Constitutional Amendments I'd like to see

Defense of Humans Amendment

1. A Corporation is not a person. A person is defined as one man or one woman, that is, one human being.
2. A Corporation does not have First-, Fourth-, or Fifth-Amendment rights. These rights, and other human rights defined in the Constitution and the UN Charter, are for human beings.
3. A Corporation shall not harm a human or, through inaction, allow a human to come to harm.

Defense of the Flag Amendment
No employee of the Federal Government, whether elected, appointed, or hired, may accept anything of monetary value from a lobbyist.
[Lobbyists, like any citizen, may make arguments, and attempt to persuade legislators, but they can no longer bribe them.]

Legislative Purity Amendment
Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.
[This is lifted from Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution of the CSA.]

•  Privacy

  I'd include an amendment explicitly stating a right to privacy.

  by dwhite10701 on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 07:59:41 PM PDT

  •  Or at least

    fewer violations of the privacy ammendment we already have, the fourth one.  What with the searches and seizures without warrant and whatnot.  I'm lookin' at you, USA PATRIOT Act.

    by Zodiac on Sun Aug 15, 2004 at 12:28:29 AM PDT

•  I like your suggestions soooo much...

  I just recommended this diary.

  by sjct on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 08:03:04 PM PDT

•  Very silly

  The New York Times is not going to have first amendment rights? Stop demonizing corporations, it's lazy thinking. Pinpoint what it is corporations do that you don't like, and then attack that.

  PS: I'm incorporated for the purposes of my freelance work, so I guess I'm a Corporation and therefore EVIL.

  by Wagster on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 08:10:44 PM PDT

  •  You're being silly

    The purpose of your incorporation was to distance your personal self from your business, take advantage of corporate tax laws, protect yourself from civil suits and avoid personal bankruptcy if your business should fail. All well and good and not remotely evil.

    But, your business should in no way be granted the rights you deserve as an individual. Removing the personhood of the NYT, Inc. in no way invalidates the free speech of its writers and editors.

    by sjct on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 08:18:49 PM PDT

  •  obviously

    An exception could be made for media and press corporations, though only protections for those activities they engage in specific to the press exercise.

    by freelixir on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 08:22:35 PM PDT

    •  Some animals

      are MORE equal.

      G. Orwell

      by PBJ Diddy on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 08:24:24 PM PDT

      •  not really

        There is a freedom of press, just like a freedom of religion.  If you are press, and you happen to be formed into a corporation, you shouldn't lose your press franchise.

        The issue isn't about corporations, in this case, but the press rights that trump.

        They are very compatible.  Corporations are defined as 'not legal persons', and the press maintains it's press rights which include freedom of speech.

        No conflict.

        by freelixir on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 08:46:46 PM PDT

      •  that said

        I'm not in support of the amendment in the diary about this verbatim (or maybe at all).

        I'd have to see what the options are, but I do agree with the substance of the diary amendment suggestion - which is to eliminate the 'corporation is a person' judicial fiction.

        by freelixir on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 08:48:02 PM PDT

        •  I would change the premise

          if I accepted the amendment which I'm not sure I do...'companies' don't have free speech, but the people who work for them do.  Any company that does anything can print a newsletter, and therefore every corporation that exists could qualify as a 'press', so I think the law has to be set up so that all corporations are treated equally.  

          by PBJ Diddy on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 09:28:58 PM PDT

          •  I agree

            Actually, I'm not for anything saying corporations don't have free speech, just that they are not a 'person' (thus, by extension, removing free speech protection).

            by freelixir on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 10:29:50 PM PDT

    •  The newspaper itself

      would not be protected by the first ammendment, as it's not writing anything.  The writers and editors, though, would retain their freedom of speech.  So nothing really changes, except the ability of the actual company to freely express itself.

      by Zodiac on Sun Aug 15, 2004 at 12:31:42 AM PDT

•  right to healthy environment

  Law of the Land

  
  EACH OF US AMERICANS, on average, has 190 potentially toxic organochlorine compounds in our fatty tissue and body fluids, and several hundred other chemicals that may be harmful to our health. Although the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution protects "the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects," the privacy of the body has been violated without our knowledge or permission, and with little accountability by those responsible.

