If you could write one amendment to the U.S. Constitution,

[begin_within]

what would you write?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. I would change the 1st Amendment

Congress and the States and localities shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise of religion and conscience; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press including sedition or pornography or hate speech or whatever the fuck you clowns will come up with next to pretend the most unambiguous language in this whole document is merely some sort of tepid suggestion; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. For real. Seriously... all of the preceding. It's not a typo. And the Executive Brach shall seek to act in philosophical accord with this Amendment at all times.

[SCantiGOP]

24. Kurt_and _Hunter

I agree with both of you. I remember a tape I saw years ago of William O. Douglas talking about the first amendment to a group of law students. One kept trying to pin him down that there should be exceptions to the first amendment, to which he angrily exclaimed that there was no "except" after the phrase "abridging freedom of speech"

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

29. You probably know this story, but for the rest...

William O. Douglas had a policy of not attending screenings of porn films involved in obscenity cases before the Supreme Court because screening the film would imply that its particular content was relevant to the case, which he held to be impossible since you couldn't have a content bar on expressive speech.

[BzaDem]

48. I would add that "speech" does not equal "money"

and that the right to free speech does not mean that Congress needs to allow disparities in wealth to result in massive disparities in political power.

[DailyGrind51]

60. Charles Francis Adams would have agreed with you!

Charles Francis Adams (1835-1915),grandson of our second President wrote in his "Chapters of Erie" the following:

"Modern society has created a class of artificial beings who bid fair soon to be the masters of their creator....The system of corporate life and corporate power...is ever grasping new powers, or insidiously exercising covert influence. Even now the system threatens the central government."

[nadinbrzezinski]

71. There is only one....

screaming fire in a crowded theater, due to the panic and injuries to come.

There is an exception though... an actual fire in the theater.

I will have to deal with this soon enough. It will be lovely.

[LostinVA]

2. ERA or Marriage

[treestar]

14. I would agree with that

Or a way to combine them both in the same amendment. Equality based on sex could cover it by legal interpretation. Or add a few more words.

[Warpy]

26. Marriage between consenting adults is covered in the equal protection clause

but equal rights for women are not since women were pointedly excluded from the entire original document.

The ERA. Affirming the rights of half the population is long overdue.

The only other one I could see would be one clarifying "citizen" and "person" as living, breathing, born human beings, excluding corporations.

[catzies]

58. Agree with both of your excellent points! n/t

[mantis49]

88. BINGO! n/t

[SteppingRazor]

3. I'd put in an amendment making all campaigns for office publicly funded.

I think just about everything else I'd want out of our gov't would come easier with that in place first.

[cliffordu]

4. Ditto. And state that corporations are NOT people.

[YvonneCa]

90. You guys get my...

...vote. :)

[Ichingcarpenter]

5. The End of the US Senate

.......

Then real parliamentary democracy

Well, ......... You asked

[SCantiGOP]

28. a note of caution

During the Viet Nam War the House was generally supportive of LBJ and Nixon in their prosecution of the was. All of the angry voices demanding withdrawal seemed to come from the Senate.

[Ichingcarpenter]

31. I know my history too

Aug 64 - US Congress approves Gulf of Tonkin resolution affirming "All necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States. . .to prevent further aggression. . . (and) assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asian Collective Defense Treaty (SEATO) requesting assistance. . ." US Senate voted (88-2) passed - Senator Wayne Morse (D-Oregon) and Senator Ernest Gruening (D-Alaska) voted against the resolution. US House voted (414-0) passed

1965 - The US Congress provided $2.4 Billion for the Vietnam war effort, with little dissent in the US House or Senate


Oct 67 - Congressman Thomas P. ("Tip") O'Neill broke publicly with President Johnson and opposed continuation of the Vietnam war. O'Neill supported Senator Eugene McCarthy (D-Minn) for president in 1968


15 Oct 69 - "Vietnam Moratorium" - An estimated 1 million Americans across the US participated in anti-war demonstrations, protest rallies and peace vigils. 50 members of the US Congress also participated

Sep 70 - The McGovern-Hatfield Amendment, providing for the withdrawal of all US troops by 31 Dec 71, was defeated by the Senate now and again later


1 Apr 71 - Draft Bill - A 2-year extension of the draft passed the House (239-99) in a roll-call vote. The Senate also passed the bill 24 Jun 71 following a long debate, lasting from 6 May through 24 Jun 71. 48% of manpower for the Army were draftees or "draft motivated".


