The United States constitution became the official framework for the United States on June 21, 1788 when New Hampshire became the ninth state to sign, but was not ratified until May 29, 1790 when Rhode Island became the thirteenth state to approve. On December 15, 1791 the Bill of Rights (first ten amendments) were added. Over the years, seventeen more amendments were adopted, with the last one, the Twenty-Seventh, becoming active on May 5, 1992, some thirty-four years ago as of writing this. Here in the United States, regardless of political persuasion, many people seem to think we are having a bit of a constitutional crisis. Or, at least, a crisis of legitimacy brought on by hyper-polarization not seen since at least the late sixties and early seventies. If Donald Trump’s presidencies have accomplished anything, it is to show that much of what people thought were ironclad laws were in fact mere norms and propriety, readily broken by someone shameless enough to do it. This sort of recklessness needs to be reigned in if the country is to survive. Here I am going to make some proposals for constitutional amendments that I think could be helpful.

I have another post that also gives a proposal for essentially a new constitution, though I think some of what I suggest there is likely too radical while also not being specific enough. Here, however, while my proposals might still be more on the radical side (while remaining within the confines of a liberal republic, and so probably still not radical enough for some people) than what more measured proposals would put forward, I am at least not conjuring a whole new legal status of people to occupy the upper chamber of Congress. I do still think, though, that some form of massive reform is required to meet the current crisis.

I am by no means a constitutional scholar, so there are probably wrinkles that would need to be ironed out in what follows (particularly the Thirty-First and Thirty-Second amendments, for which I give only a brief abstract without any specific language), but I think the spirit of what these amendment proposals are attempting to do is the main thrust of this post. The primary goals here are to

1. Reign in the power of the executive.
2. Make Congress and the Supreme Court more responsive to the will of the people.
3. Reduce the corrosive effects of money in politics.
4. Prevent corruption and self-serving among politicians.
5. Election reform.

Without further adieu, here are the amendments to the Constitution that I think would help with the problems the U.S. is currently facing:

Twenty-Eighth: Equal Rights Amendment

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

Rationale: this amendment has already met the requirements to be passed but for expired deadlines. We ought to make it official that it is one of the amendments. This could perhaps also be updated to include other forms of discrimination (racial, sexual minority, immigrant status, etc.), but since this is the version that has already (somewhat) passed, I am leaving it as it is.

Twenty-Ninth: Defining Persons, Citizens, and Legal Entities

A Person is a human being possessing individual sentience and agency. A Citizen is defined as a Person who meets the conditions laid out in the Fourteenth Amendment, namely being born or naturalized in the United States, but also in its territories. Legal Entities consist of legally binding agreements between persons that exist in the form of written or digital contracts, accounts, or agreements; or other non-Person subjects of U.S. laws, rules, and regulations (such as, but not limited to, corporations, unions, lobbying groups, or other special interest groups). Only Persons can be Citizens and only Persons are automatically granted all the rights under the constitution while within the United States and its territories. Legal Entities and their non-human products (inventions both physical and informational, intellectual property, manufactures, acquisitions, revenues) are not and cannot be legally Persons and can only have rights explicitly, publicly, and transparently granted by acts of congress or by rules issued by congressionally formed executive administrations after a period of public commentary and input. This shall not be construed as limiting or infringing on the constitutional rights of Persons engaged in contracts, accounts, or agreements with such Legal Entities when acting as Persons and not on behalf of or in coordination with the Legal Entities and their non-human products with which such Persons have legally binding contracts, accounts, or agreements.

Rationale: this is to firmly establish who has rights under the constitution, which purposefully denies this to legal entities like corporations and unions, thus allowing them to be regulated like the legal fictions they are rather than automatically granted rights in the same way human beings are. This does not mean that laws cannot be passed that give certain legal protections to these entities, only that they do not get such protections automatically nor can they ever be considered human and thus automatically deserving of rights under the constitution. This also reaffirms what it means to be a citizen of the United States and that all such citizens enjoy all the rights of the constitution. The stipulation about the “non-human products” of Legal Entities is also meant to apply to algorithms and artificial intelligence.

