U.S. Constitution Fixed; Three Proposed Amendments

First Proposed Amendment: 1. On the first day of January in the year following the adoption of this amendment, the United States Senate shall be merged with the House of Representatives, to form one unicameral Congress of the United States of America.

2. At the first election following the merger of the House and Senate, all duly elected members except senators serving six year terms, shall be chosen for a four year term in office.

3. Senators serving six year terms shall, at the next election, be chosen for an additional two year term so that on the expiration of that term, all Members of Congress shall be chosen for terms of four years.

4. Members of Congress shall be compensated at one-half the rate of compensation for the president; based on years of service a member may retire at age 70 on up to half pay; Members chosen to lead the Congress shall receive appropriate additional compensation; all members shall be granted a sum ($50,000) annually to compensate for all other personal expenses incurred in the performance of their duties,

5. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or other entity to provide or give anything of value to a sitting Member of Congress and for any Member to accept such things of value; punishable to the donor as a felony and subjecting the Member to criminal penalties and banning from all future public service under this Construction.

6. No person who having served in the Congress shall afer leaving the Congress, have any contact or relationship with any of the serving Members for a period of 4 years, unless they are called by the Congress to render a particular service.


Second Proposed Amendment: 1. All judges appointed under Article Three of the Constitution shall after the adoption of this amendment, be appointed to serve a fixed term of office as follows: if the appointee is under age 60 on his or her appointment, the appointee shall serve for fifteen years during good behavior; if the appointee is age 60 or over, the appointee shall serve out the year in which he or she attains the age of 75 with good behavior.

2. Judges shall be compensated in the same amount as Members of Congress with appropriate additional compensation for judges of higher courts.

3. The Chief Justice of the United States shall be compensated in the same amount as the President of the United States.

4. All judges shall on completion of their term in office, be retired on half pay.

5. When age, infirmity or other disability of a sitting judge makes it uncertain whether the judge can responsibly discharge his or her judicial responsibilities, an ad hoc commission of three members shall be appointed by the Chief Justice to rule on the issue; one member shall be a retired judge unknown to the subject, one member shall be a medical practitioner of the appropriate speciality and the third member shall be a person designated by the subject. The commission shall have full power and all needed resources to assess the subject’s condition and shall report back to the Chief Justice in 45 days.

6. The Congress may from time to time, alter Paragraph 5 herein, based on experience.


Third Proposed Amendment: 1. Provided this amendment is adopted before January 1 of the year in which the president and vice president are to be chosen, the next president and vice president shall be chosen for a term of seven (7) years;

2. No person who has been president or vice president more than 4 years on the adoption of this amendment shall be eligible to serve a term hereunder except as provided below;

3. Any person otherwise qualified, shall be eligible to serve as president or vice president after seven years have lapsed between periods of such service.

4. The president’s compensation shall be fixed at ten times the average income per person, adjusted every ten years. The vice president shall receive half the president’s’s compensate.

5. After service as president or vice president, the person shall receive an annual payment equal to half the president’s or vice president’s compensation, for life.


[edit on 8/20/2008 by donwhite]

Hmm Don I have a couple of questions for you .

Would you retain the Electoral College or abolish it in favour of a popular vote ?

Would you retain the seperate branches of government or would the president require a majority in Congress to govern ?

Cheers xpert11.

reply to post by Xpert11

Don I have a couple of questions for you. Would you retain the Electoral College or abolish it in favor of a popular vote?

I would not retain the Electoral College. Election by country-wide popular vote is good enough. But the prospects of abolishing the EC are slim at best. Although the FFs never explained exactly why they created the EC, it is usually thought to have been offered as an inducement to the smaller states to join in the new Union.

To get a handle on the relative populations, the initial allocation of seats in the House of Representatives was as follows: MA, 8; NH, 3; RI, 1; CT, 5; NY, 6; NJ, 4; PA, 8; DE, 1; MD, 6; VA, 10; NC, 5; SC,5; and GA, 3. 65 seats in the first House. You can see that RI, DE, GA, NH and maybe NJ would be considered the “smaller” states. By adding the equal number of senators for each state to the number of Representatives, those 5 states would rise from a total votes of 12 (18.5%) to 22 EC votes (24.1%). You might say rising from less than one-fifth the population to just under one-fourth of the votes!

