I think the one about equal rights based on sex especially since there has been a large amount support on this issue

My only criticism would be the preventing gerrymandering on only political beliefs, as race could be interpreted as non-political. Instead, it is better to include political beliefs on the list instead, otherwise we may have a semantics argument in court.

@Julian Payne Someone who isn't able to vote for themselves at age 16 and ignore what their parents tell them isn't able to do the same thing at age 18.

@Julian Payne Scotland and Austria have lowered the voting age to 16 in recent years with tremendous success. In Scotland’s case, during the buildup to the Scotland Independence Referendum, they made a 1 time exception allowing 16 and 17 year olds to vote in the referendum because it would be one of the biggest changes to come to Scotland in centuries. The turnout was so high among 16 and 17 YO’s was so high that the Scottish Parliament changed the law to lower the voting age to 16 for Scotland National and local elections shortly there after. The debate has spread to the rest of the UK since.

The equal rights amendment seems to the most likely to pass next. I think it would better if sexual orientation were added to it.

Woah, that's a little too early for my comfort level. :)

Fancy seeing you here

@@nestoons4539 hello there

Anti-Federalist Represent!!!!

Really? When I was this early we were still under British rule

Literally all Dictators: AMATEURS!!!

Totalitarians= what a bunch of amateurs, rookie numbers

Wow a fellow Indian .Once to see that I am not the only Indian who watches mr Beats channel

Kudos to India for being the largest democracy.

For people too lazy to look it up, the average member of the Indian Lok Sabha (lower house of the legislature) represents about 2.5 million people.

Yes!

Already covered. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.... The word "effects" covers electronic devices.

Already covered.

@@James-bw7rk not surveillance which is privacy. The fourth amendment currently protects your things to be in your possession, but it never says anything about monitoring or privacy rights.

@@James-bw7rk At one point it was. Then the patriot act and all of the rights went out the window.

Brilliant idea

I disagree. I thing this would exacerbate problems with lobbyists. A lot of lobbyists get involved because of a lack of dedicated committee staffers so Congress members go to think tanks for advice and to write bills for them which feed Congress members corrupt ideas and messaging. Sure, I think term limits for representatives is a good idea, but politicians are not actually that good at public policy, that is why staffers write the laws and stuff, according to what their politicians ask them to do, but lobbyists write them how their employers ask them to do. Instead I would add an amendment banning lobbyists and staffers & representatives from interchanging, to end the revolving door, and also require that at least 48 hours elapse between when a bill's text is published and when the vote happens.

Total Bullshits! Very bad ideas!

@@iammrbeat Total Bullshits! Very bad ideas!

I'd add 6 years to your term limits: 18 for Congress, 24 for the Senate, and 30 for the SCOTUS.

EMPOWERED EXECUTIVE CABINET AMENDMENT Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in one Executive Council which shall be chaired by the President of the United States. Section 2. The executive council shall be composed of a number of Councillors who shall be nominated and appointed by the President of the United States by and with the advise and consent of the United States Senate. The number of councillors shall be fixed by law But shall not be less than three nor more than seven councillors. Each Councillor shall serve with the President of the United States who appointed him or her unless he or she shall be removed upon the convict of impeachment or may be removed by the President of the United States by and with advise and consent of the United States Senate. Provided, when there are vacancies, the President of the United States shall make temporary apointments as Councillors who shall serve on the temporary basis with a short time period which time period lenngth shall be ascertained by law. Section 3. The decisions of the Executive Council shall be determined by a simple majority of votes. Each Councillor shall have one vote. The President of the United States shall chair and shall set the business agenda for the Executive Council and shall have one vote as the Councillors. Section 4. The President shall issue executive orders, directions, and proclamations upon the decisions of the Executive Council. And upon the decisions of the Executive Council, the President of the United States shall apoint or remove the senior officers in the Executive Departments or independent agencies according the regulation of law. Section 5. The President of the United States shall retain the sole powers to chair the Executive Council, to call either House or both houses of United States Congress into special sessions when they shall be adjourned, to nominate and apoint Judges of both the Supreme Court and of inferior Courts of the United States according to regulations and procedures of the original appointment Clause of Article Two of the Constitution.

Needs to be raised to 26 according to the brain science.

and force the peices of that nessescary for voting to happen BEFORE november of the year that they will be able to vote, so that theyve already gone through the entire course before the time to vote comes

@Jimmy Lowhoes Making Election Day Federal Holiday Amendment "Section 1. Congress and several states shall have concurrent power to prescribe that the date of the elections for the members of Congress or state legislatures, the Electors for choosing the President and the Vice President of the United States, and date of Election of executive or judicial officers of several states as holidays for the voters of such Elections. SECTION 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

@@delighteddino9363 Yes. The young adul t should learn mandatory courses of civics,American laws, and history of the United States before they could vote.