  The ubiquity of pollution makes it difficult to assign responsibility. Still more difficult to determine is which of hundreds or thousands of chemicals, mixing in ways beyond our comprehension, caused exactly what pathology in our bodies. Our knowledge of such things is inescapably general. We know that some of these substances, singly or in combination, undermine health, reproductive potential, intelligence, ability to concentrate, and emotional stability -- hence the capacity to pursue and experience life, liberty, and happiness. In some cases the effects will manifest far into the future, placing perpetrators beyond the reach of the law and leaving their victims without remedy. What, then, is the meaning of the constitutional guarantees in the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments that we cannot "be deprived of life, liberty, or property," including property of the body, without "due process of law"?

  (snip)

  Given the lackluster results produced by thirty years of environmental legislation, I believe the time is ripe for bold action to head off the worst of what may lie ahead, beginning with a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to a healthy environment. If not now, when? Public awareness of the scale, scope, and duration of the ecological crisis has grown considerably since the last such attempt was made in 1970. Would such an initiative be controversial? Certainly, but less so than one might fear. Let those who oppose the people's rights to clean air, clean water, open space, and healthy ecosystems stand up and say so. Let them say publicly that our grandchildren have no right to a decent environment. When they do, they will lose. Opinion surveys over three decades consistently show a large majority in favor of environmental quality, clear air, limits to sprawl, energy efficiency, renewable energy, and controls on pollution. We do not lack for common ground, but rather the kind of leadership that is capable of articulating the values that unite us.

  The effort to establish and pass a constitutional amendment would have salutary effects. It would focus what is now a scattered debate on the essentials of our relationship to our children, and to theirs. It would end several decades of stalemate on environmental policy. It would exert a steady gravitational pull toward a reconciliation of human interests and ecological realities, just as the civil rights legislation of 1964 and 1965 pulled the nation toward a full execution of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments. The legal acknowledgement of our rights to a healthy environment, now and for those yet to live, would clarify necessary changes in policy having to do with taxes, prices, public expenditures, the proper control of corporations, and the uses of technology.

  The U.S. Constitution is not just words on paper. It is an evolving document. In Bruce Ledewitz's words, it "need not be interpreted to stand mute while the environment and the interests of the future are sacrificed." It is time for our understanding and refining of that document to be reconciled with our knowledge of natural systems and our growing awareness of obligations and rights that extend broadly throughout the community of life and outward in time as far as the mind dares to imagine.
  

  Overall, a brilliant case, and I would have laughed at such a suggestion before reading the article, thinking how outlandish and impractical that might be, but after reading this I'm convinced there is a winnable case here.

  Not this election cycle, obviously, and however.

  by freelixir on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 08:26:41 PM PDT

•  Freedom of Information

  I'd like to see the FOI Act strengthened to a full amendment, and honor as part of its function full transparency and accountability as necessary to our functioning as a government.

  Also, I agree with poster above that there should also be a Privacy amendment, to make this right explicit, especially in the face of the era of brute technological power we are entering.

  by freelixir on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 08:29:15 PM PDT

•  Never Happen Amendments

  1.  An amendment abolishing the Electoral College.  Presidents would be elected solely by the popular vote, unless no candidate received 40% of the vote.  In that case, the House of Representatives(voting by individual not by state) would choose the President from the top two vote-getters.

  2.  An amendment requiring that debate on any measure before either house of Congress should be limited by a majority vote of the members present. No more filibusters, in other words.

  3.  This would require a new constitution because the present one explicitly forbids it: every state's representation in both House and Senate should be determined solely by its population.

  The premise behind all of the above is:  people vote, not acres.  This is the 21st century, not the 18th.

  by BlindedByHatred on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 08:29:34 PM PDT

  •  Nope

    An amendment requiring that debate on any measure before either house of Congress should be limited by a majority vote of the members present. No more filibusters, in other words.

    It's standard parliamentary law, going back centuries, that anything touching something already decided (such as the decision to limit, extend, or cut off debate) must command a supermajority. It's a protection for the minority viewpoint.

    by musing85 on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 09:49:11 PM PDT

    •  The interesting thing...

