law-old

Note: As part of a hypothetical platform for a Presidential campaign, this page serves as one of the two main campaign platform webpages, with ideas and examples for constitutional amendments. For the other pages, see www.johnfial.com/campaign/ .

Introduction

We have not made a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution since 1971.

My belief is that over 90% of Americans would be willing to seriously consider most of these ideas. Per Article V, it only takes 2/3 (66%) of both houses of Congress to begin the amendment process. While some are controversial and would stimulate passionate, involved debates, the below ideas are good starting points for constitutional amendments.

Amendments are often divided into two types.

1. The procedural amendments deal with the functions and rules of government, like the setting of term limits or who can vote. They tend to be less controversial, and are placed first for that reason.

2. The political (or ethical/moral amendments) rule on what we believe to be right and wrong, permitted or prohibited in our society. These are usually far more controversial, like abortion, euthanasia, surveillance, or gun rights.

  • Procedural Amendments:

    Procedural / Legal Amendments

    Congressional Term Limits

    This is the most obvious amendment: term limits for Congress, especially Senators. That most of us would support this is as undeniable as that most politicians would reject limiting their career potential. The only debate is the number of terms/years we’d agree on limiting terms to:

    No member of Congress may serve more than four total terms, or three subsequent terms in either chamber. Additionally, no current members of Congress are eligible for the Presidency, and former members of Congress must wait four years to be eligible.

    The latter restriction forces serving members of Congress to focus on their service, rather than neglecting their existing duties and cannibalizing their fame to fight each other for the Presidency. This transitions us towards the next amendment idea.

    No Presidential Families

    Our “founding fathers” would be disappointed in career politicians and aghast at presidential families. If term limits would prevent career politicians, a constitutional amendment could easily solve the latter problem. Here is an example:

    Only one person per family shall ever serve as President. "Family" includes parents, spouses, siblings, children, and other members as defined by the Congress and the Courts.

    We should also consider:

    • Adding a maximum Presidential age (perhaps 65, 70, or 75 years old),
    • Excluding sitting Senators from campaigning for the Presidency (resignation or a “waiting period” required), which would prevent the Senate being used as a career “stepping stone” for the Presidency,
    • Adding the Presidential ‘Partner’ to the line of succession (somewhere), such that we take more seriously the familial/personal relationship of Presidnetial candidates, and
    • Removing the U.S. birth requirement (but changing the U.S. residency requirement to 2+ decades).

    Female Presidents

    I think most of us would agree that we should have some female Presidents. When? How? How many? Should we force it? What if we’re deciding between two absolutely equal candidates (never happens in practice), should we prioritize the female candidate because the position hasn’t had enough female representation?

    One option is to simply mandate that the next number of Presidents be female. Then only females can campaign, and we don’t waste our time with males in the running. If we’re open to this route, the only decision is how many terms to limit to females: between one and forty-six. Biden is the 46th male President, so that’s the extreme.

    What if we were incredibly conservative, and mandated only the next four Presidents (or four terms) were women? That guarantees 16 years of female Presidents, between 2 and 4 different women. Seems like a fair start before men are allowed to campaign again.

    The subsequent three Presidential elections shall be limited to females; they are recommended to have their Vice PResidential choices to also be women.

    8 Supreme Court Justices

    The Supreme Court was never designed or intended to “break” ties or have the power it does today. I have the greatest respect for this branch of the federal government, because it is the best of the three led and influenced by facts, science, and truth. As such, and as the other two branches have weakened, the Supreme Court has “picked up the slack,” and has become the branch that actually gets things done. But a constitutional amendment could shift power back towards where it belongs — in the hands of the people, through the legislative branch:

    The Supreme Court shall, upon the next justice's death or resignation, be reduced to 8 members and shall remain an even number of justices. In the event of a tie decision, the Court may recommend new legislation to Congress. Congress shall have a maximum period of one year to formally pass further legislation on the issue, after which the President may take executive action to break the Supreme Court's tie decision until Congress' legislative clarification.

    Sunset Provisions Required

    A “Sunset” provision means, legally, that a law will cease to be effective after a certain date (unless renewed). Like a constitutional amendment requiring some measure of brevity of new amendments, acts, and lower laws, a sunset amendment would require all future Acts of congress to ‘sunset’ after some amount of time, whether a year or a century.

    While a sunset provision would create more work for future Congresses to renew desired laws, it also forces them to  update older laws to modern times, while eliminating the work required to remove out-of-date laws still needlessly “on the books.” Such a mandatory amendment is a debateable idea, but what we gain is worth the extra legal and mental work.

    Number of States in the Union

    Congress is not a decisive body of lawmakers. It is a slow moving gaggle without direction or a system of prioritization, and it has lost a sense of compromise for the common good. Worse, Congress is too many people. Our federal vs. state governments should allow for individual state experimentation with law and policy, whereby the best ideas are the most effective, adopted by other states, and eventually, the federal government. Yet with such an excess (fifty) of states, this rarely happens. North American states should likely combine to between 10-20 states, and the extra number is a good “buffer” in case other nation-states on Earth wish to petition the United States to join the Union. This latter scenario is likely to happen later this century, especially if we can restore our economic and leadership supremacy.

    We should begin combining state governments into larger, more powerful states if we are to survive the century as a United group of States, and simultaneously rely on and embolden local government more than these new, larger states.

    The number of States in the Union shall not exceed twenty-five, nor senators fifty.

    If we are to survive the century, we may eventually also either add a third house of Congress, or (the better idea, in my opinion) convert the House of Representatives to a system of full digital representation of citizens, rather than personal representation. For example, each million people might digitally “vote” on propositions and laws, using web- or mobile-based systems, and simple majority votes would form a single yes/no vote for that “House representative.” Human Senators would remain, and as fewer senators would represent fewer states, would have the individual power they now lack.

    Political / Moral / Ethical Amendments

    Abortion

    How long has abortion has been a debate, a divisive issue? The debate picked up in the 1800s, but it goes back to ancient times. When does a human egg, fetus, or baby become a human? And when it does, does it — or should it — have the same rights as, say, a 5-year old? This is a deep philosophical issue; one that is certainly not limited to females.

    Most of us are not going to be satisfied with a formal law — or worse, a constitutional amendment! — on an issue that has divided humanity for milennia. As such, it is of the utmost importance that at the minimum we discuss abortion. We have two options for our laws: ignore abortion, leaving the issue to the States, or codify this into an amendment representing compromise. All sides, especially the extremes, will be partially disappointed, but this seems a reasonable proposal:

    No state shall make a law prohibiting abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy, or permitting abortion in the third trimester unless deemed medically necessary in an urgent emergency. State laws may prohibit, permit, or ignore second trimester abortions.

    At least with this compromise, the whole “you’re wrong, we’re right” fighting among the beliefs/constituents of different States is limited to only the second trimester, which is more controversial anyway.

    Memorial Services* for the Deceased

    Sometimes there are terrible, surprise, tragic deaths: deaths far too difficult for families to hold ceremonies within weeks — or even months. Still, for the deceased or for the living, these services are a necessary part of our cultures, our religions, our psyche, and our humanity.

    Unfortunately, as our society becomes increasingly resistant to uncomfortable emotions, some are ignoring these services. But for family and friends, at least, they must be held.

    Memorial Services* must be held within 1-year of the death of any person 1-year or older. States shall have the power to legislate details. (*Alternative names: funeral, celebration of life, commoration service, remembrance, wake, tribute, and other synonyms.)