17 June 71 - Congressman Charles Whalen, Jr (R-Ohio) co-sponsored an "end the war" bill which was rejected by the House (158-255)


10 May 73 - Due to continued bombing of Laos and Cambodia, the House voted (219-188) for the first time to cut-off Indochina funds


31 May 73 - The Senate took strong action prohibiting the use of any funds appropriated by Congress to be used for combat activities in Laos or Cambodia



7 Nov 73 - War Powers Act - Congress dealt President Nixon a stunning setback when it voted to override his veto of legislation limiting presidential powers to commit US forces abroad without congressional approval. Congress, with the Vietnam War and the showdown over continued bombing in Cambodia behind it, was anxious to reassert its role in the conduct of the country's foreign affairs



Aug 74 - President Nixon resigns

[dixiegrrrrl]

39. I remember the HUGE response to Morse and Gruening when they voted against.

That just came back to my memory. Enormous support for them by the anti-war forces.

I remember the prevailing sense of determination, everywhere I went, that we would NOT quit efforts to end the war. It was just in the air, the war had to stop. Around 67, I believe.

I feel no sense of ending any of our wars now.

[nadinbrzezinski]

72. Watch Rachel's show today

on the web.

Pay special attention to Richard Engel's interview with Odierno.

The wars are coming to an end... no, they did not go on the tv machine and said such, but they did. Him and a Brigadier that Rachel interviewed. Nation Building is over...

Yes it was subtle... and I fear you need to know how to read between the lines. But the military is coming to the same conclusion a few others did a few years ago... there are limits to nation building. and it's turned into mission impossible.

Oh and yes, that segment got my whole, undivided, attention

[dixiegrrrrl]

92. I hope you are right. end to the Neo-con wet dream.

[defendandprotect]

46. Also, you can overturn the USHR very quickly .... Senate 6 year terms. ...

Starting now, would take 12 years . . . ???

[GreenStormCloud]

91. Theoretically, 6 years. N/T

[Ichingcarpenter]

84. Do you know that the US Senate is the only democracy in the whole world

That has a filibuster?


It was by mistake in 1806

The house doesn't have it and they wrote the rules at the same time.

Australia had it at one time but they got rid of it.

[kenny blankenship]

6. Tough one. It's a toss up between public funding of election campaigns & abolition of the US Senate

Then again if you abolished the US Senate which is the most antidemocratic (small d) institution in the western world, getting public financing of campaigns would likely be a cinch.

Abolish the fucking Senate. Slays the Electoral College monster, too, in the same blow since the distorting undemocratic outcomes of the EC come from the distorting, disproportionate, antidemocratic nature of the Senate.

Not that tough after all. Lose the Senate - can't happen too soon.

[cynatnite]

7. Healthcare is a right and every American should be covered equally. n/t

[scheming daemons]

8. The Bill of Rights applies only to living, breathing Human Beings... and not corporate entities

[Vincardog]

51. Bingo no 'human' right for artificial creations

[beevul]

67. I forsee a slight problem with that.

"The Bill of Rights applies only to living, breathing Human Beings... and not corporate entities"

I forsee a slight problem with that, and that is, your example is not how the bill of rights functions.

The bill of rights real and actual, as written and intended, applies to government.

It says what government shall not do. To people, and corporations.

