The Us constitution currently has 27 Amendments, including the 10 in the bill of rights. What amendments could reasonably have been passed in addition to these? This does not only include the pending ones, but all other ideas that could have happened. Post 1900 POD's are allowed.
Plausible Constitutional Ammendments
- Thread starter El Speculador
- Start date
CaliGuy
Banned
I agree with all of the above as plausible ammendments. A couple of possibilities that I would like to add come to mind. First, Of the 12 ammendments approved by the Senate and sent to the states, articles 1 and 2 were not ratified and so did not become a part of the Constitution.
Article 1 specified a series of formulae for determinig how many people should be represented by a single representative. It set out a ratio of one Representative for every thirty-thousand people, until the number of representatives equaled one hundred, at which point the article specified that Congress could regulate representation as long as there were at least one hundred hundred Representatives, and no Representative represented more than forty-thousand people until the total reached two hundred Representatives, where it repeated the previous sentence, but with two hundred instead on one hundred and fifty-thousand instead of forty.
Article 2 is literally the 27th Ammendment.
I'd also add that an ammendment which applied the restrictions in the bill of rights to the states (i.e. the Incorporation Doctrine, but actually spelled out as an Ammendment rather than construed by the courts) would be plausible. Madison included it in the set of 17 he originally proposed to Congress, but it ddin't make it through to the Senate. Additionally, I am of the opinion that the 14th Ammendment was originally intended to be something along these lines, but it didn't spell it out explicitly, and so was not applied as such by the Supreme Court.
Article 1 specified a series of formulae for determinig how many people should be represented by a single representative. It set out a ratio of one Representative for every thirty-thousand people, until the number of representatives equaled one hundred, at which point the article specified that Congress could regulate representation as long as there were at least one hundred hundred Representatives, and no Representative represented more than forty-thousand people until the total reached two hundred Representatives, where it repeated the previous sentence, but with two hundred instead on one hundred and fifty-thousand instead of forty.
Article 2 is literally the 27th Ammendment.
I'd also add that an ammendment which applied the restrictions in the bill of rights to the states (i.e. the Incorporation Doctrine, but actually spelled out as an Ammendment rather than construed by the courts) would be plausible. Madison included it in the set of 17 he originally proposed to Congress, but it ddin't make it through to the Senate. Additionally, I am of the opinion that the 14th Ammendment was originally intended to be something along these lines, but it didn't spell it out explicitly, and so was not applied as such by the Supreme Court.
A couple of possibilities.
1) No appointment to be made to the Supreme Court which would cause the number of Associate Justices to exceed eight.
Just in case anyone gets ideas about packing the Court by creating additional seats.
2) Amendments to this Constitution shall take effect if ratified by three-fourths of the States within seven years of their submission to the States by Congress. Ratifications once made may not be rescinded, but no ratification to be made after the expiry of seven years, and any such late ratification to be held illegal and void.
Tidies up some questions about the amending process, and in particular prevents the kind of "necromancy" which produced the 27h Amendment. That one is pretty harmless, but what happened is absurd all the same.
1) No appointment to be made to the Supreme Court which would cause the number of Associate Justices to exceed eight.
Just in case anyone gets ideas about packing the Court by creating additional seats.
2) Amendments to this Constitution shall take effect if ratified by three-fourths of the States within seven years of their submission to the States by Congress. Ratifications once made may not be rescinded, but no ratification to be made after the expiry of seven years, and any such late ratification to be held illegal and void.
Tidies up some questions about the amending process, and in particular prevents the kind of "necromancy" which produced the 27h Amendment. That one is pretty harmless, but what happened is absurd all the same.
Perhaps a couple more
3) When the President or Vice-President of the United States shall be tried before the Senate following impeachment, the Chief Justice, or if there be none than the longest serving Associate Justice, shall preside over the Senate.
Fills a couple of gaps.
4) In case of the death, resignation, removal or inability of both President and Vice-President, Congress may by law determine which officer or other person shall become President or act as President until the disability be removed or the Presidential term expired.
Settles an old question about the constitutionality of the 1947 Presidential Succession Act, depending on whether the Speaker of the HoR and President Pro-Tempore of the Senate count as "officers".
3) When the President or Vice-President of the United States shall be tried before the Senate following impeachment, the Chief Justice, or if there be none than the longest serving Associate Justice, shall preside over the Senate.
Fills a couple of gaps.
4) In case of the death, resignation, removal or inability of both President and Vice-President, Congress may by law determine which officer or other person shall become President or act as President until the disability be removed or the Presidential term expired.
Settles an old question about the constitutionality of the 1947 Presidential Succession Act, depending on whether the Speaker of the HoR and President Pro-Tempore of the Senate count as "officers".
