List of Proposed Constitutional Amendments

Would it be possible to fix this country's problems by amending the Constitution? I considered a list of Constitutional amendments with the goal of fixing this country's problems. I rapidly reached the conclusion that no finite list of amendments would be sufficient. I was just patching holes in a fundamentally flawed system.

I put a lot of effort into writing this list of proposed amendments, only to be convinced the exercise was pointless. I wrote this draft before I was convinced that agorism is the only solution. Even though I'm convinced that amending or reforming the current system is pointless, I'll still present the results of my exercise.

When I first wrote this list, I was considering advocating for a Constitutional Convention to try and patch the Constitution. I thought that it might be easier to organize support for a Constitutional Convention than to organize support for enough candidates to reform Congress. There are several problems with such an approach. First, a Constitutional Convention could be hijacked by people who want to do bad things. Second, there's no guarantee I could convince others of the merits of my proposals. Third, each new provision creates other flaws. Fourth, there's no guarantee the current government would recognize a Constitutional Convention as legitimate; the Constitution specifies that the people can directly call a Constitutional Convention, but gives no details.

This was an interesting intellectual exercise. What amendments would I nominate for consideration, if I was a participant in such a convention? Suppose I have a magic wand and can convince everyone else of the merits of my proposals, and get them passed. I decided it was a hopeless endeavor.

After much consideration, the only valid Constitution is a NULL Constitution. It's not right to impose permanent rules on someone before they're educated enough to decide. The only valid contract is one voluntarily entered by all parties, with the best available information.

Imagine that I am using the current Constitution as a starting point. Here is the result of my exercise to come up with workable amendments.

- Any person may place a law on the ballot for consideration, provided they reimburse the government for the cost of adding the item to the ballot and counting the votes. For a law to pass in this manner, it requires more than 50% of the vote in more than half the states, plus more than 50% of the total votes cast.

Justification: Direct democracy is a good idea. It's worked out pretty well in California. Notice that if a law passes this test, it means that there would have been enough support in Congress to directly pass the law, assuming Congress was doing what its constituents wanted. For example, people could directly vote on whether or not the US should immediately withdraw from Iraq, a law that would easily pass.

After further considering, maybe this isn't so good. After all, if 51% of the people decided to pass a $1000/post excise tax on bloggers, that doesn't mean they should be allowed to do it. With a corrupt media, it's would be very easy to convince a majority to pass stupid laws. Certain laws, such as taxation, cannot be justified even with a 75% or a 99% majority; what right do other people have to steal from me?

- Any person may place an amendment on the ballot for consideration, provided they reimburse the government for the cost of adding the item to the ballot and counting the votes. For an amendment to pass in this manner, it requires more than 75% of the vote in more than 3/4 the states, plus more than 75% of the total votes cast.

Justification: Direct democracy is a good idea. Notice that if a law passes this test, it means that there would have been enough support in Congress and the state legislatures to directly pass the amendment.

- The 16th amendment is repealed. Neither the Federal government nor any state government may collect income taxes.

Justification: Allowing income taxes was a huge mistake. The problem is that the income tax makes every economic activity subject to taxation. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and the income tax gives the government the power to destroy economic activity.

Allowing income taxes also justifies a huge invasion of privacy by the government. The government has to make sure that all economic activity is reported and taxed.

Income taxes convert every citizen into government slaves.

- The only valid tax by the Federal government is a fixed amount per person. Excise taxes and tariffs are forbidden.

Excise taxes are bad because they allow the government to effectively forbid the manufacture of something. For example, an excise tax of $1000/gallon on alcohol would effectively ban consumption of alcohol. Tariffs are bad because they discourage free trade.

Considered and Rejected: Fractional reserve banking is forbidden. Only the Federal government may create new money via debt. A bank that wishes to make a loan must borrow the money from the Federal government, who will always approve the loan to a solvent bank at the market rate plus a reasonable fee. There are only two acceptable means for investing customer deposits. The first is in government-backed bonds, and the government will insure an adequate supply of such bonds. The second is in precious metals, where the customer directs his account be invested in a specific metal; in such a case, the bank must have metal stored in its vault equal to the value of the deposit, and the customer may be charged a storage fee.

