Constitutional Amendments

The first one is

The 28th Amendment would eliminate the natural-born citizenship requirement for the presidency. If the amendment passed, Henry Kissinger and Arnold Schwarzenegger could run for president.

Don’t really care a lot about this either way.

The 29th Amendment would allow for legislative vetoes of executive and regulatory actions. All three teams shared concerns about an imperial presidency and a runaway administrative state, typically a conservative and libertarian bugaboo. And they all found a solution in resurrecting the legislative veto, which allows Congress to negate executive actions by majority vote. Congress exercised this power from 1932 until the Supreme Court struck it down in 1983, a decision that the delegates’ amendment would overrule.

LOVE THIS ONE! Curb the presidential powers.

The 30th Amendment would seek to avoid partisan impeachments while making it easier to remove dangerous presidents. It would reform the presidential impeachment process by replacing “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” as cause for impeachment with “serious criminal acts, or for serious abuse of the public trust.” In other words, not all crimes would be impeachable and not all impeachable conduct would be criminal. And while the current Constitution requires a majority of the House to impeach and two-thirds of the Senate to convict, the amendment would change both thresholds to three-fifths, making it harder to impeach but easier to convict.

Interesting one. Could get behind this one.

The 31st Amendment would set 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices, with staggered terms allowing for a vacancy every two years. Thus each president would get to appoint two Supreme Court justices per four-year term, regularizing and de-politicizing the Supreme Court confirmation process. It would also require the Senate to vote on all nominees. (In other words, no ignoring Merrick Garland.) If a sitting justice died or left the court, the president would nominate a successor to fill out the end of that term.

Love this one.

The 32nd Amendment would make proposing and ratifying future amendments a little easier. Congress could propose amendments by a three-fifths vote of both Houses (down from two-thirds), and amendments would become law when ratified by two-thirds of the states (down from three-fourths). The delegates also added an alternative, population-based amendment track, so that small states couldn’t block overwhelming majorities from changing the Constitution. On this other track, states representing two-thirds of the national population could force Congress to propose amendments, and states representing three-fourths of the population could call a Constitutional Convention themselves. And all proposed amendments would go into effect if ratified by states representing three-fourths of the population.

I like the first part, but I don’t like doing it based off of population.

Thoughts?

Copy and paste from the link, not subscribing to WAPO

Five amendments and that's what they came up with? These are hot garbage.

quote:

---

Five amendments and that's what they came up with? These are hot garbage.

---

Why? Remember these are amendments that have to appeal to a wide enough spectrum to pass. The goal was to find agreement on something that could pass and make improvements not a dream list for one side.

quote:

---

All three teams shared concerns about an imperial presidency and a runaway administrative state,

---

quote:

---

typically a conservative and libertarian bugaboo.

---

quote:

---

I don't like much from this list, but this one, I don't like at all. It's supposed to be hard to amend the constitution.

---

And that’s fair. You don’t like the idea of letting Congress curtail Executive Orders and such. Congress has delegated too much authority to the Executive. Let them take it back.

quote:

---

The 31st Amendment would set 18-year term limits for Supreme Court justices, with staggered terms allowing for a vacancy every two years. Thus each president would get to appoint two Supreme Court justices per four-year term, regularizing and de-politicizing the Supreme Court confirmation process. It would also require the Senate to vote on all nominees. (In other words, no ignoring Merrick Garland.) If a sitting justice died or left the court, the president would nominate a successor to fill out the end of that term.

Love this one.

---

Unless Congress first pushes term limits for themselves also, this is merely a power grab

quote:

---

F having term limits for Justices unless congressmen are willing to abide by them as well. I'd like to see their set at 12 years.

---

Why? I would be fine with term limits for Congress, but I wouldn’t turn down term limits for SCOTUS just because I can’t get it for Congress. Get rid of really old justices.

quote:

---

Unless Congress first pushes term limits for themselves also, this is merely a power grab

---

At least Congress is accountable to us at election time. SCOTUS is not at all.