U S Constitutional Amendment

[The TransPecos]

1. Amendment 16 is repealed. (Implement a GST, VAT, or user fee system. The original wording was there for a clear purpose. This would also simplify revenue collection and abolish the need for the IRS.)
2. Amendment 17 is repealed. (The House represents the People; this would return to the concept of the Senate representing the States. Much of the argument for this amendment no longer really holds.)
3. Congress shall pass no bill with more than one subject and the title shall clearly describe the contents of the bill. Any part not described is invalid. (This would stop Congress from passing omnibus bill that no one can possibly read, let alone understand, before voting. Several states do this, e.g. New Mexico, Article IV, Section 16.)

Congress is broken. I think these might fix things. If you don't agree state why and propose an alternative.

[Dyakovo]

1. Amendment 16 is repealed. (Implement a GST, VAT, or user fee system. The original wording was there for a clear purpose. This would also simplify revenue collection and abolish the need for the IRS.)
2. Amendment 17 is repealed. (The House represents the People; this would return to the concept of the Senate representing the States. Much of the argument for this amendment no longer really holds.)
3. Congress shall pass no bill with more than one subject and the title shall clearly describe the contents of the bill. Any part not described is invalid. (This would stop Congress from passing omnibus bill that no one can possibly read, let alone understand, before voting. Several states do this, e.g. New Mexico, Article IV, Section 16.)

Congress is broken. I think these might fix things. If you don't agree state why and propose an alternative.

Three absolutely horrible ideas.

[With Teeth]

Porque?

[The Unified Citizen Front]

You want to know what would "fix" congress?

1. Stop paying them so God damned much.

2. Do not allow private campaign contributions.

3. Only allow people who have truly proven that they care about those they want to represent, to represent. If an individual does not reflect a proper mixture of his regions views, then why should he govern? Two-party system polarization problem.

[The Serbian Empire]

You want to know what would "fix" congress?

1. Stop paying them so God damned much.

2. Do not allow private campaign contributions.

3. Only allow people who have truly proven that they care about those they want to represent, to represent. If an individual does not reflect a proper mixture of his regions views, then why should he govern? Two-party system polarization problem.

That sounds like an impossible to achieve act without massive amounts of constitutional amendment as to reconfigure Congress into proportional representation as to eliminate the polarization problem.

[Len Hyet]

1. Amendment 16 is repealed. (Implement a GST, VAT, or user fee system. The original wording was there for a clear purpose. This would also simplify revenue collection and abolish the need for the IRS.)
2. Amendment 17 is repealed. (The House represents the People; this would return to the concept of the Senate representing the States. Much of the argument for this amendment no longer really holds.)
3. Congress shall pass no bill with more than one subject and the title shall clearly describe the contents of the bill. Any part not described is invalid. (This would stop Congress from passing omnibus bill that no one can possibly read, let alone understand, before voting. Several states do this, e.g. New Mexico, Article IV, Section 16.)

Congress is broken. I think these might fix things. If you don't agree state why and propose an alternative.

1) Terrible idea. Taxes are kinda important. Next.

2) Further terrible idea. States don't need representation, people do.

3) Actually... not a bad idea. In fact a rather good one.

[Cannot think of a name]

1. Amendment 16 is repealed. (Implement a GST, VAT, or user fee system. The original wording was there for a clear purpose. This would also simplify revenue collection and abolish the need for the IRS.)

Rather it would complicate the tax process and make it even more complicated and lacking in sort of central controls to keep it from being that. Moreover, it would disproportionately effect those least able to afford it. This is a rich guy fantasy, the question is why do you buy it? Did someone convince you that you were going to be the lucky one?

2. Amendment 17 is repealed. (The House represents the People; this would return to the concept of the Senate representing the States. Much of the argument for this amendment no longer really holds.)

What part doesn't hold? What are we achieving by having senators selected by the state instead of direct election? This seems completely pointless.

3. Congress shall pass no bill with more than one subject and the title shall clearly describe the contents of the bill. Any part not described is invalid. (This would stop Congress from passing omnibus bill that no one can possibly read, let alone understand, before voting. Several states do this, e.g. New Mexico, Article IV, Section 16.)