Thirtieth: Executive Devolution

The executive branch of the government will be devolved into three coequal roles, the President, and Attorney General, and the Secretary of State. The President’s role is to preside over and follow the laws set forth in congressionally formed departments that oversee day-to-day operations within the united states and its territories. The Attorney General presides over and follows the law set forth in congressionally formed departments that oversee matters of law enforcement and prosecution. The Secretary of State presides over and follows the law set forth in congressionally authorized matters of foreign intelligence, diplomacy, and military readiness, as well as serving as commander-in-chief during war. Elections for these three separate offices must be held on a staggered basis such that no two terms overlap completely.

Rationale: the power of the executive has grown too strong and too partisan, observed most acutely in the loss of DoJ independence and in foreign policy. Limiting the office of the presidency to executing only certain domestic laws and overseeing domestic agencies (Department of the Treasury, Department of Energy, Department or Education, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Interior, Department of Health and Human Services, and so on) will alleviate this overreach. Making the Attorney General no longer answerable directly to the president will enshrine the independence of the office in law and not just as a matter of propriety. Making the Secretary of State, which combines the duties of the current Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Director of National Intelligence, an independent office will help ensure that the position does not seek out foreign adventurism in order to gain domestic political advantage. Having the terms for each of these three offices be staggered will ensure that the three do not become a long-lasting cabal that can run amok unchecked for the duration of their terms, but instead one such member of any triumvirate can be voted out on an annual basis.

Thirty-First: Powers of the Attorney General

Abstract: I don’t have specific language for this, but given that the executive is being devolved into three coequal offices, the responsibilities and duties of these offices would need to be made clear. What I would have in mind for the Attorney General would be: overseeing the enforcement of civil and criminal laws (e.g., overseeing things like FBI, DEA, DHS, and so on); initiating legal action to protect citizens against consumer fraud, antitrust violations, human trafficking, and environmental damage; bringing suit against other executive agencies in order to ensure they are carrying out their own duties and thus check against overreach by the other executive offices. Likely, given that the Department of Justice is no longer under the purview of the President, there would still need to be a carve out for the other executives to have legal departments for when the Department of Justice brings suit against them, or even to bring suit against the Department of Justice or State Department (as checks on their powers).

Thirty-Second: Powers of the Secretary of State

Abstract: similar to the Attorney General, the Secretary of State (which heads the State Department, now essentially the combination of the State Department, Department of Defense, and the U.S. Intelligence Community) would need to have its responsibilities and duties laid out explicitly. This would be things like: directing the day-to-day operations of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Space Force, etc.; overseeing the military budget, procurement of defense systems, and the allocation of personnel and resources; representing the U.S. at international conferences, treaty negotiations, and managing embassies and consulates; issuing passports.

Thirty-Third: Definition of War

War is defined to be any overt act of the U.S. military and intelligence with the intention to, or as a foreseeable consequence, cause casualties, economic harm, and/or political instability for the residents of another country or within the U.S. Any such actions carried out by the United States must be done only under explicit and transparent congressional authorization unless there is an imminent threat, in which case congressional authorization is required after ten days or else all actions and funds for such operations must immediately cease. Failure to abide by these provisions will result in automatic and immediate impeachment and removal from office against the Secretary of State and appointment by congress of an interim Secretary of State by congress until a new election can be held within 90 days.

Rationale: much of the issue with U.S. foreign adventurism since the end of World War II has been because euphemisms and semantic drift has allowed presidents to simply call what is clearly a war by some other name (police action, armed conflict, hostilities, overseas contingency operation, excursion, incursion, and so on). This amendment is meant to clarify what is meant by war so that the war powers of the Secretary of State can be better regulated and to force the congress to reaffirm its own power and responsibility to declare war before the Secretary of State can entangle the U.S. in unwanted, unnecessary, and destructive conflicts.