    Right to Weaponry (revision to the 2nd Amendment)

    DRAFT 2022: The 2nd Amendment is hereby revoked. Congress shall have the power to allow and prohibit specific weapons; set reasonable limits regarding age, mental health, numbers of weapons; and to ignore or require involvement in state militias. Because intrastate travel with firearms is so trivial, the rights of states on this matter are hereby limited; however, additional permissions and exclusions for active and engaged hunters and state militia may be defined by state legislatures.

    Marriage — Harder to Enter, Harder to Exit

    Most of us have heard this said before: “marriage should be harder to get into, and harder to get out of.” But how to word that into an amendment?

    This one is a very rough brainstormed idea:

    Entering marriage, fiancees must take 1-year of weekly marriage counseling by professional councelor. States may define "professional" to include volunteers or religious leaders or others.

    To exit marriage in cases of violence, abuse, threats thereof, or other differences, either person may immediately initiate a minimum 1-year "trial separation" period. This 1-year trial separation period should be initiated by contacting with the appropriate state authorities (ideally law enforcement). This 1-year period should include regular counseling, varying by situation and state; moreover, both spouses and appropriate government agencies should closely track communication, finances, and parenting time, if applicable. Records should be kept of attendance to weddings, and these attendees notified if the couple initiates a 1-year trial period.

    Citizens may only marry once; after a divorce, no subsequent marriages are allowed, unless it is a remarriage to the original person(s*).

    *On a related note: polygamy is more prominent than managamy both geographicaly (worldwide vs. the U.S.) and temporally (throughout human history). Thus, polygamy is something reasonable Americans are really going to have to debate and come to grips with as a society!

    Shirtless Health Advice

    Note: This is a joke.
    I’ve heard about the “shirtless doctor” joke several times over the past few years. “If you’re giving me advice about what’s wrong with my body, shouldn’t you look at least okay naked or without a shirt?” Obviously individual doctors could simply post a shirt-less or scantily-clad exercise photo and require that patients ignore the request during annual checkups. But most doctors probably won’t take a photo of themselves with their shirts off… because they aren’t very healthy!
     
    The few doctors who are healthy? Their patients already know it!
     
    Here’s an example:
    Anyone may provide health or nutritional advice, free or paid. However, advisers and health care practitioners should have excellent health, as evidenced by their physical bodies. As such, upon the request of the patient, all such practitioners are required to remove their outer garments (lab coat or similar and shirt) but not undergarments, in front of patients.

    Better than hundreds or thousands of pages, right?

    Voting Age -or- ‘Civil Rights Package’ at Age 14-18

    Idea A)

    The voting age should be lowered.

    The voting age shall hereby be lowered to sixteen (16) years.

    Personally, I believe most teenagers will remain ambivalent and not vote, as is their right. Still, those educated, passionate teenagers who now deserve the right to vote cannot now do so. Most of the country might criticize this idea, pointing to the immaturity of youth, which seems valid at first consideration. But we are likely even more immature much further into our twenties than ever before, yet we retain the right to vote once we pass the eighteen-year age threshold. At least with a lowered voting age . If we were allowed to vote at 14+, I suspect there might be a lot of “noise” on “social” media and internet-based polls which would never materialize, because teens failed to actually take advantage of their new ability to vote.

    Idea B)

    The better idea, in my opinion, is to make a civil rights “package” when a teenager is mature enough to earn the rights, which cannot ever after be repealed. Such rights would include:

    • Right to vote in all elections
    • Right to consume and purchase alcohol and other legal drugs, as valid under existing laws for adults 21+
    • Right to sexual freedom
    • Right to full adulthood, work, and manage one’s financial and legal identity

    The difficult debate would center on how to decide when to give this rights “package” to the teen. By law it would be granted to all teenagers at 18 years old as a last resort. But the purpose of the law would be to allow parents or other caretakers who personally know each teenager to grant the above rights to the teen when legitimately earned. In hindsight, most of us would likely say that we gained the “maturity” for this-or-that aspect of adulthood at various ages, probably extending well into our 20s or even 30s. But forcing teens, parents, and caretakers to engage on these issues — When am I an adult? When am I responsible enough to do this or that? — would prove a massive national benefit. It would surely challenge us, but those challenges would result in significant cultural growth.

    Update Log

    [2023 June: Added female presidents idea — I mistakenly thought I’d already added this many months ago when I first thought of it. Edited abortion description (but not amendment idea).]
    [2022-12-23 Added idea “Marriage — Harder to Enter, Harder to Exit“]
    [2022-Dec: Added idea “Memorial Services* for the Deceased“]
    [2022 XX: 2nd Amendment revision idea]
    [Jul 2019: Minor edits, added sunset idea,  (to-do: add legal length limit, marriage, digital house of representatives, digital voting, balanced budget, gerrymandering, Corporate Personhood).]
    [Jan 2019: Minor revisions; added voting age idea.]
    [13 October 2018: Added congressional term limits.]
    [21 July: Added # states in the union, second part of abortion.]
    [July: 7th: Added abortion draft 1, supreme court draft 1.]
    [16 June: Added shirtless doctor law idea.]
    [4 Apr: Named section 1, edited.]
    [20 March 2017: Created.]
     
     

     

    • Procedural Amendments:
      • Congressional Term Limits
      • Presidential Restrictions:
        • Age Maximum
        • No Presidential Families
        • Senators excluded from Presidency (must resign and/or waiting period)
        • Remove Birth Requirement (increase required years of citizenship to 2-3 decades)

        Note: As part of a hypothetical platform for the Presidency, this page serves as one of the two main campaign platform webpages, with ideas and examples for constitutional amendments. For the other pages, see www.johnfial.com/campaign/ .

        Introduction

        We have not made a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution since 1971.

        My belief is that over 90% of Americans would be willing to seriously consider most of these ideas. Per Article V, it only takes 2/3 (66%) of both houses of Congress to begin the amendment process. While some are controversial and would stimulate passionate, involved debates, the below ideas are good starting points for constitutional amendments.

        Amendments are often divided into two types.

        1. The procedural amendments deal with the functions and rules of government, like the setting of term limits or who can vote. They tend to be less controversial, and are placed first for that reason.

        2. The political (or ethical/moral amendments) rule on what we believe to be right and wrong, permitted or prohibited in our society. These are usually far more controversial, like abortion, euthanasia, surveillance, or gun rights.

        • Procedural Amendments:

          Procedural / Legal Amendments

          Congressional Term Limits

          This is the most obvious amendment: term limits for Congress, especially Senators. That most of us would support this is as undeniable as that most politicians would reject limiting their career potential. The only debate is the number of terms/years we’d agree on limiting terms to:

          No member of Congress may serve more than four total terms, or three subsequent terms in either chamber. Additionally, no current members of Congress are eligible for the Presidency, and former members of Congress must wait four years to be eligible.

          The latter restriction forces serving members of Congress to focus on their service, rather than neglecting their existing duties and cannibalizing their fame to fight each other for the Presidency. This transitions us towards the next amendment idea.

          No Presidential Families

          Our “founding fathers” would be disappointed in career politicians and aghast at presidential families. If term limits would prevent career politicians, a constitutional amendment could easily solve the latter problem. Here is an example:

          Only one person per family shall ever serve as President. "Family" includes parents, spouses, siblings, children, and other members as defined by the Congress and the Courts.

          We should also consider:

          • Adding a maximum Presidential age (perhaps 65, 70, or 75 years old),
          • Excluding sitting Senators from campaigning for the Presidency (resignation or a “waiting period” required), which would prevent the Senate being used as a career “stepping stone” for the Presidency,
          • Adding the Presidential ‘Partner’ to the line of succession (somewhere), such that we take more seriously the familial/personal relationship of Presidnetial candidates, and
          • Removing the U.S. birth requirement (but changing the U.S. residency requirement to 2+ decades).

