This is from Fox News, yes...and it's also from last year. But it's an interesting topic. I have tried to find other sources via Google, but they've been few and far between. Here are a few (I have no idea what the ideological leanings of the Blaze is, but it came up on the Google search) but the third link, from the Washington Post concerns a so-called "balanced budget amendment" (bad idea IMHO):

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/27/north-dakota-vote-puts-the-u-s-one-step-closer-to-a-constitutional-convention/ Mach 27, 2015

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/02/rare-option-forcing-congress-to-meet-change-constitution-gains-momentum/ April 2, 2014

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-will-amend-the-constitution-to-control-federal-spending/2014/04/09/00fa7df6-bf3c-11e3-bcec-b71ee10e9bc3_story.html April 9, 2014

I've often said that the amount of information our Redscape Cousins from Across the Sea possess on the United States is quite impressive. So I am assuming that you all know the normal way an amendment to the US constitution works; and I'll assume you know about "the other way" of proposing constitutional amendments, which hasn't ever been used before. If you do not know what I am talking about, scroll down to Article V of the Constitution.

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

Kind of gives the states a way to light a fire under the Federal Ass, and bypass Congress, should the latter refuse to budge. But of course, our Founding Fathers weren't very specific on how the convention is to be elected/appointed or how it is to vote, were they? That's the only problem. Oh, and who gets to make those rules? Probably Congress, the way the text of Article V reads. That could get dicey, but hey, at least there's a way to get around the f*****s and do it ourselves, right?

So, if this national convention for proposing amendments is ever held; what amendments do you want to see proposed? (take notice of the clause forbidding the convention or Congress from proposing any amendment that would deprive any state of its equal suffrage in the Senate, by the way.)

Oh, and please, for the love of God, I beg you and implore you, let's NOT have a debate on firearms? or at least not let it dominate this thread? Please?

I'll go first, by first telling you what amendments I do not ever want to see the light of day.

1. a balanced-budget amendment.
2. anything that doesn't specifically involve the actual process and machinery of government (and you know exactly what I mean!)
3. anything abridging anything in the original Bill of Rights (meaning Amendments I through X, and XXVII--believe it or not that was part of the Bill of Rights as originally-proposed) or Article III
4. anything giving more power to the executive branch than it already has
5. getting rid of the electoral college...there may be a better specific way of doing it, but let the byword be "mend it, don't end it." (primaries are different: see my list below.)

Amendments I might want to see:

1. instead of an amendment requiring the budget to be balanced, how about one that clarifies the process of its implementation? So there's no more shut-down of government because the executive and legislative branches (or the parties within the legislature!) cannot agree on a budget.

2. an amendment forbidding any state from granting to the members of its own government (or maybe go a step further and add "former members of its own government" just for good measure) the authority to redraw electoral districts for any purpose or assembly, whether local, state or federal. This would require the 50 states (actually, 46 of them) to amend their own constitutions to create some sort of neutral, apolitical, non-partisan redistricting commission of some sort that would NOT be subject to the veto or review of the state legislature (or even local governments), governor of the state, or the courts, and be fully binding on all political boundaries until its next report following the next decennial census. (However, a proviso that its redistricting plan could be challenged by any party ("party" as in person or group of people) in state Court on the grounds that it violates the 1965 Voting Rights Act and/or the Equal Protection Clause of the XIV Amendment.) In layman's terms: no more gerrymandering of congressional, legislative or local political districts!!!!!

3. all personal rights granted by the Constitution as it reads prior to the national convention cannot ever, ever be abridged or rescinded.

4. An amendment that defines citizenship (without somehow violating the XIV Amendment).

5. Strike out Art. II, Sec. 1, P. 5 (the one that prohibits anyone but a natural-born citizen from being president). Pointless anyway, since men like Senator/Gov. LaGuardia of New York, etc., have been born in other countries; and the President was likely born in Kenya anyway, and most Americans do not seem to mind a foreign-born president as long as he's not from the party opposite.

6. make rules for presidential PRIMARIES that are more streamlined...like, hold them all on the same damned day!

That's all I can think of for now....

Oh and how can I forget (especially since Hillary Clinton rather hilariously & hypocritically suggested it herself):

CAMPAIGN FINANCE RULES. STRICT ONES.

A balanced budget amendment would be incredibly stupid. Imagine if you'd had one of those in 1940...

Precisely.

Come guys, any takers?

So far, the Amendments to the federal constitution, as we know there are 27, involve suffrage (four specifically: race/color/ex-slavery, sex, no poll taxes, age [18 from 21]), other personal rights, "holes" in the constitution that needed to be fixed; and a rather superfluous amendment prohibiting alcohol.

So what do we NEED now? Are there holes in the Constitution that have not yet been fixed?

Never had you pegged as a Birther, Jim.

Birther???

the President was likely born in Kenya anyway,

????

by the way, as a foreigner, I'm waiting to see what your fellow Americans think of in terms of potential Amendments. And also, if they think the Constitution is perfect as it is and needs no changes.

