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

[Texian1836]

One question was not yet resolved.
Can a legally approved Amendment be ruled unconstitutional by the USSC?
I don't see where the USSC can reject the Convention of States amendments, neither does the House, Senate, nor President.
Any new COS Amendment is by definition "constitutional", correct?

No, amendments to the constitution cannot be ruled unconstitutional.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

You're nit picking details. Yes these questions have been asked and adequate solutions proposed.

Really? Where?

Got a

 

[candycorn]

Several more I would add, I voted for the two good ones above.

 

[Texian1836]

Really? Where?

Got a

The single most comprehensive discussion of amendments we need to pass, that I've found so far, is Mark Levin's book The Liberty Amendments.

But really, don't you have a brain and an inquiring mind. If you are able to raise the questions, are you not also capable of thinking all this out for yourself?

One of many proposed amendments would place limits on taxation.

I'd have to ask what you mean, "how would you enforce a balanced budget"? Are you suggesting Congress would not follow the law, and would ignore the Constitution and the Supreme Court? What you are suggesting is a political coup and what would American do in such an event.

If what you are suggesting is a little less extreme, limits on spending would also be imposed by amendment. Someone also suggested that the ability to recall congressmen be strengthened.

Perhaps enforcement of the Constitution may fall under the jurisdiction of the DOJ. I'd have to look this up if there was ever a serious need to.

If a run-a-way Congress was really a serious issue, perhaps this would need to be addressed with another amendment. It's just I don't see this as a serious issue needing attention.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The single most comprehensive discussion of amendments we need to pass, that I've found so far, is Mark Levin's book The Liberty Amendments.

But really, don't you have a brain and an inquiring mind. If you are able to raise the questions, are you not also capable of thinking all this out for yourself?

One of many proposed amendments would place limits on taxation.

I'd have to ask what you mean, "how would you enforce a balanced budget"? Are you suggesting Congress would not follow the law, and would ignore the Constitution and the Supreme Court? What you are suggesting is a political coup and what would American do in such an event.

If what you are suggesting is a little less extreme, limits on spending would also be imposed by amendment. Someone also suggested that the ability to recall congressmen be strengthened.

Perhaps enforcement of the Constitution may fall under the jurisdiction of the DOJ. I'd have to look this up if there was ever a serious need to.

If a run-a-way Congress was really a serious issue, perhaps this would need to be addressed with another amendment. It's just I don't see this as a serious issue needing attention.

OK, so you don't have any answers. Typical person who knows nothing about the Constitution and the process to amend it.

Have nice day! I will not do a battle of wits with and unarmed foe!

 

[Cecilie1200]

I feel very strongly that there should be an Amendment that says that Congress' power is limited to exactly what is set forth in Article One, and all other powers are reserved to the states and the people.

I think that would be very helpful.

The problem is that the Constitution already says that, and everyone just ignores it. You'd have to actually provide some sort of method for enforcing it for it to make any difference.

 

[Devils_Advocate]

Term limits!

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

I'm not saying you're wrong, but that would also require weakening the bureaucracy in the executive branch.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Same as now, the courts would need to enforce the laws as written.
So far no one has said any of the proposed amendments are "unconstitutional". That's good.

By definition, an Amendment to the Constitution can't be Unconstitutional.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but that would also require weakening the bureaucracy in the executive branch.

The smaller the government, the larger the citizen.

 

[AsherN]

I'd have to ask what you mean, "how would you enforce a balanced budget"? Are you suggesting Congress would not follow the law, and would ignore the Constitution and the Supreme Court? What you are suggesting is a political coup and what would American do in such an event.

Forcing a balanced budget is one off those things that sound really cool but is entirely impractical. what happens in a recession? When the tax revenue falls way below it's obligations? Or it does not recognize that government spending can be a way out of a depression. A balanced budget is a laufable goal, and every government should be judged by that standard. but making it impossible to run a deficit is a death sentence.

An amendment that all bills be single purpose is a better goal.

 

[Texian1836]

Forcing a balanced budget is one off those things that sound really cool but is entirely impractical. what happens in a recession? When the tax revenue falls way below it's obligations? Or it does not recognize that government spending can be a way out of a depression. A balanced budget is a laufable goal, and every government should be judged by that standard. but making it impossible to run a deficit is a death sentence.

An amendment that all bills be single purpose is a better goal.

First, the approach I like is not a single balanced budget amendment, but two amendments, one addressing spending and the second addressing taxation.

Of course this would all be hashed out, but ...
Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed the estimated receipts for that fiscal year; and total outlays shall not exceed 17.5% of the GDP for the previous year.

The income tax shall be limited to 15% of a person's annual income, from whatever source derived.

To address the concerns you expressed, spending limits could be temporarily suspended by a vote of both Houses of Congress.