I agree with your sentiment, make no mistake, but it would have to be done differently considering how the document functions.


It is an important thing to know.

Just sayin.

[TransitJohn]

87. Ex-fucking-actly!

:toast: :yourock: :patriot:

[laureloak]

9. Term limits for congress and supreme court.

[Martin Eden]

45. I disagree with term linits for Congress

By the time a public servant gets good at his job he'd have to move on. The real problem is power that becomes entrenched to serve the special interests that finance re-election. That is what needs to be addressed -- not the length of political careers.

[wickerwoman]

70. Agreed.

All the rhetoric against "professional politicians" is just a scam to keep genuinely populist, unbeatable Democrats out of office. Term limits were introduced for presidents by Republicans wanting make sure there was never another FDR... kind of surprising to see so many "democrats" here supporting them.

Want to give fresh blood a better chance against incumbents? Support federal funding of elections and work against the decades of gerrymandering, particularly in the South.

Term limits make congresspeople even more corrupt because while they're in office they need to start feathering their nest with whichever company they're going to go "consult" for after they leave.

It's much better to have dedicated, competent career civil servants than to have a perpetual revolving door between industry and government.

[Martin Eden]

83. You cite some good reasons

Let me know what you think of my proposed amendment in post #44.

[flyarm]

10. Nothing, but I damn well want it followed! And now! eom

[Recursion]

11. The President shall be elected quadrennially by a majority of citizens of the United States

Or maybe "Congress shall be composed of the House of Representatives only"

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spin]

25. You forgot the sarcasm thingy ...

:sarcasm:

Either that or you would have done well in Nazi Germany as an aid to der Führer.

In the event, the Nazis ended the official NSDAP–DNVP government alliance, and began introducing Nazism and Nazi symbolism to public and private German life; textbooks were revised, or re-written to promote the Pan-German racist fantasy of Großdeutschland (Greater Germany) to be established by the Nazi Herrenvolk; teachers who opposed curricular Nazification were dismissed. Furthermore, to coerce popular obedience to the state, the Nazis established the Gestapo secret state police—independent of civil authority. The Gestapo controlled the German populace with some 100,000 spies and informers, thereby were aware of anti-Nazi criticism and dissent.

Happy with Nazi prosperity, most Germans remained silently obedient, while political opponents, especially the Communists, Marxists, and international socialists were imprisoned; "between 1933 and 1945, more than 3 million Germans had been in concentration camps, or prison, for political reasons".<15><16><17> "Tens of thousands of Germans were killed for one or another form of resistance. Between 1933 and 1945, Sondergerichte (Nazi "special courts") killed 12,000 Germans, courts martial killed 25,000 German soldiers, and civil justice killed 40,000 Germans. Many of these Germans were part of the government, civil, or military service, a circumstance which enabled them to engage in subversion and conspiracy, while involved, marginally or significantly, in the government’s policies."<18> emphasis added
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany#Consolidation_of_power

[The Midway Rebel]

13. Required to vote in all elections.

Every vote must be counted.

[spin]

35. I agree with every vote being counted ...

the requirement for citizens to vote in every election is foolish. Many people, for a variety of reasons, are not informed voters. Why force them to cast a ballot when they have little knowledge or interest in the candidates or issues?

[The Midway Rebel]

47. Because there are many more apathetic voters than uninformed ones.

Being uninformed is an easy fix: inform yourself. I think you should be required to form an opinion and make a choice, even if it is a bad or misinformed one. Call it the brutal and cruel price of living in a democracy; informing yourself, thinking and voting. Ugh!

Also, statistics would demonstrate that we make better choices when we ALL participate. Presently in America, most eligible voters DO NOT vote in most elections, be they informed or not, and just look at the shit candidates and elected politicians/bad policy we often get stuck with.

Not only that, who will set the standard of "informity" for the voters. The extreme of your position suggests that we test all voters to see that they are properly informed before we allow them to vote. I'd rather be thought a foolish Democrat than elitist/classist snob.

