NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's just say that you were given the power to make one binding ammendment to the US Constitution. What would it be? (Serious answers only)


Mine would be to add a line-item veto to Article II. Think about it, this would allow the President to veto the BS pork that always gets attached to legitimate pieces of legislation. A line item veto would alone bring us a balanced budget (if not a surplus) just on the fact that it would cut all of the pork that both parties in Congress add to bills.

How about just an amendment banning riders?

How about just an amendment banning riders?Pity that that didn't pass when Clinton tried.

Let's just say that you were given the power to make one binding ammendment to the US Constitution. What would it be? (Serious answers only)

"the u.s. constitution is hereby declared null and void and a new constitutional convention shall be called immediately in order to try again at that whole 'freedom' thing."

An amendment that allows people to have as many spouses of any gender, so long as all involved persons agree.

Mine would be to add a line-item veto to Article II. Think about it, this would allow the President to veto the BS pork that always gets attached to legitimate pieces of legislation. A line item veto would alone bring us a balanced budget (if not a surplus) just on the fact that it would cut all of the pork that both parties in Congress add to bills.

Laughs- that would be great. Though congress would need to pass it, and they never would.

Pity that that didn't pass when Clinton tried.

They did pass it. They passed a line-item veto (what I want to add). The only problem was that the USSC ruled it unconstitutional.

Laughs- that would be great. Though congress would need to pass it, and they never would.

Thus the reason we don't have one.

Pity that that didn't pass when Clinton tried.

For sure. But since this is pretty much just an intellectual exercise, figured I'd pitch it again.

Well, the ammendment I'd pass would be one making abolishing the government and putting me in power as Supreme Dictator for life. Or, really, what I'd do would be to put an ammendment in that would say that gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states. That would be good...

SECTION 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
SEC. 2. Marriage shall be defined, for purposes of both federal and state law, as a union between two or more consenting adults of any sex.
SEC. 3. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

How about an amendment that requires all people, citizens and non, in war and peace, to be given all rights from the U.S. Constitution. No way whatsoever to deny it to them.

"the u.s. constitution is hereby declared null and void and a new constitutional convention shall be called immediately in order to try again at that whole 'freedom' thing."

Worst idea evar.

How about an amendment that requires all people, citizens and non, in war and peace, to be given all rights from the U.S. Constitution. No way whatsoever to deny it to them.

Even drug smugglers who will just head back south of the border once their shipment gets delivered? No way I'm letting those uber-illegal "immigrants" getting any rights. Poor illegals trying to get a better life, maybe. Ubers. Hell no.

What I hate is how the democrats are complaining when someone attached a bill involving the inheritence tax to a bill increasing the minimum wage yet I don't even know if there was much uproar when someone attaches pork to a bill concerning the GIs. That's politics for you. According to politics, it's only okay if you do it and it's only bad when you're not doing it.

How about an amendment that requires all people, citizens and non, in war and peace, to be given all rights from the U.S. Constitution. No way whatsoever to deny it to them.

Bad idea. That means Jack Bauer can't torture people.

Bad idea. That means Jack Bauer can't torture people.

Hell, what Jack Bauer does is illegal even now! :D

Worst idea evar.

why?

Hell, what Jack Bauer does is illegal even now! :D

I honestly hope we have people in Club Gitmo doing what Bauer does.

Now the situations are rare, but there are ones when torture becomes necessary. I would have no qualms about torturing a terrorist if it saves a single innocent life.

I honestly hope we have people in Club Gitmo doing what Bauer does.

Now the situations are rare, but there are ones when torture becomes necessary. I would have no qualms about torturing a terrorist if it saves a single innocent life.

how could torturing some people that have been locked up for years accomplish anything of the sort?

I amend it so the government has no jurisdiction over marriage. They can only hand out civil unions to consenting parties which grant higher legal rights (hosiptal visitation, tax sharing) between those parties. If someone wants to be married, they can do it with or without a civil union.

I honestly hope we have people in Club Gitmo doing what Bauer does.

Now the situations are rare, but there are ones when torture becomes necessary. I would have no qualms about torturing a terrorist if it saves a single innocent life.

