large majority support balanced budget amendment to Constitution

According to a recent Mason-Dixon poll obtained exclusively by The Daily Caller, a large majority of the public backs an amendment to the Constitution requiring a balanced budget, a reform some lawmakers say is on the table in the debt ceiling debate.

news.yahoo.com

65% of Americans favor a balanced budget amendment of some sort.


You need to keep in simple and only pursue these two. Get the ball rolling and maybe more can be done later.

I can support both of those.

 

[Rogue AI]

No, you are simply dead wrong. The Constitution cannot contradict itself. To do so would be ridiculous and stupid! Are you really that ignorant?

Of course it can. Would it be foolish? No doubt, yet well within the realm of possibilities given the structure of the amendment process. The possibility exists in any situation in which a reactionary public demands action and weak and compliant representatives bow to their whims. You grossly underestimate the stupidity of the electorate and the increasing weaknesses of our representatives.

 

[kyzr]

Election reform is a state function. The Constitution has zero laws regarding elections. You do not believe in state's rights?

You cannot tell me how a balanced budget amendment would work. Therefore, it is a non-starter.

Mandatory retirement ages are discrimination. You also failed to consider how that turnover would affect the Congress and Courts, plus you failed to mention an age.

I don't want term limits because my Congressman does an excellent job and ran his families auto parts manufacturing plant before getting elected. My junior Senator was a Doctor and still practices, and the senior Senator is a career politician that is the Minority leader in the Senate. Why would I want to change that?

1. The democrats are pushing their "voter fraud special" Bill, HR-1. I want to vaccinate elections from HR-1 with an Amendment. My argument is that the State Legislatures will be the ones approving the Election Law Amendment, so that sounds Constitutional to me. The Constitution doesn't say that the House and Senate shall make election laws, but that State Legislatures may.

States and the Election Clause | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

An annotation about Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States.

constitution.congress.gov

2. A Balanced Budget Amendment means that Federal income and expenditures need to be about equal. One possible solution, it's a little old, but goes something like:
Here are recommendations to cut spending and raise revenue to start paying down the $30T Debt

• Hire another "Grace Commission" to audit and fix the Federal budget deficit
• 
  
• B. Cut Spending: [CUT $625b a year]
  1. Cut defense to 2017 levels of $600b until the Debt is reduced, saving $150b
  2. Cut foreign aid $55b (until Debt is paid we can't borrow to give money away)
  3. Cut Welfare $200b & Medicaid $200b (about half)
  4. Cut education $20b (state responsibility)
  
  US Government Defense Spending History with Charts - a www.usgovernmentspending.com briefing
  Current US Defense Spending:
  Year Military Veterans Foreign Aid Total Defense
  2017 $598.70 billion $178.00 billion $46.30 billion $823.00 billion
  2018 $631.20 billion $180.40 billion $49.00 billion $860.50 billion
  2019 $684.60 billion $202.10 billion $54.30 billion $941.00 billion
  2020 $737.90 billion $219.20 billion $53.10 billion $1.00 trillion
• 
  
• To cover the $1Tb budget deficit the following taxes need to be raised:
  1. Raise the top tax rate about 7% above 2016 levels +$400b
  2. Implement a new 3% Fed sales tax +$400b
  3. Implement a new transaction tax on all stocks & bonds Impose a Tax on Financial Transactions | Congressional Budget Office +$100b
  4. Implement a new remittances tax/fee on all money sent out of the US Taxing Remittances Can Build the Wall 2% of $140b is +$3b a year
• 
  
• Reform entitlements, Medicare & Social Security, currently projected to be insolvent:

3. Just for argument's sake say USSC Justices (80), Senators (75), and House members (70). That could be phased in over several years so that only a 5% turnover happens. I agree that Term Limits is currently unconstitutional, the courts already said that. But wouldn't a new Constitutional Amendment "Trump" the courts' opinion???