Laws are complicated and their implications are complicated. Dumbing them down only makes them harder to implement and interpret, which is great if you're looking for ways to get around them, but horrible if you want them to be well thought out.

Congress is broken.

This is an empty statement meant to sound insightful. Obviously people are unhappy with congress, but general handwaving "Congress is broken, lets do random shit" is not as constructive as you'd like it to be.

I think these might fix things.

They will literally do nothing to address any of the issues.

If you don't agree state why and propose an alternative.

I've stated why, the alternative to your proposal is to not do any of it.

[Zavea]

while i think the OP's suggestions kind of defeat themselves (so i won't bother to address them), it strikes me as bizarrely naive to seek constitutional amendments as the solution to someone's gripes since the constitution was explicitly designed to be extremely difficult to amend. i can't fathom what amendment would be so widely supported by present day america's political establishment that passing it would be plausible.

iirc, there have been over 10,000 attempts to amend the US constitution historically and only 27 have succeeded. it just feels like an improbable goal. the constitution is famous as the ultimate law of the land, which of course makes it an attractive target for people who want to change the foundation of the country's laws, but these seem to nearly always end up being a quixotic "shoot for the sky and fall in the trees" effort.

but eh i guess this is a banal non-insight since it boils down to "naive/dumb/dogmatic people are willing to do things appropriate of their personality" which i think anyone could tell anyone. my general hope is that the high bar for amending the US constitution will mean that the next time it happens, support of it by enough of the american populace will be good proof that the country is on the right track. of course this is assuming that only a "good" amendment ends up winning popular support in the future which given the country's shifting attitudes seems more plausible than the alternative (though of course a new constitutional consideration will rock how laws are interpreted and decided no matter how good or bad it is).

[Estado Paulista]

No, thanks.

[The Orson Empire]

You want to know what would "fix" congress?

1. Stop paying them so God damned much.

2. Do not allow private campaign contributions.

3. Only allow people who have truly proven that they care about those they want to represent, to represent. If an individual does not reflect a proper mixture of his regions views, then why should he govern? Two-party system polarization problem.

Number three would be incredibly hard to achieve. Why? Because of Human nature.

[Cyyro]

Abolishing the 2 party system would be nice...

[Farnhamia]

Abolishing the 2 party system would be nice...

How would that amendment work, exactly?

[Cyyro]

Abolishing the 2 party system would be nice...

How would that amendment work, exactly?

It wouldn't really, I am not sure if that would ever actually happen either.

[Len Hyet]

Abolishing the 2 party system would be nice...

How would that amendment work, exactly?

Mandate that campaigns are not allowed to accept donations. To run in a state you need to get 10,000 signatures, and the government will allocate one million dollars to every campaign per state (for example if I get 10,000 in Texas and Arizona, I get 2 million to campaign in those two states. If I get 10,000 in all fifty states, I get 50 million to campaign across the US).

Thus 3rd parties are literally on the same level as Democrats and Republicans.

[Cannot think of a name]

i can't fathom what amendment would be so widely supported by present day america's political establishment that passing it would be plausible.

"The nation remains bitterly divided after the introduction of a proposed 28th Amendment "Puppies are Adorable", predictably Texas has threatened succession insisting that puppies are merely 'cute' and this kind of draconian 'adorable' deceleration goes against the very principles of the founding fathers. Representatives from Maine said something, but since no one is used to covering Maine's reaction to things we don't know what it is."

[Cyyro]

How would that amendment work, exactly?

Mandate that campaigns are not allowed to accept donations. To run in a state you need to get 10,000 signatures, and the government will allocate one million dollars to every campaign per state (for example if I get 10,000 in Texas and Arizona, I get 2 million to campaign in those two states. If I get 10,000 in all fifty states, I get 50 million to campaign across the US).

Thus 3rd parties are literally on the same level as Democrats and Republicans.

If only.

[Farnhamia]

How would that amendment work, exactly?

