[Ask the Gulch] People complain but in 200 plus years and more have never thought it important enough to amend the Constitution on a variety of subjects. What's your favorite candidate?
Mylist would start by replacing people with citizens for census purposes followed by putting the old versions in the back and showing the amended version in the front. That way northern democrats would not have to keep apologizing for the 3/5ths rule. I might also like to see a mandatory first page to all congressional bills. Title, One paragraph mission statement or statement of intent and extent. Next Constitutional Cite to check validity. Estimated Cost and finally Source of Funding. Two other add ons might be if a dollar is taken from A to fund B then how does that affect C since A no longer has a dollar to spend in their store? the crowining touch would be denying anything which did not fit the description in the Mission Statement.
My last submission is initiative, referendum and recall for all States specifically including State Delegates to the US Congress.
Your turn!
My last submission is initiative, referendum and recall for all States specifically including State Delegates to the US Congress.
Your turn!
First: let's put the Senate back the way it was: as an assembly of representatives of State legislatures, not "elected by the people."
Second: make Senators recallable by the States who sent them, for any reason or no reason, according to the said State's own laws.
Next: require each bill to cite the Constitutional authority therefor.
Next: strike the Congressional power to establish post offices and ost roads. I find that provision obsolete and overtaken by technology.
Next: provide specifically for Congressional power to provide for and maintain air and space forces, to make laws for the government thereof, to provide for calling forth any Air and Space Militia, to provide for organizing, training, and disciplining the said Air and Space Militia, to exercise exclusive legislation over such places as may be purchased, etc., etc., for the construction of air bases, space launch sites, training facilities, and other needful buildings. Then make clear exactly that armies the Congress may raise or support and make plain that Congress may raise no other uniformed services except as enumerated. Which means: abolish the Public Health Service and the Office of the Surgeon General. (Likewise, make the President the CinC of the air and space forces, in addition to the army and navy.)
Repeal Amendment XVI, the Income Tax.
Restrict the power to borrow money, and provide a repayment plan for the current debts.
What the 16th Amendment changes is how the Income Taxes collected can be spent. Before the 16th Amendment, any collected income tax would need to be spent equally on everyone. More importantly, the Government was accountable for spending the money equally, and for refunding any money spent unequally back to the taxpayers.
The 16th Amendment made it so that Income Taxes could be spent however they wanted, regardless of it being equal or not.
So people confuse the Before and the After of the 16th Amendment with Causality. Before the 16th, very few Income Taxes. After, there were a lot of income taxes! So most people assume that it legalized Income Taxes.
But the truth is that there weren't Income Taxes before the 16th because it was so difficult to spend the money, not because they were illegal.
The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese IF the rats are in the trap.
No amendments or alterations, period. If alterations or amendments are needed they must take the form of a new bill. Tacking on or squirreling in is as shameful as baseline budgeting.
Sunset provisions for all bills, based on review and milestones. No criteria for success?? => No bill.
All bills must include hyperlinks to the EXACT references they change or refer to.
For starters.
And the MSM would treat me like a dog treats a chew-toy...
Gulchers seem to keep considering themselves (or us) as typical, average and sensible.
Many of us may be sensible, but looking across the US electorate, I think it's incredibly stupid to even try to consider US as 'typical or average.'
We are hopelessly outnumbered by 'the rest of them.'
Now all of that and ten dollars will get you a cup of coffee. What may make points is anyone asks one of the fatal attacks. In yourown probably going to use it myself today or tomorrow. "Ah I see you are one of those who against the Constitution and pro-fascist better yet pro left wing fascist. otherwise you wouldn't have asked such a question. Then keep punching them with embarrassing but witty when possible follow ups Whatever they go after figure out their weak spot. if it's taxes ask how much they earn and how much they paid. etc. This works best when it's being monitored by other reporters or forms of media.
Sample. OK City Bomb. the plans came from a government manual. the manual was declassified by one of our Presidents I attended a gun show and the press looking to see if such manuals were for sale were kept out. Pick up a copy and walked out side. Oh iyou want to know about that book. Follow the money. See who profits. how do you mean? look inside the front cover it's plainly printed for all to see. US Government Printing Office. gee how did tghat happen. etc. etc. etc. the interview was neveer prnted nor televised. it was their President. You don't have to make them look stupid. That's normal. You just have to make them look stupid in front of a camera. They eat their own young.