This is a big one for me.

We already have that in the constitution which is the disturbing part.

@@travisdejong2354 Yeah, unreasonable searches and seizures. It's in either the 5th or 6th Amendment I believe

Yes! This is badly needed.

@@Ratchet4647 This isn't what OP is talking about.

Not sure what kind of limits could, should be put, it is an expansive power but it already has the political limit that Presidents can be (aside from November-January of last term) punished by the voters in next election for doing something too controversial or self-serving so they do tend to check, limit themselves.

Aka rewording the 4th amendment

There is no way the US government (or any other government actually) would pass such a law. It's the nature of government to want to know as much about you as they possibly can know.

i want stronger language: Congress shall make no law infringing the right to privacy of any person. Or add privacy to the list of speech, press, and assembly.

Add privacy to the list of speech, press, and assembly in the first amendment. I'm sure the founders never thought it would come to this, but there is no longer a presumptive right to privacy except in persons (search), houses, papers, and effects. Unless you can get a sleepy judge to sign a warrant in the middle of the night.

@@torid5892 Well, there goes taxes

@AZPro Isbest - Yeah. This would preclude a president pardoning him or herself because he or she would be a current member of the administration.

How about pardon power just goes away entirely. The idea is ridiculous to begin with.

@@Kujakuseki01 Why because the courts have never made a mistake?

A lot of states allow the governor to nominate people for consideration of being pardoned but another group, the state Senate, Governor's Counsel, etc, has to approve it.

@@Kujakuseki01 the pardoning power is a check on the courts

Government class in HS taught it when I was in school 25 years ago. Quite possibly one of the best classes I ever had for grasping government and its functions.

To be honest, I'd love to see that.

I’m 16 we should raise the age to at least 30 people are Way too stupid😂😂😂

The problem with the equal rights amendment is it will effectively make no legal difference between men and women so have fun signed up for the draft as a woman😂😂😂

@@grantheeter1936 I'd happily sign up for the draft and in case of a divorce have half of the custody of my kids to have equal rights especially in the workplace. Although im of the opinion that you cant demand equal rights for woman if you arent willing to give up the priviliges.

Ok, then I guess everybody that works in the government should work for free.

@@elzoog it's about campaign financing not government pay

@@skullketon Ok, then politicians should finance their own campaigns. You know, like Donald Trump did.

@@elzoog Do you think that corporations should be allowed to pay politicians unlimited sums of money or what?

@@skullketon Don't know. Citizen's United was NOT about a corporation directly giving a politician money anyway.

What if I don't want a pony?

@ThatPsychoReviewer but what if I live in a small Brooklyn apartment? My apartment doesn't even allow me to have a small dog, let alone a full grown pony. Also how will I afford to take care of this pony (food, vet bills, etc.) And where will this pony come from? I hope it isnt some "pony mill"

@@jonathanbowers8964 don't care, didn't ask, you're getting a pony

@@AG-lh9ic What if I try to sell my pony as I don't want it. Or what if the pony dies of old age or something?

@@jonathanbowers8964 I guess that's fine

Wait wait... He wasn't?

Yeah, because people keep votin for them. We shouldn’t limit who the voters can pick from

The trouble is… people kind of don’t care. It’s well-known that incumbency gives a lot of electoral advantages, and people rate their own representatives higher than those outside their difference (all else being equal). Party labels signal a lot for people who are more concerned with getting their kids to school on time or competing for a promotion at work than actually going through the candidates with a fine tooth comb. With some exceptions, when general elections come around people just don’t care who exactly is sitting in the seat as long as she’s on their team.

*district not difference. Stupid can’t edit replies 😡

We do have Zoom conferencing now. No need for a bigger or even another building.

@optimisticneighsayer5823 Perhaps but the "United States Zoom Call of Representatives" doesn't exactly sound good

You know, now that you mention it, that is a weird coincidence.

You’re probably going to have to wait a few months for the election to even end

The "mr.beat represents: presidential election in american history" still gives me chills

Hopefully by next Friday he’ll be able to do it.

if it ever ends!

I'm actually ready for the 2024 election as it seems to be shaping up to be an interesting election

More or less though I see problems that could come form that, that could be even worse.

We already have the right to privacy. It’s called private property. There is no expectation of privacy in public.

@@stevied3400 well we need to add the right to privacy in personal affairs

Doesn’t the 4th amendment cover that?

This comment is officially Mr. Beat-approved.

Last time I was this early, I was in my dad's balls.

@@darthdarthbinkss damn

Last time I was this early, humans were still only in Ethiopia

Last time I was this early we were all dead

Thanks!

1 day ago?

@@noemartinez3125 he’s a Patron

Your actually younger than me.. I was alive for Regan vs Carter where I believe you were alive for Reagan first Mondale which I vaguely remember somehow considering I was only 5 years old

@@iammrbeat are we going to get a Donald Trump song if he loses election if not could you do a song about his 1st term.