Another provision of the US Con found in the amending article, Article V, set this limit on future amendments: “ . . and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”

Here is a list of the smaller states that would be unlikely to vote to abolish the EC: 12 states with 3 or 4 EC votes: AK, DE, HA, ID, ND, NH, ME,* MT, RI, SD, VT AND WY. 5 states with 5 EC votes: NB,* NV, NM, UT, and WV. *ME and NB allot electoral college votes by congressional district and 2 state-at-large. All other states are winner take all.
350px-US_Electoral_College_Map.PNG

This is why I opted to incorporate the Senate into the House to make an unicameral legislature which I prefer in any case. The small states would carry forward their numerical advantage into the new Congress. But as we get deeper into thinking MORE Union and LESS states, the country will grow out of this parochial thinking.

Would you retain the separate branches of government or would the president require a majority in Congress to govern?

France like the US has a strong executive. Its president is limited to one term of five (formerly seven) years in office. The French National Assembly is divided into 2 houses as is the case in the US. The essential power of governance is vested in the Chamber of Deputies, the lower house, as in the case of the Commons in the British Parliament. The upper house is styled the Senate as in our case but is limited in its power as in the case of the House of Lords in the UK. Aside: the National Assembly Chamber of Deputies is under the conservative UPM party which has 320 seats out of 577. 289 seats are needed to govern. The opposing 4 socialist parties together hold 204 seats. Others left and center have 50 seats. End. en.wikipedia.org...

Rather than day to day governance by the new Congress, I would like to see the US Civil Service acknowledged or established as the FOURTH BRANCH of government. All three of the other and older branches would have various inputs into setting its mission, operation and staffing. The competitively chosen and professional bureaucrats would be free to carry on the day to day essentials of a very large country in the very fast 21st century which would leave the Legislature time to contemplate the general course of the Federal state and leave the “driving to us.” Micro-managing by incompetents would be ended. A very expensive luxury if you look back at Hurricane Katrina and New Orleans, which is still going on by the way. Like Iraq, it seems to be a blackhole for US taxpayers money. Earmarks would be finished. Competence would be the rule rather than the exception! Say good-by mortgage meldtowns. Lead paint in toys. Two (2) years late in airplane inspections. Food posioning. Wetlands used up. Bridges falling down. Levees breached. Coal mine accidents. And etc.

[edit on 8/23/2008 by donwhite]

Don in general I like your ideas . In New Zealand Cabinet makes the policy's and those who work for government departments carry them out . You could just simplify things and have the government departments fall under the umbrella of Congress .

Is that the sort of thing that you have in mind for the US ?

Now for some more questions .


Would a part of Executive power be transferred to Congress ?
In other words you would have a Minster of Defence rather then a secretary of defence ?

Would all the heads of government departments be appointed on a ten year basis like the head of the CIA is ?

Should the Electoral College be abolished would the popular vote still be FPP ?

reply to post by Xpert11

Don in general I like your ideas. You could just simplify things and have the government departments fall under the umbrella of Congress.

Yes we could. And with a unicameral legislature, that would effectively make the US a parliamentary democracy rather than a divided powers republic. And that would be no bad thing.

But I was thinking about what was more likely to be possible. I wanted to stop the current system that must pass any law TWO times before it goes to the president for his approval. Where today 41 senators can stop any law.* We just do not have that much time in a nuclear age with ICBMs and instant communications around the world.

The US Con, Article 1 is the legislative section. Section 8 delegates to Congress the power to borrow money; to control immigration; to print money; to establish post offices; to issue patents; to create courts; to declare war; to provide for an army and navy; and the final catch-all clause: “To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.”

Is that [members of Congress to be heads of departments] the sort of thing that you have in mind for the US?

No.

Now for some more questions. Would a part of Executive power be transferred to Congress? In other words you would have a Minster of Defence rather then a secretary of defence? Would all the heads of government departments be appointed on a ten year basis like the head of the CIA is?

NO on executive power transfer. NO on 10 year appointments for heads of departments or agencies. By the way, those long term appointments - FBI and CIA - were forced on Congress because the president had illegally employed or illegally interfered with those agencies and Congress due to internal political divisions was unable to perform its oversight function. The long terms have failed to produce either FBI or CIA heads worthy of their agency.

The combining of executive and legislative functions has worked in England - then GB and now UK - since at least 1215 - Magna Carta - although the road from there to here has been very rocky from time to time. Americans are TOO impatient for any long term evolution of anything. Our most notable quick time achievement: NASA’s from concept to reality, the man on the moon, 1961-1969.

But notice that was 100% a technology project. Nothing cultural in it. No racism. No rich-poor divide. No public-private rights. Etc. On those issues we have waged a low grade war since 1607. Which got hot in the 1860s and again in the 1960s. Perhaps we will get it right in 2060?

Should the Electoral College be abolished would the popular vote still be FPP?