Are you afraid that a dumb person will cancel your smart vote? We already have that; they are called Republicans.

[spin]

64. I don't require any test to vote ...

Before I do vote, I research the candidates or the issues. I don't say that my vote is always "smart", but at least I have the interest to know something about the people I vote for. Still, I have the time to research and form opinions. I'm retired. Many people are working two jobs and raising families and have little time to devote to complex issues or candidates.

What I fear is that if you forced people to vote, most would rely on TV advertisements and vote for the candidate with the most misleading or the most negative message. I constantly get irritated at the political commercials that take 30 seconds to say. "My opponent is a thief, a liar, a tax cheat and a child molester. I am an honest politician with only your concerns in my heart."

People's interests vary. Some people are experts on the lives and antics of celebrities. Many of those can tell you intimate details of some actress and her love lives and addictions. Some people can tell you all about race cars and those who drive them. Some people are experts on baseball and football and are a virtual encyclopedia of sports trivia. Such people may be able to knowledgeably vote for the best actress, quarterback or race car driver, but a good number of these people have as much interest in the politicians that appear on their ballot as I do in what Paris Hilton wore to the the last night club she visited. A good percentage of these people realize this and leave voting to others who have some interest in politics.

If we wanted every American to vote on the Academy Awards, I might comply and vote. I possibly might make a somewhat intelligent vote on "Best Picture" but past that point, my vote would be uninformed. I would merely select some name I liked for best director etc.

Many Americans also refuse to vote because they argue, "What difference does it make?" They may have a point. We voted Obama and he Democrats into power to change the direction we were headed. Many people, even on DU, are disappointed.

If everybody was required to vote, Democrats might find themselves at a disadvantage.

Abortion support falls sharply, new research finds
updated 6:48 p.m. EDT, Thu October 1, 2009

CNN) -- Support for abortion rights has fallen sharply in the past year, with Americans now split roughly 50-50 between those who back legal access to abortion and those who oppose it, according to a new survey.

The findings mark a dramatic shift in public opinion, supporters of abortion rights have outnumbered opponents for many years, with one brief exception, studies have shown.

But only 47 percent of Americans now feel abortion should be legal in all or most cases, a drop from 54 percent a year ago, according to the poll.

Meanwhile, 45 percent say it should be illegal in all or most cases. That's up from 41 percent a year ago.

Given the survey's margin of error, the two camps are statistically tied.

"These data suggest that a number of people have changed their minds in the past year," said Gregory Smith of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, one of the survey's authors.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/01/abortion.poll/index.html

Be careful of what you wish for, you might get it.

[The Midway Rebel]

79. What I wish for is what you seem to fear: democracy

You are correct though, low info voters without time ot devote to researching "complex issues and candidates" are typically the working class, the poor, the immigrant, the young, the minorities. Your suggestion that voting is only for the concerned is an elitist attitude that America has been moving away form since our founding and only further disenfranchises and disenchants those of us on margins from participating in politics. (BTW Happy 19th Amendment day ladies!)

There is irony in your suggestion that the Democratic party would be undone by more democracy.

[spin]

89. First, we do not live in a democracy ...

The founding fathers considered a democracy but rejected it.

James Madison is often considered the father of the Constitution. In the Federalist Papers No 10 he said:

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
Benjamin Franklin

"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy... It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."
-- Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury to George Washington, author of the Federalist Papers

"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
-- John Adams, 2nd President of the United States

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
-- Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States, author of the Bill of Rights

"The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived."
-- John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the United States

"Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."
-- John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 1801-1835

You may argue that such opinions are outdated in our far more modern world, but I will point out the longevity and success of our form of government set up so many years ago. It may have disadvantages but was set up so that it can be modified and improved abet slowly. Taking small well thought out steps is often a better tactic than rushing blindly into poorly thought out solutions.

But some nations do require citizens to vote. Australia is one example.