Thirty-Fourth: Crime and Accountability

No elected executive, member of the House, appointed judge or Justice, nor appointed official is immune from impeachment after leaving office for up to ten years after leaving office. Being successfully impeached opens up all such persons to both criminal and civil investigation, indictment, and prosecution for actions taken while in office or for official duties. Prior to impeachment other privileges of office still apply. Pardons and commutations may be issued by the President, Attorney General, or Secretary of State, and can be overturned by the other two executives within up to thirty days or by a two-thirds vote in the House of Representatives within up to five years of the pardon or commutation being issued. Pardons or commutations cannot be issued for former elected or appointed executives, members of the House, judge or Justice, or appointed officials if they have been impeached and subsequently tried, found guilty, and sentenced for criminal offenses.

Rationale: while certain parts of presidential immunity can seem outrageous (and has certainly been granted beyond what is reasonable), there is a good reason for some level of executive immunity. If every outgoing executive faced a litany of lawsuits and criminal charges, this would do (at least) one of two things: make the president too timid to do anything for fear of being tried and thus rendering them impotent, or, like Julius Caesar (or, frankly, Donald Trump) make them unwilling to leave office and thus incentivize them to break the law in order to hold onto power. There therefore needs to be some level of executive immunity. This, however, should not be absolute. Making it so that executives can be impeached after they leave office (where impeachment is a pretty high bar to clear; how high this bar ought to be is something that could also be adjusted by another amendment) at least makes it possible that an executive can be held accountable for particularly egregious crimes while in office. Similarly, the presidential pardon can allow for swift rectification of judicial missteps, or if laws are later deemed unjust there can be some level of redress for those being punished for it, but it should also not be absolute. With the devolved executive from Amendment Thirty, we can now have each executive check the other so that the pardon process does not become a sort of royal decree of impunity for any particular person’s cronies. This can then be further checked by Congress, though making it a high bar to ensure that the power of executive pardons does not become too neutered.

Thirty-Fifth: Election Reform

Elections must remain free and fair, overseen and run by the states in which the polling is conducted with no federal input, interference, or interruption except to ensure the states are following the Constitution. All federal elections are now decided by popular vote, the system of the electoral college hereby abolished. Polls shall be open for no shorter than one full, consecutive week of days, run concurrently throughout the entirety of the United States and its territories, and which cannot be changed or rescheduled less than a year in advance. At least one of the days during the election week, to be decided on by each state, must be a mandated statewide holiday. Voting must now be done by ranked choice and not first-past-the-post.

Rationale: while the U.S. was the first experiment in enlightenment republicanism and can be excused for the limitations imposed by a paucity of data on how their theory of statecraft would work, it has become clear over time that these ideas are antiquated and in need of update. Removing the electoral college and making all federal elections decided by popular vote ensures that it is the will of the majority of the people that is carried out. Mandating that elections occur over at least a single consecutive week, with at least one of those days a mandatory state holiday, will make it possible for a greater number of people to cast their votes without undue harm or inconvenience. Ranked choice voting, while not without its own faults, is far superior to first-past-the-post, particularly in reducing the prevalence of strategic, or harm reduction “lesser of two evils” type of voting that often precludes good candidates for simply less bad ones.

Thirty-Sixth: Unicameral Congress

The Senate is abolished, leaving only the House of Representatives as the sole legislative chamber. All legislative responsibilities once only the purview of the Senate are now overseen and carried out by the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives is now no longer capped at a static number of members, but is instead tied to population size, with each member serving around 400,000 people with no greater deviation from this standard than ±25,000. The number of members in the House of Representatives, and the borders of their districts, is subject to change only once every ten years following, and in response to, a census. The borders of these districts must be drawn by an independent, non-partisan assembly and agreed on by popular referendum within the state.