      ... is that tradition is the only thing protecting the right of filibuster.  A simple majority could pass new rules for the Senate, but this is considered the "nuclear" option.  No one wants to touch it because they don't want to lose the right of filibuster themselves and in the process weaken Senate minority privileges for the rest of time.

      by Wagster on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 10:11:37 PM PDT

      •  I disagree

        The filibuster is the procedural corollary to an important (if not vital) principle in parliamentary law. The basic concern of parliamentary law is to preserve the rights of the individual member, the majority, and the minority, while at the same time promoting decorum, efficiency, and courtesy in the conduct of official business.

        Once a body has agreed upon a set of rules by which it will conduct business, it should be difficult to change them. If a proposal to do so is repugnant to as many as a third of the voting members, I'd say that was a good argument for not adopting the proposal. The filibuster (or the supermajority requirement in other contexts) can be used for obstruction and political shenanigans, but it can also be used as a major bargaining chip or a reason to force a compromise. That ensures that the minority can have a serious impact on the business of the nation (city, state, university, what have you). I think that's a system worth protecting.

        I'm not 100% sure, since the Rules of the Senate are arcane, but I don't think it's correct that a simple majority would suffice for passing new rules. Assuming that the rules are the functional equivalent of the Senate's bylaws, it would require a two-thirds vote to amend them as they now stand, or to adopt a completely new set.

        by musing85 on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 10:34:25 PM PDT

        •  Well, no...

          Not only is overturning the filibuster rule with a simple majority possible, but our Republican friends are contemplating it, at least in regard to judicial nominations.

          by Wagster on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 11:08:23 PM PDT

          •  I don't think so

            Nothing I saw in the linked piece suggested they were actually trying to do away with the filibuster rule per se. They're contemplating a couple of fiddling tweaks that are apparently within the arcane Senate rules. One of them would effectively strip the filibuster from judicial nomination proceedings by administrative fiat. That one is unlikely to go very far in my estimation, since it would affect Big Dick's ability to disappear down the rabbit hole for most of the year. He can't subvert the nation from his undisclosed location if he has to pop up in the Well of the Senate on a regular basis to make rulings from the chair.

            The other technique would actually capitalize on another standard part of parliamentary law: the twice-on-one-subject-in-one-session rule. And that is unlikely to be of much help to them. Sure, they can extend the "legislative day," and thus keep any one senator from speaking more than twice on a given subject in the course of that "day." But if the Democrats have enough votes to maintain a filibuster, that gives them 41 people who could conceivably speak on it twice apiece. And, at least assuming Aaron Sorkin and his fellow writers got it correct in the "Stackhouse Filibuster" episode of The West Wing, a filibustering senator may yield the floor for questions, which (a) prolongs the filibuster without counting as a second "speech," and (b) gives the talkers a chance to sit down and relax.

            Moreover, the mere fact that the Repugs are proposing this doesn't necessarily mean that what they're proposing is (a) possible or (b) legal. (See Guantanamo Bay.) And as the article itself notes, they don't even have a simple majority on board for the proposal:

            Currently, Republican leaders do not have enough support within their own caucus to support a rules change issued from the chair with a simple majority.

            by musing85 on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 11:26:09 PM PDT

            •  Let's consult a law professor...

              This article presents both sides of the issue. Sounds like it's hazier than either of our assumptions.

              by Wagster on Sun Aug 15, 2004 at 12:25:58 AM PDT

  •  I like

    1 and 3 alot.  I don't care for 2.

    by max powers on Sun Aug 15, 2004 at 12:50:08 AM PDT

•  My personal fav

  You cannot donate to a candidate unless you can vote. This would stop corporations from donating.

  by lncolnpk on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 08:50:12 PM PDT

  •  I'd modify that

    to only people who can vote in that election,  That stops out-of-state bribery as well.  Also applies to referenda, etc.

    by NHliberal on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 09:01:14 PM PDT

    •  So much

      for the dKos 8, or most online fund-raising, apart from the national elections.

      by musing85 on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 09:51:21 PM PDT

      •  Yep thats the piint

        and cut down on wasteful campaign spending.  Like travelling all over the place to give the same speech, hoping that a few seconds will appear on TV.  Need to combine with serious free time provided by TV stations.