Australia, along with Belgium, is the only "mature democracy" that requires its citizens to vote and actually enforces the law. Australia is also a nation we Americans can relate to. We share similar historical narratives (outcasts fleeing Mother England), a frontier spirit, and a laid-back nature that drives Europeans nuts. So Australia makes an interesting test case for an intriguing question: Could mandatory voting work in the United States?

Australians have been required to vote in federal elections since 1924. Concerned that voter turnout had dipped below 60 percent, parliament enacted mandatory voting after only 90 minutes of debate, and it's gone largely unchallenged ever since. Polls regularly show 70 percent to 80 percent of Australians support mandatory voting. Lisa Hill, a research fellow at the University of Adelaide, explains it this way: "We're quite happy with some forms of coercion that others may not be happy with."

Actually, the voting part of "mandatory voting" is a misnomer. All Australian citizens over the age of 18 must register and show up at a polling station, but they need not actually vote. They can deface their ballot or write in Skippy the Bush Kangaroo (Australia's version of Lassie)—or do nothing at all.

***snip***

Most Australians obey the law, however, convinced that mandatory voting makes their nation a more robust democracy. That's a difficult case to make. Yes, voter turnout is remarkably high, but it was in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, too. There is no evidence that Australians are better-informed citizens than Americans. If anything, mandatory voting has reinforced straight party-line voting, since reluctant voters find it easier to align themselves with one party or another and get the whole business done with as quickly as possible.

Mandatory voting isn't politically neutral. It's bound to affect which parties do well at the polls and which do not. In general, political scientists believe the practice gives a slight edge (2 percent or 3 percent) to liberal parties, since presumably the poor and disenfranchised, once forced to the polls, tend to vote liberal (although Australia did just re-elect conservative* Prime Minister John Howard).

Australia also has a much higher rate of spoiled ballots than nearly any other democracy. There were 500,000 such ballots (out of 10 million cast) in this month's election. These include protest votes and those cast by recent immigrants who were confused by the notoriously complicated ballots. It does not include "donkey votes," so named because apathetic voters play pin the tail on the donkey at the polling station, randomly making their selections.

So, might mandatory voting work in the United States? It's a tempting quick fix to our low levels of voter turnout. Also, imagine our political parties freed from the burden of having to energize their base. Candidates could focus on converting voters, rather than trying to get them to the polls. As for concerns that mandatory voting represents government coercion, one might argue that our government coerces its citizens to perform many duties: pay taxes, attend school, serve on juries and, in times of war, fight and die for the nation.

In the end, though, mandatory voting is extremely unlikely to work in the states. An ABC News poll conducted this past summer found that 72 percent of those surveyed oppose the idea. The results are almost identical to a similar poll conducted by Gallup 40 years ago. Why such resistance? Perhaps because we view voting as a right, not a responsibility, and nothing is likely to alter that bedrock belief.

Also, mandatory voting would probably cause a further dumbing-down of election campaigns, if such a thing is possible. Motivated by a need to attract not only undecided voters but also unwilling voters, candidates would probably resort to an even baser brand of political advertising, since they would now be trying to reach people who are voting only out of a desire to obey the law and avoid a fine.

Mandatory voting would be a nightmare to enforce and would rob us of an important barometer of public interest in politics. If everyone were required to vote, then nobody would be excited to vote. And, of course, there's another downside: We'd also lose all of those entertaining get-out-the-vote campaigns.
http://www.slate.com/id/2108832

So your argument has validity and is worthwhile for consideration. Still, I'm a traditionalist as I believe that voting should be a right for everybody, but not a requirement. You argue that I favor disenfranchising and disenchanting "those of us on margins from participating in politics". I disagree. You are free to chose to vote or not vote.

While I am a Democrat and support our party, I have some basic libertarian beliefs. I believe that everybody has the right to do what ever they wish in their own lives as long as they don't interfere with the rights of others. Forcing people to vote goes against my basic principles.