          Female Presidents

          I think most of us would agree that we should have some female Presidents. When? How? How many? Should we force it? What if we’re deciding between two absolutely equal candidates (never happens in practice), should we prioritize the female candidate because the position hasn’t had enough female representation?

          One option is to simply mandate that the next number of Presidents be female. Then only females can campaign, and we don’t waste our time with males in the running. If we’re open to this route, the only decision is how many terms to limit to females: between one and forty-six. Biden is the 46th male President, so that’s the extreme.

          What if we were incredibly conservative, and mandated only the next four Presidents (or four terms) were women? That guarantees 16 years of female Presidents, between 2 and 4 different women. Seems like a fair start before men are allowed to campaign again.

          The subsequent three Presidential elections shall be limited to females; they are recommended to have their Vice PResidential choices to also be women.

          8 Supreme Court Justices

          The Supreme Court was never designed or intended to “break” ties or have the power it does today. I have the greatest respect for this branch of the federal government, because it is the best of the three led and influenced by facts, science, and truth. As such, and as the other two branches have weakened, the Supreme Court has “picked up the slack,” and has become the branch that actually gets things done. But a constitutional amendment could shift power back towards where it belongs — in the hands of the people, through the legislative branch:

          The Supreme Court shall, upon the next justice's death or resignation, be reduced to 8 members and shall remain an even number of justices. In the event of a tie decision, the Court may recommend new legislation to Congress. Congress shall have a maximum period of one year to formally pass further legislation on the issue, after which the President may take executive action to break the Supreme Court's tie decision until Congress' legislative clarification.

          Sunset Provisions Required

          A “Sunset” provision means, legally, that a law will cease to be effective after a certain date (unless renewed). Like a constitutional amendment requiring some measure of brevity of new amendments, acts, and lower laws, a sunset amendment would require all future Acts of congress to ‘sunset’ after some amount of time, whether a year or a century.

          While a sunset provision would create more work for future Congresses to renew desired laws, it also forces them to  update older laws to modern times, while eliminating the work required to remove out-of-date laws still needlessly “on the books.” Such a mandatory amendment is a debateable idea, but what we gain is worth the extra legal and mental work.

          Number of States in the Union

          Congress is not a decisive body of lawmakers. It is a slow moving gaggle without direction or a system of prioritization, and it has lost a sense of compromise for the common good. Worse, Congress is too many people. Our federal vs. state governments should allow for individual state experimentation with law and policy, whereby the best ideas are the most effective, adopted by other states, and eventually, the federal government. Yet with such an excess (fifty) of states, this rarely happens. North American states should likely combine to between 10-20 states, and the extra number is a good “buffer” in case other nation-states on Earth wish to petition the United States to join the Union. This latter scenario is likely to happen later this century, especially if we can restore our economic and leadership supremacy.

          We should begin combining state governments into larger, more powerful states if we are to survive the century as a United group of States, and simultaneously rely on and embolden local government more than these new, larger states.

          The number of States in the Union shall not exceed twenty-five, nor senators fifty.

          If we are to survive the century, we may eventually also either add a third house of Congress, or (the better idea, in my opinion) convert the House of Representatives to a system of full digital representation of citizens, rather than personal representation. For example, each million people might digitally “vote” on propositions and laws, using web- or mobile-based systems, and simple majority votes would form a single yes/no vote for that “House representative.” Human Senators would remain, and as fewer senators would represent fewer states, would have the individual power they now lack.

          Political / Moral / Ethical Amendments

          Abortion

          How long has abortion has been a debate, a divisive issue? The debate picked up in the 1800s, but it goes back to ancient times. When does a human egg, fetus, or baby become a human? And when it does, does it — or should it — have the same rights as, say, a 5-year old? This is a deep philosophical issue; one that is certainly not limited to females.

          Most of us are not going to be satisfied with a formal law — or worse, a constitutional amendment! — on an issue that has divided humanity for milennia. As such, it is of the utmost importance that at the minimum we discuss abortion. We have two options for our laws: ignore abortion, leaving the issue to the States, or codify this into an amendment representing compromise. All sides, especially the extremes, will be partially disappointed, but this seems a reasonable proposal:

          No state shall make a law prohibiting abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy, or permitting abortion in the third trimester unless deemed medically necessary in an urgent emergency. State laws may prohibit, permit, or ignore second trimester abortions.

          At least with this compromise, the whole “you’re wrong, we’re right” fighting among the beliefs/constituents of different States is limited to only the second trimester, which is more controversial anyway.

          Memorial Services* for the Deceased

          Sometimes there are terrible, surprise, tragic deaths: deaths far too difficult for families to hold ceremonies within weeks — or even months. Still, for the deceased or for the living, these services are a necessary part of our cultures, our religions, our psyche, and our humanity.

          Unfortunately, as our society becomes increasingly resistant to uncomfortable emotions, some are ignoring these services. But for family and friends, at least, they must be held.

          Memorial Services* must be held within 1-year of the death of any person 1-year or older. States shall have the power to legislate details. (*Alternative names: funeral, celebration of life, commoration service, remembrance, wake, tribute, and other synonyms.)

          Right to Weaponry (revision to the 2nd Amendment)

          DRAFT 2022: The 2nd Amendment is hereby revoked. Congress shall have the power to allow and prohibit specific weapons; set reasonable limits regarding age, mental health, numbers of weapons; and to ignore or require involvement in state militias. Because intrastate travel with firearms is so trivial, the rights of states on this matter are hereby limited; however, additional permissions and exclusions for active and engaged hunters and state militia may be defined by state legislatures.

          Marriage — Harder to Enter, Harder to Exit

          Most of us have heard this said before: “marriage should be harder to get into, and harder to get out of.” But how to word that into an amendment?

          This one is a very rough brainstormed idea:

          Entering marriage, fiancees must take 1-year of weekly marriage counseling by professional councelor. States may define "professional" to include volunteers or religious leaders or others.

          To exit marriage in cases of violence, abuse, threats thereof, or other differences, either person may immediately initiate a minimum 1-year "trial separation" period. This 1-year trial separation period should be initiated by contacting with the appropriate state authorities (ideally law enforcement). This 1-year period should include regular counseling, varying by situation and state; moreover, both spouses and appropriate government agencies should closely track communication, finances, and parenting time, if applicable. Records should be kept of attendance to weddings, and these attendees notified if the couple initiates a 1-year trial period.

          Citizens may only marry once; after a divorce, no subsequent marriages are allowed, unless it is a remarriage to the original person(s*).

          *On a related note: polygamy is more prominent than managamy both geographicaly (worldwide vs. the U.S.) and temporally (throughout human history). Thus, polygamy is something reasonable Americans are really going to have to debate and come to grips with as a society!

          Shirtless Health Advice

          Note: This is a joke.
          I’ve heard about the “shirtless doctor” joke several times over the past few years. “If you’re giving me advice about what’s wrong with my body, shouldn’t you look at least okay naked or without a shirt?” Obviously individual doctors could simply post a shirt-less or scantily-clad exercise photo and require that patients ignore the request during annual checkups. But most doctors probably won’t take a photo of themselves with their shirts off… because they aren’t very healthy!
           
          The few doctors who are healthy? Their patients already know it!
           
          Here’s an example:
          Anyone may provide health or nutritional advice, free or paid. However, advisers and health care practitioners should have excellent health, as evidenced by their physical bodies. As such, upon the request of the patient, all such practitioners are required to remove their outer garments (lab coat or similar and shirt) but not undergarments, in front of patients.