        We spend way too much time + money on campaigning.

        by NHliberal on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 10:26:07 PM PDT

  •  Corporate donations

    are already prohibited. Mayeb it's different at the state level but corps can't donate to federal candidates.

    by Aexia on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 10:09:00 PM PDT

    •  Sure they can

      They just call it something else, like a party contribution.  But the candidates know who helped them.

      by NHliberal on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 10:21:24 PM PDT

•  Like your suggestions

  Would also add that we still don't have an ERA -- codified in an amendment would be much stronger than relying on the 13th and 14th Amendments.  

  by Marie on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 08:52:54 PM PDT

•  line item veto

  i would like to see the line item veto return.  i think it's the only way we will be able to have effective public sector spending that isn't overrun by pork and earmarks.

  kerry has pledged to work out a line item veto that "passes constitutional muster" whatever that means.  however even if that doesn't work, we can still write it into the constitution.  it's something that's actually worth amending the constitution for, unlike the GOP silliness about flag burning and such.

  by zeke L on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 08:55:18 PM PDT

  •  aoeu

    I think the ability of the president to veto specific funds authorized by congress vioalted congress controling the purse.  I have no idea how he'd get around this, I've heard it'd go back to the congress and can be passed again over veto with enough votes.

    by TealVeal on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 08:59:57 PM PDT

•  amendments I'd like to see

  1. A person is one human being. Rights defined in the Consitution only apply to human beings.  (i.e. regulations regarding Corporations must be legislated)

  2. A person has a reasonable right to privacy.  (i.e. government may overide this right if it can prove a compelling interest, but others, including corporations, may not).

  3. Equal rights amendment.  

  4. Copyrights and patents, etc. may not be granted for periods longer than half of an average American lifespan in total including any extensions.

  5. Presidential Veto of a complete bill requires 3/5ths to override.  I would also give President line item veto which only requires 2/5ths to override.

  6. Some form of preference voting for all federal offices (IRV or Condorcet).

  7)Amendment regarding Congressional rules changes:
  a) 2/5ths requirement to discus a bill (not 1/2 as it is now) in either house (i.e. a minority may not be silenced).
  b) Formalize 'advise and consent' process with respect to appointing Federal judges.

  by Nathan in MD on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 09:07:43 PM PDT

  •  oops...

    by #6, I include abolishing the electoral college.  Every federal office must be filled by a popular vote winner (>50% after preferences are counted).

    by Nathan in MD on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 10:03:46 PM PDT

  •  Patents != copyrights

    According to the USPTO's FAQ, new patents usually last for 20 years from the date of the grant. (Only 14 years for design patents.) That seems a reasonable protection to me, and under some circumstances patents can be renewed.

    Copyrights are another matter altogether. The original term of 26 years is probably too short for the modern world. The Bono extensions are ridiculously too long. The lifetime of the author seems a reasonable length, and make it assignable/renewable thereafter if anyone is interested. (Most people won't be, but I don't see any reason why someone shouldn't be able to keep a work in copyright status if they have the legal authority to do so and are willing to do the filing paperwork.) I would also support a mechanism by which an author could waive some or all copyright claims in any or all works under copyright, at any time.

    by musing85 on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 10:07:23 PM PDT

    •  Patents should be 10 years

      maybe less.  Just enough time to make back a neat profit and that's it.

      by Tomato Observer on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 11:39:26 PM PDT

      •  What makes you think

        10 years is enough to make a profit? Not everything that gets patented is (a) a money-maker, (b) immediately developed, or (c) immediately useful. It's conceivable that someone could patent a technique that couldn't find a practical application, given the present state of technology, for a generation or more.

        by musing85 on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 11:53:05 PM PDT

        •  aoeu

          There shouldn't be a "right to profit."  I think the original length is fine.

          by TealVeal on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 11:58:25 PM PDT

          •  We're practically there

            The original length was, IIRC, 17 years. Twenty just rounds it up to the next even number.

            by musing85 on Sun Aug 15, 2004 at 12:01:47 AM PDT

            •  Only sorta kinda 17 years

              The original length was 17 years from time of issuance, whereas now it's 20 years from the time of filing.  The difference matters because in certain circumstances you can file a patent based on the filing date of an older one.  This was sometimes abused in the old system, which patents being filed years and years after the original ones on which they were based, and each getting 17 years from whenever they issued, which meant you could get one family of patents to last for decades.