Libertarian Democrats support personal liberty, economic liberty, limited government and social responsibility.<4>

They believe in protecting:

* Constitutional rights, particularly the ability of citizens to control their own bodies;
* Economic liberties, particularly the ability of citizens to control the fruits of their labor; and
* Limited government which provides only necessary services which citizens can't provide themselves.

For example, they are more likely than most Democrats to support tax cuts, the right to keep and bear arms, equal marriage rights, the decriminalization of marijuana, and restrict government-provided services to only "necessary services that cannot currently be provided adequately by the non-government sector (non-profit or for-profit groups)."<4> They are more likely than most Libertarians to support some antitrust policy for land and natural resources, but also support "free-market solutions to environmental problems."<5> Other principles of civil libertarians include their support of habeas corpus for unlawful combatants, and their opposition to torture and extraordinary rendition of suspected terrorists, indefinite detention without trial or charge, the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, the USA PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretapping, and what they see as the erosion of the protections of the U.S. Bill of Rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Democrat

[kickysnana]

15. Separation of business and state, ending corporate personhood. n/t

[Zorra]

37. +1

[davidinalameda]

16. can I be king?

:shrug:

[aquamarina]

17. First Amendment - Money is NOT Free Speech

[Blue Meany]

18. I'd put a limit on the acquisition of wealth, so that there would

not be extremes concentrations of power. And I would make this limit a retio of the average assets held by the poorest 5-10% of the population. That way, if the people at the top want to acquire more, they would have to lift people out of poverty before they could do so.

[NorthCarolina]

19. Only Congress can declare war...not the President..AND contined participation

in any war must be put to popular vote once each calendar year.

[hobbit709]

40. And anyone who votes FOR war, automatically signs their enlistment papers.

[harun]

55. A revision to state Congress can't cede the power to declare war to the President

would be AWESOME!

[Occulus]

20. "All instances of the word Person in this Constitution shall be...

...immediately preceded by the word "natural."

End of "corporate personhood". The intent is to strip corporations and all other "artificial persons" of any and all rights, and to consign those rights guaranteed them under the Constitution to the status of privileges.

Corporations should not have a right to free speech.
Corporations should not have a right to bear arms.
Corporations should not be free from quartering soldiers in a time of war.
Corporations should not have a right to due process.

Etc., and etc.

[harun]

56. +1

[damntexdem]

21. Equal Rights Amendment.

Second, define the rights and status of corporations as not human persons with individual personal rights.

[abelenkpe]

22. ERA

REally, it's shameful that it isn't already an amendment.

[DURHAM D]

30. +1000

If you ask someone "Which Amendment to our Constitution is the equal rights amendment?" they will almost always give you a number and insist that it passed.

[Cleita]

23. An anti-propaganda and truth amendment for those holding office.

Every time they get up in an official capacity, whether on the floor, or in the media that they must present factual and truthful information to the best of their ability or be fined or even jailed for deliberate lies and propaganda. It would still give the press their freedom of speech in spreading lies and propaganda, but it would clip the ability of elected Congressmen, Senators and whoever to help them spread the propaganda.

[LostInAnomie]

27. Term limits for all elected officials.

Two terms for congressmen and senators.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. "The right to stuff 47 tennis balls down your toilet shall not be abridged."

[yowzayowzayowza]

33. Persons are Homo Sapiens.

Period. Full stop.

[Odin2005]

43. When Sapient AI comes around I don't think they would appreciate being considered not people.

[Posteritatis]

53. Is it bad that I really, really want to see that particular set of legal shenanigans happen? (nt)

[Better Today]

34. That every employee or individual subcontractor is due in compensation

no less than .075% of gross profit or .075% of top paid individual, or minimum wage which ever is higher.

Edited to add minimum wage, as some companies don't make profit or pay anyone very much.

