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Guns have become a problem for modern society, and the Constitution, as written over 200 years ago, is woefully out of date.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

It is long past time the U.S.A. became a civilized country:

The Abolish the Death Penalty Amendment

Death is abolished as a penalty for any crime.

This is the shortest and simplest amendment I propose. The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution forbids “cruel and unusual punishment.” Death is pretty damned cruel, and worse yet, it is irrevocable. Only the willingly blind are ignorant of how many people on death row or condemned to life in prison have later been found and proven to be innocent. It’s kind of hard to say, “Oops. Sorry ’bout that,” to a person that has been murdered by their government.

I could go on for hours, but why? So much has already been said.

-Everett

Many U.S. presidents have issued pardons that the average American would look at and think, “Well, THAT’S a favor to a friend, an investor, or a relative,” or “That’s a quid pro quo if I ever saw one.” Someone needs to be able to issue pardons and commutations, but “who watches the watchmen?” Recent history wildly points to the need for judicial review of pardons and commutations in order to prevent the most obvious abuses of those powers. Balance in all things.

The Presidential Pardons Amendment

All Presidential commutations and pardons, except for stays of execution, must be reviewed by the Supreme Court, which must, deny such commutations and pardons having any appearance of favor, corruption or self-serving, and must otherwise approve. The President shall publicly provide reasons for each commutation or pardon, the public will have one month to file objections with the Supreme Court, on the basis of favor, corruption, or self-serving, and the Supreme Court shall have no more than two months thereafter to rule on its validity.

This attempts to provide guard rails without preventing the presidential pardon power from being crippled. There will always be disagreement about whether any given pardon is reasonable, reflects any sense of justice, or is morally ‘right.’ But there are some pardons that area clearly WRONG, because they serve the Presidents self-interests, are payback for some behavior, or are a favor for a friend, etc. These should not be available to ANYONE, without clear, unambiguous reasons with which a court agrees.

-Everett

Power is too easily abused, especially when the general population is distracted, busy trying to live their own lives. Not only do we not want kings, but we don’t want dukes, barons, queens, duchesses, or baronesses or any other life-long rulers.

The Term Limits Amendment

No person may be elected, appointed, or otherwise obtain the office of President after having served 8 years in that office (or 6 years if 3 co-presidents were implemented), sequentially or not.

No person may be elected, appointed, or otherwise obtain the office of Vice-President after having served 8 years in the office of Vice-President (or 2 years if 3 co-presidents were implemented), sequentially or not. If the Vice-President becomes President, then the new Vice President shall follow the line of succession as described in Constitution for Presidential succession.

No person may hold any office of Representative after having held any offices of Representative for a total of 12 years, sequentially or not.

No person may hold any office of Senator after having held any offices of Senator for a total of 12 years, sequentially or not.

The Supreme Court Justice having served the most annual sessions and having served 18 or more annual sessions shall retire from the Court at the end of the annual session in an odd-numbered year. The replacement Justice shall be selected and approved in the year preceding a Justice’s scheduled retirement, or immediately upon early retirement or death of a Justice. Selecting and approving replacement Justices may not be delayed for any political reason, but must proceed immediately and with all reasonable speed.

Just as the Presidency was limited to no more than two terms after FDR was elected for four terms, the other major elected office holders in our government should likewise be limited from holding office “for life.” What’s good for the goose and all that. Just as we need to protect our selves and our society from “over-enthusiastic” elected officials, we also need to protect ourselves from OURSELVES. Too many voters continue to vote for the same person, election after election. “They’re OUR person, and they’re GREAT! It’s all those HORRIBLE people the OTHER states keep re-electing that are the problem!”

Good government that is responsive to the changing needs and desires of society requires fresh blood (so to speak) on the floors and seats of our government. And no moving from district to district, state to state, to avoid the term limits issue. You get your one time-limited shot at power, and then you’re out of there.

-Everett

“Politics is a dirty game,” they’ve always said. But it doesn’t have to be filthy, and it doesn’t have to endanger our democracy.

The No Lies Amendment

Political speech, when that speech can reasonably be expected to be distributed in any fashion to large numbers of people, is subject to all laws regarding slander, libel, and fraud. Speaking within political offices and chambers is unfettered debate and should be protected, as long as it’s not broadcast to the general public. When people with a megaphone are speaking to the voting public, lying, deceiving, and derogating your opponents may be restricted, overriding their First Amendment rights.

This shouldn’t need an amendment. Fraud is already illegal and First Amendment rights are not protection from fraud (see Jack Smith’s indictment of Trump for Jan 6th). But the courts have been reticent about (i.e., will have NOTHING to do with) anything but the most egregious lies and fraud.

We should and can hold our politicians and media people with large followings to higher standards, hold them accountable for spreading lies and conspiracies theories with very little (and usually NO) evidence. The more ‘power’ you wield, the more responsible you should have to be with your speech, by law (since nothing else will work).

-Everett

This is more on the need to control spending on candidates and elections. Unrestricted money is to democracy like salt is to good farmland.

