Ted King wrote:
I'd like to keep discussion (if there is any) of amendments to amendments that have only one central concept or a few very closely related yet somewhat distinct issues related to a central concept.

If a magic fairy said that they would grant you three Constitutional amendments that would magically be ratified, what three Constitutional amendments would you wish for?

My mind sort of boggles at the prospect. I'd like to fix the huge disparity in populations represented in the Senate - it's just too unfair the way it is. And perhaps in the same amendment get fair representation in the federal government for Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico if they choose statehood.

I'd like to make it clear that no one can legally discriminate against another citizen based solely on some characteristic they have that they none to very little choice in having (and, no, religious "freedom" would not be a legal justification for such discrimination).

I'd like to do away with the Electoral College and implement ranked choice voting. In the same amendment I would unequivocally state that voting is a right.

I'd like to make Supreme Court terms limited to about 16 years.

I'd like to see the President be required to disclose his financial interests and for the duration of his term, put his business dealings into a truly blind trust. And on a closely related issue, the amendment would also say, "F**k Trump".

There so many things. I imagine you all can conjure up a whole lot more worthwhile amendments.

Are there any potential Constitutional amendments that you think might plausibly actually be ratified?

It seems doubtful to me given the current political climate. I can't think of anything that "both sides" (us and them) can agree on enough to jump the high hurdle for passing an amendment.

rjmacs wrote:
I'm not sure that amendments are the solution to our problems, but DC and Puerto Rico can become states with a simple majority in Congress. No amendments needed....

pdq wrote:
“Corporations are not people.”

Hard to see a lot of folks disagreeing with that at first blush. But it would revolutionize a lot of things in the law and campaign finance, which depend on the odd fantasy that corporations are people. Not composed of people - actual people in the eyes of the law, which grants them any number of rights inappropriate to corporations which ought to be reserved to living, breathing citizens.

Ombligo wrote:
Statehood for DC is more complicated as the residents have not voted for it, the borders have not been established that would exclude the federal property, the governing body is also not set up as a state. For DC, it may make more sense to cede the residential areas of the district to Maryland, leaving the mall and adjacent federal property out. That of course assumes Maryland would accept it, which is not a given.