I do not care he was born in Kenya, although if it violates the Constitution, we should follow it. What good is the law when you only start to follow the parts that are convenient at any given moment? That said however, I think that that is a stupid clause to have put in. In fact, I believe that I said so above:

5. Strike out Art. II, Sec. 1, P. 5 (the one that prohibits anyone but a natural-born citizen from being president). Pointless anyway, since men like Senator/Gov. LaGuardia of New York, etc., have been born in other countries; and the President was likely born in Kenya anyway, and most Americans do not seem to mind a foreign-born president as long as he's not from the party opposite.

Re-read that bit carefully. Or else I'll start to sound like Ricky. Please do not condemn me to his fate.

Take into account your Magna Carta. Only 3 clauses operate today (for good reason I admit, but can you imagine what would happen to America if we just started to ignore this or that clause until, a century from now, the federal government pretty much had the power to do what it wanted?) Britain's Magna Carta is not the same as a written constitution, per se, is it? If you had a written constitution, I doubt successive governments would escape some opposition from the People if they started ignoring this or that clause until it was little more than a piece of paper with nothing behind it. In fact, some clauses have been ignored over the years and it's pretty alarming, don't you think? And I get called a "birther" for my efforts...

That said however, I wish they'd remove that clause, seriously. There are many notable American politicians who were foreign-born. Alexander Hamilton himself was ineligible for the Presidency because he was born in the West Indies. LaGuardia airport in New York is named after a famous American politician who was foreign born. I'm only saying, don't put something in the Constitution unless you're going to enforce it. Otherwise, repeal it. But until it is, we cannot afford to have the United States Constitution go the way of the Magna Carta.

The constitution is definitely not perfect; else it would not have 27 amendments added to it. The largest imperfection was actually seen by Americans before the thing was even ratified (lack of a bill of rights within it; several states sent in "conditional" ratifications for that reason). I mentioned a bunch of things I would like to see amended above.

So you don't believe he was born in Hawaii then ? That pretty much makes you a birther even if you don't agree with that clause in the constitution.

Sassenach wrote:So you don't believe he was born in Hawaii then ? That pretty much makes you a birther even if you don't agree with that clause in the constitution.

That was what I was picking up. Also, the legal consensus is that the offspring of a citizen is a natural-born citizen, anyway.

I did not say that. I was saying "if" and I was simultaneously expressing my regret that that clause in the constitution is actually there. So when I said "he was born in Kenya anyway" it was in a kind of mocking tone. Not mocking the president, just mocking those who really make a huge deal out of it, one way or the other. I was expressing my own regret that people's position on where they think the president was born depends on their party affiliation, it would seem. Geeze, you guys have been hanging around us Yanks too long.

Now before we continue to lower the IQ of the room by nitpicking on half of a sentence, can we discuss constitutional amendments?

You did not say "if", you said "was likely".

And tone does not come across in plain text, so I did not pick it up.


As I said, I am waiting for Americans to comment on your ideas.

Ah well, my bad, I misspoke perhaps.

At any rate, if you have ever read a book called Founding Brothers, the author mentions that there are actually and have always been critics (if not actual opponents) of the Constitution of 1787 over the years who still decry the constitutional "settlement" of 1787-9 as a "betrayal" of the Revolution. I cannot fathom why: I cannot imagine the United States as little more than an American version of the Commonwealth of Independent States. Texas might like the idea, but most Americans wouldn't. It would be bad for us (and for the world).

Yes, I am also interested in hearing what others of us want out of a constitutional convention. But I can point out a few major flaws in the American political culture that need reforming. I am not sure how specific constitutional amendments would alter this political behavior, but a few could be:

Foreign relations: keep them out of the hands of the president/SecState themselves. Why? Because any time you make an agreement with the United States short of a full-blown treaty, it has a shelf life of four to eight years, and those numbers are obviously not coincidental. There needs to be some clause--at least implied--that foreign relations cannot be the exclusive province of the executive branch anymore, since any specific executive government [not counting the civil servants] has a maximum shelf-life of eight years.

Speaker of the House: strip the speakership of its awesome power. The majority leader of the House should actually be the the actual leader of the majority; not the speaker's bitch-boy. Excuse the vulgarity. Perhaps some of the hyper-partisanship as Sass put it could be alleviated by a more "neutral" or "impartial" chair in the House, as has the Senate?

The Congressional Sausage-Machine [as one of you once put it most astutely]: "all bills must relate to one subject, expressed in the title, and all amendments therein must be germane." It's in the Confederate Constitution, as well that of many of the states, presently, including Maryland. Maryland, while its legislative machine is imperfect (don't get me started) at least doesn't produce the kind of pork-barreled bills that come out of Congress today.

The Budget: an amendment specifying the exact process of how it's done and who has the proper authority and power to make it and who MUST carry it out as is. We can't go on having endless government shut-downs.

I might have mentioned the budget above, but pretty sure I didn't get around to the foreign relations and pork-barreling.

While I too am interested to see what other Americans want out of a national convention, what do you think ought to be amended?

My only hope is that this national convention, as the clause has not been executed ever since March 4, 1789 (when the present union came into operation), does not turn out to be the meeting of the Estates General on May 5, 1789 (two months after our constitution went into operation). In other words, the first few stones falling down the mountain that begins a revolutionary avalanche.