What's your opinion about possible Constitutional amendments?

[vision63]

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.

I like everything you mention except ranked choice voting. We have it in Oakland/San Francisco. Another crappy kind statewide. Jungle primaries. In our elections, the two less popular candidates always make a deal to encourage one another's followers to make them the second choice. Elections are hard enough without candidates gaming it.

It's just for candidates that refuse to try to win over enough voters to win. They want to stand pat with their clearly less popular ideas yet still want to win.

[cbelt3]

I'm ecstatic that the Constitution is HARD to change.

What I would like to see is a step away from perversion of the law by the powerful.

[rjmacs]

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]

“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.

[Ted King]

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....

Yeah, I should have not included those as though they needed a Constitutional amendment to make happen.

[Ted King]

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.

This is also something that could very well be rectified by passing laws, so I probably shouldn't have included it. But it irks the heck out of me and I got on a roll of things that irk me about government when I was writing the OP (like the statehood for Washington D.C. thing).

[sekker]

I'm not sure DC can become a state without a constitutional amendment. The Constitution specifies DC explicitly.

PR is a different story. I was mistaken - can just be a vote in Congress, but I cannot imagine the Senate approving unless we also add South South Carolina and South Alabama.

[Ombligo]

If all 50 democrats are on board for admitting Puerto Rico as a state, then there is already a bill in place based upon the 2020 statehood referendum held there (and passed). That could be passed with the 50 votes plus Harris.

You could expect lawsuits ands exploding heads if that happens.

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.

[sekker]

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.

I used to live in Maryland when there was a push to move DC under that umbrella to enable some representation of DC citizens.

At that time, those in Maryland were fine. The DC residents were adamant that they has suffered so long as disenfranchised voters that the only way forward was statehood and the full representation of two Senators.

[Acer]

Just being absorbed back into Maryland is the most straightforward.

But...
There are more people in DC than in Wyoming.
DC has been separate from Maryland for over 200 years.
Physically small but fully independent has precedent in New England.

In either case, the contiguous Federal properties around the Mall become the "DC" of the Constitution. It will still include some residents, most obviously the White House, and those congresspersons who sleep in their office. DC was already cut in half from its original dimensions when Alexandria was given back to Virginia.