I'm sure all those people who have been there as long as they have still have plenty of relevant information. :rolleyes:

Besides, the damage to what we are supposed to be about will no longer matter. We will be just like the bastards who blow us up. Intentions don't mean the slightest thing, it is still acting like a monster when you lay a hand on another.

Let's just say that you were given the power to make one binding ammendment to the US Constitution. What would it be? (Serious answers only)


Mine would be to add a line-item veto to Article II. Think about it, this would allow the President to veto the BS pork that always gets attached to legitimate pieces of legislation. A line item veto would alone bring us a balanced budget (if not a surplus) just on the fact that it would cut all of the pork that both parties in Congress add to bills.

Term limits.

Term limits.

That would help get rid of some of the beurocracy.

That would help get rid of some of the beurocracy.

I figured it would bring citizen-politicians, not professional-politicians back to Washington.

Not quite sure what it would do for the bureaucracy, though.

I figured it would bring citizen-politicians, not professional-politicians back to Washington.

Not quite sure what it would do for the bureaucracy, though.

THe problem you get with that is that it's doubtful that the calibre of people you want will just have 8 years of their life to just give up thier career and go do some governing.

THe problem you get with that is that it's doubtful that the calibre of people you want will just have 8 years of their life to just give up thier career and go do some governing.

The calibre of the people we have now isn't that great anyway.

Besides, they get a handsome pension, and also the recognition. Believe me, there would be lots of qualified people who'd want to do it.

I figured it would bring citizen-politicians, not professional-politicians back to Washington.

Citizen-politicians who would do as they pleased in their last term of office.

Citizen-politicians who would do as they pleased in their last term of office.

Not if they cared about how their party would do in the coming elections. If they do what they want, their party looks bad, and loses. The party machinery will find a way to rein them in.

Citizen-politicians are people who care about their country. Not people who are in it for the money.

Citizen-politicians who would do as they pleased in their last term of office.

and who just so happened to have the heaping gobs of cash needed to win elections.

Not if they cared about how their party would do in the coming elections. If they do what they want, their party looks bad, and loses. The party machinery will find a way to rein them in.

I'd rather trust the voters.

I'm not exactly against term limits, though - I would restrict all politicians to one term, but make them all recallable.

(Actually, I would get rid of representative democracy altogether - but that's another discussion. Baby steps.)

Citizen-politicians are people who care about their country. Not people who are in it for the money.

Replacing the current rulers with them would require a whole lot more than term limits.

The calibre of the people we have now isn't that great anyway.

Besides, they get a handsome pension, and also the recognition. Believe me, there would be lots of qualified people who'd want to do it.

So you want to pay people a large pension after their term? I see you are a conservative in the mould of GWB, not a clue about fiscal responsability.

So you want to pay people a large pension after their term? I see you are a conservative in the mould of GWB, not a clue about fiscal responsability.

That's something we could definetely reconsider. I never said I supported the pensions, only that they do receive them.

An amendement that says commies may not influence US elections or policymaking. And that any hint of anti americanism is punishable by death. That's what we need.

That's something we could definetely reconsider. I never said I supported the pensions, only that they do receive them.

But then yo come back to the problem of attracting good candidates, unless their already rich they won't want the risk of losing x number of years from thier career.

But then yo come back to the problem of attracting good candidates, unless their already rich they won't want the risk of losing x number of years from thier career.

We could set the term limit to say, 20 years for Congress? We have one for the presidency, and it worked well so far, so the logical conclusion is to have one for Congress too. Maybe even the judges.

The party machinery will see to it that quality candidates are selected. Otherwise they'll be discredited.

The party machinery will see to it that quality candidates are selected.

/sarcasm?

/sarcasm?

No. They need good candidates, or else they would look bad, and get fewer votes.

We could set the term limit to say, 20 years for Congress? We have one for the presidency, and it worked well so far, so the logical conclusion is to have one for Congress too. Maybe even the judges.

The party machinery will see to it that quality candidates are selected. Otherwise they'll be discredited.

