On further thought, given current events and the behavior of Congress (i.e., NO behavior), I’ve amended this proposed amendment. Congress should NOT be able to cowardly evade their constitutional duties by simply doing nothing when the President usurps the rights and responsibilities of Congress. As such, here’s an alternative ‘war’ amendment. My prior attempt put all the pressure on the President for starting a non-Congressionally approved war. This version puts pressure, on both, to obey the INTENT of the Constitution.

The War Powers Amendment

When the President causes a military strike, other than purely defensive actions that require implementation in less than a few hours (an emergency situation), without prior approval from Congress, the Senate and House must, within one week, vote on a bill to approve the war. If the vote fails, the President immediately ceases to be President and is removed from office. If the vote is not held within one week, the majority leadership of the Senate and the House immediately cease to be elected officials and are removed from office.

Any successor to the President who continues the military action for longer than one week after Congress denied approval is subject to the same automatic termination. No end-runs, no loop-holes: Congress, and ONLY Congress may start wars.

Any successors to the Congressional leadership are subject to the same automatic termination as the prior leadership if they fail to hold the vote within one further week.

Emergency actions, of a very limited nature, may be approved by the top 8 Congressional leaders. All other military actions must be approved by the full Congress.

This Presidency termination and/or Congressional leadership termination is self-implementing, and requires no action by any body.

The exception would be if Congress has previously agreed to a defensive treaty that automatically triggers military action by the United States upon aggression directed at a signatory of the defensive treaty.

There MUST be automatic consequences when a President usurps the Constitutional powers of Congress, and there MUST be automatic consequences when Congress refuses to execute their constitutional duties. There should be NO “playing politics” when it comes to war.

-Everett

Evil, corruption, selfishness, lies, and cheating — they all breed in darkness.

The Candidate Transparency Amendment

To provide transparency in government, all candidates for federal offices must file a public copy of their three most recent annual tax filings or maximally comparable financial reporting, as well as clear descriptions of any and all debts, at the time of filing their candidacy or acceptance of nomination for office. Failure to do so causes them to be ineligible to hold any office.

Privacy is a good thing, but there must be balance. When any person wishes to take on positions of power greater than ‘average’, ‘normal’ citizens, then those persons should be required to be more open, more transparent about their financial history and standing, as they will be in positions of power, where they can be tempted or influenced to take actions or make decisions that may personally benefit themselves and those around them, and that is a corrosive situation for a society that wishes to remain free, fair, and democratic.

-Everett

The Executive Branch RUNS the government according to the laws passed by Congress. While Congress will clearly always be partisan in nature, we should expect the Chief Executive to run the country for ALL the citizens.

The Non-Partisan Government Amendment

Partisanship may not be used for hiring or firing Federal employees. Partisanship may only be used when nominating and appointing to positions that normally end when a new administration or elected official takes office. Federal employees and candidates for job positions in the government may not be asked for their political views at any time, nor may they be compelled to, nor voluntarily choose to, issue any kind of statement of a political nature.

Candidates nominated for offices, during their Senate confirmation hearings MUST answer questions about their personal beliefs and attitudes on issues of public importance. They may not prevaricate, but must answer fully and truthfully. Any candidate failing to do so may NOT be confirmed.

Yes, politics is, and always will be, a dirty business. But that doesn’t mean we have to accept it as a way of life. We can, and should, expect better from the people we put in place to run and shape our government. We should expect them to do so for the betterment of ALL citizens, not just their preferred clique. Politics will always be as dirty and as subject to special interests as we allow it to be. It’s up to the voting public to rein in the government and the people running it.

-Everett

It’s too easy for Presidents to believe their supporters who portray the President as “The most powerful man [sic] on the planet!”

The Executive Executes Amendment

The Executive Branch is limited to EXECUTING the laws passed by Congress. The Executive Branch may not shift funding from one program to another without the expressed permission of Congress, nor may the Executive Branch withhold funding from any agency or program provided to it by Acts of Congress, nor may the Executive Branch hamper the performance of agencies and programs by limiting employment or other imaginative means of thwarting the Acts of Congress.

The President and the Presidential Minions are “hired help.” They are hired by the voting population to carry out the laws passed by Congress (who are also hired by the voting public). When Congress says, “Polish the floors,” the President must POLISH THE FLOORS. The President may not put down rugs over the tiles. The President may not rip up the tiles and put down wood flooring. The President may not erect buildings on top of the floors. The President may not set fire to the floors. Unless Congress says so. When the LAWS say the President must polish the floors, the President must polish the floors. Otherwise, the President has betrayed their Oath Of Office and should be FIRED for failing to polish the floors.

-Everett

Throughout history, people in power or who wish to be in power, have used lies and deceit to achieve their goals. Democracy grows best in a bed of honesty and transparency.

The Honest Speech Amendment

Any person or group who, directly or through any number of subsidiaries, has a following, listeners, readers, or viewers greater than 0.5 percent of the population may be held to higher standards of speech by Acts of Congress, specifically with regards to slander, libel, and fraud with minimal evidentiary backing, as adjudicated by a court of law.

In other words, politicians and people with large followings in the media may be (and MUST be) held to a higher standard of speech and press than the First Amendment allows. Leaders who lie to us are trying to destroy our democracy, which means they’re trying to take away some, if not all, of our basic freedoms. Those who lead, whether in government or in “Big Media,” must be ‘encouraged’ to be honest with the voting public.

A democracy cannot be healthy, may not even survive, if the voters are uneducated or miseducated or misled. In recent decades, it’s become a comic book slogan, but has been well understood by philosophers for millennia: With great power comes great responsibility; To whom much was given, of him much will be required. Making statements and accusations with no evidence to back up those statements is, simply, fraud, attempting to bend (if not break) our democracy to their personal ends. We must expect, and demand, more from our leaders.