The Controlling Money In Politics Amendment

Any recognizable “group of people,” however organized, and for whatever reason, is not a person. They do not vote in elections, they do not have a limited lifetime, and they are inherently different and frequently wield much greater power and potential sway than people. Therefore, those groups shall be limited in contributions and expenditures to the same amount as individual people.

No person and no group may avoid the limits of donations by paying inordinate amounts, providing inordinate services, or otherwise benefiting a candidate, office holder, or ex-office holder. No multi-million dollar payments for books that have no chance of “earning out,” no ridiculous speaking fees, no free travel and vacations, no forgiving ‘loans’. If it looks like a bribe, donation, or reward that violates this limitation, it’s verboten. If it looks, walks, and quacks like a duck…

Governments wield power, power is money. They attract each other like iron and magnets. To mix analogies, money flows like water: if there there’s a crack, crevice, or hole, the money will flow. And money in politics is corrosive like a strong acid. A well functioning democratic government, if it wants to survive more than a handful of human lifetimes, MUST be protected from special interests, and money is every tool in the tool chest of special interests, the hammer, the crowbar, and the wood chipper.

-Everett

As many times as Congress has tried to get campaign spending until control, eventually enough Justices get on the Supreme Court to rule that ANY curtailment of ANY amount of money in political campaigning is okay. That leads to the wealthy, including corporations, having SO much more power than the average person that their megaphones drown out everyone else’s speech. Freedom of speech is worthless if you can never be heard. So:

The Money Is Not Speech Amendment

Money is not speech. Annual contributions, expenditures, and transfer of any items of value, per person or group, for any political purpose, in excess of ONE QUARTER of the most recent median per capita income may be regulated in a fair and equal fashion (no playing with words to give an edge or favor to any person, group, or party).

Just because a person has become wildly successful in business should not give them the right or the ability to drown out all other political discussion by flooding the discourse with hundreds of millions of dollars. Likewise, wealthy persons and corporations shouldn’t be able to buy politicians and their votes with enormous contributions to “their campaign funds,” or other (wink-wink) ways of funneling cash to candidates, their spouses, etc.

We should all have the freedom to speak our minds, to talk to others, to influence the future of our society. But if one person’s “freedom of speech” becomes inordinately greater than others’ freedom of speech, then the freedom of speech of the others actually becomes diminished. In order to guarantee ANY freedom for the members of society, the Constitution must guarantee the BALANCE of freedoms.

-Everett

Too many politicians want to strip Americans of their social benefits, benefits which THEY pay for through their taxes, while the politicians get far better benefits which they’ve voted for themselves and their successors.

The Equal Benefits Amendment

All persons elected or appointed to public office shall participate in the same retirement and health benefit programs as all other citizens, and shall receive no additional retirement or health benefits at government expense.

If politicians are forced to participate in the same health and retirement programs as everyone else, with no sweetheart deals just because they managed to get elected to do a job, then they’ll be far less likely to strip the rest of the population of their benefits. Further, if they must depend upon equal benefits with everyone else, they’ll be more likely to improve those programs instead of trying to destroy them.

-Everett

Congress Critters have a long history of profiting from knowledge of upcoming legislation and passing legislation that will profit themselves, friends, or family members. It might be difficult to keep them from helping friends and family members, but this is an attempt to block self-dealing by our supposedly trusted elected officials, while at the same time protecting them from being harassed by others.

The No Self-Dealing Amendment

No person holding elected or appointed governmental office may hold ownership, interest, or investment, in any way, in any financial instruments except via a double-blind trust, for the duration of their time in office.

Exceptions are the ownership of one home and monies held in a simple interest-bearing account.

Any elected or appointed governmental office holder found, by a jury trial, to have violated this stricture, immediately loses that office and may never hold another office. Such suit may be brought at any time, not only after the person leaves office.

Any person found, by a jury trial, to have frivolously or with malice intent to have brought such a charge falsely against an office holder, or who breaks the double-blind trust of an office holder to the office holder or anyone not involved in the running of the trust, shall lose their citizenship and be expelled from all US territories for life.

-Everett

Some people will always try to “play the system.” As they say, “Justice delayed is justice denied.” In the vein of “all citizens are equal under the law,” we need something along the lines of:

The No Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Amendment

Office holders may hold temporary legal immunity while in office, but shall remain liable for their actions taken while in office, and their time in office shall not count with regards to statutes of limitation.

If a person has been convicted of a crime before entering office, no legal immunity shall ensue after entering office with regards to further proceedings and outcomes as a result of that conviction. The case against the person must proceed with no regard for the fact that they became an office holder.

While in office, no office holder shall hold any immunity against suit that they have violated regulations and laws regarding gifts, income, investments, or flagrant constitutional violations while in office. Anyone bringing such suit against an office holder may be punished by law if the suit is found by the court to be frivolous.

While there is SOME need to protect office holders from harassment, while in office, by political opponents, there must also be balance, ensuring that no one uses that as a way to avoid society’s laws and legal proceedings. It’s as simple as that.