Last edited:
Here are my proposals for amendments
1.) Balance budget amendment - In time of peace, the government cannot overspend the budget unless approved by 2/3 of the House and Senate (wasn't this one close to being an amendment in the early 1800's)
2.) Secession amendment - Once a state joins the Union, it cannot leave the Union unless approved by 2/3 the Senate (wonder why this amendment was not added during reconstruction to clear the matter up once and for all. Yes, the Civil War ending in 1865 and reconstruction ended it for that generation, but why did the government add an amendment to clear it up for all time. With control of Congress and the Presidency, and state legislatures, Republicans would have easily had this one approved. Northern Democrats and Southern Unionists would approve as well to avoid another mess down the road. This is to just clear up the whole secession mess of 1860 and 1861 before Lincoln could do anything about it.)
3.) Number of representatives - The number of representatives representing a state shall be equal to dividing a states census population by the census population of the smallest state and rounding down. The determining of equal populated districts within a state shall be left to the state legislatures. The size of the House of Representatives can only be changed from the smallest state rule only by a 3/4 vote of the current house. (this sucks for small states like where I am from, and agricultural interests, but it is fair). Within time, the US Capital is renamed the US Senate building and a larger office building is constructed to house the United States House of Representatives and joint sessions of Congress.
4.) Term limits for Senators and Representatives - No senator can serve more than 18 years in office. No Representative can serve more than 10 years in office.
1.) Balance budget amendment - In time of peace, the government cannot overspend the budget unless approved by 2/3 of the House and Senate (wasn't this one close to being an amendment in the early 1800's)
2.) Secession amendment - Once a state joins the Union, it cannot leave the Union unless approved by 2/3 the Senate (wonder why this amendment was not added during reconstruction to clear the matter up once and for all. Yes, the Civil War ending in 1865 and reconstruction ended it for that generation, but why did the government add an amendment to clear it up for all time. With control of Congress and the Presidency, and state legislatures, Republicans would have easily had this one approved. Northern Democrats and Southern Unionists would approve as well to avoid another mess down the road. This is to just clear up the whole secession mess of 1860 and 1861 before Lincoln could do anything about it.)
3.) Number of representatives - The number of representatives representing a state shall be equal to dividing a states census population by the census population of the smallest state and rounding down. The determining of equal populated districts within a state shall be left to the state legislatures. The size of the House of Representatives can only be changed from the smallest state rule only by a 3/4 vote of the current house. (this sucks for small states like where I am from, and agricultural interests, but it is fair). Within time, the US Capital is renamed the US Senate building and a larger office building is constructed to house the United States House of Representatives and joint sessions of Congress.
4.) Term limits for Senators and Representatives - No senator can serve more than 18 years in office. No Representative can serve more than 10 years in office.
There are a few I can think of off the top of my head. The Constitution doesn't actually guarantee anyone the right to vote in elections where the qualifications are determined by individual states. The 15th and 19th amendments require that if a state does give the right to vote to the public, then the right cannot be denied on account of race or gender. But a state can deny everyone the right to vote if it so chooses. So if Illinois decides that its electors for the electoral college are to be chosen by popular vote, then the popular vote must not exclude people on account of race or gender. However, Illinois can decide to have its electors chosen by the state legislature rather than the popular vote, in other words, deny everyone the right to vote (at least for presidential electors). This does not run afoul of either the 15th or 19th amendments.
The Constitution does specifically state that the members of Congress are to be chosen by direct popular vote of the people of the state. Since I would love to abolish the Electoral College, I would simply have one blanket amendment guaranteeing the right to vote for all federal offices to all citizens over the age of 18. Since abolishing the electoral college is a more dramatic change, that would obviously require a separate amendment. So 2 amendments I would have are:
1) The right to vote for U.S. Representatives, Senators, and President of the U.S. shall be guaranteed to all U.S. citizens over the age of 18.
2) The President shall be chosen in a national election by a direct vote of the people. Should none of the candidates for office receive 40% of the vote, then a runoff election between the top 2 candidates shall be held 2 weeks following the initial election.
I decided 40%, rather than 50%, should be the threshold for a winning candidate, since so many candidates have been elected with less than 50%. I would like some form of runoff election, and I have read about several interesting proposals, but I don't have the information in front of me at the moment so I can't throw in any more details at the moment. Also, an amendment would undoubtedly have much more formal language than this, but I'm actually at work at the moment so I'm going to have to keep things simple for now.
As long as we're on the President, another amendment I would like to see passed is:
3) Repeal the 22nd amendment. No more term limits for the president. Seriously, has there ever been a good second term president ever? Rendering the president a lame duck as soon as he gets re-elected does no good for anyone. The one time a president did serve more than 2 terms (FDR), it was hardly a disaster for American government. Besides, most presidents have decided on their own that two terms was enough for them. I fail to see any harm resulting from the repealing of the presidential term limit.