[kelly1mm]

73. .075% of 1 million is 750. 10 million = 7500. And by using gross profits

wouldn't you, by mathmatics, be limiting the size of a company to about 1300 employees (if they all got .075% of the profits?

[Better Today]

74. Oops, take the percent out. It's been a long week, my bad.

or conversely move the decimal over 2 places. I doubled up, doh!

[kelly1mm]

75. That makes more sense. It still would have a limit on company size

that may be unrealistic of about 130,000. Walmart employs over 2 million and the USPS is over 500,000. Walmart we can break up but I am sure there are other companies with 130000+ employees that we ma wnat to keep (fedex?)

[ThomCat]

36. Only people are people. Corporations are not people!

Unfortunately, we need more than one. :(

So I have two more.

If I could write a second one: A constitutional right to privacy and a presumption of privacy in all matters of law and public policy. Something constructed broadly enough that it would shackle corporations unless they get specific opt-ins for every single specific piece of information collected, and have to strictly reveal what they collect, for how long, what will be done with it, and they would not be allowed to share that information without getting further permissions.

Make the requirements tedious enough for them, and put some teeth behind them, and we might actually get some privacy back from the ever-present eyes that watch us now.

If I could write a third one: A declaration of universal civil rights stating that the government shall assume that all people have equal rights in all governmental matters, laws and policies regardless of any characteristic that might lead to bias, discrimination or prejudice unless the state can present a strict need to distinguish one group of people from any other.

I think the third one is actually the most important. But I don't think we'll ever get to the third one if we don't get the first and second one to get us through the crises of corporations usurping control over our democracy and negating all of our civil rights.

[bigmonkey]

38. The presidential pardon may only be applied to natural persons convicted of a crime.

That would cut the legs out from under all that "unitary executive" crap.

The "ticking bomb" scenario needs no special accomodation. If it saved plenty of lives, you'll do fine in court. Don't be a baby. "I would have saved LA from that nuke, but I was afraid I might get in trouble."

[Odin2005]

41. Outlaw corporations, turn them into co-ops.

[surrealAmerican]

42. I would like to see the right to privacy guaranteed ...

... by the constitution in no uncertain terms, in a way that would still apply to emerging technologies.

[MindPilot]

61. I'm disappointed that it took 40 some odd posts to get to "privacy".

And even more disappointed that it's only mentioned once.

[Martin Eden]

44. I would change how elections are financed and held.

Publicly financed national debates with no paid advertising. Limited contributions from individual citizens (not corporations).

Instant Runoff Voting.

President elected by national majority (no Electoral College).

Universal balloting method with paper trail.

No Gerrymandering of congressional districts.

[baldguy]

49. Just one?

- Corporations are not "persons"

- Public financing for political campaigns.

- Freedom of religion = freedom from religion

- During peacetime the defense budget will be limited to 15% of the entire federal budget

[LWolf]

68. Good. Mine:

- Corporations are not "persons"

- 100% Public financing for political campaigns. Equal, and equally neutral, press coverage for all candidates. Equal talking time at all debates, and every candidate answers every question.

- Freedom of religion AND freedom from religion; a deep, wide separation of church and state.

- During peacetime the defense budget will be limited to 15% of the entire federal budget

-public services will be publicly funded and publicly run.

-Health Care is a right.

[jimmie]

50. One Six Year Term for President.

just a thought

[Bigmack]

52. Shiiiiit! This county didn't even pass..

a Constitutional amendment saying... "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

The ERA failed. It was passed by Congress easily (354-24 & 84-6), with a seven-year deadline for ratification by the required three-fourths (38) of the legislatures. Congress extended the deadline for another 39 months. Only 35 of the necessary 38 states ratified. 5 rescinded their ratification...Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennesee, and South Dakota.
Florida, Nevada, Colorado, Arizona, Oklahoma, Missouri, Illinois, Louisiana, North and South Carolina, Arkansas, Missippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Virginia didn't ratify.