-Everett

For much of my life, Presidents have continued to erode the constitutional division of powers, specifically the power to declare war, which was carefully given to Congress, fearing that was too much power in the hands of a single person.

The Presidency Ending War Amendment

When the President causes a military strike, other than purely defensive actions that require implementation in less than a few hours, without getting approval from Congress, that President immediately ceases to be President, losing all powers, privileges and rights of the office. Emergency actions, of a very limited nature, may be approved by the top 8 Congressional leaders. All other military actions must be approved by the full Congress. This Presidency termination is self-implementing, and requires no action by Congress or any Court.

The exception would be if Congress has previously agreed to a defensive treaty that automatically triggers military action by the United States upon aggression directed at a signatory of the defensive treaty.

Any successor to the President who continues the military action without getting Congressional approval is subject to the same automatic termination. No end-runs, no loop-holes: Congress, and ONLY Congress may instigate offensive military actions.

We can’t depend upon Congress to stand up for their own powers, especially when the Presidency and Congress are both in the control of one party. In those circumstances, it’s too easy for a President to take the country into a war without the agreement of anyone outside their ruling circle. That is inexcusable, and must automatically terminate the Presidency, since Congress can’t be depended on to hold the President in check. Some things are simply too dangerous and too important. If offensive actions are necessary, then the President should be able to convince Congress. If not, find another solution.

-Everett

Life’s been busy… Today’s proposed Amendment is to block dictatorial tendencies to punish opponents:

The Right of Citizenship Amendment

No citizen shall lose their citizenship except as directly provided for by the United States Constitution. If you’re born within any territory of the United States, or naturalized by the laws of the United States, you can only lose your U.S. citizenship by voluntarily becoming a legal citizen of another country.

Some things should not need to be “put down on paper,” but recent years have shown us that “norms” and “customs” are not sufficient guardrails for Democracy. Anything that we care about NEEDS to be written down, woven into the legal fabric of our country.

-Everett

Emergencies are all too easy for a lawless President to declare, and laws too frequently either aren’t there or have unforeseen loopholes. To strengthen those guardrails:

The National Emergencies Amendment

While the President may declare an Emergency, evidence and arguments in support of the Emergency must be presented to a Federal Appellate Court of reasonably pertinent jurisdiction within one week. Failure to do so or denial by the Court shall terminate the Emergency and any events or powers thereby triggered. The Court must rule on the validity of the Emergency within one week after the presentation of the Emergency. The Court may terminate any state of Emergency at any time. An Emergency must consist of something that cannot be handled by normal governmental or civic authorities and processes.

The regular military may not be deployed off-base within the States and Territories of the United States except in case of an Emergency as allowed by law and this Amendment.

The National Guards may not be deployed within the United States by the Federal government without the consent of the chief executive of the State or Territory involved, except in case of an Emergency as allowed by law and this Amendment.

The goal here is to make it clear that the Courts can halt a runaway President. Without “troops with guns”, it makes it more difficult for a President to break our rules-based system.

-Everett

Trump has threatened to withdraw the U.S. from NATO. That is a ridiculous amount of power to be held in one person’s hands.

The Ending Treaties Amendment

The President does not have the power to withdraw the United States from Congressionally approved treaties. Only an Act passed by normal Constitutional means may withdraw the United States from treaties into which the United States has previously entered.

It makes no sense for one person to be able to break agreements that required the agreement of the whole of Congress to enter into. Just as a person’s word should stand for something, so should a country’s. If the country is going to break its word, it should only be done after careful consideration and the concurrence of more than one mad emperor.

-Everett

This one deals with the safety of and protection from the dangers of advancing technology:

The Regulation of Dangerous Technology Amendment

Any device, substance, or process with the clear potential to harm large numbers of people may reasonably be regulated, the second amendment not withstanding.

Any device, substance, or process unavailable to all citizens because of regulation is also prohibited for use by law enforcement personnel, whether federal, state, or local, without a court order.

Guns have become a problem for modern society, and the Constitution, as written over 200 years ago, is woefully out of date. Guns are not the only problem, but they provide a good example of how to frame (or not frame) laws and the Constitution in a “forward looking” fashion, as opposed to just framing it to meet today’s problems.

When the 2nd Amendment was written, the arms that one could ‘bear’ were a saber, a pistol, and a muzzle-loading rifle or musket. The British had a few breech-loaded rifles that could fire up to six rounds per minute (that’s one round every 10 seconds). That was the extent of the technology, and the framers (why are they always framers rather than writers or builders or contructors???) of the Constitution had no background that could let them look forward 200 years to the cheap availability of weapons that could let a single person slaughter tens if not hundreds of people in a few minutes.

Even more so, they couldn’t foresee electrical grids, airplanes carrying hundreds of people, computers and networks, genetic engineering, and whatever technology is yet to come that we haven’t yet even dreamed of.

An amendment like the above proposed one would allow for the regulation of ANY device, substance, or process that could pose a danger to lots of people with little chance of defending against it. And, why should we have to constantly defend? A proper balance between freedom and reasonable regulation is a far better solution than arming every elementary school teacher to constantly be on the defense against insane people with AK-47 rifles. It would be far better to regulate potentially dangerous technologies before they become a problem, than to wait until unbearable tragedies occur and then fall into defensive modes of living, just so that a few can have the freedom to fondle those dangerous technologies. As a society, we have all too often been reactive rather than proactive, and that has all too often cost us dearly.

The above proposed amendment also addresses the issue of advancing technologies and maintaining a reasonable balance between the citizenry and the people who are hired to watch over the citizenry. Who watches the watchmen, especially if the watchmen are inordinately more powerful than those they watch? Balance in all things.

-Everett