4) Line-item veto for the president. Most governors have this power, why not the president?
Moving on to the Supreme Court, I would have an amendment regarding its size:
5) The Supreme Court shall consist of 8 (or 10) Associate Justices, plus the Chief Justice. So the Supreme Court would by law consist of either 9 or 11 members (odd number obviously being necessary to prevent split-decisions). Odd that when FDR died, the country decided to act on his breaking of the 2 term tradition, but not on his more egregious act of trying to pack the court. This amendment would rectify that little problem.
I agree with Captain Jack about an amendment incorporating the Bill of Rights to apply to the states, although the Supreme Court has already done so on some of them through individual court decisions, an amendment would make incorporation official and permanent.
I would like to see the Equal Rights Amendment passed.
As for Congress, a lot of changes I would like to make are really matters that are covered by statute, not the constitution. For example, I would like to change the filibuster from 60 to 55 votes, but the filibuster is never mentioned in the Constitution, so no reason to address it with an amendment. I'm sure there are a few more amendments I can throw in, but I'm a little pressed for time at the moment, so I'll just throw these in for now.
The Constitution does specifically state that the members of Congress are to be chosen by direct popular vote of the people of the state. Since I would love to abolish the Electoral College, I would simply have one blanket amendment guaranteeing the right to vote for all federal offices to all citizens over the age of 18. Since abolishing the electoral college is a more dramatic change, that would obviously require a separate amendment. So 2 amendments I would have are:
1) The right to vote for U.S. Representatives, Senators, and President of the U.S. shall be guaranteed to all U.S. citizens over the age of 18.
2) The President shall be chosen in a national election by a direct vote of the people. Should none of the candidates for office receive 40% of the vote, then a runoff election between the top 2 candidates shall be held 2 weeks following the initial election.
I decided 40%, rather than 50%, should be the threshold for a winning candidate, since so many candidates have been elected with less than 50%. I would like some form of runoff election, and I have read about several interesting proposals, but I don't have the information in front of me at the moment so I can't throw in any more details at the moment. Also, an amendment would undoubtedly have much more formal language than this, but I'm actually at work at the moment so I'm going to have to keep things simple for now.
As long as we're on the President, another amendment I would like to see passed is:
3) Repeal the 22nd amendment. No more term limits for the president. Seriously, has there ever been a good second term president ever? Rendering the president a lame duck as soon as he gets re-elected does no good for anyone. The one time a president did serve more than 2 terms (FDR), it was hardly a disaster for American government. Besides, most presidents have decided on their own that two terms was enough for them. I fail to see any harm resulting from the repealing of the presidential term limit.
4) Line-item veto for the president. Most governors have this power, why not the president?
Moving on to the Supreme Court, I would have an amendment regarding its size:
5) The Supreme Court shall consist of 8 (or 10) Associate Justices, plus the Chief Justice. So the Supreme Court would by law consist of either 9 or 11 members (odd number obviously being necessary to prevent split-decisions). Odd that when FDR died, the country decided to act on his breaking of the 2 term tradition, but not on his more egregious act of trying to pack the court. This amendment would rectify that little problem.
I agree with Captain Jack about an amendment incorporating the Bill of Rights to apply to the states, although the Supreme Court has already done so on some of them through individual court decisions, an amendment would make incorporation official and permanent.
I would like to see the Equal Rights Amendment passed.
As for Congress, a lot of changes I would like to make are really matters that are covered by statute, not the constitution. For example, I would like to change the filibuster from 60 to 55 votes, but the filibuster is never mentioned in the Constitution, so no reason to address it with an amendment. I'm sure there are a few more amendments I can throw in, but I'm a little pressed for time at the moment, so I'll just throw these in for now.
Napoleonrules
Banned
I'd like to see an amendment that punishes states that pass laws that have already been found unconstitutional or are in direct violation of federal law in areas where the federal govt has preemptive authority. Passing the law will result in a cease of all federal funds for anything and the state will have to pay the federal govt the cost of any resulting court case if the state disputes and loses that the law is the same as one found unconstitutional or that feds have preemption in the matter. Sure, some states (coughcoughsoutherncoughcough) may pass laws worded differently and say "totally different!" But courts can determine the intent. This threat of retaliation can keep states from doing dumb things, both liberal and conservative; weed on left and abortion on the right)
Plausibility is a moving target; changes to the Constitution are often regarded as implausible, until they become necessary, or the opinions of the masses shift just right.