I hope not. In all elections, Federal, state and local, I would want an absolute majority of 50% + 1. If the first round of voting did not produce that, then a run-off between the top two held in just 3 weeks would get it done.

*Dems used the 41 votes to block the worst of Bush43's judicial appointments in the 2001 - 2003 time frame.

[edit on 8/24/2008 by donwhite]

reply to post by donwhite


Section 5 of the first amendment is essential.I would consider that to be the lynchpin to the whole concept.Graft has been rampant in government for as long as there has been a government.
One thing I believe should be added.The redress of grievances should be met.Failure to do so would constitute an act of treason,punishable by death!

Originally posted by donwhite


5. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or other entity to provide or give anything of value to a sitting Member of Congress and for any Member to accept such things of value; punishable to the donor as a felony and subjecting the Member to criminal penalties and banning from all future public service under this Construction.

This is in direct conflict with the 1st Amendment. You cannot pass laws that infringe on Free Speech. But hey...McCain/Feingold got away with it...so it might have a chance.

Also I'd hate for my Congressman to be charged with a felony because I gave him a pen that happened to have my business logo on it.

reply to post by RRConservative


Hello Mr RRCon. Long time no see. How's that Joe Biden? Do you think he is old enough to offset John McCain? I have not checked but I think Biden is senior to McCain in the Senate.

This is in direct conflict with the 1st Amendment. You cannot pass laws that infringe on Free Speech. But hey...McCain/Feingold got away with it...so it might have a chance. Also I'd hate for my Congressman to be charged with a felony because I gave him a pen that happened to have my business logo on it.

It is a general rule of law that if two laws are in contradiction, the later one is preferred. But only in areas of conflict. Whereas the First Amendment was - IMO - intended to protect political speech in the traditional way - with the vocal cords - and would never have covered Shakespearean for coitus in four letters or burning of flags - which I do not hold as sacred. In any case, it is the Supreme Court which uses the First Amendment to prevent 300 million people from regulating ONE rich man.

I counted “elect,” “electoral,” “election” and “vote” in the Constitution once and got like 9 or 10 instances of use but FREE SPEECH appears only once and that in an amendment. To me it is asinine to say that the public cannot regulate its electoral process. If it can regulate anything then it must be able to regulate the most elemental or fundamental process to self government.

Your congressman should be smart enough not to accept the pen if he enjoys his job.

[edit on 8/24/2008 by donwhite]

IMO at the core of the problem is that constitutionalists are so welded to a system that keeps them down so effectively . If constitutionalists ever want there views to be heard beyond an internet craze and represented in office they have to accept that some degree of proportional representation is necessary. Nor would it hurt for the other side to throw a bone . Just maybe Ron Paul has point about the US not declaring war before getting involved in conflicts since WW2 .

Yes yes, lets consolidate power and give it to even less people....brilliant

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Yes yes, lets consolidate power and give it to even less people....brilliant

Could you elaborate a little more ?
I assume you are talking about Don CFR ideas but assumptions can be the mother of all dangers .

Cheers xpert11.

Originally posted by xpert11

Originally posted by cautiouslypessimistic
Yes yes, lets consolidate power and give it to even less people....brilliant

Could you elaborate a little more ?
I assume you are talking about Don CFR ideas but assumptions can be the mother of all dangers .

Cheers xpert11.

Yes, I was speaking of ideas such as merging the house and senate. There is a specific reason its a dual house, as in checks and balances. Take one of those houses away, and the power is consolidated, big time.

If anything, forget all this. Create a new branch, call it the "truth" branch, and make it their job to do nothing but monitor what is already there.

This article is phenomenal.

We really do need change. Our system is deeply currupt. I have been thinking since the internet came about that it would be great if every citizen could vote via the internet on every aspect of government from election of public officials to any kind of court rulings or congressional rulings. I think that every citizen should have full access to vote on everything that happens in the USA. If you woke up one day and you could go online and tell your government what you really want to happen and if you were in the majority you would see real change in favor of your decisions. If you integrated politics and internet polling you would have realtime accurate change to suit the needs of the people. It would make everything transparent and you could literally be active in government at every level. This would add efficiency to a currupt broken system. I see no need for the stupidity of our government. Humanity is in peril from global warming and bad decisions, theres a mass extinction happening and we don't have any time to wait around for big oil and other corperate fascist globalist types to allow us to make the changes that are desperately needed to continue to even live on this planet in any sort of good conditions. This is a dire threat to the quality of life across the planet. Who benefits from this extinction? Honestly the decrease of biodiversity on earth is tragic.

