1 I hope I know my readers well enough to predict that no one will propose repeal of the 16th Amendment.

2 I wouldn't mind bumping off amendment #17, however.

And something about limiting the effects of amendment #16 so that the effective rate is no more than 20%. (Or 10%...as long as I'm dreaming.)

3

At the end of each term, each senator and representative shall be put on trial for corruption.

 

4

In lieu of capital punishment, criminals convicted of crimes eligible for the death penalty can alternatively be sentenced to life imprisonment, with food, clothing, housing, and other amenities provided by advocates who argue that said criminals are innocent (Or that no criminals deserve the death penalty.), in the residence of said advocates, on the understanding that any future crimes committed by said criminals will result in punishment both for the criminals and for said advocates.

Okay, so this will never fly (Being a positive liberty by a wide interpretation of the idea, as well as incorporating collective responsibility, which is considered a bad thing in classical liberalism.), but since we are engaging in thought experiments...

C.T.

5 Ed Morrisey just kindly granted me posting rights in "The Greenroom" and I just cross-posted this there. I wonder if I'm going to regret this.

6 #1: Oh, yes, please!  That would be ever so wonderful.  I feel a thrill up my leg.  I don't think many people realize how effective this would be in kneecapping the current massive overreach of the federal government.

#8: And "loser pays"...?

I'd also like some sort of repeal of the Kelo decision and a much more strict restatement of the limits of eminent domain.

mparker762: Thread winner.

7

At the end of each term, each senator and representative shall be put on trial for corruption.

Or implement the Tranai option.

8

Toren, without a doubt the Commerce Clause is the most abused section of the US Constitution and we are long overdue to fix it.

But it won't happen. There isn't a chance in the world of Congress itself proposing any amendment to do such a thing, and if this country ever does call a constitutional convention then we're all in deep shit.

9

Apologies for length; I'd drop the response on Houblog, but no one would see it, I've been so inactive there.

1. Hell yes!

2. Drop the intro clause; it gives rise to the same arguments over militia as the current 2nd amendment..  Also, given certain stupid slanderous reports about right-wing extremism, it could be read to deny veterans the right to bear arms, or current-duty to bear arms when off-post/on leave/in reserves.  However, my main problem with this is the creeping felonization of white-collar crimes.  Make a mistake on your tax bill, lose your right to a firearm.  I'd restrict felony to acts of violence, conspiracy to conduct such, or

3. Yes. Lethal injections are too easy. Death should be ugly.

4. Agreed, with caveat that English precedents before 1776 can be applied (happens more often than you'd think, and otherwise could retroactively fubar many existing rulings.)

5. I know I'm alone in being against term limits, but I still disagree. It's for the lazy voter; and a revolving door actually strengthens the hand of both the unelected bureaucracy and the lobbyists -- who will all be former Reps and Senators...

6. Yes!

7. No. Too narrow; leave this one alone.

8. I agree with the principle, but not sure it belongs in the constitution.  See #7.

9. Possible issues, but I think it's worth the price.  Definitely needed.

10. No.  Look at all the problems Title IX caused with college funding.  Lets not make Feminist Studies a constitutional requirement.

My addition:

11.  Any decision of the Supreme Court of the United States may be nullified by a super-majority of the states, meeting the same requirements as a constitutional amendment, except no act of Congress is required.  Such nullification must be absolute, neither partial nor limited in any way. (i.e.:straight yes or no, with no conditions attached.).

Thus the guardianship of the contract among the citizens of the U.S. will revert back to the states, not nine half-senile old farts that have lived most of their adult lives insulated from the real world.  Or as wise Latina women.

10

I wasn't being totally serious about all of these. I do believe them all, but I recognize that some of them don't really belong in the Constitution.

I should probably have phrased #2 to be "...who are not currently members of the Armed Forces..."

But I wanted to include that preamble in there because what I wrote is what the founders really meant by "a well ordered militia".

7 and 8 were pretty much tongue-in-cheek. But I stand by #10. And I don't think it would mandate Women's Studies departments. That's the entire point. By including "...or in favor of..." it prevents government from doing crap like that.

11 I think #6 really ought to already be recognized as a basic principle (and I'd want to add to it that I don't think a current administration should be able to join a treaty that would prevent a future administration from exercising constitutionally granted powers.)

It seems absurd to me to think that the Executive or Legislative branch could do things through treaty that they're otherwise not allowed to do under the Constitution, but a lot of people seem to want to use this idea to make an end run around certain parts of the Constitution they don't like much. I think we'd see them howl if the shoe were on the other foot though.

12

"Any legislation passed by Congress that is not readily understood by a functionally literate adult shall be rendered null and void."

13 I think I'm going to close this now.