As I read the question, you want to know what amendments could have been passed before now, if we had sufficient ingenuity and motivation. With most TL's close to ours, I imagine very few not already mentioned would pass. Less similar to OTL, well, I've been reading the Fear and Loathing TLs and they offer a good scenario for raising support for amendments to clear up presidential succession and reworking or abolishing the Electoral College. These might be relevant going forward into the post-Trump era. I'd bet we end up with some sort of runoff at least to presidential elections, and possibly to all federal offices to be fair.
As to the future... given the dysfunctionality of Congress, I'd like to see an amendment fixing the cloture requirements for debate in both houses at 50% of members, with an assumption that legislative holds can delay bills and appointments long enough already. And, ideally, something with teeth to force Congress to not take forever in filling judicial seats.
As I read the question, you want to know what amendments could have been passed before now, if we had sufficient ingenuity and motivation. With most TL's close to ours, I imagine very few not already mentioned would pass. Less similar to OTL, well, I've been reading the Fear and Loathing TLs and they offer a good scenario for raising support for amendments to clear up presidential succession and reworking or abolishing the Electoral College. These might be relevant going forward into the post-Trump era. I'd bet we end up with some sort of runoff at least to presidential elections, and possibly to all federal offices to be fair.
As to the future... given the dysfunctionality of Congress, I'd like to see an amendment fixing the cloture requirements for debate in both houses at 50% of members, with an assumption that legislative holds can delay bills and appointments long enough already. And, ideally, something with teeth to force Congress to not take forever in filling judicial seats.
Anaxagoras
Banned
Something like this was proposed by Anti-Federalists in Pennsylvania:
As standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.
As standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil powers.
Napoleonrules
Banned
Neither would half the other proposed amendments on here. SCOTUS has already said the Constitution says half those things.
Most laws that get passed that way get turned over anyway, either by a court or by the state's governor. Georgia's HB2 for instance. The North Carolinian one is more of an outlier, though I imagine that when a court actually takes the time to review it, it will be done away with.
The obvious exemption to this was segregation laws, but those aren't exclusively southern and come back to the ever pervasive question "why would they care?" \
In reference to weed and abortion (both of which I think should be legal), individual states can't ban abortion since its a Supreme Court case. They can only limit it. As for weed, as of now its a state by state issue, only because the feds haven't made a ruling one way or another.
I think the problem with this amendment you presented is that it limits states to an almost unreasonable level. If the federal government can now decide laws on a state by state basis (or force all states to follow all laws in exactly the same manner) whats the point of having states?
I think this proposal is actually highly plausible. Jefferson was kicking the idea around at the time the Constitutional Convention was being held (IIRC, I don't recall the exact years but certainly in the same period) and the idea gets kicked around again every so often. I think the late 1790's-early 1800's or the 1930's are the two periods where a balanced budget amendment are most likely.
I don't think this one would be at all likely, as it runs afoul of constitutional interpretation. Specifically, the Constitution, when proposed, was technically a modification of the Articles of Confederation, and the Articles did include a statement that the Union was perpetual, implying that states couldn't leave. It's far from a flawless position, but it is far and away the dominant interpretation as to why the Constitution does not include an exit clause of some sort. There's also the matter that adding an exit clause to some extent legitimizes the idea of secession by providing weakening the United States' position that none of the states actually legally left the Union during the Civil War. Especially as in Texas v. White Chief Justice Chase essentially established the same principle as this amendment - secession is only permissible if consented to by the rest of the states - but without the problems making it an amendment would create.
I think most of the situations covered by this amendment would actually covered by the Constitution's requirement that the Federal government ensure a republican form of government to the states. So, while the Constitution does not actually gurrantee people the right to vote for their electors, it does prevent the states from eliminating democratic government as a whole. With regard to presidential electors specifically, remember until 1913 state legislatures selected Senators too. The simple fact that the people do not directly elect a particular position does not necessarily mean they are being denied the right to vote or denied a voice in who fills the office in question. Their voice is simply through their state legislators. If a state were to genuinely deny its citizens the right to vote that would be something the Federal government could, and arguably would be compelled to, intervene against.
The mosre I think about it, the more interested I get in what such a hypothetical amendment would look like. Specifically, which rights would it actually incorporate, and which would it not? I suspect we might have a very different situation than the current one where the Court has incorporated most, but not all, of the Bill of Rights. I also don't see how reverse incorporation could be a thing with this amendment, which would be interesting.
I can very easily see something like that being added either as a part of the Bill of Rights itself, likely as an addition to the 3rd Amendment, or in the early years of the Republic. All it would take is a military unit mutinying or displaying some sort of resistance to civilian control, be it real or perceived, to get the Convention/Congress interested. Lots of POD's available. The Newburgh Conspiracy goes further, but still gets defused, perhaps?