May not get you elected but it will make you feel much much better.
the other thing to remember is when someone tapes you it's also permission to tape them. You don't have to ask.at that point. Not even if it's on or off the record. If they go first. Hello this call is being recorded for quality control purposes....that's all it takes. People get really stupid over the phone they think their nameless, faceless and safe.
That Little Black Book episode? Another papeer made a story about the story that was suppressed. Then it sort of died.
The book used to cost $4.95 Who knows how much money the US Government Printing Office made on that one title alone.
Mama Gumps wood shed is a place they like to avoid but as Nancy Pelosillyni routinely finds out. Her fault her pain our gain..
They may outnumber us but nobody likes to be made to look stupid they tend to take it out on the nearest most visible target. Especially right before election day.
THAT would cut down a lot of 'em!
On the other hand, individual amendments that can be debated and voted on are fine, and we do it all the time.
My favorite is the "line item veto".
I don't think the framers of the constitution envisioned multi-thousand page budget bills that had to be signed or vetoed as a whole.
I believe they thought if someone wanted to build a bridge they would pass a bill for a bridge and the president would either sign it or veto it.
But you could choose to not support all of the above. Unfortunately justice under the law is very very very expensive. I guess we need a sugar daddy or two or three. Seems like they are all on the other side.
Which reminds me just who IS the part of the rich? Gates, his partners, Mr. CNN, I can't truthfully think of a single billionaire who isn't a leiftist.
Darn it, why couldn't Bill Gates have been one of us?
Democrat Republican.
Simple as that.
He does not warrant his software as bug free. No software developer does and all software has bugs. So, you are declaring that all software developers are guilty of a criminal offense.
Too much wasted time - but it's not all bad. I didn't like Mac either but that was poor business ethics.
Blame MS for putting out crappy products? No, blame consumers for buying them. Blame Apple for charging 'too much more' for their offerings....
Remember, if there are 'thousands or tens of thousands of Apps available,' you can bet that virtually all of them are shit.
If there were any Really Good ones, they'd own the market. Recall the number of automobile manufacturers about a century ago... tons of them. Today: quite a few, but just a few "majors." All the rest are niches. Ford/GM/Toyota versus what? Bugatti?
:)
I have been using Vista for years and am quite satisfies with it (typing on it now), so as far as "drove off the market" not so much.
As for the legal phraseology I have started investigations with far less probable cause. However ... to defend MS if the public want's to be fleeced and hasn't complained that much for what thirty years Caveat Emptor. My system of waiting at least three years has worked well. I'm now on W7 and have no intentions of upgrading . but I didn't pay three or four thousand for a $100 dollar product. instead I paid $160 for an acceptable product. Well we didn't agree on this one but the the rest of your posts are well worth the read!
WIndows is vastly more complex than such operating systems and is vastly more reliable. Does it crash and have problems, sure, but then I guess I expect that as a part of complex computer systems.
For the last twenty one years I've run a company producing a product that relies on the windows operating system and I feel that it's been there for me.
Like you, I never buy the leading edge, so between waiting for things to settle down and having lower expectations my experience is different.
*notice what I did and did not capitalize.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
Delegates are sent to the convention with specific instructions as to the scope of the amendments to be proposed, the application for the convention MUST be the same in intent for ALL of the 2/3 of the states to call for the convention, this is NOT an OPEN convention. Any amendments proposed by such a Convention of the States MUST then be ratified by 2/3 of the several States.
I don't realistically see the danger of 37 states sending delegates to a Convention of the States to commit suicide.
"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with their own money."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 - 1859)
I do not have any confidence that a modern constitutional convention will not emerge with a new document and then start steam rolling the process of adoption. Given the fact that the country is far more tolerant of big government than it was in 1787, you can bet it will be a socialist manifesto.
In other words SOS - think chipped beef on toast.
I have a good sized list of amendments I'd like to put in.
# No government, at any level, may outlaw a behavior merely because it is risky to the person doing it -- that is, if you're an adult you get to make your own choices about risk to yourself. The "public safety", for any purpose, does not include or require the elimination of risks so assumed. (This also limits the scope of states' police power.)
# No sumptuary laws.
# No bans or restrictions on any food, drug, or other substance. FDA can still require accurate ingredients labeling, but can't forbid any truthful statement on a label. Local governments can still restrict bars and similar businesses (but you can buy whatever you want and use it at home).
# Restore freedom of contract (as per Lochner v. New York).
# Incorporate Federalist #39 and #41, and probably others, into the Constitution (thus forcing strict construction).
# Interstate commerce means only particular activities that actually extend into more than one state AND are conducted for profit.