          Better than hundreds or thousands of pages, right?

          Voting Age -or- ‘Civil Rights Package’ at Age 14-18

          Idea A)

          The voting age should be lowered.

          The voting age shall hereby be lowered to sixteen (16) years.

          Personally, I believe most teenagers will remain ambivalent and not vote, as is their right. Still, those educated, passionate teenagers who now deserve the right to vote cannot now do so. Most of the country might criticize this idea, pointing to the immaturity of youth, which seems valid at first consideration. But we are likely even more immature much further into our twenties than ever before, yet we retain the right to vote once we pass the eighteen-year age threshold. At least with a lowered voting age . If we were allowed to vote at 14+, I suspect there might be a lot of “noise” on “social” media and internet-based polls which would never materialize, because teens failed to actually take advantage of their new ability to vote.

          Idea B)

          The better idea, in my opinion, is to make a civil rights “package” when a teenager is mature enough to earn the rights, which cannot ever after be repealed. Such rights would include:

          • Right to vote in all elections
          • Right to consume and purchase alcohol and other legal drugs, as valid under existing laws for adults 21+
          • Right to sexual freedom
          • Right to full adulthood, work, and manage one’s financial and legal identity

          The difficult debate would center on how to decide when to give this rights “package” to the teen. By law it would be granted to all teenagers at 18 years old as a last resort. But the purpose of the law would be to allow parents or other caretakers who personally know each teenager to grant the above rights to the teen when legitimately earned. In hindsight, most of us would likely say that we gained the “maturity” for this-or-that aspect of adulthood at various ages, probably extending well into our 20s or even 30s. But forcing teens, parents, and caretakers to engage on these issues — When am I an adult? When am I responsible enough to do this or that? — would prove a massive national benefit. It would surely challenge us, but those challenges would result in significant cultural growth.

          Update Log

          [2023 June: Added female presidents idea — I mistakenly thought I’d already added this many months ago when I first thought of it. Edited abortion description (but not amendment idea).]
          [2022-12-23 Added idea “Marriage — Harder to Enter, Harder to Exit“]
          [2022-Dec: Added idea “Memorial Services* for the Deceased“]
          [2022 XX: 2nd Amendment revision idea]
          [Jul 2019: Minor edits, added sunset idea,  (to-do: add legal length limit, marriage, digital house of representatives, digital voting, balanced budget, gerrymandering, Corporate Personhood).]
          [Jan 2019: Minor revisions; added voting age idea.]
          [13 October 2018: Added congressional term limits.]
          [21 July: Added # states in the union, second part of abortion.]
          [July: 7th: Added abortion draft 1, supreme court draft 1.]
          [16 June: Added shirtless doctor law idea.]
          [4 Apr: Named section 1, edited.]
          [20 March 2017: Created.]
           
           

           

          • Procedural Amendments:

            Procedural / Legal Amendments

            Congressional Term Limits

            This is the most obvious amendment: term limits for Congress, especially Senators. That most of us would support this is as undeniable as that most politicians would reject limiting their career potential. The only debate is the number of terms/years we’d agree on limiting terms to:

            No member of Congress may serve more than four total terms, or three subsequent terms in either chamber. Additionally, no current members of Congress are eligible for the Presidency, and former members of Congress must wait four years to be eligible.

            The latter restriction forces serving members of Congress to focus on their service, rather than neglecting their existing duties and cannibalizing their fame to fight each other for the Presidency. This transitions us towards the next amendment idea.

            No Presidential Families

            Our “founding fathers” would be disappointed in career politicians and aghast at presidential families. If term limits would prevent career politicians, a constitutional amendment could easily solve the latter problem. Here is an example:

            Only one person per family shall ever serve as President. "Family" includes parents, spouses, siblings, children, and other members as defined by the Congress and the Courts.

            We should also consider:

            • Adding a maximum Presidential age (perhaps 65, 70, or 75 years old),
            • Excluding sitting Senators from campaigning for the Presidency (resignation or a “waiting period” required), which would prevent the Senate being used as a career “stepping stone” for the Presidency,
            • Adding the Presidential ‘Partner’ to the line of succession (somewhere), such that we take more seriously the familial/personal relationship of Presidnetial candidates, and
            • Removing the U.S. birth requirement (but changing the U.S. residency requirement to 2+ decades).

            Female Presidents

            I think most of us would agree that we should have some female Presidents. When? How? How many? Should we force it? What if we’re deciding between two absolutely equal candidates (never happens in practice), should we prioritize the female candidate because the position hasn’t had enough female representation?

            One option is to simply mandate that the next number of Presidents be female. Then only females can campaign, and we don’t waste our time with males in the running. If we’re open to this route, the only decision is how many terms to limit to females: between one and forty-six. Biden is the 46th male President, so that’s the extreme.

            What if we were incredibly conservative, and mandated only the next four Presidents (or four terms) were women? That guarantees 16 years of female Presidents, between 2 and 4 different women. Seems like a fair start before men are allowed to campaign again.

            The subsequent three Presidential elections shall be limited to females; they are recommended to have their Vice PResidential choices to also be women.

            8 Supreme Court Justices

            The Supreme Court was never designed or intended to “break” ties or have the power it does today. I have the greatest respect for this branch of the federal government, because it is the best of the three led and influenced by facts, science, and truth. As such, and as the other two branches have weakened, the Supreme Court has “picked up the slack,” and has become the branch that actually gets things done. But a constitutional amendment could shift power back towards where it belongs — in the hands of the people, through the legislative branch:

            The Supreme Court shall, upon the next justice's death or resignation, be reduced to 8 members and shall remain an even number of justices. In the event of a tie decision, the Court may recommend new legislation to Congress. Congress shall have a maximum period of one year to formally pass further legislation on the issue, after which the President may take executive action to break the Supreme Court's tie decision until Congress' legislative clarification.

            Sunset Provisions Required

            A “Sunset” provision means, legally, that a law will cease to be effective after a certain date (unless renewed). Like a constitutional amendment requiring some measure of brevity of new amendments, acts, and lower laws, a sunset amendment would require all future Acts of congress to ‘sunset’ after some amount of time, whether a year or a century.

            While a sunset provision would create more work for future Congresses to renew desired laws, it also forces them to  update older laws to modern times, while eliminating the work required to remove out-of-date laws still needlessly “on the books.” Such a mandatory amendment is a debateable idea, but what we gain is worth the extra legal and mental work.

            Number of States in the Union

            Congress is not a decisive body of lawmakers. It is a slow moving gaggle without direction or a system of prioritization, and it has lost a sense of compromise for the common good. Worse, Congress is too many people. Our federal vs. state governments should allow for individual state experimentation with law and policy, whereby the best ideas are the most effective, adopted by other states, and eventually, the federal government. Yet with such an excess (fifty) of states, this rarely happens. North American states should likely combine to between 10-20 states, and the extra number is a good “buffer” in case other nation-states on Earth wish to petition the United States to join the Union. This latter scenario is likely to happen later this century, especially if we can restore our economic and leadership supremacy.

            We should begin combining state governments into larger, more powerful states if we are to survive the century as a United group of States, and simultaneously rely on and embolden local government more than these new, larger states.

            The number of States in the Union shall not exceed twenty-five, nor senators fifty.

            If we are to survive the century, we may eventually also either add a third house of Congress, or (the better idea, in my opinion) convert the House of Representatives to a system of full digital representation of citizens, rather than personal representation. For example, each million people might digitally “vote” on propositions and laws, using web- or mobile-based systems, and simple majority votes would form a single yes/no vote for that “House representative.” Human Senators would remain, and as fewer senators would represent fewer states, would have the individual power they now lack.