              Now, when you file the first one, it doesn't matter how many you file after that point, they will all end after 20 years.  Also, because it very often takes more than 3 years to get a patent, the typical term is actually shorter now than it used to be.

              by boy asunder on Sun Aug 15, 2004 at 07:02:52 AM PDT

    •  Nope

      The lifetime of the author seems a reasonable length, and make it assignable/renewable thereafter if anyone is interested.

      Absolutely not, on the extensions.  A fixed term -- no extensions.  A vibrant, free society depends greatly on the public domain.  Extensions kill that.

      Economic incentive is amply rewarded by 50 or 70 years.  Anything beyond that is destructive nepotism.

      by teece on Sun Aug 15, 2004 at 04:13:40 AM PDT

      •  I would say

        Make it a relatively short period of time, like 10-15 years, and then provide for short 5 year extensions after that point.  That makes for an incentive to keep receiving the protection.  Patents have this already, as you have to pay maintenance fees every few years or so to keep the patent valid even after you receive it.

        by boy asunder on Sun Aug 15, 2004 at 07:07:41 AM PDT

      •  I don't see that

        The vast majority of copyrighted works drop into the public domain at the expiration of the original grant. In anything time-sensitive (textbooks, for example), they tend to be useless by that time anyway except as historical data or a springboard for subsequent work. I know that the heirs of Brandon Thomas still hold the copyright to Charley's Aunt more than 100 years after it was written (we had to pay royalties when we performed it fall term of my senior year in college), but that's one of the few works of that kind that's still under copyright. Cui detrimento?

        Perhaps the thing to do would be to prohibit the transfer of copyrights to corporations (or for-profit corporations, so that foundations and trusts could still hold on). Or limit the right of renewal to family members and family foundations (which would obviate things like Michael Jackson buying up all of the Beatles' songs, though market forces may well take care of that little problem later on this year).

        by musing85 on Sun Aug 15, 2004 at 11:41:05 AM PDT

•  this excellent diary

  is about to drop off the screen.

  maybe you should re-post it?  it has a lot of recommendations already.  i'd hate to see it sink into oblivion over the 10th diary precipice.

  i recommend this diary.

  by x on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 09:17:50 PM PDT

•  Jar of Tip

  (as is customary)

  by CT Yankee on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 09:36:06 PM PDT

•  Avoiding a hereditary political class

  Article II.1.5 of the US Constitution states:

  No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President

  The original purpose of this clause, I am given to understand, was to prevent carpetbagging European aristocrats from going over and setting themselves up as the ruling class of the USA.  This is now considered such an anachronistic provision that there have been serious calls for an Amendment abolishing the clause, which would allow foreign-born US citizens such as Arnold Schwarzenegger to run for President.  

  It's probably true that America is no longer in danger of acquiring a foreign aristocracy any more.  But what you are more in danger of is creating your own home-grown aristos.  The tendency for Americans to talk about the children of famous politicians as Presidential candidates in their own right used to horrify me even before His Majesty George the Second; and I think it's high time you thought about an amendment to the following effect:

  No Person shall be eligible to the Office of President, who is a child, sibling, or spouse of a past President.

  by Del C on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 09:44:23 PM PDT

  •  I like it

    But add neice, nephew, ex-spouse, cousin, parent, grandchild, etc.  I'd try to write it so that no other member of a president's family can be president for 100 years.  Then it might be OK.

    by CT Yankee on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 09:55:07 PM PDT

  •  Agree

    It's high time we got rid of the natural-born requirement... it unnecessarily narrows the pool of talent available to us. This is something we might see happen too -- Arnold has got enough juice (and megalomania) to push it, and the Dems will probably figure (correctly) that Canadian-born Jennifer Granholm of Michigan has a far better chance of becoming Pres than the Gropenfuhrer.

    Your proposal is amusing; we lose Hillary, they lose Jeb. Only one U.S. President would have been nixed by this requirement... John Quincy Adams.

    by Wagster on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 09:59:30 PM PDT

    •  Aren't you forgetting someone?

      Only one U.S. President would have been nixed by this requirement... John Quincy Adams.

      Commander Codpiece would have been ineligible along with Jeb. And if CTYankee's amendment had been accepted, we'd never have gotten FDR.

      by musing85 on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 10:10:59 PM PDT

      •  Ha!

        Call it wishing to forget.

        by Wagster on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 10:12:47 PM PDT

      •  But...

