re: How would you change the Constitution to keep us from getting here?

I’d start with the first amendment. Something like this, which is admittedly on the long side:

Acknowledging Almighty God, and the Lord Jesus Christ as the Mediator and supreme ruler of the nations, and recognizing the Holy Scriptures as the ultimate standard of moral truth and justice, this Republic confesses that civil government is ordained by God for the promotion of righteousness, peace, and the common good.

Civil government, the church, and the family are each ordained by God and vested with distinct and limited authority; and the civil magistrate shall neither assume the spiritual authority of the church nor intrude upon the liberty of conscience, which is accountable to God alone.

Congress shall make no law compelling faith, worship, or religious observance, nor punishing any person merely for religious belief; for faith is the gift of God and cannot be produced by civil power.

The free exercise of religion shall be protected, provided that no religious doctrine or practice shall be permitted which denies the lawful authority of the civil magistrate, seeks to establish a rival civil or legal sovereignty, promotes violence, or violates the moral law of God as revealed in nature and in Holy Scripture.

The Christian religion, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, shall be recognized as the moral foundation of this Nation’s laws and institutions; yet no national church shall be established, nor shall civil authority be exercised in the administration of Word, Sacrament, or discipline.

Civil rulers, being ministers of God for good, are morally bound to govern in submission to Jesus Christ, to uphold justice in accordance with God’s law, to protect the church in the lawful exercise of her spiritual mission, while administering their office impartially and without respect of persons.

In all these duties, the civil magistrate remains under God’s law and judgment, accountable to Him for the faithful exercise of authority entrusted to them.

quote:

---

Don’t you mean selected by elected representatives in the state legislature?

---

Can you lay out how this would be different than the majority party selects their preferred senator from among their friends. Likely the largest donor.

Can you lay out how this is different than the mess of terrible temporary senators we get whenever a vacancy is filled by the governor?

These people are in the same party, they are a part of the same party machine.

You are going to wind up with more Loeffers who have a ton of money and just want to be a senator.

Our government is a representative Republic, not a democracy.

Apparently, you weren't paying attention in Civics class Mr. dollar store lawyer man.

quote:

---

Can you lay out how this would be different than the majority party selects their preferred senator from among their friends. Likely the largest donor.

---

The difference is the Senators are there to represent the interests of the states, not the people. Basically, the idea of having senators elected by state legislators is so that state governments have representation in Congress. If the house attempts to pass legislation that would enable the feds to trample over state government autonomy, theoretically, senators (who are beholden to said state governments) would intervene to stop it.

Having senators represent the legislatures, NOT the people is a feature, not a bug. The whole point is to act as a check/balance between federal and state level separation of power. Notice that once that feature was fully removed via constitutional amendment, that the federal government rapidly expanded in size to the point that most state governments were rendered as merely pass-through entities for federal spending.

quote:

---

The difference is the Senators are there to represent the interests of the states, not the people.

---

Which is just the interest of the party that controls the selection.
Our nation no longer has this idea, want proof, literally look at every selected senator. Governors pick them to fill national positions, not state positions.

quote:

---

Basically, the idea of having senators elected by state legislators is so that state governments have representation in Congress. If the house attempts to pass legislation that would enable the feds to trample over state government autonomy, theoretically, senators (who are beholden to said state governments) would intervene to stop it.

---

It's never worked that way and never will, Even if you go back to civil war times, Southern Senators were beholden to the more powerful groups rather than their individual state.

quote:

---

Having senators represent the legislatures, NOT the people is a feature, not a bug.

---

It was a buggy feature that never worked.

quote:

---

The whole point is to act as a check/balance between federal and state level separation of power. Notice that once that feature was fully removed via constitutional amendment, that the federal government rapidly expanded in size to the point that most state governments were rendered as merely pass-through entities for federal spending.

---

Again, do you "Really" think that's what would happen? Do you have any evidence that State parties would stop picking top donors?

1) I would repeal the 16th and 17th amendments;

2) I would amend the necessary and proper clause to restrict Congressional authority to those powers “necessary and proper” to effectuate the enumerated powers;

3) I would clarify that birthright citizenship only exists to the extent a person is born in the United States to two United States Citizens, or one United States Citizen and one person lawfully in the United States pursuant to laws passed by Congress - not by EO.

4) I would expressly prohibit the census from counting persons who are not United States citizens (the census clause is outdated and unnecessary bc there is no slavery).

5) I would constitutionally require that the president is not inaugurated for six months following Election Day, as defined by Congress in order to provide time to test the fraud inevitably committed by democrats

6) I would constitutionally ban the use of mail-in voting in any election involving members of the House of Representatives, senate, or President, and require that all voting be in person, exempting only deployed soldiers. I would eliminate early voting in federal elections to 7 days before Election Day as established by Congress

7) I would raise the voting age to 25, with the exception of enlisted military

8) I would constitutionally require that all members of the executive branch are at will
Employees serving at the discretion of the president.

Term limits will frick you. The only ppl who should be term limited are members of the executive branch. ( i.e. Bureaucrats) Give em 12 yrs max.

quote:

---

Why though.

It really feels like everyone says it, but no one has any examples on how it was "better" before the 17th, much less how modern Senate selections (of which there are many, Example Goldbar Menendez) have been better in any way than those who are elected.

I feel like some Party supporters have spread this idea, as they would be the only ones who benefit.

---

Senators were originally meant to represent state governments, not popular opinion. That design protected states from federal overreach. The public might favor a policy like a national drinking age of 21, but a senator accountable to a state legislature would never vote to let Washington strong-arm the state by threatening to withhold funds. That funding leverage, unknown to the original system, is what has nationalized policy, hollowed out federalism, and stripped states of their distinct authority and identity.

Just enforcing it would be enough

SFP nailed it. Get rid of this stupid arse interpretation of the commerce clause.

It'd be a great day in America and therefore the world.

quote:

---

Notice that once that feature was fully removed via constitutional amendment, that the federal government rapidly expanded in size to the point that most state governments were rendered as merely pass-through entities for federal spending.

---

Bro you know, or should know, that this has NOTHING to do with fedgov expansion.Wickard v. Filburn is why, which occurred 30 years later (1942). The mass expansion didn't even really occur until a few decades after Wickard, also.