There would need to be punishments baked into it

Let's hope. His ideas are disastrous.

Paul Dudley... the congress members will go down kicking and fighting because many of Mr Beats ideas reigns them in.

@@TheRealDrJoey He seemsto forget the law of unintended consequence's always applies and Murphy's law also applies.

@@TheRealDrJoeyDisastrous how?

@@Prodigi50 I'll let Romeo count the ways. But see Delgen 1951 above.

You call that a long term? My state has Mitch McConnell. 😂

And if Biden's been in the senate for 47 years. Term limits sound like a good idea, but they presume that one particular office is the only office that has influence. If you only let me serve two six-year terms in the Senate (or only one), then I can hop right over to the House. Or to a state governorship, or a cabinet position, or the like. It's perfectly possible to obey strict term limits and still stay in government for your entire life. Want to make 'term limits' cover total time in any office? Say goodbye to most of our presidents. Indeed, only four presidents haven't held office as legislators, state governors, cabinet members, and/or at least vice presidents before becoming president (even Washington was a member of the Virginia House of Burgesses, the colony legislature the king eventually abolished, for almost 20 years): Zachary Taylor, Ulysses Grant, and Dwight D. Eisenhower (who were still in government--just as military officers rather than elected officials)..... and President Trump. I get the idea, and it's true that a lot of politicians would basically get their grounding and their practical education in the real world, serve for a few years and then go home to live under the laws they made. But even back in the first days of our nation many people made government their life-long career. Henry Clay, for example, was a Representative from Kentucky from 1811-1825, then Secretary of State until 1829, then Senator right up until he died in 1852. John Sherman, brother to the famous terrorist, was a Representative, then Secretary of the Treasury, then Senator, running 42 years in all. The best way to reduce lifetime government officials is to remove the attraction of it. Reduce the government until there's little to no power in it, until the good people see better ways they can help the world and the bad people can't make a profit, and people will find those alternatives on their own.

Hello my fellow Illinoisans. I know that feeling. I feel like he want retire until probably 2032 or 2038.

Dick Durbin is still a senator. I’m 31 and I swear we used to make jokes about him in civics class.

@@billybobrogers I went to high school for a couple years in Illinois (I'm not proud of it!). I'm 43, and he was a Representative back when *I* was in high school.

Could consider just a cooling off period, where they can’t be involved in lobbying for five years or so. Give them an incentive to find another job.

There is a Word established in the Constitution of the United States that covers that Subject: Bribery;

@@paulrodgers252 Yeah that seems to be super effective.

It probably made sense to them at the time because the voting population was so small and relatively homogenous in those days. It wasn't as difficult to get a majority of the land-owning white male population to agree on something. Now that we are a much more inclusive society, getting a plurality of citizens to agree on anything is an immense undertaking.

@@deliriousdavies7552 Yeah, they'll just have to do something like make a popular proposal that considers all groups equally instead of leveraging power against other groups in an organized political movement. Like a good 3 or 4 of this guy's amendments would drastically shift the power away from all of the red states, then the blue states would try to amend even more on to shift power more. I understand that if you're blue you want this, if you're red you don't. I think that letting amendments be easier so that amendments like these that drastically alter the country and centralize power in a few cities would be a disaster. 3/4ths needed to ensure that an amendment will be accepted by the most people possible is absolutely necessary. Merely 2/3rds is ridiculous and I don't see a reason to oppress minority opinions that much.

Honestly that's a good idea, we already have minimum ages for most political positions (Possibly all, Idk), So why not have maximum ages as well?

I appreciate you

I disagreed with the last few sections of the SDA

this was definitely a much quicker way to write what I wrote about moving the voting age to 16 😂

I agree with you.

@@PlatinumGrande why?

Woah! I've got a famous commenter here! Thanks for your public service and for sharing your perspective.

Interesting take, but then again the term limits were one of the few things I did support, just not in the supreme Court

I absolutely love that you shared this little insight. I think it could help to show that people pushing for these kinds of reforms aren't just thinking that politicians are evil and that it's very much just to help reduce situations like the one about your change in contacts over the years. It's easy to take an us/vs them perspective when attempting reform. Thank you so much!