# The 16th Amendment is repealed and not replaced by anything. (We don't need any more government than we had in 1911.)
# No more spending federal money for purposes not spelt out in the Constitution (and "general welfare" does not count). Federal government gives up any control over state and local governments that was "attached as strings" to federal spending.
# In Article I, Section 8, the "post offices" clause is amended to add that government may not forbid competition with any postal service. Also, "post roads" is narrowed to just authorize a national highway system.
# Federal government must divest all land outside DC not in use as military bases. Sell it by auction or give it to the state it's in.
# Government must sell off the radio spectrum, and never similarly monopolize any communications medium again. It may keep ownership of frequencies it uses for governmental purposes, but not more than 20% of the total spectrum (I need to put in a good technical definition).
# No tax money may be spent to convince people of any point of view. This includes such things as anti-smoking campaigns and the advocacy groups funded by VAWA.
# Require at least intermediate scrutiny for any exception to the Constitution (no more rational basis test for any purpose).
# Abolish the third-party doctrine (that is, 4th and 5th amendment rights now apply to data you've entrusted to the phone company or others like them).
# Extend the 5th Amendment so a person can refuse to provide any evidence that may adversely affect him or his family (no more compelling Barry Bonds or tobacco executives to destroy their careers by testifying in front of Congress). This would not protect government officials, though.
# No restrictions on discrimination by private persons or organizations.
# The Supreme Court is fixed at 9 seats, and if any president appoints more than three members, all but the first three shall have their terms expire 60 days after that president leaves office. (This is to prevent any further threats to "pack the Court", something that both FDR and Obama have threatened to do.)
# Give the Supreme Court the power to remove a president who disobeys its orders (as Andrew Jackson did when he carried out the Indian Removal Act).
# Require voter approval, IN ADDITION to the legislative approval now required, for all constitutional amendments, all treaties, and all laws on certain controversial topics (such as abortion and gun control). This applies to my new amendments as well, including itself.
# Require all alliances with other countries to be re-approved by voters every 10 years (but provide reasonable notice, say 5 years, if we pull out of one as a result). This also is in addition to legislative approval.
# Give Congress (and voters per the above), not the president, complete control of foreign policy and war.
# Limit each year's spending to the previous year's actual revenue (a balanced-budget amendment that can't be cheated on).
# Give individual victims of any crime (or heirs if the victim is dead) the right to prosecute, and strip all police, prosecutors, and judges of all forms of immunity. Also abolish sovereign immunity. The Constitution would thus become an actual binding contract, enforceable against those who swear to uphold it.
# Add an explicit Rule of Lenity (that is, any law that is open to interpretation must be read in the way most favorable to the person accused of breaking that law).
# When a police officer or other official is tried for unnecessary force or exceeding his authority, the presumption that his civilian opponent is innocent shall trump the presumption that the official is innocent. This modifies the Rule of Lenity, too.
# No use of SWAT teams, no-knock raids, raids in the middle of the night, or other terror tactics unless there is good reason to believe they are actually necessary to prevent harm to officers or destruction of evidence.
# No use of batons, pepper spray, Tasers, or any other weapon except in reply to actual or threatened unlawful use of force by the target.
# No "stress" interrogation techniques.
# Police departments shall be fully liable for any use of force, including any search, arrest, or detention, or for taking away any liberty, unless the victim is then convicted of a crime serious enough to justify it. (If the police action was the result of a false accusation, the accuser shall be fully liable too.)
# Make police misconduct cases and their results public information, and ban those convicted from ever holding police authority anywhere again.
# No person can do wrong by resisting the unlawful use of force by police or anyone else.
# If a police officer or other official conceals any part of his badge or otherwise interferes with a person who would identify him so that he can be prosecuted or sued, that official's authority becomes null and void, and force may be used against him.
# An accused person's right to pay an attorney must trump any seizure of money or property unless it has been proven not to be rightfully his.
# Expressly allow juries to nullify, and forbid judges from giving orders (or removing a juror) to prevent it. Make a hung jury count as an acquittal (no retrial allowed).
# Prevent judges from excluding any statement a defendant wants to offer in his own defense.
# Abolish plea bargaining and make prosecutors actually try every case.
# "Loser pays" (both attorneys) in all civil and criminal cases, except where the winner is a rich (or government) plaintiff and the defendant is non-rich.
# Increase the standard of proof in civil cases to proof beyond a reasonable doubt if more than $1,000 (indexed for inflation) is at stake.
