What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

What constitutional amendments would you like to put up for the Convention of States to consider?

  • Election Reform, only US citizens, ID required, signature matching, mail-in by excuse only, etc.

    Votes: 12 57.1%
  • Balanced Budget required, w/o using SS funds, unless in time of declared war,

    Votes: 12 57.1%
  • To ensure that apportionment of Representatives be set by counting only citizens

    Votes: 14 66.7%
  • To make the filibuster in the Senate a part of the Constitution

    Votes: 8 38.1%
  • To allow the President a "line item veto"

    Votes: 14 66.7%
  • To guarantee the right to use the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and the national motto

    Votes: 7 33.3%
  • To set mandatory retirement ages for House/Senate/Supreme Court Justices.

    Votes: 11 52.4%
  • Social Security must be made whole, i.e. "fixed" and only those who contributed can get benefits

    Votes: 9 42.9%
  • New one, see my post

    Votes: 6 28.6%

  • Total voters
    21

Dragonlady

Designing Woman
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
33,548
Reaction score
15,019
Points
1,600
Location
Niagara Escarpment
Thought of another one: The Supreme Court shall not have more than nine justices.
That should end any discussion of "court packing".

The Court is already "packed". How do you propose "unpacking" it when Democrats hold the 6-3 majority?

Do you seriously think that Brett Kavanaugh won't do something stupid to get himself impeached? He doesn't seem to be that bright. He's already been admonished for his partisanship by the Chief Justice.
 

Likkmee

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2015
Messages
14,628
Reaction score
4,826
Points
310
Location
Second World
Slow your roll poop deck before I have you peelin potatoes for the whole fleet!

The only people who should be permitted to vote are business, land owners, or those who can show a specific amount of real investment in either.

If we went back to such a system the interests of this nation would be PRIMARY in the minds of voters.
But lets make sure they're all billionaires. Better class of voters !
 

Gabe Lackmann

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2021
Messages
3,371
Reaction score
3,090
Points
1,893
But lets make sure they're all billionaires. Better class of voters !
No...just people with 'skin' in the game. It really doesn't take much.

You have a mortgage? You own a stake in a business, or a business?

Now, I don't know if that should apply to females.

I find women are completely destructive when either placed into positions of power, or given the power to vote.
 

Dragonlady

Designing Woman
Joined
Dec 1, 2012
Messages
33,548
Reaction score
15,019
Points
1,600
Location
Niagara Escarpment
Slow your roll poop deck before I have you peelin potatoes for the whole fleet!

The only people who should be permitted to vote are business, land owners, or those who can show a specific amount of real investment in either.

If we went back to such a system the interests of this nation would be PRIMARY in the minds of voters.

That's not a Republic, that's an oligarchy. That's pretty much the system you have now, and it's been a disaster for working and middle class Americans.

The most successful economies, are the most democratic economies - Norway, Switzerland, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, Finland, Great Britain.

The least successful economies - Russia, any of the South American economies, Turkey, are all Oligarchies - where the wealthy control the nation, and the poor and middle class are left to fend for themselves. The USA is already at Second World status with your unstable government, and your crashed economy.

You can rejoin the first world, or continue to descend into chaos. Either ALL of the people vote, and ALL of their votes are counted, or your nation is doomed to become a fascist dictatorship. Choose wisely.
 

Gabe Lackmann

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2021
Messages
3,371
Reaction score
3,090
Points
1,893
That's not a Republic, that's an oligarchy. That's pretty much the system you have now, and it's been a disaster for working and middle class Americans.

The most successful economies, are the most democratic economies - Norway, Switzerland, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, Finland, Great Britain.

The least successful economies - Russia, any of the South American economies, Turkey, are all Oligarchies - where the wealthy control the nation, and the poor and middle class are left to fend for themselves. The USA is already at Second World status with your unstable government, and your crashed economy.

You can rejoin the first world, or continue to descend into chaos. Either ALL of the people vote, and ALL of their votes are counted, or your nation is doomed to become a fascist dictatorship. Choose wisely.
I am talking about citizenship, and voting rights. Now you may be able to tacitly tie those to economic factors but they are not economic in nature.

Now, do I feel we would be stronger if the weaker portions of our society had less of a 'say'? Of course I do.

Men, who came from poor backgrounds would be encouraged to build themselves up by their 'bootstraps', achieve, and grow.

Women, would be encouraged to select a nice man who could provide for her, have children, and contribute in her own way.

The only thing that our current system has done is see those inept, incapable elements vote more for themselves.

While at the same time permitting corporations and business interests to completely sell our nation out to foreign powers.

No individual 'common man' has any say because none have a true stake in this nation anymore. We should create that.
 
OP
kyzr

kyzr

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
20,633
Reaction score
12,170
Points
1,405
Location
The AL part of PA
I support a new amendment that states ALL men are created equal, with no racial exceptions: as in the current provision that says Blacks will be considered 3/5ths human. (make sense?)
I'm fine with cleaning up old non-applicable verbiage. Just erase the 3/5 garbage. The "All men are created equal..." is already covered.
 
OP
kyzr

kyzr

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
20,633
Reaction score
12,170
Points
1,405
Location
The AL part of PA
I just haven't gotten around to it yet. Many are already in the Constitution also. I suggest you read it.

