None… Because it would have been just written. Amendments are changes/additions to an existing document
USA:
-
Prison slavery abolished
-
Elected judges with term limits
-
Ranked Choice Voting
-
Bodily autonomy as a right (no banning abortions, gender transitioning, bionics)
-
Separation of Church and State as the actual law of the land
-
Add federal referendums, all constitutional amendments are referendums (but amendments still require 75% of the population)
-
Districts are now no bigger than 50,000 people and they all get a representitive, and all the recognized Amerindian tribes also get their own reps (an agreement was made with the Cherokee for them to get one but it was never fulfilled)
-
2nd Amendment replaced with something that directly allows federal government to regulate but not ban firearms.
i wouldn’t go with ranked choice voting. all the systems i know of have their own flaws: IRV can have really weird results with more than three candidates, Borda count disproportionately favors the moderate, and the Condorcet method can completely fail to select a winner. instead, what about approval voting, where instead of ranking candidates, you just check as many boxes as you want?
and the Condorcet method can completely fail to select a winner.
That one’s not a flaw. All elections can suffer from ties. Pure Condorcet just makes it obvious when there’s a tie (and this is very rare). There are a bunch of Condorcet completion methods for resolving the tie.
-
If I was writing a new constitution, why would it need amendments?
2a, but simplified for polticians and other toddlers.
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No matter how big or small, deadly or not, this is ironclad.
“No matter how futuristic or advanced guns become” because I’m sick of hearing “bUt ThEsE gUnS wErEn’T iNvEnTeD yEt!”
This is a bit of a strange question, because an amendment is just that - an amendment. You don’t list amendments in your first draft of a constitution, you list articles. Amendments are changes made to the constitution after it’s ratified.
Ofcourse, but I think it’s clear what they meant - what would you do different compared to the old/current constitution if you could write a new one. It’s an interesting question.
I am actually quite happy with Germany’s constitution.
What do you think about the role of your president? Would you get rid of them entirely, or would you give them more powers?
Keep them as they are. I don’t think we’ve ever had this position seriously abused and it’s a decent last line of defense
ifwhen the brown shit hits the fan again.Obviously they can’t prevent the public hurting itself again in the long term but they can however at least mitigate that happening to some degree for a little while. That can be enough to smooth over some short-term crisis and might move people to realise their situation a bit better because it’d be a highly, highly exceptional thing for them to step in.
(For those not in the know: Next to being the representative for the state (does rememberance speeches, shakes hands, etc.), the German president handles some “administrative” stuff in the government without much say and they have the power to effectively stop the legislative until their term is over by refusing to sign new bills.
The latter has never occured and single bills have only been “vetoed” only 9 times in total. Mostly because of formal issues such as the bill not actually having been approved by the Bundesrat or bills that are obviously in conflict with the Grundgesetz and would get overturned by the judicative immediately.)Agreed. I like how the German presidents have managed to keep an aura of respect (or so it at least seems to me) by staying out of daily politics. Here in Czechia the presidents have been quite vocal about their opinions which kind of defeated their role as a unifying head of state.
poverty is prohibited.
Punishment: heavy fees