            Political / Moral / Ethical Amendments

            Abortion

            How long has abortion has been a debate, a divisive issue? The debate picked up in the 1800s, but it goes back to ancient times. When does a human egg, fetus, or baby become a human? And when it does, does it — or should it — have the same rights as, say, a 5-year old? This is a deep philosophical issue; one that is certainly not limited to females.

            Most of us are not going to be satisfied with a formal law — or worse, a constitutional amendment! — on an issue that has divided humanity for milennia. As such, it is of the utmost importance that at the minimum we discuss abortion. We have two options for our laws: ignore abortion, leaving the issue to the States, or codify this into an amendment representing compromise. All sides, especially the extremes, will be partially disappointed, but this seems a reasonable proposal:

            No state shall make a law prohibiting abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy, or permitting abortion in the third trimester unless deemed medically necessary in an urgent emergency. State laws may prohibit, permit, or ignore second trimester abortions.

            At least with this compromise, the whole “you’re wrong, we’re right” fighting among the beliefs/constituents of different States is limited to only the second trimester, which is more controversial anyway.

            Memorial Services* for the Deceased

            Sometimes there are terrible, surprise, tragic deaths: deaths far too difficult for families to hold ceremonies within weeks — or even months. Still, for the deceased or for the living, these services are a necessary part of our cultures, our religions, our psyche, and our humanity.

            Unfortunately, as our society becomes increasingly resistant to uncomfortable emotions, some are ignoring these services. But for family and friends, at least, they must be held.

            Memorial Services* must be held within 1-year of the death of any person 1-year or older. States shall have the power to legislate details. (*Alternative names: funeral, celebration of life, commoration service, remembrance, wake, tribute, and other synonyms.)

            Right to Weaponry (revision to the 2nd Amendment)

            DRAFT 2022: The 2nd Amendment is hereby revoked. Congress shall have the power to allow and prohibit specific weapons; set reasonable limits regarding age, mental health, numbers of weapons; and to ignore or require involvement in state militias. Because intrastate travel with firearms is so trivial, the rights of states on this matter are hereby limited; however, additional permissions and exclusions for active and engaged hunters and state militia may be defined by state legislatures.

            Marriage — Harder to Enter, Harder to Exit

            Most of us have heard this said before: “marriage should be harder to get into, and harder to get out of.” But how to word that into an amendment?

            This one is a very rough brainstormed idea:

            Entering marriage, fiancees must take 1-year of weekly marriage counseling by professional councelor. States may define "professional" to include volunteers or religious leaders or others.

            To exit marriage in cases of violence, abuse, threats thereof, or other differences, either person may immediately initiate a minimum 1-year "trial separation" period. This 1-year trial separation period should be initiated by contacting with the appropriate state authorities (ideally law enforcement). This 1-year period should include regular counseling, varying by situation and state; moreover, both spouses and appropriate government agencies should closely track communication, finances, and parenting time, if applicable. Records should be kept of attendance to weddings, and these attendees notified if the couple initiates a 1-year trial period.

            Citizens may only marry once; after a divorce, no subsequent marriages are allowed, unless it is a remarriage to the original person(s*).

            *On a related note: polygamy is more prominent than managamy both geographicaly (worldwide vs. the U.S.) and temporally (throughout human history). Thus, polygamy is something reasonable Americans are really going to have to debate and come to grips with as a society!

            Shirtless Health Advice

            Note: This is a joke.
            I’ve heard about the “shirtless doctor” joke several times over the past few years. “If you’re giving me advice about what’s wrong with my body, shouldn’t you look at least okay naked or without a shirt?” Obviously individual doctors could simply post a shirt-less or scantily-clad exercise photo and require that patients ignore the request during annual checkups. But most doctors probably won’t take a photo of themselves with their shirts off… because they aren’t very healthy!
             
            The few doctors who are healthy? Their patients already know it!
             
            Here’s an example:
            Anyone may provide health or nutritional advice, free or paid. However, advisers and health care practitioners should have excellent health, as evidenced by their physical bodies. As such, upon the request of the patient, all such practitioners are required to remove their outer garments (lab coat or similar and shirt) but not undergarments, in front of patients.

            Better than hundreds or thousands of pages, right?

            Voting Age -or- ‘Civil Rights Package’ at Age 14-18

            Idea A)

            The voting age should be lowered.

            The voting age shall hereby be lowered to sixteen (16) years.

            Personally, I believe most teenagers will remain ambivalent and not vote, as is their right. Still, those educated, passionate teenagers who now deserve the right to vote cannot now do so. Most of the country might criticize this idea, pointing to the immaturity of youth, which seems valid at first consideration. But we are likely even more immature much further into our twenties than ever before, yet we retain the right to vote once we pass the eighteen-year age threshold. At least with a lowered voting age . If we were allowed to vote at 14+, I suspect there might be a lot of “noise” on “social” media and internet-based polls which would never materialize, because teens failed to actually take advantage of their new ability to vote.

            Idea B)

            The better idea, in my opinion, is to make a civil rights “package” when a teenager is mature enough to earn the rights, which cannot ever after be repealed. Such rights would include:

            • Right to vote in all elections
            • Right to consume and purchase alcohol and other legal drugs, as valid under existing laws for adults 21+
            • Right to sexual freedom
            • Right to full adulthood, work, and manage one’s financial and legal identity

            The difficult debate would center on how to decide when to give this rights “package” to the teen. By law it would be granted to all teenagers at 18 years old as a last resort. But the purpose of the law would be to allow parents or other caretakers who personally know each teenager to grant the above rights to the teen when legitimately earned. In hindsight, most of us would likely say that we gained the “maturity” for this-or-that aspect of adulthood at various ages, probably extending well into our 20s or even 30s. But forcing teens, parents, and caretakers to engage on these issues — When am I an adult? When am I responsible enough to do this or that? — would prove a massive national benefit. It would surely challenge us, but those challenges would result in significant cultural growth.

            Update Log

            [2023 June: Added female presidents idea — I mistakenly thought I’d already added this many months ago when I first thought of it. Edited abortion description (but not amendment idea).]
            [2022-12-23 Added idea “Marriage — Harder to Enter, Harder to Exit“]
            [2022-Dec: Added idea “Memorial Services* for the Deceased“]
            [2022 XX: 2nd Amendment revision idea]
            [Jul 2019: Minor edits, added sunset idea,  (to-do: add legal length limit, marriage, digital house of representatives, digital voting, balanced budget, gerrymandering, Corporate Personhood).]
            [Jan 2019: Minor revisions; added voting age idea.]
            [13 October 2018: Added congressional term limits.]
            [21 July: Added # states in the union, second part of abortion.]
            [July: 7th: Added abortion draft 1, supreme court draft 1.]
            [16 June: Added shirtless doctor law idea.]
            [4 Apr: Named section 1, edited.]
            [20 March 2017: Created.]
             
             

             

          • Female Presidents
          • Supreme Court Justices: Even Number

          Procedural / Legal Amendments

          Congressional Term Limits

          This is the most obvious amendment: term limits for Congress, especially Senators. That most of us would support this is as undeniable as that most politicians would reject limiting their career potential. The only debate is the number of terms/years we’d agree on limiting terms to:

          No member of Congress may serve more than four total terms, or three subsequent terms in either chamber. Additionally, no current members of Congress are eligible for the Presidency, and former members of Congress must wait four years to be eligible.

          The latter restriction forces serving members of Congress to focus on their service, rather than neglecting their existing duties and cannibalizing their fame to fight each other for the Presidency. This transitions us towards the next amendment idea.