Rationale: one of the original purposes of the Senate was to protect the rights of states, where the founders were worried that smaller states would have their rights trampled by larger states. This concern was reasonable when there was a lot more sectional partisanship by state, such as in the colonies, the confederation, and the early United States. However, such state loyalties has largely dissipated, the internecine sectional animosities and distrust between states no longer the major issue facing the republic. Another of the reasons for the Senate was as a check on the power of the people, with the founders suspicious (or even hostile) to democracy, but since the seventeenth amendment made Senators elected by popular vote, this rationale no longer holds. The Senate has become a legislative chamber that represents land more than people, with much less populated states having the same representation in the Senate as much more populated states, giving the residents of those states greater power over the residents of other states. Land should not be allowed to trampled on the rights of people, and so ought to be done away with. The other clauses, about the number of people in the House and the redrawing of districts, is to ensure that people are much more fairly represented in this new unicameral legislature. I will also add that there may need to be more clauses, or perhaps even another amendment entirely, that more explicitly lays out what responsibilities and duties of the Senate are being absorbed into the House of Representatives, such as in matters such as impeachment, ratification of new amendments, and so on. As the math goes for the number of people per representatives, with the current U.S. population of about 340 million, this amendment would expand the size of the House of Representatives to about 850 members, up from the current 435.

Thirty-Seventh: Term Limits and Compensation

All members of congress, all elected executives, all appointees subject to congressional approval, and all supreme court Justices, are allowed only a limited number of terms or years in office. Representatives are allowed five two-year terms and no more than ten total years within a lifetime. Presidents, Attorneys General, and Secretaries of State are allowed only three three-year terms and up to one additional year if they ascend to the office from a lower office, such as vice president, deputy, or undersecretary, and can never serve more than ten total years within a lifetime. Appointees subject to congressional approval are allowed to serve in any such positions for no more than ten years in total in a lifetime between each and any of the positions. Supreme court justices are allowed to remain in their position for no more than ten years in total. No person, spouse, child, nor parent of any member subject to these term limits is allowed to receive, accrue, nor spend any more money than that received from their salary of office while in office. Once elected, nominees and their spouses, children, and parents must completely disclose to the public and divest of all shares, stocks, and all value from any other financial instruments in a company, corporation, or bank, as well as government bonds, contracts, and subsidies at the federal, state, county, or local level, before entering office, all value being managed and transferred with oversight by an independent, non-partisan committee free of any conflicts of interest. Office holders and their spouses, children, and parents are not allowed to own, coordinate, nor benefit from any value from any shares, stocks, or other financial instruments in a company, corporation, or bank, nor any government bonds, contracts, or subsidies at the federal, state, county, or local level, while in office. The office holder, upon being in office for at least one year, will continue to receive their salary in perpetuity, but the former office holder is further restricted from receiving, accruing, or spending more money than their salary of office each year after leaving office. Former office holders are also restricted in perpetuity from owning, coordinating, or benefiting from the value of shares, stocks, or other financial instruments in a company, corporation, or bank, or any government bonds, contracts, or subsidies at the federal, state, county, or local level.

Rationale: an economic and political elite has become entrenched in the U.S. political system. This radical amendment ensures that nobody can hold onto power for their entire lives, nor can they profit from their position and hold onto power for their own enrichment or aggrandizement. Further, this will disincentive those who seek such office for the enrichment of their family. In particular, the clause limiting the amount of money or shareholder value an office holder and their family can receive, accrue, or spend during and after leaving the office ensures that these elected and appointed individuals cannot trade favors for money. This can be justified on the grounds that, due to its monopoly on force, government positions are of a different category than private citizens and so can be subject to further (informed and consensual) restrictions on their liberty in exchange for the privileges of power. Additionally, this will align the incentives of these offices toward those willing to make such sacrifices out of a sense of civic duty and disincentivize self enrichment or aggrandizement. In my view, anyone who seeks power ought to be willing to take a vow of poverty in order to get it, though I don’t think this amendment goes even that far.