And we think this country will ratify any Amendment that is sensible?

[harun]

54. The United States Government shall maintain a separation of Corporations and State.

[felix_numinous]

57. A law building a wall of protection between all functions of government

and all corporate as well as religious influence; making it illegal for churches to meddle in political affairs, or corporations to have any political connections whatsoever. This law would ban corporate personhood as well as reform all campaign finance in its language.

Churches would be separate from the curriculums of public school, and social studies would be a required course to graduate. Any church leader preaching hate speech would be forced out, or the church dismantled altogether. Cults would be defined and made illegal.

Corporations would once again have size and functions clearly limited, they would be liable for crimes against human rights and to the Earth. There would be no more privatization of jails, private militias nor police.

This law would clearly dismantle the Patriot Act also by making the military completely non corporate to prevent wars for profit, which would stop the war on terror and drugs.

I think this would take care of a lot, to start with.

[old mark]

59. I would amend the Second amendment to add this , "The right of Citizens to bear arms

in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
From the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1776, and still in force.
End the nonsense-spell it right out-an individual right to self defense.

mark

[Taverner]

63. The Second Ammendment is fine as it is

Then again, I'm pro-gun

[old mark]

65. Me, too.....nt

[Taverner]

62. The ERA - Equality for ALL!

Everything else should fall into place after that

[Initech]

66. Money is not free speech.

[wickerwoman]

69. First would be campaign finance reform.

Full federally funded elections with equal press time for all candidates. The roots of all America's problems is corporate money in campaigns. (With a rider making election day a national holiday on which people *may not* be asked to work.)

Second (if I was allowed two) would be right to privacy. My medical decisions? None of your business as long as I'm competent. Pee in a cup so I can serve french fries? Pull the other one. Who I sleep with and who I want to marry? Should make absolutely no difference to the state. What I inject in my veins? None of anyone's business as long as I'm not driving or threatening anyone else.

Those two amendments would take us a *long* way towards the kind of society most of us truly want.

[Liquorice]

76. ERA. nt

[krispos42]

77. It's a toss-up between instant-runoff voting on the federal level...

...and imposing a maximum ratio between a state's representatives and a state's senators.

With IRV we'd have the potential for a couple of more political parties, which would be nice. But I'm afraid that we'd still have the same outcomes with no real change.


I'd probably go for making populous states divide up into smaller states as they grew. This would keep the rural states from dominating the Senate as much as they do (currently, the 41 Repub senators only represent 34% of the population) and would provide a periodic new oppurtunity for the latest in governmental and democracy theory to be established in the new state's laws and constitution. The introduction of new ideas and methods would likely spread to other states as well if they work. Things like... IRV.

[kevinbgoode]

78. No citizen shall ever be afforded any additional right or privilege

than any other citizen under the law. Nor shall any citizen be denied access to those guaranteed rights by any amendment to this document, nor subjected to a campaign to remove their rights by other citizens.


No citizen shall be publicly harassed or coerced into pledging or conversion into any religious belief. In a free society, freedom of religion demands freedom of spirit. At the age of adult consent the rights of all citizens to freely choose their religious beliefs will supercede any claim that one or more religious teachings embraced by other citizens have to "practice" their religion by harassing or coercion.


Natural-born children in the United States are citizens.

[Forkboy]

80. Amendment G.

A new Godzilla flick required by law each year.

[boppers]

81. I'd strike gender language, and ensure all "genders" are the same.

Man, woman, or a mix, all deserve the same rights.

[U4ikLefty]

82. 28th...the death penalty for any using the term "pony" on DU

Uh-oh, did I just violate it?

[aikoaiko]

85. now pony up.

D'oh, I just did it too.

[BeFree]

86. CON stitution is so negative: Lets rename it..Call it PROstitution

Senate done away with and let there be one rep for every 30,000 citizens.

Separation of church and state clearly defined.

Public funded elections.