That makes more sense, I was thinking term limits along the line of the Presidental limits and I don't think 8 years would be anywhere near enough.

I would adjust the first amendment thusly: "No form of communication shall be interfered with by any government within the United States, whether by prevention of publication, censoring of content, or any other form of control. Nor shall any citizen have any right to prevent any communication or make judicial cause against any communication, prior or post utterance, save only in the cases of libel or slander."

If I was an American, I would amend the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College. Re-write the 2nd Ammendment to ensuring responsible gun ownership. Abolish the death penalty. Reduce impeachment number to 60% instead of 66%.

I think that is enough for now. :D







It is a slow night and I am bored!!

I would ban the controlling of debates.

Right now the parties get questions and they make deals on what questions they can ask each other.

It should be a free for all.

The shrub would probably not have been elected if he had to participate in a free form debate.

I would ban the controlling of debates.

Right now the parties get questions and they make deals on what questions they can ask each other.

It should be a free for all.

The shrub would probably not have been elected if he had to participate in a free form debate.
That is what I like about Canadian government. The Prime Minister is before the House and has to handle all the hot potatoes.

what's wrong with pork? Oh, I get it. You guys are Jews. Shabbot Shalom.

what's wrong with pork? Oh, I get it. You guys are Jews. Shabbot Shalom.

By this time, shavuah tov.

Only one change?

I'd amend the constitution to clearly include a right to privacy. That would take care of many issues including abortion/reproductive rights, gay rights, keeping the government from spying on it's citizens, etc.

why?
Could you imagine the Constitution that modern politics would produce? The Founders weren't perfect, but at least they were reasonably educated about political philosophy and had a fair amount of integrity. But hand our nation's supreme law over to a modern constitutional convention to be written? *shudder*

Could you imagine the Constitution that modern politics would produce?

i expect that if it tried anything too crazy, significant parts of the country would just opt out. which is even better.

Bad idea. That means Jack Bauer can't torture people.

I love it when fucking idiots act as though what happens on a tv show has some relation to real life, :rolleyes:

As to the OP, I'd make the 2nd Amendment clear. I'm not even sure what I'd make it--I'd just clear that poorly worded, abstract as hell piece of shit amendment up so we can stop debating it.

How about an amendent that states that all cititzens have the freedom to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's right to do anything.

The amendment should also state that objectors must proven beyond all doubt they are adversely effected in a direct manner the actions of another person. 'Moral' objections are not grounds for objecting what others do.

It would be the Ultimate Libery clause.

How about an amendent that states that all cititzens have the freedom to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't infringe on anyone else's right to do anything.

The amendment should also state that objectors must proven beyond all doubt they are adversely effected in a direct manner the actions of another person. 'Moral' objections are not grounds for objecting what others do.

It would be the Ultimate Libery clause.
It would be the ultimate nightmare?

I can just imagine the litigation that would create. Mind boggling.

It would be the ultimate nightmare?

I can just imagine the litigation that would create. Mind boggling.

It's in the french Constitution, since the Preamble mentions the "principles of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen" and principle 4 is:

4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.

What's more French Constitutional Council ruling 71-44DC states a law can be struck down for violating the Declaration.

Interesting fact:D

I would ammend the Constitution so to clearly forbid the Chief of State from deciding wich laws he will and will not follow, or wich particular parts of the law.

This means that President would not be allowed to choose to disobey any part of any law passed by Congress.
The power of Veto would not be removed, but once a bill is passed into law, the President may not, at any time, make changes to, or incude a signing addition to such law, wihtout full Congressional support.

Basically, it would make any President adhere to the letter of the law, as it is written, and not allow him to be above it.

The creation and revision of Federal law should be the sole right of Congress, and the interperatation of said law, the sole duty of the Judicial Branch, as was intended.

The Executive Branch should never have the right to change, avoid, or ignore the law.

"No guns, please".

There.

My ammendment would be to see that only Citizens are protected under the constitution.