Thirty-Eighth: Campaign Finance

No candidate nor surrogates for the candidate nor Legal Entity (such as, but not limited to, a corporation, union, lobbying group, or other special interest groups) or their non-human products campaigning on behalf of a candidate for federal office, including candidates for any seat in congress, any executive office such as President, Attorney General, or Secretary of State, any appointee subject to congressional approval, and any judge or justice running for any election, shall be allowed to receive, accrue, spend, or coordinate the accrual or spending of more than an amount agreed upon and ratified by plebiscite voted on after every census, but never exceeding 10000x the median income of the relevant constituents from the previous census. All money or any value of shares or stocks in a company received, accrued, spent, and coordinated by any party, public or private, on the campaign of any candidate must be public record, including the amount received, accrued, or spent, and by whom, with the names and dates of any decisions made concerning such expenditures by persons acting on behalf of, for the benefit of, or in coordination with, any involved Legal Entities or their non-human products. Legal Entities and their non-human products are restricted from using their general treasury funds or the value of shares or stocks in the company to pay for broadcast ads mentioning a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

Rationale: getting the corrosive influence of money out of politics. The 10000x figure is something that may be in need of adjustment, but the idea is that campaign finance be tied to income in order to 1) reign in campaign spending and ensure that the wealthy do not have an outsized advantage and 2) incentive parties, if they want to spend more, to push policies that increase the median income.

Thirty-Ninth: Supreme Court Reform

The supreme court shall be composed of fifteen Justices. Three Justices are nominated by the Attorney General and voted on by Congress within thirty days; seven Justices are nominated by the President and approved by Congress within thirty days; five Justices are elected by popular vote. If the nominee is not voted on by Congress within 30 days, they are automatically approved. The ten-year terms of the elected Justices are to be staggered such that one of them is up for election every two years, opposite the years on which Representatives are up for election.

Rationale: one of the issues with the Supreme Court is that it is highly partisan (even while pretending it is not) while simultaneously having an outsized effect on the country. The ten-year term from the Thirty-Seventh Amendment helps address how much sway a single president can have for many years, even decades, after leaving office. The Thirty-Ninth Amendment is meant to make the Supreme Court more responsive in the near term, especially with having five Justices that are popularly elected. Splitting up the remaining ten between the President and the Attorney General also ensures that neither can have undue influence on the Supreme Court and check each other’s power to affect it. Having the Attorney General, who is more likely to find themselves and their subordinates testifying in front of the Supreme Court, only nominating three of the Justices helps ensure that they are not biasing the Supreme Court in their own favor. Also, this amendment ensures that Congress cannot simply sit on a nomination as a sort of silent veto against a nominee, such as what happened with Merrick Garland in 2016.

Concluding Remarks

As I said at the outset, there are certainly wrinkles that would likely need to be ironed out in these proposals, but the spirit of this project is to

1. Reign in the executive. This is done, for instance, by devolving it into three different independent offices, reducing its hold over the Supreme Court, more concretely defining war so that it cannot just be called something else and bypass congressional oversight, and limiting executive immunity and the power of the pardon.
2. Make Congress and the Supreme Court more responsive to the will of the people. With the former this is seen by removing the Senate, reducing the number of people represented by each member of the house, and increasing the number of Representatives. With the latter this is seen in term limits, an expansion of the number of Justices, and having Justices added by two of the three executives as well as by election.
3. Reduce the corrosive effects of money in politics. Campaign finance is the obvious one here, but also the more concretely defining persons, citizens, and legal entities will help curb much of the outsized power that corporations possess.
4. Prevent corruption and self-serving among politicians. This is done through the clauses barring officials from receiving, accruing, or spending a lot of money, as well as limitations on how much they can receive, accrue, or spend even after they leave office, thus making it so that being elected isn’t the revolving door it often is with lucrative positions in companies after leaving office.
5. Election reform. In addition to campaign finance reform and changes in how government officials can receive, accrue, or spend money, the big things here are the anti-gerrymandering clauses, removing the electoral college, and going to ranked choice voting.

It was only after I wrote this that I discovered other people have ideas for amendments that are similar to mine in spirit, namely the tripartisan (libertarian, liberal, and conservative) Proposed Amendments by the Constitution Draft Project. These are not in complete overlap with mine, and in my opinion do not go far enough in the root-and-branch reform of the U.S. Constitution that is required to meet the current crisis, but, as I said, they are similar in the spirit of reigning in the executive and reforming the Supreme Court.