I like the idea of single purpose bills.

 

[AsherN]

First, the approach I like is not a single balanced budget amendment, but two amendments, one addressing spending and the second addressing taxation.

Of course this would all be hashed out, but ...
Total outlays for any fiscal year shall not exceed the estimated receipts for that fiscal year; and total outlays shall not exceed 17.5% of the GDP for the previous year.

The income tax shall be limited to 15% of a person's annual income, from whatever source derived.

To address the concerns you expressed, spending limits could be temporarily suspended by a vote of both Houses of Congress.

I like the idea of single purpose bills.

Such a law would be unconstitutional. If the Constitution says you can't spend more than you take in, then a law overriding this is not constitutional.

 

[Pellinore]

The only one of these I would support is mandatory retirements ages, but only for Supreme Court Justices. Representatives and Senators are elected, so the people have an intrinsic chance to reject them for their age by simply not voting for them. Justices, though, are appointed, and to a lifetime post.

The proposed system I like the most is that a new Justice is appointed every odd-numbered year. If there is no vacancy, than the longest-serving Justice retires and their position is filled by the sitting President. That way, each Justice serves an 18-year term (at least, but not lifetime), and each President posts two seats per term.

 

[AsherN]

The only one of these I would support is mandatory retirements ages, but only for Supreme Court Justices. Representatives and Senators are elected, so the people have an intrinsic chance to reject them for their age by simply not voting for them. Justices, though, are appointed, and to a lifetime post.

The proposed system I like the most is that a new Justice is appointed every odd-numbered year. If there is no vacancy, than the longest-serving Justice retires and their position is filled by the sitting President. That way, each Justice serves an 18-year term (at least, but not lifetime), and each President posts two seats per term.

Since there always seem to be issue with rulings in particular districts, I would propose an 11 member court. One from each district. A 10 year term, new appointment from that district each year The Justice being replaced then serves an additional year as Chief Justice. And they must be sitting judges in the district to be considered. I would not be opposed to randomly 5 to go through the selection process. Take partisanship out as much as possible.

 

[Texian1836]

Such a law would be unconstitutional. If the Constitution says you can't spend more than you take in, then a law overriding this is not constitutional.

No. Amendments often are divided into Sections. So you would have a following Section, writen into the Amendment, giving Congress authority to temporarily suspend the earlier Section(s), with a 3/5 vote by both Houses.

 

[Pellinore]

Since there always seem to be issue with rulings in particular districts, I would propose an 11 member court. One from each district. A 10 year term, new appointment from that district each year The Justice being replaced then serves an additional year as Chief Justice. And they must be sitting judges in the district to be considered. I would not be opposed to randomly 5 to go through the selection process. Take partisanship out as much as possible.

Yeah, let's throw that in the debate, especially the part where each Justice serves the last portion of their term as Chief Justice. That has merit.

 

[Texian1836]

The only one of these I would support is mandatory retirements ages, but only for Supreme Court Justices. Representatives and Senators are elected, so the people have an intrinsic chance to reject them for their age by simply not voting for them. Justices, though, are appointed, and to a lifetime post.

The proposed system I like the most is that a new Justice is appointed every odd-numbered year. If there is no vacancy, than the longest-serving Justice retires and their position is filled by the sitting President. That way, each Justice serves an 18-year term (at least, but not lifetime), and each President posts two seats per term.

Since there always seem to be issue with rulings in particular districts, I would propose an 11 member court. One from each district. A 10 year term, new appointment from that district each year The Justice being replaced then serves an additional year as Chief Justice. And they must be sitting judges in the district to be considered. I would not be opposed to randomly 5 to go through the selection process. Take partisanship out as much as possible.

Both are solid suggestions. I hadn't heard of either. They are going into my file for consideration.

One clarification AsherN, I believe you mean Circuit Courts. There are 12 regional circuits plus 1 federal circuit (the common map shows 11. The 12th is the District of Columbia). Below them are the 94 judicial district courts.

The problem with this is that the number of Circuit Courts is set by Congress and has changed over time. There currently is an ongoing discussion of whether the 9th has grown too large and needs to be divided.

 

[AsherN]

Both are solid suggestions. I hadn't heard of either. They are going into my file for consideration.

One clarification AsherN, I believe you mean Circuit Courts. There are 12 regional circuits plus 1 federal circuit (the common map shows 11. The 12th is the District of Columbia). Below them are the 94 judicial district courts.

The problem with this is that the number of Circuit Courts is set by Congress and has changed over time. There currently is an ongoing discussion of whether the 9th has grown too large and needs to be divided.

Thanks for the correction. So you adjust the number of Justices to match the number of circuits. And find a mechanism to have an odd number. Justices serve a term equal to the number of circuits so that a new Justice is appointed every year.