# No government entity may obtain more than 10% of its revenue by fines or penalties of any kind.
# Fines, or seized property, shall never go to government. Where they don't go to a victim, they shall be donated to an unrelated charity. This is to prevent enforcement actions from being taken for selfish gain.
# Tax agencies shall not have direct collection authority. That is, they must get a court order before seizing any money or property.
# Property cannot commit a crime. The practice of "civil forfeiture" is abolished forever, and all property ever so seized must be returned.
# There shall be no law, at any level of government, limiting the number of people or companies in any line of business. Where an occupation is licensed, a public safety need for every requirement of that license must be shown, and strict scrutiny applies. Licenses may not be denied for unrelated reasons.
# There shall be no laws restricting an owner's use of his property, except the common law of nuisances. (Thus no zoning or "urban planning".) Building permits may be required, but a public safety need for every requirement they carry must be shown, and strict scrutiny applies. Permits may not be denied for unrelated reasons.
# Concealed carry permits and drivers' licenses may not be refused to anyone except for public-safety reasons specific to that individual, and any refusal may be appealed.
# There shall be no laws that allow "bounty hunting" lawsuits by persons not materially affected (for example, ADA).
# Class actions as they now exist are banned. Plaintiffs may still sue as a group, but represent only individuals who expressly opt in.
# Abolish administrative law. Congress must approve all rules itself.
# No debtors' prison. No exceptions for child support or anything else.
# No stop-and-frisk, and no checkpoints except at actual borders. (This is already in the Constitution but is being disregarded. That has to be fixed.)
# The Second Amendment is extended to all weapons except WMDs. Local communities are allowed and encouraged to form militias that they control. (Like state militias these may be called up by the President in time of war or national emergency, but are independent unless and until that happens.)
# Emergency powers belong to Congress, not the President, while Congress is in session. Either Congress or the courts may overturn any declaration of emergency if, in their opinion, the facts don't justify it.
This is just a start. I like most of the other ideas here, too.
I you want to help you can contact me: Larry at TheSocietyProject.org
I was appalled to learn that the text of a law could be amended (to the degree of 100% changed) in committee - after it was voted on and approved. This should cease. And everyone who votes on a bill or law should have to sign a statement that says that he read and understood the full damn thing.
Also, any money voted to finance a specific program must go to that specific program and there is no need to have wording in every act and bill to insure that - there is a strong default for the money to go for the voted use and only for that use.
Laws have expiration dates. I would suggest that laws expire 10 or 20 years after they are passed. If the public wants that law again, they can pass it again. Right now, we accrete laws like a mudball rolling down a leafy hillside. We have to reverse this tendency.
I disagree with you on plea bargaining. I think that there should be a standard vending-machine plea bargain for misdemeanors. If you spare the court the hassle and overhead of a trial, you get whatever the vending machine plea bargain is. (And the number of felonies should be TINY. It is currently a felony in CA to put a false registration stamp on your license plate, for example...!)
Jan
I like the sunset-law idea.
Re: plea bargaining, its main effect is to increase the severity of sentences while removing due process, because the DA can file charges that go outrageously too far for what he thinks you did, then offer you a bargain that you have to take. That needs to stop. But I have no problem with standard, moderate fines for minor crimes (we call those "infractions" in California, vs. a misdemeanor which carries potential jail time but < 1 year).
I agree that there are too many felonies, and excessive punishment in general. But I don't know a good way to protect against these things in a constitution. You would think that the 8th Amendment would be enough, but it hasn't been.
Be careful what you ask for. For sure you will surely get it. BOHICA!
They were replaced by three little words...suspicion of terrorism.
which requires no probable cause, no proof or offer of proof, no warrant, no judge, no court, no defense attorney, And there is no requirement to admit to having made such an apprehension.
Number Two. I don't think the title included a convention. I just looked. No it doesn't. It includes "IF you could amend the constitution what amendments would youoffer. Back on track please. A little thoughtful dejavu
How about making it a high crime to avoid the amendment procedure? To publicly state you want to find a way around the Constitution. That was Clinton, To claim a power not granted because the supreme court hasn't visited that section yet? That was Obama.
What changes would you recommend?
How about take out the constitutional amendment section?
Mr. Soros would like a change that gives him the righ to buy votes of the voters and of the Congress or even buy the President.
His swami Yoda YackOff would like the right without explanation to take all your rights without exception. Looks like that one was granted without using the amendment procedure. Re-read the first paragraph.
