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

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