          No Presidential Families

          Our “founding fathers” would be disappointed in career politicians and aghast at presidential families. If term limits would prevent career politicians, a constitutional amendment could easily solve the latter problem. Here is an example:

          Only one person per family shall ever serve as President. "Family" includes parents, spouses, siblings, children, and other members as defined by the Congress and the Courts.

          We should also consider:

          • Adding a maximum Presidential age (perhaps 65, 70, or 75 years old),
          • Excluding sitting Senators from campaigning for the Presidency (resignation or a “waiting period” required), which would prevent the Senate being used as a career “stepping stone” for the Presidency,
          • Adding the Presidential ‘Partner’ to the line of succession (somewhere), such that we take more seriously the familial/personal relationship of Presidnetial candidates, and
          • Removing the U.S. birth requirement (but changing the U.S. residency requirement to 2+ decades).

          Female Presidents

          I think most of us would agree that we should have some female Presidents. When? How? How many? Should we force it? What if we’re deciding between two absolutely equal candidates (never happens in practice), should we prioritize the female candidate because the position hasn’t had enough female representation?

          One option is to simply mandate that the next number of Presidents be female. Then only females can campaign, and we don’t waste our time with males in the running. If we’re open to this route, the only decision is how many terms to limit to females: between one and forty-six. Biden is the 46th male President, so that’s the extreme.

          What if we were incredibly conservative, and mandated only the next four Presidents (or four terms) were women? That guarantees 16 years of female Presidents, between 2 and 4 different women. Seems like a fair start before men are allowed to campaign again.

          The subsequent three Presidential elections shall be limited to females; they are recommended to have their Vice PResidential choices to also be women.

          8 Supreme Court Justices

          The Supreme Court was never designed or intended to “break” ties or have the power it does today. I have the greatest respect for this branch of the federal government, because it is the best of the three led and influenced by facts, science, and truth. As such, and as the other two branches have weakened, the Supreme Court has “picked up the slack,” and has become the branch that actually gets things done. But a constitutional amendment could shift power back towards where it belongs — in the hands of the people, through the legislative branch:

          The Supreme Court shall, upon the next justice's death or resignation, be reduced to 8 members and shall remain an even number of justices. In the event of a tie decision, the Court may recommend new legislation to Congress. Congress shall have a maximum period of one year to formally pass further legislation on the issue, after which the President may take executive action to break the Supreme Court's tie decision until Congress' legislative clarification.

          Sunset Provisions Required

          A “Sunset” provision means, legally, that a law will cease to be effective after a certain date (unless renewed). Like a constitutional amendment requiring some measure of brevity of new amendments, acts, and lower laws, a sunset amendment would require all future Acts of congress to ‘sunset’ after some amount of time, whether a year or a century.

          While a sunset provision would create more work for future Congresses to renew desired laws, it also forces them to  update older laws to modern times, while eliminating the work required to remove out-of-date laws still needlessly “on the books.” Such a mandatory amendment is a debateable idea, but what we gain is worth the extra legal and mental work.

          Number of States in the Union

          Congress is not a decisive body of lawmakers. It is a slow moving gaggle without direction or a system of prioritization, and it has lost a sense of compromise for the common good. Worse, Congress is too many people. Our federal vs. state governments should allow for individual state experimentation with law and policy, whereby the best ideas are the most effective, adopted by other states, and eventually, the federal government. Yet with such an excess (fifty) of states, this rarely happens. North American states should likely combine to between 10-20 states, and the extra number is a good “buffer” in case other nation-states on Earth wish to petition the United States to join the Union. This latter scenario is likely to happen later this century, especially if we can restore our economic and leadership supremacy.

          We should begin combining state governments into larger, more powerful states if we are to survive the century as a United group of States, and simultaneously rely on and embolden local government more than these new, larger states.

          The number of States in the Union shall not exceed twenty-five, nor senators fifty.

          If we are to survive the century, we may eventually also either add a third house of Congress, or (the better idea, in my opinion) convert the House of Representatives to a system of full digital representation of citizens, rather than personal representation. For example, each million people might digitally “vote” on propositions and laws, using web- or mobile-based systems, and simple majority votes would form a single yes/no vote for that “House representative.” Human Senators would remain, and as fewer senators would represent fewer states, would have the individual power they now lack.

          Political / Moral / Ethical Amendments

          Abortion

          How long has abortion has been a debate, a divisive issue? The debate picked up in the 1800s, but it goes back to ancient times. When does a human egg, fetus, or baby become a human? And when it does, does it — or should it — have the same rights as, say, a 5-year old? This is a deep philosophical issue; one that is certainly not limited to females.

          Most of us are not going to be satisfied with a formal law — or worse, a constitutional amendment! — on an issue that has divided humanity for milennia. As such, it is of the utmost importance that at the minimum we discuss abortion. We have two options for our laws: ignore abortion, leaving the issue to the States, or codify this into an amendment representing compromise. All sides, especially the extremes, will be partially disappointed, but this seems a reasonable proposal:

          No state shall make a law prohibiting abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy, or permitting abortion in the third trimester unless deemed medically necessary in an urgent emergency. State laws may prohibit, permit, or ignore second trimester abortions.

          At least with this compromise, the whole “you’re wrong, we’re right” fighting among the beliefs/constituents of different States is limited to only the second trimester, which is more controversial anyway.

          Memorial Services* for the Deceased

          Sometimes there are terrible, surprise, tragic deaths: deaths far too difficult for families to hold ceremonies within weeks — or even months. Still, for the deceased or for the living, these services are a necessary part of our cultures, our religions, our psyche, and our humanity.

          Unfortunately, as our society becomes increasingly resistant to uncomfortable emotions, some are ignoring these services. But for family and friends, at least, they must be held.

          Memorial Services* must be held within 1-year of the death of any person 1-year or older. States shall have the power to legislate details. (*Alternative names: funeral, celebration of life, commoration service, remembrance, wake, tribute, and other synonyms.)

          Right to Weaponry (revision to the 2nd Amendment)

          DRAFT 2022: The 2nd Amendment is hereby revoked. Congress shall have the power to allow and prohibit specific weapons; set reasonable limits regarding age, mental health, numbers of weapons; and to ignore or require involvement in state militias. Because intrastate travel with firearms is so trivial, the rights of states on this matter are hereby limited; however, additional permissions and exclusions for active and engaged hunters and state militia may be defined by state legislatures.

          Marriage — Harder to Enter, Harder to Exit

          Most of us have heard this said before: “marriage should be harder to get into, and harder to get out of.” But how to word that into an amendment?

          This one is a very rough brainstormed idea:

          Entering marriage, fiancees must take 1-year of weekly marriage counseling by professional councelor. States may define "professional" to include volunteers or religious leaders or others.

          To exit marriage in cases of violence, abuse, threats thereof, or other differences, either person may immediately initiate a minimum 1-year "trial separation" period. This 1-year trial separation period should be initiated by contacting with the appropriate state authorities (ideally law enforcement). This 1-year period should include regular counseling, varying by situation and state; moreover, both spouses and appropriate government agencies should closely track communication, finances, and parenting time, if applicable. Records should be kept of attendance to weddings, and these attendees notified if the couple initiates a 1-year trial period.

          Citizens may only marry once; after a divorce, no subsequent marriages are allowed, unless it is a remarriage to the original person(s*).

          *On a related note: polygamy is more prominent than managamy both geographicaly (worldwide vs. the U.S.) and temporally (throughout human history). Thus, polygamy is something reasonable Americans are really going to have to debate and come to grips with as a society!