More to your point it isn't a right provided though i would have to check each State's constitution to verify that.
Oregon at one time used it's head for something besides backwards beanies and offered to pay transportation and six months food and rent to anyone agreeing or applying to go elsewhere where their was employment. It was cheaper than endless welfare payments for Appalachia West. One acquaintance went to Michigan to operate heavy equipment and now is down in Florida where most of the productive Michi-ganders migrate for a big pay raise. Just by ducking Michigan's taxes.
A Constitutional Amendment to abolish, in total, all residential property taxation - on a nationwide basis (i.e., overruling the objections of States - feedback welcomed from Constitutional law buffs on this point,) as a human rights violation.
Here's something to think about:
Not one person in the United States of America, including you, owns his home. Not one. You may have paid for a home, you may have signed paperwork which says you are a home owner, but you do not own your home.
If you must pay someone else on a regular basis for the privilege of using some piece of property, whether it's a house or a car or a sofa or a roto-tiller, on pain of losing that privilege if you refuse to pay, then you are not an owner. You are a renter.
'See what I'm getting at here? So why have we tolerated the intolerable for so long?
The entire concept of residential property taxation is a negation of the right to home ownership at its root - it's government exercising brute force to designate itself, not you, as the de facto "owner," in perpetuity, of the home you have paid for - to which landed nobility you must either maintain rent payments or get thrown out onto the street. In a direct sense, residential property taxation is the relegation of the American individual to serfdom.
We must ask ourselves and the rest of the American people to step back, take a look at the militant injustice of property taxation, and question not only why we put up with it, but why we allowed an imposition so thoroughly alien to human rights to be initiated in the first place. Residential property taxation must be abolished, in total - with an eye toward the eventual abolition of all property taxation, residential, commercial or otherwise. If State and Local governments have to find ways to end their profligate spending when this "revenue stream" is removed, tough. Our right to the homes we have purchased is something we never should have surrendered, and must take back, by reason, by ethics, by the most fundamental principles of human rights.
This would also serve to drive a nice big stake through the heart of the "green" campaign to destroy the concept of individually-owned rural properties or even of individual family homes, and to herd us into retro-Stalinist urban anthills - the paradigm that goes variously as "Smart Growth," "Sustainable _ [insert anything here] _," "Agenda 21," etc.
Malta, Lichtenstein, Croatia, Thailand, Monaco, Fiji, the Cook Islands, New Zealand, Israel, Dubai, and Bahrain are just a few of the countries where there is no residential property taxation at all, or at most a one-time tax on purchase or sale of a residence but no perpetual, annual tax on property. The United States of America, once the leader of the free world, has a less-just tax policy than Croatia? Than Malta? Than Dubai? America should be leading the way by example - in abolishing the barbaric anachronism of residential property taxation entirely, as a new human rights paradigm for the entire world. We must fight to make that abolition a reality, and a Constitutional Amendment may be the best way to get it done.
A close second - though only after sweeping legislative action to create the condition it presupposes - would be an Amendment to bar government from "owning" any of the people's land other than that situated beneath legitimate government buildings and facilities. The legislative action in question would be: the comprehensive sell-off of all current government land holdings (or "designations" as "national monuments" or "wildlife refuges" or "ocean preserves" or "wetlands" or "scenic baubles" or "stuff we greens like lots and lots and you filthy humans will not be allowed to touch," etc.) that do not fit the description of such legitimate facilities. I would even argue for the divestiture of the National Park system to private organizations and/or individuals.
The government has no business confiscating, holding or barring use of land which properly belongs to individuals.
The method of this divestiture could be hammered out as a separate issue - maybe a new Homestead Act, Land Rush, land auction, whatever - with the proceeds going toward defraying government debt. Just so the land is no longer under the "ownership" or control of government at any level, directly or indirectly. Land that is unclaimed by private entities should be left as unclaimed wilderness, open to the future claims of whatever individuals may eventually want to homestead it.
.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-b-...
Article one section two (1) refers to selection of Representatives every two years by the people of the State. Section (3) refers to persons.14th amendment continues to use the word persons er or people for purposes of setting the number of districts in the House of Representatives.
In each of the foregoing it called for a ten year enumeration to determine the number of districts e.g the census. That is it's only legally stated purpose. Counting toilet seats or deciding how to divvy up the pork is not mentioned.
Article II refering to eligibility of President refers to citizens.
South Central Los Angeles a gerrmandered district is perhaps the most famous for representing non-citizens and coincidentally ensure the bank accounts of Representative Maxine Waters.
