Funnily, this is actually optimally gerrymandered. if each section has an equal selection of the states makeup, then in a 55-45 Republican advantage state becomes a 55-45 republican advantage in each district.
United States US Constitutional Amendment Proposals and Discussion Thread
- Thread starter bullethead
- Start date
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
Honest question, what is actually the point of having single-district geographical areas where the area in question is calculated to not represent any coherent interest? Seems like the worst of both worlds to me.
I personally prefer single-representative districts over, say, multi-member proportional representative districts, but it seems to me to defeat the point if the single-representative districts are randomized patchworks.
Already solved, since the districts are redrawn decennially already. If someone messes with county lines, it doesn't affect the district boundaries until the next redistricting.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
Hey, back on the OP topic: eliminate no-knock warrants. Are there circumstances where they might be reasonable? Yes. Have the judges and cops ruined it for everybody? Also yes. As a wise man once said, this is why we can't have nice things. If "no quartering of troops" merits a constitutional mention, I reckon this does.
At this point, the country lines and gerrymandering will just be done together.
Honestly, the best option without a constitutional amendment is for two states, one from each party with the same-ish number of districts, to create a district map for both states that has to meet joint approval. It still fucks third parties, and likely people in-state, but at least the fuckery balances out.
A balanced budget amendment sounds nice, until you realize it means jacked taxes, not cut spending. Instead, limit spending to a percentage of last years GDP (though this will lead to fucked calculations of GDP).
The key ones for me are enshrining 9 justices so the supreme court is less fuckwithable, and enshrining the fillibuster so that congress can't do shit.
I'm actually for that, with the caveat that filibusters should absolutely require the Congressperson to actually stand there and speak without any break. The Senate's "courtesy" filibusters where you just declare that you're filibustering without having to so much as lift an actual finger are BS.
strunkenwhite
Well-known member
I'm not convinced of this. Unless gerrymandering gets a lot more subtle than it has been to date, the necessary fuckery would be extremely noticeable from ground level where people do their daily lives. I think there would be popular revolt. This assumes that state governments don't create a clone of the "county" level and use the clone for administrative purposes, leaving the original counties as nothing but meaningless shells acting as empty vessels for gerrymandering. But that seems like the sort of thing that courts would object to.
I love the courtesy fillibusters. I'm generally for anything that stalls the government from doing stuff.
I expect that they can find a clever way to get around it. It also wouldn't matter at all in Massachusetts (and I suspect other NE towns, as up there we barely paid attention to county, what matters is town.
So, do proportional representation to solve this problem?
King Krávoka
This universe is made of knives.
Alright, I figured out the solution to all Our political problems.
The military of the United States must give no defense to any country which does not apply the rights protected by the United States Constitution to their own citizens. Nor may it station bases on countries found to violate these rights, except in alliance with partisans sworn to advance the conformity of their governments to these protected rights.
The US right now is the tax base for the military wing of globohomo, being used to defend countries that do not represent the values of its founders or people. As in, We are being taxed, without representation, to give military protection to the Fifth Reich, and worse, the British Commonwealth. This is as much of a disrespect to the American People and Their history as it is an injury to the Human rights of all Others.
Under this amendment, countries will be forced to either conform to the divinely inspired Liberal philosophy, or be left to the depredations of the more well-equipped of their moral equals. They which would oppose this amendment will be admitting that America's "protection of the free world" is a self-serving ruse employed by Europeons to waste the lives of God's Chosen People on the protection of both the old and new misosophies, furthermore they who protest the necessary reforms to appreciate Our protection as "imperialistic" will admit that They do not agree with the inherent basis of Liberalism, by contradicting the fact that all people are entitled, regardless of nationality or culture, to self-protection against tyranny.
The many but hopefully few nations who'd need God's Chosen People to retract protection of their despotisms ("constitutional" monarchies in particular were never first world countries), would mean that American taxes and lives would be redirected into objectively good causes such as a real health care system, spreading the stink of Humanity to other rocks, and converting atmospheric carbon back into Human carbon.
The military of the United States must give no defense to any country which does not apply the rights protected by the United States Constitution to their own citizens. Nor may it station bases on countries found to violate these rights, except in alliance with partisans sworn to advance the conformity of their governments to these protected rights.
The US right now is the tax base for the military wing of globohomo, being used to defend countries that do not represent the values of its founders or people. As in, We are being taxed, without representation, to give military protection to the Fifth Reich, and worse, the British Commonwealth. This is as much of a disrespect to the American People and Their history as it is an injury to the Human rights of all Others.