        Franklin and Teddy were only distant cousins.

        by Wagster on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 10:14:02 PM PDT

      •  Benjamin Harrison, too

        hmm, and would Cleveland have been allowed to run again?

        by CT Yankee on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 10:14:32 PM PDT

        •  Would you say Cleveland's related to HIMSELF?

          I think that's kind of a stretch, and would ban second terms period in that proposal.

          by teenagedallasdeaniac on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 10:55:03 PM PDT

    •  They might also lose Arnold

      Assuming we got rid of the natural-born requirement, under the amendment we are discussing, Arnold would be Kennedy's nephew, and as such, ineligible until 2060.
      

      Re: Only one U.S. President would have been nixed by this requirement... John Quincy Adams.:  [Ahem!]  What about W?

      by CT Yankee on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 10:12:16 PM PDT

  •  No, I don't think so

    We've now had exactly two father-and-son presidencies, and one set of cousins. Six out of 43 is hardly an overwhelming proportion. I could be persuaded to suspend, temporarily, the Bills of Attainder clause with respect to the family of Bush (such that no one bearing that name, or related within three degrees to GHWB or his descendants, could ever hold an office of public trust in the United States or any of the several states), but otherwise I see no reason to bar an otherwise qualified person from running for office.

    I'm of two minds on the natural-born citizen requirement. It was absolutely a necessity when it was written into the Constitution. I'm not sure we'd be wise to get rid of it, although I can't articulate why I feel that way very well.

    by musing85 on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 10:17:05 PM PDT

    •  One Grandfather and Grandson!

      "Grandfather's hat fits Ben!"  "Li'l Tippecanoe!"  William and Ben Harrison.

      by teenagedallasdeaniac on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 10:56:20 PM PDT

      •  OK, 8 of 43

        I thought about the Harrisons after I'd posted my original comment. But I can't agree with you on banning second terms, at least if we're going to stick with four years a pop. Four years is barely enough time to figure out where the bathrooms are, much less the more complex things like foreign policy.

        by musing85 on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 11:30:20 PM PDT

    •  we have a huge country!

      Surely we can find someone besides some daddy's son.

      I think real campaign finance reform would help break up dynasties.

      by Tomato Observer on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 11:41:34 PM PDT

      •  Look at the record

        I don't think we've had that much trouble finding people other than the sons (or even the relatives) of former presidents. I presume, btw, that was what you meant when you said "some daddy's son," since if we disqualify any man who had a father, we'd either have to elect only women, or only men conceived through in vitro fertilization and raised by a single mother.

        by musing85 on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 11:55:54 PM PDT

  •  Other than...

    the fact that this is blatantly discriminatory--violating equal protection--it makes me want to puke.

    The indications are that RFK would have been a good president--and vastly better than Nixon.

    This proposal would have barred RFK, and a whole passel of Kennedys.

    I understand the point, but I think it's an abominable idea.  I won't rate the proposal as super troll, but I think it's about that bad an idea.  Awful.  Vile.  Despicable.

    If we don't want dynasties, then we are obliged to discourage them culturally, to create a public opinion that leans against the idea.  Instituting an outright ban on someone who is a natural-born citizen of the USA from running for the presidency because someone related to them was president previously is repugnant.  

    by ogre on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 11:42:03 PM PDT

    •  I'll give you RFK.

      He would have been a good president. But I remember how much people wanted him to succeed his brother. That's not quite healthy, if you want to avoid an Imperial Presidency. And that same dynastic impulse is still around -- even the most marginal connection with the Kennedys (I'm looking at you, Arnie) is still seen to be, somehow, a qualification for public office.

      The constitutional amendment is, obviously, not a serious proposal. But you do need to start, as a nation, having a bit of a discussion about how to deal with this problem.

      My own suggestion (not fully serious, either, but think about it) is to revamp your constitution to restore a hereditary monarchy. You want it, you know you do. However, you set it up as a strictly ceremonial monarchy -- that is, you arrange it so that your king or queen handles all of the ritual head of state stuff, but has absolutely no power to govern.