We can't even seem to get these voting machines right. Theres all sorts of cases of machines bieng tampered with. Why aren't people bieng held accountable. Tampering with the popular vote should be considered treason and punishable by death. It's gotta be done on the internet and it needs to be encrypted encrypted and encrypted some more and there should be an elected position for at least 20 elite hackers who would make 250k a year just to monitor and defend the government network 24 hours a day. Pay more people to counterhack and you can surely prevent tampering in a network.

Internet has spread enough that few would not vote due to computer illiteracy. Everyone can use the net these days. anyone can get acess at a library which is a branch of government.

This would really get more people involved and really get things done. People know you cant get anywhere with our current system, the deck is stacked against us, nobody votes. Who wants to choose the lesser of two or three or fifty evils. I would vote for Ron Paul but not for anyone else. Nobody votes, nobody feels represented. People are impatient for change. We just need to start making the right choices and heal a broken system. We can't be parasites, we have to turn this mideival train-wreck of a government into a utopian star trek type culture of enlightenment before the bible-thumpers self-fulfill their armogeddon fantasies.

No system is perfect . New Zealand has a unicameral parliament and by all accounts it works well either legislation has the numbers to pass or it doesn't. IMO having a unicameral house simplifiers things as well as having the queen as our formal head of state .

There is a relience on smaller party's to form coalitions and extract comprises. This comes from MMP which is what the NZ political system is built around .
Anybody that follows NZ politics will know that with voters drifting back towards the two major party's which could make voter reactions to the post election result . It would seem that voting habits have cycles much like the climate does .

The downside of having of having an upper and lower house is that you can end up with an unworkable situation where some poor sucker is struck in office and doesn't have the numbers to accomplish anything .

Of course if one party controls both houses you are left with the same problem of there being no checks and balances or a lame duck leader holds office. .

Myself given the choice I would always go with MMP and a unicameral parliament. A unicameral Congress may be a bit to radical for Americans to embrace . In that case I would recommend that Single transferable vote be examined by the US electorate. With STV both houses of Congress would be retained and there is a better chance of Congress representing the way the electorate voted .

Well I don't get it. How does this "fix" the Constitution? Better yet, at what point was the Constitution broken?

To me, and with all due respect, this is flawed thinking. The Constitution is not broken and never has been, if anything it has simply not been upheld or defended in it's current form. Adding more Amendments to a document that is not followed anyway is absolutely pointless.

Want to "fix" things? You can start with the Accountability of Public Officials in Office.

exactly. hold them all accountable. People need to accept personal responsibility. If you treat people poorly they will hate you. Its as simple as that. Then you can either appease them or try to kill them all quietly. lets see which way they go and history will tell. It seems to me like the police state is getting really fired up, surviellance and punishment is big business.

While I cant speak for Don I have always interpreted his views as saying that that the present US system is unworkable and what he put forward may be a solution . It is crucial to bear in mind that even if you don't agree with Don in this case his idea have a grounding in practical reality . After the last eight years this is something that people should appreciate.

reply to post by Xpert11

While I cant speak for Don I have always interpreted his views as saying that the present US system is unworkable and what he put forward may be a solution.

It is crucial to bear in mind that even if you don't agree with Don in this case his idea have a grounding in practical reality. After the last eight years this is something that people should appreciate.

Again, we see the Red state Blue state divide here. Which is to say, we are still fighting the Civil War. And now as then, racism is deeply involved in the mix. Slavery remains America’s albatross.

Our founding fathers could not bring themselves to use the word slave or slavery in the Constitution. Compromise after compromise was made with the slave holders to gain an united country. Our first legislature - the Continental Congress - was an unicameral body. To gain the slave states, we had to go to a bicameral legislature in which the RICH and FAMOUS got to appoint the Senate. It was pure and simple to be a check on the popularly elected House.

Worse, if it can get worse, the slave holders were allowed to count at 3/5ths their slaves to gain additional seats in the House. For example, Virginia which had 10 seats in the first House WITH slaves counted at 3/5ths would have had just 6 seats with only FREE men counted.

Those were the major concessions but there were others. Like the prohibition on limiting the importation of more slaves before 1808. Or the limit on taxing newly imported slaves at more than $10 when a good slave brought $500 to $1000. And etc.

It is generally conceded the infamous 1856 Dred Scott decision by the Supreme Court triggered the Civil War. In that case the Court held that NO black person could EVER be a US citizen. Well as I said, it is still a Red state versus Blue state struggle.

I assert that if Barack Obama was not BLACK he would be leading in the presidential polls by 15-20 points. Odd isn’t it? Barack is HALF WHITE but he gets no credit for that. Racism, pure and simple.

[edit on 8/29/2008 by donwhite]