Justification: Thomas Jefferson said that banning fractional reserve banking was the constitutional provision he most regretted not including. Fractional reserve banking allows the benefits of money supply inflation to accrue to the financial industry and not to the government.

On futher reflection, fractional reserve banking itself is not evil. It is government regulation of banking that is evil.

Considered and Rejected: The creation of a central bank separate from the government is forbidden. The functions of a central bank will be performed by the executive branch, following procedures described by Congress.

Justification: The Federal Reserve has been nothing but a disaster. Its functions should be performed directly by the executive branch.

On further consideration, I decided that fractional reserve banking is perfectly valid. A better amendment replacing the above two is:

- Government regulation of banking and money is forbidden. Taxes may be paid in silver or gold coins, or paper promises to pay silver or gold coins. The only requirement is that the coin meet weight and purity standards.

Justification: There is nothing intrinsically evil about fractional reserve banking. It is government regulation of banking that is the problem. It is government regulation of money that is the problem.

- In a criminal trial, the jury will always consist of the first 12 jurors randomly selected from the jury pool, with no exemptions allowed. The jurors must be selected from near where the person lives or near where the crime occurred.

Justification: The original framers of the constitution would probably be shocked to see this proposed as an amendment. They always expected a jury would be the first 12 people randomly selected. The current process of exemptions and challenges is much more exploitable than "12 random people". If the defendant happens to know someone on the jury, that's the benefit they get for being well-known.

The process of moving a trial originated during the Civil Rights era. White jury members in the South exercised their jury nullification rights in civil rights trials, voting not guilty even when the person did it. This led to the practice of the federal government moving certain trials to other cities. It also lent more justification to the practice of forbidding defense attorneys from reminding juries of their jury nullification right.

In a truly free market, juries might be irrelevant, if free-market competition ensures fairness of judges. On the other hand, juries will probably always play a useful role augmenting the judge's knowledge. In a free-market trial, I would expect the juries, judges, and attorneys to work together much more closely, rather than being isolated as they are in the current system.

- In a criminal trial, the defense is allowed to remind the jury that they have a right to vote not guilty if they think the law is unjust.

Justification: The original framers of the constitution would probably be shocked to see this proposed as an amendment. One of the main points of a jury is a check against unjust laws. It seems that courts decided over time that the defense is forbidden to remind juries that they have a jury nullification privilege.

- In a criminal trial, the defense is allowed to present any evidence it thinks is relevant. The judge may limit the time spent on this purpose to 40 hours or the time spent by the prosecution, whichever is greater.

Justification: The original framers of the constitution would probably be shocked to see this proposed as an amendment. I never understood why the defense is sometimes forbidden to mention things. For example, if someone is charged with illegally carrying a weapon, it should be acceptable for the defense to say that person had previously been robbed.

- No person may be held against their will for more than 7 days without the approval of a jury, with one limited exception allowed to the President. In a time of national emergency, the President may hold a person involuntarily for up to 1 year by executive order. However, if that person is not convicted of treason within 2 years, then the President is personally liable for a fine equal to 10 ounces of gold per day of involuntary confinement, paid directly to the person inappropriately held.

Justification: The original framers of the constitution would probably be shocked to see this proposed as an amendment. They probably never considered the possibility that someone could be held for 5 years without a trial. Notice that I say "person" rather than "citizen" here. Further, I do allow a limited exception for the President. I specify the fine in gold instead of dollars, because a dollar fine would be diluted by inflation.

- In a criminal trial, the entire trial must be finished within 3 months unless the defense consents to an extension. Each appeal must be resolved within 6 months, but appeals to the Supreme Court may take up to 3 years.

Justification: It's kind of amazing to see that trials can drag on for years. Justice delayed is justice denied. The Constitution contains a "right to a speedy trial", but "speedy trial" was never defined.

- In a civil trial, the jury will usually consist of the first 12 jurors randomly selected from the jury pool; the only exemption allowed will be for jurors who have a prior relationship with the plaintiff or defendant.

Justification: Juries really should just be 12 random people. The current system of challenges leads to abuse more than justice. A civil trial isn't as serious as a criminal trial, so exempting jurors with a prior relationship is reasonable.