      This will divert all the latent American longing for royalty into a harmless channel, while turning your President into a working politician who no longer gets to wrap himself in everyone's patriotism.

      by Canadian Reader on Sun Aug 15, 2004 at 02:10:16 AM PDT

      •  Eeeeeuuuw

        <squick>

        Hereditary monarchy?  Even as a purely ceremonial device, I don't think it'd sell to the American population.

        I think that you have a point, however.  One unforeseen problem of the American system is that the ceremonial and functional chiefs are the same.

        What we need, I think, is a formal head of state who has very little functional authority, but who IS the head of state.  The Swiss have such a scheme.  This allows the people to elect a person who has the proper character and gravitas to be head of state, and allow the politicians to wrestle in the mud without embarrassing everyone quite so much.

        by ogre on Sun Aug 15, 2004 at 02:56:49 AM PDT

•  Don't like defining person...

  What will happen when we have AI intelligent enough to be self-aware (and don't kid yourself, it WILL happen soon)?  Are we going to deny them equal rights and keep them as slaves because we didn't give them rights we restrict to HUMANS?

  My dream amendment: Redistricting of Congressional districts shall be done by panels of the Judiciary once every 10 years to coincide with the Federally Mandated Census, and all districts must be contiguous and compact.

  by teenagedallasdeaniac on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 10:08:13 PM PDT

  •  Forget the first paragraph of my last post...

    I come off rather crazy.

    by teenagedallasdeaniac on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 10:09:00 PM PDT

    •  Not so much ...

      as a bit ahead of your time maybe.  And that's no bad thing.

      But, I can see there being some sort of uphill battle on the basis of being 'children of a lesser god'--ie, manmade vs. divinely 'created' and thus not 'endowed by their Creator' with the same inalienable rights as we (theoretically, at least).

      At least, if I were Falwell et al. this would probably be my argument--because otherwise, how do you appeal to a completely rational AI on the basis of religion, custom, fear, or even compassion?

      by section29 on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 11:10:06 PM PDT

      •  It's a fair concern...

        but one that's extremely hypothetical.  We aren't anywhere near seeing AIs.  Since we don't have any idea what they'd be like -- assuming that they turn out to be possible (I suspect they will) -- I think it's absurd to avoid protecting ourselves from fictional, legal entities because we might infringe the rights of artificial beings later on.

        Better to find a better definition to start from.

        Instead of:

        A person is one human being. Rights defined in the Consitution only apply to human beings.

        This:

        Whereas natural rights belong only to real persons, they shall not be claimed by right by any artificial person or being created by law, nor shall any court affirm the rights and privileges of real persons to such artificial persons save where legislative statute shall explicitly extend them.

        I believe that this would allow a court to determine that a true AI is "real" as opposed to artificial (the term artificial person being a legal term of art covering things such as corporations which pretend to be persons...).  But it would also allow legislatures to extend--and retract, or limit--the rights of real persons to artificial persons such as corporations.  

        However, the legislature would have to do so openly and explicitly, and courts would be barred from extending it by creeping analogy.
        

        by ogre on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 11:57:09 PM PDT

  •  Washington State's redistricting principles

    Let's have this nationwide.

    
    While the commission had significant autonomy in developing a plan, they followed established legal standards. The guiding principles for creating a redistricting plan included:
    

    • each district shall have a population, excluding non-resident military personnel, as nearly equal as practicable to the population of any other district;
      
    • district lines should be drawn to coincide with local political subdivisions (such as city and county lines) and communities of interest;
      
    • districts should be convenient, contiguous (share a common land border or transportation route) compact;
      
    • 49 legislative and 9 congressional districts must be drawn based on state law and federal apportionment totals;
      
    • plans should be drawn to provide fair and effective representation and encourage electoral competition;
      
    • plans shall not be drawn to purposely favor or discriminate against any political party or group.
      

    I suppose it's ironic that in 2002, the entire delegation got re-elected fairly easily(and all the incumbents this year will too) depsite all this. But there was quite a bit of churn during the 90s and the current stability has to do with the state becoming more solidly blue than any kind of gerrymandering.

    by Aexia on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 10:19:34 PM PDT

    •  Not sure what part of the state you are in

      but down here in SW WA, in the 17th, 18th, & 49th districts, we're looking to 'shake things up' a bit come election day.