Let's just say that you were given the power to make one binding ammendment to the US Constitution. What would it be? (Serious answers only)


Mine would be to add a line-item veto to Article II. Think about it, this would allow the President to veto the BS pork that always gets attached to legitimate pieces of legislation. A line item veto would alone bring us a balanced budget (if not a surplus) just on the fact that it would cut all of the pork that both parties in Congress add to bills.

I like that. That is so true. It would eliminate them from voting themselves raises. Must be nice to vote yourself a nice big raise each year. If they want that, it should be put forth to the American People to decide if they actually deserve a fat raise or not. I wished I could vote me a nice fat raise each and every year. :D

My ammendment would be to see that only Citizens are protected under the constitution.

I agree with that too. Except I would state it as, Legal, US Citizens are protected under the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights.

It's in the french Constitution, since the Preamble mentions the "principles of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen" and principle 4 is:

4. Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights. These limits can only be determined by law.

What's more French Constitutional Council ruling 71-44DC states a law can be struck down for violating the Declaration.

Interesting fact:D
There is a qualifier, which I bolded. Actually, the qualifier is extreme in limiting perceived "freedoms"?

Consider if you will, France's drug laws (http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4415):

No distinction exists between hard and soft drugs in French law. In theory, all drug use is a criminal offense imposing a penalty of two months to one year in jail in addition to a fine of FF 500 to FF 15, 000.
How about French marriage laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_France)?

The legal status of same-sex marriages in France is unclear. As of 2004, one same-sex marriage ceremony has been conducted in France and it has been declared void. France has a statute authorizing civil unions, known as PACS, between same-sex and unmarried opposite-sex couples.
No so free huh?

Sometimes you have to peel the orange to see whats inside?

The US Constitution is a fantastic document in historical terms, but using it now is rather like using 18th century company law or, in non-legal terms, like fighting a war with a musket.

The US has a number of chronic constitutional problems that should be addressed by its constitution but aren't:
1. Pork is endemic:
2. An obscene majority of elections are won by the person with the most money (http://www.opensecrets.org/pressreleases/2004/04results.asp);
3. The Supreme Court is politicised;
4. The Supreme Court acts as a legislature when it feels the urge;
5. Gerrymandering is rife, because State legislatures get to decide electoral boundaries - Texas being an egregious example;
6. Many extremely powerful positions in the government are unelected;


And yet the current Constitution is revered like some sort of sacred artefact. That in itself is a barrier to change, and that suits the politicians just fine - they are the ones that tend to benefit from this.

There is a qualifier, which I bolded. Actually, the qualifier is extreme in limiting perceived "freedoms"?

Consider if you will, France's drug laws (http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4415):


How about French marriage laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_France)?


No so free huh?

Sometimes you have to peel the orange to see whats inside?

You win the thread! But, it says on wiki:

In 1971, a landmark decision by the Constitutional Council (71-44DC[1]) cited the preamble of the Constitution and its references to the principles laid in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen as a reason for rejecting a law that, according to the Council, violated one of these principles. Since then, it is assumed that the "constitutional block" includes not only the Constitution, but also the other texts referenced in its preamble: the Declaration, but also the preamble of the 1946 Constitution (which adds a number of "social rights", as well as the equality of males and females) and the Environment Charter of 2004.

So I was half right...

"No guns, please".

There.

no freedom then - even mao said all power comes from guns

no freedom then - even mao said all power comes from guns

And if Chairman Mao says it, it must be right...

no freedom then - even mao said all power comes from guns

And if Chairman Mao says it, it must be right...

no freedom then - even mao said all power comes from guns

The translated quote was "Political power grows off the barrel of a gun, like a plant vine at springtime".

"No guns, please".

There.

I thought it was already extremely hard to get a firearm in the UK? Wouldn't banning them outright affect only british hunters?

I thought it was already extremely hard to get a firearm in the UK? Wouldn't banning them outright affect only british hunters?
This is about the US, not the UK.

And it would affect British farmers also, if we are talking about British law as well.




And no guns means less crime - less crime means more freedom, because you can go out at night and do what you like, or leave your door unlocked and feeling happy. Isn't that actually what freedom is?

This is about the US, not the UK.

And it would affect British farmers also, if we are talking about British law as well.