As an example,

To guarantee the right to use the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance and the national motto​


Is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment, regarding freedom of religion. What you have in that proposal is an infringement of the establishment clause.
OK, that was already proposed as an amendment. I'm fine dropping that one, but:
But "In God We Trust" seems fine as a motto to me.
Also, "One nation under God..." seems fine in the Pledge.
Are you saying they should be revised?
 
OP
kyzr

kyzr

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
20,633
Reaction score
12,170
Points
1,405
Location
The AL part of PA
I oppose a convention of states, because it would be a complete waste of time as long as libtards are represented.
Please comment on my Post-67

The COS would be a gathering of conservative legislatures.
Maybe you didn't see my proposed amendment list? Here it is again
  • Election Reform, only US citizens, ID required, signature matching, mail-in by excuse only, etc
  • Balanced Budget required, w/o using SS funds, unless in time of declared war
  • To ensure that apportionment of Representatives be set by counting only citizens
  • To make the filibuster in the Senate a part of the Constitution
  • To allow the President a "line item veto"
  • To set mandatory retirement ages for House/Senate/Supreme Court Justices.
  • Social Security and Medicare must be made whole, i.e. "fixed" and only those who contributed can get benefits
  • Set term limits in the House and Senate
  • Politicians get the same healthcare benefits as the rest of us
  • Clarify the 14th Amendment that only US citizens can make a US citizen, otherwise we get "anchor babies from Russia, China, and Mexico.
  • The US Supreme court shall have not more than 9 justices.
 

Votto

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
32,157
Reaction score
17,725
Points
1,905
The U.S. Constitution can be amended two ways, either by 2/3 votes in the House and Senate, or by a Convention of States where 3/4 of the States must ratify new amendments for the new amendment to pass. So if in 2022 or 2024 the GOP can get 38 state legislatures they can amend the US Constitution. Not an impossible task.
The US president has no say in either of the amendment processes.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

So what new amendments would you support? I'll start the ball rolling with a few in a poll.

You need to start where most support you.

#1. Term limits for Congress


75% of Americans support term limits


#2. Some sort of restraint on spending.


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.
 
OP
kyzr

kyzr

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2009
Messages
20,633
Reaction score
12,170
Points
1,405
Location
The AL part of PA
You need to start where most support you.

#1. Term limits for Congress


#2. Some sort of restraint on spending.
You can prioritize the amendments any way you like.
1. Term Limits is on the list
2. A Balanced Budget Amendment covers your "spending restraint" priority
 

frigidweirdo

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
35,128
Reaction score
4,333
Points
1,130
The House already has proportional representation, moron!

Nice collection of idiocy you have there!

Ah insults. Bye.

(The last thing I ever tell you is that Congress has First Past The Post, not Proportional Representation). Enjoy.
 

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
42,738
Reaction score
7,987
Points
1,870
Location
Sitting down in front of my computer
Please comment on my Post-67

The COS would be a gathering of conservative legislatures.
Maybe you didn't see my proposed amendment list? Here it is again
  • Election Reform, only US citizens, ID required, signature matching, mail-in by excuse only, etc
  • Balanced Budget required, w/o using SS funds, unless in time of declared war
  • To ensure that apportionment of Representatives be set by counting only citizens
  • To make the filibuster in the Senate a part of the Constitution
  • To allow the President a "line item veto"
  • To set mandatory retirement ages for House/Senate/Supreme Court Justices.
  • Social Security and Medicare must be made whole, i.e. "fixed" and only those who contributed can get benefits
  • Set term limits in the House and Senate
  • Politicians get the same healthcare benefits as the rest of us
  • Clarify the 14th Amendment that only US citizens can make a US citizen, otherwise we get "anchor babies from Russia, China, and Mexico.
  • The US Supreme court shall have not more than 9 justices.
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.
 

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
42,738
Reaction score
7,987
Points
1,870
Location
Sitting down in front of my computer
You need to start where most support you.

#1. Term limits for Congress


75% of Americans support term limits


#2. Some sort of restraint on spending.


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.
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!
 

Rogue AI

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
2,979
Reaction score
3,250
Points
1,938
Location
Wisconsin
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.
If they become amendments they cannot be unconstitutional.

I support repealing individual income taxes.

I would propose an amendment that require clean bills only. Nothing outside the intended purpose of the bill at hand.
 

Admiral Rockwell Tory

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2015
Messages
42,738
Reaction score
7,987
Points
1,870
Location
Sitting down in front of my computer
If they become amendments they cannot be unconstitutional.

I support repealing individual income taxes.

I would propose an amendment that require clean bills only. Nothing outside the intended purpose of the bill at hand.
They can if they conflict with other parts of the Constitution left standing.
 

Rogue AI

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2020
Messages
2,979
Reaction score
3,250
Points
1,938
Location
Wisconsin
They can if they conflict with other parts of the Constitution left standing.
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.
 

westwall

LET'S GO BRANDON!
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
73,989
Reaction score
29,452
Points
2,250
Location
Nevada
The U.S. Constitution can be amended two ways, either by 2/3 votes in the House and Senate, or by a Convention of States where 3/4 of the States must ratify new amendments for the new amendment to pass. So if in 2022 or 2024 the GOP can get 38 state legislatures they can amend the US Constitution. Not an impossible task.
The US president has no say in either of the amendment processes.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed.

So what new amendments would you support? I'll start the ball rolling with a few in a poll.





How about we just go back to following the COTUS as it was written.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$70.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top