      We have:
      
      Craig Pridemore - 49th for WA State Senate
      Brian Beecher - 18th for WA State House
      Dave Seabrook -18th for State Senate
      Paul Waadevig - 17th for State Senate
      Irene Farrell - 17th for State House
      Pam Brokaw - 17th for State House (she has no web presence that I can find.)

      by Angie in WA State on Sun Aug 15, 2004 at 12:25:10 AM PDT

      •  Congressional delegation

        I know there's a fair amount of volatility at the state level. But with the federal seats, none of the incumbents is in danger. . . though some of that has to do with GOP recruiting failures.

        The GOP's making a huge mistake letting Larsen go more or less uncontested. 2 years of being unchallenged can really solidify support. The Democrats made the same mistake with Hastings in the 4th. Locke came within 6 points of taking him out in 1996, but in 1998, the Democrats didn't field a credible challenger and Hastings won by almost 45 points. By the time they got a great candidate in 2000(Davis), Hastings was entrenched and we couldn't get closer than 23 points.

        Larsen only won by 5% in 2002 and the district could easily swing back to the GOP. Instead, he's getting a free pass and will be locked in for years to come.

        by Aexia on Sun Aug 15, 2004 at 04:13:36 PM PDT

•  Decreasing value

  I really like your first suggestion. In fact the removal of corporate "personhood" is essential to any real democracy taking root in this nation. I kinda like the second one, but need to think about it. The third one could actually be harmful to the smooth and efficient operation of congress.

  by pHunbalanced on Sat Aug 14, 2004 at 11:41:52 PM PDT

•  I'd reverse it

  The Incorporation Amendment:

  Corporations are explicitly recognized as individuals, and as such:

  -No foreign corporation may involve itself in American elections in any way, save through advocacy.  

  -No domestic corporation may sell its shares directly in foreign markets, but must use ADRs

  -Mergers are not recognized.  COrporations must dissolve first and then merge the remnants under a new identity, after government approval.

  -Individual bankruptcy law now applies to corporations.

  -Bankrupt corporations may not merge or dissolve.

  -Domestic corporations must have at least 50% of their assets, workers, and buildings in the United States or its territories.

  -If more than 25% of assets are in US territories, citizenship is revoked from the corporation.

  -Citizen corporations receive ONE vote in elections.  Public corporations split it up by shares.  Private corporations split it up by the board.  Primary residence of headquarters determines where vote is cast.

  -Corporations are limited to the same donation restrictions as individuals.  Stockholders in public corporations have their donations limits reduced proportional to their fractional holdings and the donations of the corporations they hold.  Directors of private corporations may donate as individuals or as the corporation, but not both.

  -Etc. etc.

  by Ptolemy on Sun Aug 15, 2004 at 12:13:56 AM PDT

•  Amendments

  1. Abolish Electoral college, establish popular vote as the way to get the Presidency.

  2. Change the Presidency term limit to 3.

  by daimon on Sun Aug 15, 2004 at 12:34:16 AM PDT

•  I have little legal knowledge

  and I've always been a bit confused about the criminal accountability of people within corporations for illegal activities.  If there really was a "Parallax" type corporation and they were hiring people for murder, the executives of this compnany if caught would go to jail for murder.  So why when Enron executives are caught engineering an energy crisis that led to blackouts causing the death of a few "grandma Millies" is no one being tried for at least manslaughter.

  by max powers on Sun Aug 15, 2004 at 12:43:55 AM PDT

•  "Born Again" Amendment

  I'd like a constitutional amendment that states that if you make the claim that you have been "born again", then you will be unable to run for President until an additional 35 years have passed, and you will be unable to run for Senate until 30 years has passed.

  I guess I'm tired of folks who try to put their reprehensible past beyond the realm of scrutiny by claiming that, having found religion, they are now entirely changed people... and shouldn't be held accountable for "youthful indiscretions" committed well into adulthood.
  

  by Malacandra on Sun Aug 15, 2004 at 02:48:49 AM PDT

•  Constitutional restraints on Corporations

  IIRC, stronger restraints on corporations were almost included in the Constitution, but were left out because the dangers were so obvious that Congress and the people would never let things get outta hand.  Oops, I guess.

  I think I got this from Thom Hartmann's We the People: A Call to Take Back America, which I've loaned out and recommend...
  

  by eflat on Sun Aug 15, 2004 at 03:41:29 AM PDT