Mandate that campaigns are not allowed to accept donations. To run in a state you need to get 10,000 signatures, and the government will allocate one million dollars to every campaign per state (for example if I get 10,000 in Texas and Arizona, I get 2 million to campaign in those two states. If I get 10,000 in all fifty states, I get 50 million to campaign across the US).

Thus 3rd parties are literally on the same level as Democrats and Republicans.

That's as sensible an idea as I've heard but that doesn't mean people will flock to them. The minor parties don't do well because they're crowded out of the races by the major parties, they're crowded out because all their good ideas are also offered by the majors, leaving them with nothing but fringe ideas.

[Cannot think of a name]

How would that amendment work, exactly?

Mandate that campaigns are not allowed to accept donations. To run in a state you need to get 10,000 signatures, and the government will allocate one million dollars to every campaign per state (for example if I get 10,000 in Texas and Arizona, I get 2 million to campaign in those two states. If I get 10,000 in all fifty states, I get 50 million to campaign across the US).

Thus 3rd parties are literally on the same level as Democrats and Republicans.

I already see the end run around that. First of all, the established parties have the ready made machine to get their candidates the signatures they need, making it much easier for them to not only get the signatures but to mount legal challenges to less established parties.

Not to mention that in a state like California, just shy of 12% of the population of the country, 10k ain't shit, while in Wyoming with half the population of Sacramento (where? Exactly...), that's a harder nut to crack.

Now, even though the candidates themselves only have the maximum (presuming they were not elbowed out already) $50 mil, the organized parties have their machine to do get out the vote and support for their candidate.

So you just made it cheaper for the established parties without making much of a dent in their dominance.

[Caninope]

You want to know what would "fix" congress?

1. Stop paying them so God damned much.

2. Do not allow private campaign contributions.

3. Only allow people who have truly proven that they care about those they want to represent, to represent. If an individual does not reflect a proper mixture of his regions views, then why should he govern? Two-party system polarization problem.

You do realize that would mean that only the richest could serve in Congress, right?

[Farnhamia]

You want to know what would "fix" congress?

1. Stop paying them so God damned much.

2. Do not allow private campaign contributions.

3. Only allow people who have truly proven that they care about those they want to represent, to represent. If an individual does not reflect a proper mixture of his regions views, then why should he govern? Two-party system polarization problem.

You do realize that would mean that only the richest could serve in Congress, right?

It does have an air of not having been thought out, doesn't it?

[Ifreann]

Abolishing the 2 party system would be nice...

There is no two party system in the United States. There are only two successful parties, but that's not the same thing at all.

[The Klishi Islands]

Term limits are an obvious solution. Congress has something like a 98% reelection rate. Also, since power corrupts (and it does, please don't deny it), term limits will take away lots of politician's power. I personally propose 12 years for the senate (change individual terms to 4 years) and 8 years for the house (again, 4 years). Also one is not allowed to serve more than twelve years total. Anyone agree?

[Farnhamia]

Term limits are an obvious solution. Congress has something like a 98% reelection rate. Also, since power corrupts (and it does, please don't deny it), term limits will take away lots of politician's power. I personally propose 12 years for the senate (change individual terms to 4 years) and 8 years for the house (again, 4 years). Also one is not allowed to serve more than twelve years total. Anyone agree?

No. The United States is too big to be run by amateurs. Term limits give you single-issue candidates whose only interest is pushing their one goal. They don't care at all about working with anyone else because they won't be around long enough for that to matter. No.

[Ifreann]

You want to know what would "fix" congress?

1. Stop paying them so God damned much.

2. Do not allow private campaign contributions.

3. Only allow people who have truly proven that they care about those they want to represent, to represent. If an individual does not reflect a proper mixture of his regions views, then why should he govern? Two-party system polarization problem.

You do realize that would mean that only the richest could serve in Congress, right?

It baffles me that some people would have the most important jobs in the country pay only peanuts.

[Pope Joan]

You do realize that would mean that only the richest could serve in Congress, right?

It baffles me that some people would have the most important jobs in the country pay only peanuts.

State police in Oklahoma were paid virtually nothing.
Citizens loved it; they were so easy to bribe.