Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Amendments to the Constitution

Assuming that a Convention of States to Propose Amendments to the Constitution (different than a full blown Constitutional Convention) were to take place, what Amendments would you want to see proposed and what Amendments do you believe could actually pass 2/3s muster of the states to be enacted?

The two that I'd most like to see and that I think could and would be enacted are:

1) Balanced Budget Amendment
2) Term Limits on Representatives and Senators

I'd really love to see these enacted, but I don't think they'd pass:

3) Fair/Flat Tax Amendment
4) Limitations on Executive Orders and Actions
5) Prohibition on Congress Exempting Itself or Any Other Branch or Members of Government from Laws Enacted
6) No Permanent Public Funding of Retirement Benefits For Elected Officials

If we're really talking pie-in-the-sky stuff, how about:

7) Abolition of Political Parties
8) Only Public Financing of Elections
9) Secession of States Permissible

I am good with 1-8 and still thinking about 9. I will have to ponder that one a while but I can see the possibilities.

Is #7 compatible with freedom of association?

It could be.

Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments
By: Daniel Horowitz (Diary)August 13th, 2013
Over the past year, I have dedicated my time to helping elect conservatives in an effort to ensure that at least one political party represents our constitutional form of government. 
But even as I sweat and toil for this endeavor, I have realized that elections are not enough to restore our liberty.  In fact, it is scandalous that our liberties should be subject to the outcome of elections in the first place.

What if we are not successful in electing more Constitutional conservatives?  What if the statists outgun us with all the special interest money they received in return for their votes against the Constitution?  Should we be denied our liberty just because we lack the parallel resources to convince low information voters that they have no right to infringe upon our liberties?
[...]
Mark Levin has written The Liberty Amendments, a set of proposed constitutional amendments that will unambiguously downsize the federal government by targeting specific loopholes that have allowed the statists to adulterate our Constitution. 

Far from this being a radically new vision, Levin proves – through founding documents and floor debates at the Constitutional Congress – how his ideas are in line with what the Founders envisioned in our Federal government. 

It’s just that after years of deviating from the Constitution, it has become clear that we need very specific limitations on federal abuses – abuses that have gone far beyond the imagination of our Founders – in order to restore the Republic.

Mark Levin is proposing ten amendments to the Constitution.  Each one is written in thoughtful language so as to preclude any ancillary problems:
1)      Term Limits: He proposes limiting service in both the House and Senate to 12 years.  Yes, we’ve heard all the arguments about elections being the best limit.  But the past 100 year has proven that to be false.  As someone who works day and night to throw the bums out, I can tell you that is nearly impossible to throw them out with the amount of money they raise – precisely for their abuses of power.  Levin also proves that limiting time in office was a highly regarded proposal during the Constitutional Congress.

2)      Repealing the 17th Amendment: Levin proposes repealing the 17th amendment and vesting state legislators with the power to elect senators so that the power of states is not diluted, as originally feared by the framers of the Constitution.

3)      Restoring the Judiciary to its proper role: The Judiciary was never meant to be an all-powerful institution in which five men in robes have the final say over every major policy battle in the country.  In order to end judicial tyranny, Levin proposes limiting service to one 12-year term, and granting both Congress and the state legislatures the authority to overturn court decisions with the vote of three-fifths of both houses of Congress or state legislative bodies.

4)      Limiting Taxation and Spending: Levin proposes a balanced budget amendment, limiting spending to 17.5% of GDP and requiring a three-fifths vote to raise the debt ceiling.  He also proposes limiting the power to tax to 15% of an individual’s income, prohibiting other forms of taxation, and placing the deadline to file one’s taxes one day before the next federal election.

5)      Limiting bureaucracy:  He proposes an amendment to limit and sunset federal regulations and subject the existence of all federal departments to stand-alone reauthorization bills every three years.

6)      Defining the Commerce Clause: Levin writes an amendment that, while technically unnecessary, is practically an imperative to restoring the original intent of the Commerce Clause.  The amendment would make it clear that the commerce clause grants not power to actively regulate and control activity; rather to prevent states from impeding commerce among other states, as Madison originally intended.

7)      Limiting Federal power to take private property

8)      Allowing State Legislature to Amend the Constitution: Although the Framers intentionally made it difficult to amend the Constitution, they did so to preserve the Republic they created.  However, the progressives have illegally altered our Republic through a silent and gradual coup without using the amendment process.  If we are going to successfully push the aforementioned amendments, we will need an easier mechanism to force them through. The proposed amendment allows states to bypass Congress and propose an amendment with support of just two-thirds of the states (instead of three-fourths) and without convening a convention.

9)      State Authority to Override Congress:  A proposed amendment to allow states to override federal statutes by majority vote in two-thirds of state legislatures.  The last two proposals are rooted in the idea that the states only agreed to the Constitution on condition that their power would not be diluted and that all federal power is derived from the states.

10)  Protecting the Vote: A proposal to require photo ID for all federal elections and limit early voting.

I don't think we will see any more amendments to the Constitution. barack hussein has proved to one and all, that the document is not even relevant any more.

Voting needs some serious overhaul.
Get rid of electronic voting machines that leave no paper trail for real recounts.
Eliminate voting by mail and any other form of voting where the voter does not have to appear at the polling place in person and at a set time and date.
Serious fines and jail time for voter fraud.

Agreed.

Are we forgetting that those with the most to lose, were these proposals to come to fruition, are the ones in charge of the process?

Nope, not forgetting that at all.

How so, considering the representation would be by STATE delegations and not federales?

Make it a crime for federal employees, Senators, Congressmen and the President to violate federal laws or suborn federal employees to do this.

Provide congress with the ability to strip benefits, fire federal employees and ensure prosecution of federal employees independently of the executive branch.

I don't want to ever see a convention. The "other side" would try to ram through a bunch of liberal stuff to erode our rights, and they might just get it done.
Get rid of our raghead president and leave well enough alone.

Not a Constitutional Convention, but a Convention of State to Propose Amendments. There is a huge difference.

As for a ConCon, at this point it may be the only real chance we have left (IMHO), and it can't happen soon enough.

Mark each ballot with the voters fingerprint so that if the voter is determined to be fraudulent the votes can be retracted.

Outlaw finding votes in the trunks of peoples cars.

There's some serious chatter being tossed about as to term limits for S.Ct. Justices, as well.

I'd back that. Ginsburg needs to have been gone. Stevens was on WAY too long.

The idea that a POTUS can influence SCOTUS decisions for half-a-century or more with enough nominees is beyond the scope of what the Founders had in mind.

It would take the ratification of 37 states for that one though, right?

I believe that it would, as opposed to 34 for any others being discussed.

And that's the part that the folks who are so afraid don't get. The STATE would vote on these, and it would take 34 states voting in favor of any such Amendment to make it binding. The PRK and Mass and places like that could go as left as they wanted on proposals, but they'd need 34 states to get it done. If one takes a look at the red/blue maps of the states, they'd see the math pretty quickly.

That absolutely needs to happen.