Drafting a new constitution is fairly unnecessary outside of deposing an aristocracy or a dictatorship. Plus, it only has any effect if everyone agrees on it so you will need literally everyone to have some input and agree or else you will have seperationists.
I would just add the following and call it good:
No cap on the house of Representatives.
Term limit on EVERY elected individual, cabinet appointee, and judge.
Senate seats proportional to population with the smallest state receiving 1, a state double its size receiving 2, etc.
The President is not immune to indictment and has no authority over the DOJ.
EDIT:
\5. Individual campaign funds are capped, organizations funds require signatures and count towards the individual totals, with enforcement of federal prison time on ALL involved in the case of going over. Proven illegal funding can invalidate election results and trigger a new election automatically.
\6. In the event of an absence a new election must be called immediately, and any attempt to delay the process can be met for prison time.
\7. Total Bodily Autonomy - doctors are still expected to adhere to strict antinegligience practices and conditions, can choose to decline patients, but if a patient is informed of risks for proven safe procedures then it is their choice to have whatever medical procedure or even cosmetic procedure performed on their body as they wish.
Number 3 structures the Senate (more or less) the same as the House. The whole point of the Senate is to give each state equal representation, while the House gives each person equal representation.
If you’re going to restructure the Senate that way, may just as well get rid of it.
I don’t see any logic behind giving every state equal representation when each state is not equal in population, commerce, or even territory.
I think the need for both a senate and a house is important, and the distinction between the two would be that individual districts select the house appointments while the state as a whole decides the senators.
I think the additional chamber of the senate helps quality control over changes by the house, and makes it harder for harmful changes like those by the GOP to pass while incentivizing changes popular by the larger majority.
The senate was conceived at a time when the most populated states were filled with slaves and disenfranchised poors who couldn’t vote. There’s no reason to discard a longer-termed gerrymanderjng-immune chamber of Congress just because we want the 70 million Americans in California and Texas to not be subjects of the 1 million in Vermont and Wyoming.
Stacking the senate to reflect population is fine. Especially if we change the house to only care about voters
The reason they’re gerrymander immune is that they only have two reps that aren’t up for election at the same time. If you award seats proportionally Californa will have roughly a dozen seats in the Senate. What would be the schedule and process for electing them all? Why not just use that process for a single legislature?
Having all of Congress be at-large would essentially eliminate gerrymandering by just letting any majority in a state decide everything.
I think thats the single worst change we could make, beating out term limits. ~Because if only lobbyists and staffers can be long-term careers we’d never have principled professional politicians, just short-term figureheads~
“At Large” means that the senators would be elected by the whole state, which is the only way to avoid gerrymandering and identical to how the current rules work.
1 = In the original Constitution there was supposed to be one Congressperson for every 30,000 citizens. We’re apx 300 million, which would work out to about 10,000 Congresspeople. I think we can agree this would be a tad unwieldy
2= Term limits would just mean the same fat cats have to get new stooges more often.
3=The whole point of Senators was to make sure that the smaller states got equal representation.
We don’t need to set the number at 30,000. But, hypothetically, if we did, then we can count 150 Million votes in a couple of days, so I think we can reasonably count 10,000 in a couple of hours, although we’re going to have to rework who gets time to speak before congress and for how long and also do something about the Filibuster.
If the current system shows us anything it is that the corruptness of an individual does not correlate to a short time in office. Term limits are important to prevent corrupt people from amassing power and influence over a long period of time, such as in the SCOTUS. Monied interests have been shown more likely to put weight behind reelecting people known to play ball than newcomers.
Conversely it means larger population states get less representation. Fuck the smaller states. The few should not rule over the many.
If we had 10,000 Congress people and each had five minutes to present an idea it would take about 35 days for everyone to introduce themselves.
There’s a science fiction novel that tossed this idea out as a very minor plot point, but I do like it.
Change from voting by location to letting people pick their own districts.
Any group that can show it represents a group of sufficient size gets one Congress member.