And no guns means less crime - less crime means more freedom, because you can go out at night and do what you like, or leave your door unlocked and feeling happy. Isn't that actually what freedom is?

Doh! I missed that part in the OP.

One thing though: You say no firearms = less crime = more freedom. That doesn't really make sense, because if I'm suddenly not allowed to own firearms, I no longer have a freedom I used to enjoy.

Also, I'm free to go out at night and do what I like, but that's because I'm not afraid of something that MIGHT happen to me (that, and I have pretty good situational awareness to avoid danger). I lock my apartment door because I had someone just burst in to my apartment once (he mistook my apartment for one of my neighbors), and because I don't want my stuff growing legs and walking away.

Finally, freedom (to me, anyways) is the ability for me to do my own thing without an authority figure telling me to stop. Target shooting is one freedom I enjoy. Running radio control cars and trucks is another.

Let's just say that you were given the power to make one binding ammendment to the US Constitution. What would it be? (Serious answers only)



Religion shall have no power in and shall not attempt to influence the government. There shall be a strict and uncompromisable division between any and all religions and the government.

Believe me, there would be lots of qualified people who'd want to do it.

It's been contended by pretty much every major philosopher from every major culture in history that anyone wanting to do it would, for that very reason, be unqualified.

That aside, term limits are somewhat of a double-edged sword. What happens when we actually find a guy who does a good job and we'd like to keep him?

And no guns means less crime

That is SO misguided. No guns means MORE crime, because now everyone with a gun is a criminal. And those criminals now know, for a fact, that YOU don't have a gun, so they can shoot all they want and no one is ever going to shoot back. So their lives are not in jeopardy. And they already don't care about their liberty, or at least feel that they are "good" enough that their liberty is not in jeopardy, and now they have some justification for that, because they have all the power, because they have all the guns.

Article I, Section 8, clause 3: "to regulate direct Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

The Commerce Clause has been the source of unending mischief on the part of the Congress, which has used it as an excuse to regulate virtually every aspect of the American economy and much of society. The FDR Supreme Court let them get away with this in such bizarre decisions as Wickard v. Filburn (1942), the one in which a fellow in Alabama (IIRC) who was growing wheat on his own property for his own consumption was found to be subject to FDR's Agricultural Adjustment Act. The SC held that such farming exerted a "substantial economic effect on interstate commerce" by taking grain off the market, and thus that the regulation applied to private individuals who weren't even selling anything, let alone moving products across state lines. In other words, the SC read "interstate" right out of the Interstate Commerce clause.

Requiring that the commerce be "direct", i.e., originating in one state, crossing at least one state line (or international border), and ending in another state, would have stopped this nonsense in its tracks, and prevented, or at least severely inhibited, the growth of the federal bureaucracy.

BTW: One of the rare times that trick didn't work was when Congress tried to pass a federal "violence against women" law making various offenses federal crimes, on the ground that violence against women somehow "affected" interstate commerce. The Supreme Court finally drew the line on that one.

If I was an American, I would amend the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College. Re-write the 2nd Ammendment to ensuring responsible gun ownership. Abolish the death penalty. Reduce impeachment number to 60% instead of 66%.

Thank God you are not an American.

one presidentail term of 6 years.

I honestly hope we have people in Club Gitmo doing what Bauer does.

Now the situations are rare, but there are ones when torture becomes necessary. I would have no qualms about torturing a terrorist if it saves a single innocent life.

What if that innocent life is the person we wish to torture? See, in this country, you are innocent UNTIL proven guilty by a court of law, or used to be. Since they haven't been proven guilty everyone in Gitmo is innocent.

And no guns means less crime - less crime means more freedom, because you can go out at night and do what you like, or leave your door unlocked and feeling happy. Isn't that actually what freedom is?

Actually they replace the guns with something else. Such as knifes like in your own country.

We have tons of guns. Sure.

I still go out at night and dow what a like. The doors are shut simply because we have had people walk in. Harmless mistake but it is startling.

Even in your country, there are many doors that are locked.

There are places, you don't go to at night.....