          Shirtless Health Advice

          Note: This is a joke.
          I’ve heard about the “shirtless doctor” joke several times over the past few years. “If you’re giving me advice about what’s wrong with my body, shouldn’t you look at least okay naked or without a shirt?” Obviously individual doctors could simply post a shirt-less or scantily-clad exercise photo and require that patients ignore the request during annual checkups. But most doctors probably won’t take a photo of themselves with their shirts off… because they aren’t very healthy!
           
          The few doctors who are healthy? Their patients already know it!
           
          Here’s an example:
          Anyone may provide health or nutritional advice, free or paid. However, advisers and health care practitioners should have excellent health, as evidenced by their physical bodies. As such, upon the request of the patient, all such practitioners are required to remove their outer garments (lab coat or similar and shirt) but not undergarments, in front of patients.

          Better than hundreds or thousands of pages, right?

          Voting Age -or- ‘Civil Rights Package’ at Age 14-18

          Idea A)

          The voting age should be lowered.

          The voting age shall hereby be lowered to sixteen (16) years.

          Personally, I believe most teenagers will remain ambivalent and not vote, as is their right. Still, those educated, passionate teenagers who now deserve the right to vote cannot now do so. Most of the country might criticize this idea, pointing to the immaturity of youth, which seems valid at first consideration. But we are likely even more immature much further into our twenties than ever before, yet we retain the right to vote once we pass the eighteen-year age threshold. At least with a lowered voting age . If we were allowed to vote at 14+, I suspect there might be a lot of “noise” on “social” media and internet-based polls which would never materialize, because teens failed to actually take advantage of their new ability to vote.

          Idea B)

          The better idea, in my opinion, is to make a civil rights “package” when a teenager is mature enough to earn the rights, which cannot ever after be repealed. Such rights would include:

          • Right to vote in all elections
          • Right to consume and purchase alcohol and other legal drugs, as valid under existing laws for adults 21+
          • Right to sexual freedom
          • Right to full adulthood, work, and manage one’s financial and legal identity

          The difficult debate would center on how to decide when to give this rights “package” to the teen. By law it would be granted to all teenagers at 18 years old as a last resort. But the purpose of the law would be to allow parents or other caretakers who personally know each teenager to grant the above rights to the teen when legitimately earned. In hindsight, most of us would likely say that we gained the “maturity” for this-or-that aspect of adulthood at various ages, probably extending well into our 20s or even 30s. But forcing teens, parents, and caretakers to engage on these issues — When am I an adult? When am I responsible enough to do this or that? — would prove a massive national benefit. It would surely challenge us, but those challenges would result in significant cultural growth.

          Update Log

          [2023 June: Added female presidents idea — I mistakenly thought I’d already added this many months ago when I first thought of it. Edited abortion description (but not amendment idea).]
          [2022-12-23 Added idea “Marriage — Harder to Enter, Harder to Exit“]
          [2022-Dec: Added idea “Memorial Services* for the Deceased“]
          [2022 XX: 2nd Amendment revision idea]
          [Jul 2019: Minor edits, added sunset idea,  (to-do: add legal length limit, marriage, digital house of representatives, digital voting, balanced budget, gerrymandering, Corporate Personhood).]
          [Jan 2019: Minor revisions; added voting age idea.]
          [13 October 2018: Added congressional term limits.]
          [21 July: Added # states in the union, second part of abortion.]
          [July: 7th: Added abortion draft 1, supreme court draft 1.]
          [16 June: Added shirtless doctor law idea.]
          [4 Apr: Named section 1, edited.]
          [20 March 2017: Created.]
           
           

           

          • Procedural Amendments:

            Procedural / Legal Amendments

            Congressional Term Limits

            This is the most obvious amendment: term limits for Congress, especially Senators. That most of us would support this is as undeniable as that most politicians would reject limiting their career potential. The only debate is the number of terms/years we’d agree on limiting terms to:

            No member of Congress may serve more than four total terms, or three subsequent terms in either chamber. Additionally, no current members of Congress are eligible for the Presidency, and former members of Congress must wait four years to be eligible.

            The latter restriction forces serving members of Congress to focus on their service, rather than neglecting their existing duties and cannibalizing their fame to fight each other for the Presidency. This transitions us towards the next amendment idea.

            No Presidential Families

            Our “founding fathers” would be disappointed in career politicians and aghast at presidential families. If term limits would prevent career politicians, a constitutional amendment could easily solve the latter problem. Here is an example:

            Only one person per family shall ever serve as President. "Family" includes parents, spouses, siblings, children, and other members as defined by the Congress and the Courts.

            We should also consider:

            • Adding a maximum Presidential age (perhaps 65, 70, or 75 years old),
            • Excluding sitting Senators from campaigning for the Presidency (resignation or a “waiting period” required), which would prevent the Senate being used as a career “stepping stone” for the Presidency,
            • Adding the Presidential ‘Partner’ to the line of succession (somewhere), such that we take more seriously the familial/personal relationship of Presidnetial candidates, and
            • Removing the U.S. birth requirement (but changing the U.S. residency requirement to 2+ decades).

            Female Presidents

            I think most of us would agree that we should have some female Presidents. When? How? How many? Should we force it? What if we’re deciding between two absolutely equal candidates (never happens in practice), should we prioritize the female candidate because the position hasn’t had enough female representation?

            One option is to simply mandate that the next number of Presidents be female. Then only females can campaign, and we don’t waste our time with males in the running. If we’re open to this route, the only decision is how many terms to limit to females: between one and forty-six. Biden is the 46th male President, so that’s the extreme.

            What if we were incredibly conservative, and mandated only the next four Presidents (or four terms) were women? That guarantees 16 years of female Presidents, between 2 and 4 different women. Seems like a fair start before men are allowed to campaign again.

            The subsequent three Presidential elections shall be limited to females; they are recommended to have their Vice PResidential choices to also be women.

            8 Supreme Court Justices

            The Supreme Court was never designed or intended to “break” ties or have the power it does today. I have the greatest respect for this branch of the federal government, because it is the best of the three led and influenced by facts, science, and truth. As such, and as the other two branches have weakened, the Supreme Court has “picked up the slack,” and has become the branch that actually gets things done. But a constitutional amendment could shift power back towards where it belongs — in the hands of the people, through the legislative branch:

            The Supreme Court shall, upon the next justice's death or resignation, be reduced to 8 members and shall remain an even number of justices. In the event of a tie decision, the Court may recommend new legislation to Congress. Congress shall have a maximum period of one year to formally pass further legislation on the issue, after which the President may take executive action to break the Supreme Court's tie decision until Congress' legislative clarification.

            Sunset Provisions Required

            A “Sunset” provision means, legally, that a law will cease to be effective after a certain date (unless renewed). Like a constitutional amendment requiring some measure of brevity of new amendments, acts, and lower laws, a sunset amendment would require all future Acts of congress to ‘sunset’ after some amount of time, whether a year or a century.

            While a sunset provision would create more work for future Congresses to renew desired laws, it also forces them to  update older laws to modern times, while eliminating the work required to remove out-of-date laws still needlessly “on the books.” Such a mandatory amendment is a debateable idea, but what we gain is worth the extra legal and mental work.

            Number of States in the Union

            Congress is not a decisive body of lawmakers. It is a slow moving gaggle without direction or a system of prioritization, and it has lost a sense of compromise for the common good. Worse, Congress is too many people. Our federal vs. state governments should allow for individual state experimentation with law and policy, whereby the best ideas are the most effective, adopted by other states, and eventually, the federal government. Yet with such an excess (fifty) of states, this rarely happens. North American states should likely combine to between 10-20 states, and the extra number is a good “buffer” in case other nation-states on Earth wish to petition the United States to join the Union. This latter scenario is likely to happen later this century, especially if we can restore our economic and leadership supremacy.