People can choose to be ‘gun owners,’ ‘mass transit users,’ ‘single mothers,’ ‘factory workers,’ ‘farmers,’ ‘polygamists,’ or any other designation they choose.
There should be a 5th one: A ban on religious discrimination.
Number six should be that, just like the Protestant Reformation, Catholicism should be banned. That’s what controls all of Christianity. On top of that, the laws shouldn’t be written in such a way that protect Catholics and Jesuits, and protect everyone, regardless of their personal beliefs.
Religious discrimination is already prohibited by the Civil Rights Act and religious speech is protected by the first amendment. Furthermore, all recognized religious institutions are untaxed, there was even a segment where talk show host John Oliver founded his own recognized religion as an example.
The nation was founded by Anglican Seperatist Pilgrims fleeing the Roman Catholic influences. Protestants are double the number of Catholics in the USA.
If anything, I believe we need to start treating all religions like business institutions.
Indeed, we should. Especially since every single religion all goes to cause people to revere and obey the Pope, the Mark of the Beast. I’ve believed this since 2025 when I started studying it.
As bad as Catholics can be, they are a bit player in the US religious landscape. I reject the premise that they are still the standard by which American “Christianity” sets its course. I’m not defending them exactly, I’m just saying they aren’t the most serious problem. By far the most dangerous are the post-second-reformation evangelicals. American Catholics are barely even Catholic by most measures, and are far more heavily influenced by American Pentecostals, Adventists, Mormons, and most dangerous of all Southern Baptists. Even their own forebears would consider what they’ve become blasphemous heretics.
Evangelicals are controlled by the Catholic church, whether they know it or otherwise. Most of the danger comes from Catholic-style parenting and indoctrination that happens in these churches at the hands of the Jesuit Order.
Drafting a new constitution is fairly unnecessary outside of deposing an aristocracy or a dictatorship. Plus, it only has any effect if everyone agrees on it so you will need literally everyone to have some input and agree or else you will have seperationists.
I would just add the following and call it good:
No cap on the house of Representatives.
Term limit on EVERY elected individual, cabinet appointee, and judge.
Senate seats proportional to population with the smallest state receiving 1, a state double its size receiving 2, etc.
The President is not immune to indictment and has no authority over the DOJ.
EDIT:
\5. Individual campaign funds are capped, organizations funds require signatures and count towards the individual totals, with enforcement of federal prison time on ALL involved in the case of going over. Proven illegal funding can invalidate election results and trigger a new election automatically.
\6. In the event of an absence a new election must be called immediately, and any attempt to delay the process can be met for prison time.
\7. Total Bodily Autonomy - doctors are still expected to adhere to strict antinegligience practices and conditions, can choose to decline patients, but if a patient is informed of risks for proven safe procedures then it is their choice to have whatever medical procedure or even cosmetic procedure performed on their body as they wish.
Number 3 structures the Senate (more or less) the same as the House. The whole point of the Senate is to give each state equal representation, while the House gives each person equal representation.
If you’re going to restructure the Senate that way, may just as well get rid of it.
I don’t see any logic behind giving every state equal representation when each state is not equal in population, commerce, or even territory.
I think the need for both a senate and a house is important, and the distinction between the two would be that individual districts select the house appointments while the state as a whole decides the senators.
I think the additional chamber of the senate helps quality control over changes by the house, and makes it harder for harmful changes like those by the GOP to pass while incentivizing changes popular by the larger majority.
The senate was conceived at a time when the most populated states were filled with slaves and disenfranchised poors who couldn’t vote. There’s no reason to discard a longer-termed gerrymanderjng-immune chamber of Congress just because we want the 70 million Americans in California and Texas to not be subjects of the 1 million in Vermont and Wyoming.
Stacking the senate to reflect population is fine. Especially if we change the house to only care about voters
The reason they’re gerrymander immune is that they only have two reps that aren’t up for election at the same time. If you award seats proportionally Californa will have roughly a dozen seats in the Senate. What would be the schedule and process for electing them all? Why not just use that process for a single legislature?