Let's just say that you were given the power to make one binding ammendment to the US Constitution. What would it be? (Serious answers only)


Mine would be to add a line-item veto to Article II. Think about it, this would allow the President to veto the BS pork that always gets attached to legitimate pieces of legislation. A line item veto would alone bring us a balanced budget (if not a surplus) just on the fact that it would cut all of the pork that both parties in Congress add to bills.

The problem is, it would also allow him to sign the BS pork that gets attached and veto the legitimate piece of legislation. It would also make it impossible for a lot of legislation to get passed because the opposition would know that the president would just veto whatever concessions his party made.

I'd like to make the president's cabinet members elected officials in their own right. Vote for the secretaries the same way we vote for the President. No more of this appointing the military general as secretary of state and the chemicals salesman as secretary of defense bullshit. Individual states and municipalities elect their prosecutors and comptrollers, why shouldn't we get to do the same for attornies general and secretaries of the treasury? We'd certainly get a lot more transparency when we have a secretary of defense that thinks the president is an idiot (I can't imagine even this electorate putting Rumsfeld in charge of the military).

And if Chairman Mao says it, it must be right...

I think the point was that if two people with views as divergent as a dictatorial megalomaniac who pretended that all his evil was done in the name of the working people, and the dictator of Communist China then it probably has some basis in a trancendent objective reality.

I think the point was that if two people with views as divergent as a dictatorial megalomaniac who pretended that all his evil was done in the name of the working people, and the dictator of Communist China then it probably has some basis in a trancendent objective reality.


Thats not really two divergent viewpoints are they?

An evil Megolomaniacal Chinese dictator, and Mao Tse Tung?

If perhaps, Mother Theresa, and Joseph Stalin both agreed that power comes from guns, then I would be far more likely to think there may be some truth to that, than if Pol pot and The Ayatollah Komeni.

The latter two have a bit of a history of being real big fans of guns.
Not exactly polar opposites, are they?

personaly i would make the attorny general a congressional appointee, or better yet, an appointee of the supremem court, instead of a presidential one.

that way it would actualy be possible to impeach a president who was or bacame him(her)self a clear and present danger, and or refused to uphold the constitution (s)he swore to upon enaguration.

this attorny general, prosicutor general really i suppose, would also have total security clearance so that nothing could be with-held from his/her perusal on the pretense of 'national security' (and thus appointment of a special prosicutor would no longer be neccessary)

really i think that is the biggest flaw in the existing u.s. constitution. (that the president gets to pick the only one individualy able to lawfully call him/her to task and then get away with withholding evidence on the pretense of national security).

=^^=
.../\...

Explicitly banning torture, codifying the right to privacy, clarifying that abortion is unequivocally protected under that right.

Trotskylvania's certified to offend someone Amendments to the Constitution.

1. Abolish the Senate, and transfer all powers/duties to the House of Representatives.

2. Increase the number of Members in the House to at least 1000.

3. Elect all House members by ranked party list vote from multi-member districts to ensure proportional representation and an end to two-party dominance. Place a four term limit on all members.

4. Reduce impeachment conviction threshold to 60%, as well as veto override threshold.

5. Amend declaration of war clause to prevent the President from being able to send troops into combat without declaration of war.

6. Explicitly ban torture and surveilliance/search without probable cause.

7. Explicitly define "person" as a term in the Constitution to end corporate personhood.

8. Explicit protection of the right for a woman to have an abortion without the consent of anyone else.

9. End the semi-private status of the Federal Reserve Bank, and completely socialize monetary policy.

10. End the right of private property, and replace with right of usage. (Corporations: your days are numbered)

11. Add Constitutional requirement for the creation of a National Health Service, requiring the socialization of the entire health care industry.

12. Require collective ownership and democratic control of all telecommunications.

13. Require collective ownership and democratic control of the energy, railroad, mining industries.

14. Add an explicite requirement that all income taxation be progressive, and explicitly ban tax shelters.

15. Allow recall vote of all elected officials.

16. Provide for democratic elections of the Supreme Court and all other Federal judges, requiring that all judges run on non-partisan platforms. Terms for all federal judges would be six years, with a limit of two terms.