Under this amendment, countries will be forced to either conform to the divinely inspired Liberal philosophy, or be left to the depredations of the more well-equipped of their moral equals. They which would oppose this amendment will be admitting that America's "protection of the free world" is a self-serving ruse employed by Europeons to waste the lives of God's Chosen People on the protection of both the old and new misosophies, furthermore they who protest the necessary reforms to appreciate Our protection as "imperialistic" will admit that They do not agree with the inherent basis of Liberalism, by contradicting the fact that all people are entitled, regardless of nationality or culture, to self-protection against tyranny.
The many but hopefully few nations who'd need God's Chosen People to retract protection of their despotisms ("constitutional" monarchies in particular were never first world countries), would mean that American taxes and lives would be redirected into objectively good causes such as a real health care system, spreading the stink of Humanity to other rocks, and converting atmospheric carbon back into Human carbon.
Well, a long over due reply to someone not here anymore, but yes, it would, but it'd be unconstitutional in the US.
Probably just say "the bill of rights" so it's easy to count. In fairness, I don't care if a dictatorship gives people the rights, as long as it happens. The big issue is that it doesn't work if America isn't a hegemon. And with this policy, we may not be for long, at which point a self defense pact might be useful.
I'd cut it down to just 1A and 2A.
The real cure? Ban the creation of a national bank and repeal the income tax.
Morphic Tide
Well-known member
There's a lot of good arguments that the lender of last resort should be a government-backed institution, the problems stem from the weird semi-private nature of it removing it from a lot of checks on the government (the shit that could be done to it with FOIA requests...) and Congress continually chucking financial policy instruments at it instead of ever getting around to a real executive agency.
Good idea,Poland need it,too.But,politicians in both USA and Poland would schoot it down.
Buba
A total creep
IMO every country needs it
One of the few good points about the Polish Constitution is the cap on Public Debt. Of course, politicans (German Triple Agent Tusk and Secret Russian Vatnik Kaczyński same) have muddled the waters as to what is counted and what is not, so we have been above the limit for about 15 years now. But not outrageously ... yet.
willdelve4beer
Well-known member
The key amendments I would support would be revocations of earlier amendments which strike me as having proven themselves to be bad ideas.
1. I would return selection of US Senators to the state legislatures. (the purpose of the senate is to represent the interests of the states as sovreign entities)
2. I would revoke the ability to levy individual income taxes, or failing that, force any such taxes to be a flat levy, applied at a fixed rate or amount, across all US residents, whether natural or legal persons, with the sole exclusion of the state level governments. (the entire absurd growth of the national government is a result of the explosion of taxing power this allowed. time to return to the original funding model)
Beyond those two,
I would support amendments that:
1. Restores the line item veto to the president.
2. Allows any state to divide itself into smaller states, so long as the division was supported by a state level ballot initiative in in that state's statewide elections. (Why should Texas be the only state with the Reverse-Voltron option?)
3. Removes the maximum number of representatives from the house of representatives and returned it to 1 representative per 50K citizens (Pack em in like sardines, if they're going to behave like greedy shitweasels, treat them like greedy shitweasels).
4. (I'm offended this has become necessary, but here we are) Forbids the federal, state, or local governments from joining any treaty which purports to limit or revoke the rights of US citizens as guaranteed elsewhere in the Constitution, and renders any prior treaty or agreement to such affect invalid, null and void, from the original initiation. (no using foreigners to end-run around the Constitution)
5. Forbids Congress from exempting itself from any law or regulation passed or promulgated by the Federal government, with all earlier laws/regulations applying in full to Congresscritters, and any exemptions or grandfather clauses to contrary effect being nullified. (equality under the law, thank you)
6. Requires that annual funding for any federal activity, agency, contract, or entity to approved by Congress as a law through the formal budget process. Automatically zeroing out any funding or expenditure not so approved. (make the congresscritters do their jobs).
7. States that all laws come with a 10 year expiration, and that all regulations come with a 5 year expiration. If Congress does not proactively pass a new law or regulation to replace the expiring one, it is gone. All laws & regulations currently on the books have their expiration dates set based on the last digit of their page # in the current federal register. Any law or regulation not in the federal register is rendered null and void with immediate effect. (Worthwhile laws will have no issues being renewed. If the law loses that much support that quickly, it was a mistake, and the sooner that is corrected, the better).
8. No law (including budgets or any other expenditure authorization) may be voted on by Congress until the entire text of the law is distributed in hard copy to every Representative & Senator, and until the entire text of the law is then read out during working sessions to a quorum of each house of Congress. (no passing the law unless you know what it actually says).