- In a civil trial, the entire trial must be finished within 6 months unless both parties consent to an extension. Each appeal must be resolved within 6 months, but appeals to the Supreme Court may take up to 3 years.

Justification: It's kind of amazing to see that trials can drag on for years. Justice delayed is justice denied.

- A citizen has the right to carry a weapon, concealed or visible, in any public area except for secure government property. A loaded weapon may not be carried onto private property without the consent of the property's owner.

Justification: I always thought that "right to bear arms" meant the right to carry a weapon in public anywhere.

- The Federal government may not regulate goods, food, or drugs manufactured in a state for consumption within that same state, unless that state consents to Federal regulation of that item.

Justification: The original framers of the constitution would probably be shocked to see this proposed as an amendment. They never thought that the Federal government would assume the huge regulatory powers that it has. Notice that this allows certain states, such as California, to allow the use of medical marijuana, without specifically mentioning that.

Also, if two states sign an agreement stating they can freely trade certain products, then the Federal government has no right to restrict or interfere with their trade. For example, suppose a crop grows well in California but not so well in Michigan. Michigan should be able to import that crop from California without interference or taxation by the Federal government.

- The federal government may not provide tax breaks or payments to a specific industry or person, except for agriculture. Farming subsidies are limited to 10% of the expected fair market value of the harvest. The federal government may not pay a farmer to leave his land vacant.

Justification: This would eliminate a lot of the "pork" in government spending.

Limited farming subsidies don't bother me, because they do insure an adequate food supply in the event of a drought. On the other hand, a truly free market could adequately prepare for food shortages. Historically, most food shortages were created by government. With a global economy, a drought in one area will probably be offset by a boom crop in another area. Governments restrict the flow of food and goods.

- All state and federal laws must be written in plain English, that the average person can understand. Any law not written in plain English is null and void. When this test is performed in court, a jury of at least 12 people will be chosen randomly from the jury pool, with no exceptions, and a majority must vote that they can understand the law.

Justification: The law should be simple and understandable by the average person. The convention of making the law complicated and incomprehensible serves two purposes. First, it's a job security procedure for lawyers. Second, it allows the government to do bad things and cover it up.

- The Congress may not raise taxes without submitting the tax increase to the general population for a vote.

This would eliminate most abusive taxes. A certain level of taxes is needed, but nowhere near what happens now.

At this point, I gave up the exercise. It was obviously a long list and it wasn't done.

I was going to specify that only metal coins should be used as money. Private mints should be allowed to mint legal tender coins, provided they meet purity and size specifications.

I was thinking of saying that all voting should be public and verifiable. Anonymous voting is abusable; it's better to publish a list of who voted for whom. On the other hand, this leads to risks such as your employer retaliating against employees based on their voting preference. Anonymous voting is abusable. Public and verifiable voting is abusable. This shows the inherent problem with voting.

The original Constitution does not explicitly state that the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of whether a law is Constitutional or not; I was planning on explicitly giving the Supreme Court this power.

It might be a good idea to require all elected officials and high-ranking bureaucrats to be under 24x7 surveillance, broadcast on the Internet, to prevent abuse. Is this too severe an invasion of privacy? But is is necessary to prevent abuse. This shows the inherent problem with giving a handful of people a large amount of power.

All government records should be kept and disclosed within 20 years.

I was planning to switch to a Range voting system.

I was planning to add a "no confidence"/recall provision for Congress and the President and the Supreme Court. A "no confidence" vote could be cast for one branch of government or all three branches.

Even with the list so far, it's obviously unfinished. There's no finite list of laws that covers every situation. Even if I had a magic wand and could get everyone to agree to my recommendations, it still wouldn't be enough.

Besides, even if you could go back to the original US Constitution, or an improved version thereof, it would rapidly degenerate to the current system again. Once you acknowledge any power and legitimacy to the State, even a tiny one, it will rapidly grow to the point where it consumes nearly everything.

The people who suggest "Let's return to a strict Constitutional government." are missing the point. That experiment has been tried and failed. It's time to move on to the next model for organizing civilization, i.e. agorism. Even if you could magically return to a strict Constitutional government, there would be nothing to prevent it from degenerating into the current system again.

I'm forced to conclude that the only valid Constitution is NULL.