CA can have four at-large seats for the whole state up for election every two years.
They would have the same long-view that existing senators have, and would not be internally less responsive than the current system
That sounds great.
Just use that in the House.
Having all of Congress be at-large would essentially eliminate gerrymandering by just letting any majority in a state decide everything.
I think thats the single worst change we could make, beating out term limits. ~Because if only lobbyists and staffers can be long-term careers we’d never have principled professional politicians, just short-term figureheads~
What does “be at-large” mean?
We’re talking about a kind of stagered multi-member districts.
“At Large” means that the senators would be elected by the whole state, which is the only way to avoid gerrymandering and identical to how the current rules work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-large
1 = In the original Constitution there was supposed to be one Congressperson for every 30,000 citizens. We’re apx 300 million, which would work out to about 10,000 Congresspeople. I think we can agree this would be a tad unwieldy
2= Term limits would just mean the same fat cats have to get new stooges more often.
3=The whole point of Senators was to make sure that the smaller states got equal representation.
We don’t need to set the number at 30,000. But, hypothetically, if we did, then we can count 150 Million votes in a couple of days, so I think we can reasonably count 10,000 in a couple of hours, although we’re going to have to rework who gets time to speak before congress and for how long and also do something about the Filibuster.
If the current system shows us anything it is that the corruptness of an individual does not correlate to a short time in office. Term limits are important to prevent corrupt people from amassing power and influence over a long period of time, such as in the SCOTUS. Monied interests have been shown more likely to put weight behind reelecting people known to play ball than newcomers.
Conversely it means larger population states get less representation. Fuck the smaller states. The few should not rule over the many.
There are 168 hours in a week.
If we had 10,000 Congress people and each had five minutes to present an idea it would take about 35 days for everyone to introduce themselves.
There’s a science fiction novel that tossed this idea out as a very minor plot point, but I do like it.
Change from voting by location to letting people pick their own districts.
Any group that can show it represents a group of sufficient size gets one Congress member.
People can choose to be ‘gun owners,’ ‘mass transit users,’ ‘single mothers,’ ‘factory workers,’ ‘farmers,’ ‘polygamists,’ or any other designation they choose.
There should be a 5th one: A ban on religious discrimination.
Number six should be that, just like the Protestant Reformation, Catholicism should be banned. That’s what controls all of Christianity. On top of that, the laws shouldn’t be written in such a way that protect Catholics and Jesuits, and protect everyone, regardless of their personal beliefs.
Religious discrimination is already prohibited by the Civil Rights Act and religious speech is protected by the first amendment. Furthermore, all recognized religious institutions are untaxed, there was even a segment where talk show host John Oliver founded his own recognized religion as an example.
The nation was founded by Anglican Seperatist Pilgrims fleeing the Roman Catholic influences. Protestants are double the number of Catholics in the USA.
If anything, I believe we need to start treating all religions like business institutions.
Indeed, we should. Especially since every single religion all goes to cause people to revere and obey the Pope, the Mark of the Beast. I’ve believed this since 2025 when I started studying it.
As bad as Catholics can be, they are a bit player in the US religious landscape. I reject the premise that they are still the standard by which American “Christianity” sets its course. I’m not defending them exactly, I’m just saying they aren’t the most serious problem. By far the most dangerous are the post-second-reformation evangelicals. American Catholics are barely even Catholic by most measures, and are far more heavily influenced by American Pentecostals, Adventists, Mormons, and most dangerous of all Southern Baptists. Even their own forebears would consider what they’ve become blasphemous heretics.
Evangelicals are controlled by the Catholic church, whether they know it or otherwise. Most of the danger comes from Catholic-style parenting and indoctrination that happens in these churches at the hands of the Jesuit Order.
That’s almost entirely backwards
Catholics were always backwards in their traditions.
That’s accurate. The idea that they have anything to do with American Christianity is however entirely false.