The rest of the changes that I advocate for at the Federal level are policy choices, and not appropriate for constitutional amendments.
1. I would return selection of US Senators to the state legislatures. (the purpose of the senate is to represent the interests of the states as sovreign entities)
2. I would revoke the ability to levy individual income taxes, or failing that, force any such taxes to be a flat levy, applied at a fixed rate or amount, across all US residents, whether natural or legal persons, with the sole exclusion of the state level governments. (the entire absurd growth of the national government is a result of the explosion of taxing power this allowed. time to return to the original funding model)
Beyond those two,
I would support amendments that:
1. Restores the line item veto to the president.
2. Allows any state to divide itself into smaller states, so long as the division was supported by a state level ballot initiative in in that state's statewide elections. (Why should Texas be the only state with the Reverse-Voltron option?)
3. Removes the maximum number of representatives from the house of representatives and returned it to 1 representative per 50K citizens (Pack em in like sardines, if they're going to behave like greedy shitweasels, treat them like greedy shitweasels).
4. (I'm offended this has become necessary, but here we are) Forbids the federal, state, or local governments from joining any treaty which purports to limit or revoke the rights of US citizens as guaranteed elsewhere in the Constitution, and renders any prior treaty or agreement to such affect invalid, null and void, from the original initiation. (no using foreigners to end-run around the Constitution)
5. Forbids Congress from exempting itself from any law or regulation passed or promulgated by the Federal government, with all earlier laws/regulations applying in full to Congresscritters, and any exemptions or grandfather clauses to contrary effect being nullified. (equality under the law, thank you)
6. Requires that annual funding for any federal activity, agency, contract, or entity to approved by Congress as a law through the formal budget process. Automatically zeroing out any funding or expenditure not so approved. (make the congresscritters do their jobs).
7. States that all laws come with a 10 year expiration, and that all regulations come with a 5 year expiration. If Congress does not proactively pass a new law or regulation to replace the expiring one, it is gone. All laws & regulations currently on the books have their expiration dates set based on the last digit of their page # in the current federal register. Any law or regulation not in the federal register is rendered null and void with immediate effect. (Worthwhile laws will have no issues being renewed. If the law loses that much support that quickly, it was a mistake, and the sooner that is corrected, the better).
8. No law (including budgets or any other expenditure authorization) may be voted on by Congress until the entire text of the law is distributed in hard copy to every Representative & Senator, and until the entire text of the law is then read out during working sessions to a quorum of each house of Congress. (no passing the law unless you know what it actually says).
The rest of the changes that I advocate for at the Federal level are policy choices, and not appropriate for constitutional amendments.
Optymist.Kaczyński is secret idiot,if he was agent we at least could buy him.IMO every country needs it
One of the few good points about the Polish Constitution is the cap on Public Debt. Of course, politicans (German Triple Agent Tusk and Secret Russian Vatnik Kaczyński same) have muddled the waters as to what is counted and what is not, so we have been above the limit for about 15 years now. But not outrageously ... yet.
Interesting thread for everyone to discuss.
Someone has proposed a Constitutional amendment to make secret lame duck pardons a thing of the past:
What do you guys think? I think it's fairly reasonable, but does allow the media to weaponize the shit out of pardons for people who're anti-establishment.
Article: So the better solution is to ban, not lame-duck periods, but lame-duck pardons. Here's draft language that might do the trick:
Three important things about this draft. First, it bans secret pardons: the voters can't judge pardons that they don't know about. Second, it creates a "blackout period" in which the President can't issue pardons or commutations, starting one month before election day and lasting until the start of the next term. Whether the President is on the ballot or not, voters would have time to decide what they think of a pardon and whether to withhold their votes for the President's party. And third, it creates an exception for temporary reprieves, letting the current President postpone punishments (especially capital ones) and letting the newly elected President, or the same one if reelected, decide whether to make those reprieves permanent.
Mike Rappaport, who's discussed this issue before, notes that right now might be the right time for members of Congress to act. The issue is in the news now. President Biden isn't on the ballot anymore, and neither is Vice President Harris, so Democrats could endorse the amendment without facing any electoral penalty. And because the focus right now is on Biden, Republicans could endorse it as a criticism of the incumbent rather than of their own president-to-be.
What do you guys think? I think it's fairly reasonable, but does allow the media to weaponize the shit out of pardons for people who're anti-establishment.
willdelve4beer
Well-known member
It is a given that the establishment(media) will push back (weaponize) against anyone or anything that is anti-establishment. If they don't have an amendment to wave around, they will just find something else.