It would take a Consitutional Amendment to make the change something ignored by the citizens for 230 years.
It is already used to enumerate citizens versus non-citizens by the information contained in the first few lines. Even that is not required and is not used to apportion Representative Districts but the whole number of people or persons regardless of citizenship, illegal or legal alien status or visiting Disneyland.
The court would have to declare one of the first paragraphs of the Constitution as unconstitutional on their own OR demand an amendment procedure. I am a bit suspect of the purpose given ACLU and Huffington are involved... When you smell rats there are usually rats to be found and the cheese is missing.
Those groups whose behavior is considered aberrant to the norm must have anthrpological evidence that such behavior preceded civilization; to be recognized as a minority cultural norm. Conjoining of said group subset by mutual consent would only be recognized by state by state so long as doesn't conflict and/or supported by above statements.
1. Term limits of no more than 2 terms in any office Senate or Congress.
2. Elimination of all donations to political candidates, except from individuals not to exceed 100.00 per person.
3. Yes on the recall idea. Makes them accountable.
4. All voting must be in person and you must prove that you are: a. Alive. B. A citizen.
5. Balllots must be counted in a public forum open to all to view.
Pretty simple, over all.
Income tax gives the power to the government and is fascist in nature.
A consumption tax gives the power to the citizens and producers of the nations wealth and gives the power to the citizens.
Government then becomes as it should always have been the temporary employees of the citizens the true source of power or what used to be called divine right 230 years ago.
Citizens, Family, Country, Government - in that order of importance.
Maybe next time around.
this Constitution is hereby repealed."--Also, perhaps, an Amendment stating :"The purpose of
government is to protect man from force (including fraud) and/or
violence, and punish same;any government
in the United States, whether Federal, State, or
municipal, shall not have a law that does not pur-
sue such purpose. Also,under this Constitution,
"man" shall represent human beings of whatev-
er age or sex." Also,an Amendment abolishing eminent domain throughout the United States.--But not even for these things would I be for a new Constitutional Convention during the present age. It is far too dangerous. We might lose the Bill of Rights; there are also those who would set up a theocracy.
Clarify the Fourth Amendment to include digital possessions as being subject to the requirement of a warrant.
Clarify the Fifth Amendment to categorically reject the notion that government may use the power of eminent domain over private property only to turn that private property over to any entity other than the government entity declaring eminent domain in the first place.
Clarify the Sixth Amendment to apply only to 1) citizens and 2) foreign visitors in the country legally.
Clarify the Eighth Amendment to state that capital punishment is neither cruel nor unusual punishment.
Clarify the Tenth Amendment to state that ALL federal bureaucracies both present and future must cite in their charters the precise Constitutional basis for their formation and that upon successful challenge in the Supreme Court as to the Constitutionality of such, that Federal Bureaucracy is summarily dissolved and its rulings vacated.
Clarify the Eleventh Amendment to state that the United States is not subject to any supra-national organization's rule-making, law-making, or judicial procedures.
Repeal the Twelfth Amendment. (The threat of Presidential Impeachment and Conviction are totally hamstrung by this provision. Further, it encourages a two-party system.)
Clarify the Fourteenth Amendment to say that citizens of the United States are those who are born to at least one American parent. (Eliminate the anchor-baby notion).
Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment.
Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. (This one eliminates the role of State Legislatures in the Federal Government and eliminated a major check on Federal expansionism.)
Amend the Twentieth Amendment. Suspend the operations of the House, Senate and Executive beginning the day of election. Allow for their resumption once a quorum has been re-established according to the results of the elections. (Eliminate lame duck actions by all branches of government)
Amend the Twenty-fourth Amendment to state that voting is only open to eligible citizens of the United States and that the individual States are responsible for certifying that ineligible votes have been struck from the tallies. A failure to do so may result in the refusal of seating of that State's delegations to the House and Senate.
Amend the Twenty-seventh Amendment to place remuneration and salaries of officials elected to Federal positions and their staffs to be paid for by the individual States for whom they act as representatives, including all offices and operating expenses.
Create a Twenty-eighth Amendment affirming the right of free association of private individuals shall not be infringed by government without proving strict scrutiny. The rights of various private associations including businesses and religious entities to determine their own membership policies, procedures, etc. shall be strictly respected, but disciplinary actions are restricted to limitations of privilege or expulsion.
I would also clarify the General Welfare clause, the Commerce Clause, and the Supremacy Clause, but I have to do a little more re-writing on how those would come out.