            We should begin combining state governments into larger, more powerful states if we are to survive the century as a United group of States, and simultaneously rely on and embolden local government more than these new, larger states.

            The number of States in the Union shall not exceed twenty-five, nor senators fifty.

            If we are to survive the century, we may eventually also either add a third house of Congress, or (the better idea, in my opinion) convert the House of Representatives to a system of full digital representation of citizens, rather than personal representation. For example, each million people might digitally “vote” on propositions and laws, using web- or mobile-based systems, and simple majority votes would form a single yes/no vote for that “House representative.” Human Senators would remain, and as fewer senators would represent fewer states, would have the individual power they now lack.

            Political / Moral / Ethical Amendments

            Abortion

            How long has abortion has been a debate, a divisive issue? The debate picked up in the 1800s, but it goes back to ancient times. When does a human egg, fetus, or baby become a human? And when it does, does it — or should it — have the same rights as, say, a 5-year old? This is a deep philosophical issue; one that is certainly not limited to females.

            Most of us are not going to be satisfied with a formal law — or worse, a constitutional amendment! — on an issue that has divided humanity for milennia. As such, it is of the utmost importance that at the minimum we discuss abortion. We have two options for our laws: ignore abortion, leaving the issue to the States, or codify this into an amendment representing compromise. All sides, especially the extremes, will be partially disappointed, but this seems a reasonable proposal:

            No state shall make a law prohibiting abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy, or permitting abortion in the third trimester unless deemed medically necessary in an urgent emergency. State laws may prohibit, permit, or ignore second trimester abortions.

            At least with this compromise, the whole “you’re wrong, we’re right” fighting among the beliefs/constituents of different States is limited to only the second trimester, which is more controversial anyway.

            Memorial Services* for the Deceased

            Sometimes there are terrible, surprise, tragic deaths: deaths far too difficult for families to hold ceremonies within weeks — or even months. Still, for the deceased or for the living, these services are a necessary part of our cultures, our religions, our psyche, and our humanity.

            Unfortunately, as our society becomes increasingly resistant to uncomfortable emotions, some are ignoring these services. But for family and friends, at least, they must be held.

            Memorial Services* must be held within 1-year of the death of any person 1-year or older. States shall have the power to legislate details. (*Alternative names: funeral, celebration of life, commoration service, remembrance, wake, tribute, and other synonyms.)

            Right to Weaponry (revision to the 2nd Amendment)

            DRAFT 2022: The 2nd Amendment is hereby revoked. Congress shall have the power to allow and prohibit specific weapons; set reasonable limits regarding age, mental health, numbers of weapons; and to ignore or require involvement in state militias. Because intrastate travel with firearms is so trivial, the rights of states on this matter are hereby limited; however, additional permissions and exclusions for active and engaged hunters and state militia may be defined by state legislatures.

            Marriage — Harder to Enter, Harder to Exit

            Most of us have heard this said before: “marriage should be harder to get into, and harder to get out of.” But how to word that into an amendment?

            This one is a very rough brainstormed idea:

            Entering marriage, fiancees must take 1-year of weekly marriage counseling by professional councelor. States may define "professional" to include volunteers or religious leaders or others.

            To exit marriage in cases of violence, abuse, threats thereof, or other differences, either person may immediately initiate a minimum 1-year "trial separation" period. This 1-year trial separation period should be initiated by contacting with the appropriate state authorities (ideally law enforcement). This 1-year period should include regular counseling, varying by situation and state; moreover, both spouses and appropriate government agencies should closely track communication, finances, and parenting time, if applicable. Records should be kept of attendance to weddings, and these attendees notified if the couple initiates a 1-year trial period.

            Citizens may only marry once; after a divorce, no subsequent marriages are allowed, unless it is a remarriage to the original person(s*).

            *On a related note: polygamy is more prominent than managamy both geographicaly (worldwide vs. the U.S.) and temporally (throughout human history). Thus, polygamy is something reasonable Americans are really going to have to debate and come to grips with as a society!

            Shirtless Health Advice

            Note: This is a joke.
            I’ve heard about the “shirtless doctor” joke several times over the past few years. “If you’re giving me advice about what’s wrong with my body, shouldn’t you look at least okay naked or without a shirt?” Obviously individual doctors could simply post a shirt-less or scantily-clad exercise photo and require that patients ignore the request during annual checkups. But most doctors probably won’t take a photo of themselves with their shirts off… because they aren’t very healthy!
             
            The few doctors who are healthy? Their patients already know it!
             
            Here’s an example:
            Anyone may provide health or nutritional advice, free or paid. However, advisers and health care practitioners should have excellent health, as evidenced by their physical bodies. As such, upon the request of the patient, all such practitioners are required to remove their outer garments (lab coat or similar and shirt) but not undergarments, in front of patients.

            Better than hundreds or thousands of pages, right?

            Voting Age -or- ‘Civil Rights Package’ at Age 14-18

            Idea A)

            The voting age should be lowered.

            The voting age shall hereby be lowered to sixteen (16) years.

            Personally, I believe most teenagers will remain ambivalent and not vote, as is their right. Still, those educated, passionate teenagers who now deserve the right to vote cannot now do so. Most of the country might criticize this idea, pointing to the immaturity of youth, which seems valid at first consideration. But we are likely even more immature much further into our twenties than ever before, yet we retain the right to vote once we pass the eighteen-year age threshold. At least with a lowered voting age . If we were allowed to vote at 14+, I suspect there might be a lot of “noise” on “social” media and internet-based polls which would never materialize, because teens failed to actually take advantage of their new ability to vote.

            Idea B)

            The better idea, in my opinion, is to make a civil rights “package” when a teenager is mature enough to earn the rights, which cannot ever after be repealed. Such rights would include:

            • Right to vote in all elections
            • Right to consume and purchase alcohol and other legal drugs, as valid under existing laws for adults 21+
            • Right to sexual freedom
            • Right to full adulthood, work, and manage one’s financial and legal identity

            The difficult debate would center on how to decide when to give this rights “package” to the teen. By law it would be granted to all teenagers at 18 years old as a last resort. But the purpose of the law would be to allow parents or other caretakers who personally know each teenager to grant the above rights to the teen when legitimately earned. In hindsight, most of us would likely say that we gained the “maturity” for this-or-that aspect of adulthood at various ages, probably extending well into our 20s or even 30s. But forcing teens, parents, and caretakers to engage on these issues — When am I an adult? When am I responsible enough to do this or that? — would prove a massive national benefit. It would surely challenge us, but those challenges would result in significant cultural growth.

            Update Log

            [2023 June: Added female presidents idea — I mistakenly thought I’d already added this many months ago when I first thought of it. Edited abortion description (but not amendment idea).]
            [2022-12-23 Added idea “Marriage — Harder to Enter, Harder to Exit“]
            [2022-Dec: Added idea “Memorial Services* for the Deceased“]
            [2022 XX: 2nd Amendment revision idea]
            [Jul 2019: Minor edits, added sunset idea,  (to-do: add legal length limit, marriage, digital house of representatives, digital voting, balanced budget, gerrymandering, Corporate Personhood).]
            [Jan 2019: Minor revisions; added voting age idea.]
            [13 October 2018: Added congressional term limits.]
            [21 July: Added # states in the union, second part of abortion.]
            [July: 7th: Added abortion draft 1, supreme court draft 1.]
            [16 June: Added shirtless doctor law idea.]
            [4 Apr: Named section 1, edited.]
            [20 March 2017: Created.]