Hmmm...overhaul the Constitution. I can't pick just one.

I'll go from the beginning.

Article I would be amended such that:

Amendment XXVIII. 1. Members of the House shall be chosen by party vote across the entire United States, with the House having a total of seven hundred and sixty five members.

2. The percentage of the national vote received by a party shall be equal to the percentage of seats it receives in the House.

3. No party shall be represented in the House unless it receives at least five percent of the national vote.

4. Registered members of a Party may vote to recall a Representative at a special Election using rules set by the Parties themselves; the House membership can also vote to expel House members by a two-thirds majority.

Amendment XXIX. 1. Each State shall be represented in the Senate by two Senators who serve terms of four years.

2. Each State shall elect one Senator in every second year, such that no State elects both Senators in the same Election.

3. No person shall be elected to more than two consecutive terms in the Senate; after serving two consecutive terms in the Senate, a Senator must be absent from the Senate for four consecutive years.

4. Registered voters of a State may move to Recall a Senator for any reason; a petition must be gathered that contains the signatures of at least ten percent of the State's registered voters, and a Recall vote will be placed on the ballot at the next Election.

5. If a Senator is Recalled, dies in office, resigns from office, or is removed from the Senate for any other reason, the State Legislature shall appoint a replacement until the next Election, at which point the State's registered voters shall vote for a new Senator.

6. Any term that is two years or less in length served by a Senator does not count toward the two consecutive terms allotted to a Senator; any termthat is longer than two years does count.

Amendment XXX. 1. The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United Stataes is hereby repealed.

2. Neither Congress nor any Federal body shall make any law or pass any order dictating policy within any State concerning firearm laws.

3. Weapons of mass destruction and explosives may be possessed only by trained professionals in guidelines laid out by Federal governing bodies.

Amendment XXXI. 1. Any person who has been a citizen of the United States for ten consecutive years may be elected President or Vice President of the United States regardless of place of birth.

2. The President of the United States shall serve a term of six years and may not serve consecutive terms.

3. The President may be Recalled by a petition containing the legitimate signatures of five percent of all registered voters, including at least seven percent of the registered voters in at least three quarters of the States. At the next Election, a majority "yea" vote for Recall shall constitute the removal of the President from office. The president and Vice President may only be recalled separately.

4. If any person serves more than three years of another person's term as President, that person may not run for re-election.

Amendment XXXII. 1. The twenty-third Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

2. The District of Columbia shall be treated as a State, with full representation in Congress and the right to vote for the President.

3. The District of Columbia shall be allowed to operate as a city if it chooses to do so.

Amendment XXXIII. 1. The President of the United States shall be elected by the popular vote, with any candidate who receives the majority of votes cast being elected.

2. If no one receives a majority, a runoff election shall follow between the two candidates with the highest percentage of the vote.

Amendment XXXIV. 1. The right to run for Federal office or serve on the Supreme Court shall not be denied to anyone eighteen years of age or older on account of age.

2. All Federal law enforcement and bureaucratic agencies shall not deny positions to anyone twenty-one years of age or older on account of age.

Amendment XXXV. 1. The state of Wyoming shall be renamed Monkey Dung.

2. The state of Nebraska shall be deemed not to exist.

3. The above two statements shall be inoperative, and those who lasted through this list of amendments shall receive a metaphorical cookie.

I would adjust the first amendment thusly: "No form of communication shall be interfered with by any government within the United States, whether by prevention of publication, censoring of content, or any other form of control. Nor shall any citizen have any right to prevent any communication or make judicial cause against any communication, prior or post utterance, save only in the cases of libel or slander."

I would deffiantly like freedom of speech to be more clearly defined

One thing I would add to yours is an explicit include of the freedom of expression as well as just "Speech" or in this case communication (while it should already be "communication" thoes asshat rightwingers that are trying to ban flag burning dont seem to understand unless explicitly defined to them)

Voxio is henceforth named Dictator of America...do what he says.

Sorry, but this is what you get for letting him do what he wants.