@@iammrbeat EMPOWERED EXECUTIVE CABINET AMENDMENT SECTION 1. The executive power shall be vested in one Executive Council which shall be chaired by the President of the United States. SECTION 2. The executive council shall be composed of a number of Councillors who shall be nominated and appointed by the President of the United States by and with the advise and consent of the United States Senate. The number of councillors shall be fixed by law But shall not be less than three nor more than seven councillors. Each Councillor shall serve during the same time period along with the President of the United States who appointed him or her unless he or she shall be removed upon the convict of impeachment or may be removed by the President of the United States by and with advise and consent of the United States Senate. Provided, when there are vacancies, the President of the United States shall make temporary apointments as Councillors who shall serve on the temporary basis with a short time period which time period lenngth shall be ascertained by law. SECTION 3. The decisions of the Executive Council shall be determined by a simple majority of votes. Each Councillor shall have one vote. The President of the United States shall chair and shall set the business agenda for the Executive Council and shall have one vote as the Councillors. SECTION 4. The President shall issue executive orders, directions, and proclamations upon the decisions of the Executive Council. And upon the decisions of the Executive Council, the President of the United States shall apoint or remove the senior officers in the Executive Departments or independent agencies and ambassadors according the regulation of law. SECTION 5. The President of the United States shall retain the sole powers to chair the Executive Council, to receive ambassadors from foreign states, to call either House or both houses of United States Congress into special sessions when they shall be adjourned, to sign or return the bills or resolutions passed by both houses of Congress according to the rules and procedures set forth in the original presentment clause of Article One of the Constitution, to nominate and apoint Judges of both the Supreme Court and of inferior Courts of the United States according to rules and procedures of the original appointment Clause of Article Two of the Constitution.

14.5% of the country elects 41 senators. 18% elects 51 senators. Midterms find 46% turnout so 14.5% becomes 7% and 4% of the country wins 41 seats to rule over 85% of the country who have 59 senate seats. The Senate is a corporate agent as is SCOTUS since W v Gore.

Not very feasible back then, but in the age of the internet (and Zoom meetings, etc.) very doable now.

That and dramatically reduce the size of Congressional staff. No longer living in Washington, DC. but traveling there six times a year and staying in dorms where they share a room with someone from the opposite party. Only a 15% salary match 401(k) for a penson while serving as a legislator.

I like it. Where’s the petition?

That sounds terrible, 435 is too many as it is, they barely get anything done. How would 6,629 people be able to come to a consensus?

@@cara-seyun they vote

How about this EMPOWERED EXECUTIVE CABINET AMENDMENT?“SECTION 1. The executive power shall be vested in one Executive Council which shall be chaired by the President of the United States. SECTION 2. The Executive Council shall be composed of a number of Executive Councillors whom the President of the United States shall nominate, and shall appoint by and with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. No Person shall be appointed as Executive Councillor who shall not be a Citizen of the United States and shall not have attained to the age of thirty five Years. The number of Executive Councillors shall be fixed by law But shall not be less than three nor more than nine Councillors. Each Executive Councillor shall serve during the same time period along with the the President who appointed such Person as Executive Councillor unless such Person shall be removed from Office on impeachment and Conviction of any felonies or misdemeaners, or may be removed from Office by the President of the United States by and with the advise and consent of the United States Senate. Provided, when there are vacancies, the President of the United States shall make temporary apointments as Councillors who shall serve on the temporary basis for a short time period not exceeding two months (provided that such Person who shall be apointed to serve as Executive Councillor on a temporary basis shall be chosen from amongst the Officers in Each of the executive departments and other executive agencies of the United States or amongst other executive Officers of the United States or amongst ambassadors). No Person holding the Office as Executive Councillor shall be a Member of either House of Congress during Continuance of such Person in Office as Executive Councillor. SECTION 3. The decisions of the Executive Council shall be determined by a simple majority of votes. Each Executive Councillor shall have one vote. The President of the United States shall chair and shall set the business agenda for the Executive Council and shall have the same one vote as Each Executive Councillor, but he shall have one additional vote when the votes are evenly divided. The President and Each Executive Councillor may from time to time require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer or Head in each of the executive Departments and other executive agencies of the United States, or of all of the ambassadors and other executive officers of the United States upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices. SECTION 4. The President shall issue executive orders, executive directions, and proclamations upon the decisions of the Executive Council and shall Command the Armed Forces of the United States upon the decisions of the Executive Council and shall grant Reprieves and Pardons upon the decisions of the Executive Council for Offenses against the United States except in Cases of Impeachment. And upon the decisions of the Executive Council, the President of the United States shall appoint or depose the senior officers of Civil or Military in each of the Executive Departments or other executive agencies of the United States and ambassadors and other executive officers of Civil or Military of the United States according to the regulation of law, but when they think proper Congress may by law switch the manner of apointment of certain number of such senior officers in each of the executive departments or other executive agencies and the manner of appointment of certain number of ambassadors and other executive officers to the rules and procedures as set forth in the original clauses of Section Two of the Article Two of the Constitution. And further Provided that Congress may by law vest in the senior officers of each of the executive departments or the other executive agencies the powers to appoint and depose the inferior officers in each of the executive departments or other executive agencies that such inferior officers herein mentioned which may be created and ascertained by law . SECTION 5. The President of the United States shall have the exclusive powers to chair, to convene and to set the business agenda and the Rules of its Procedings for the Executive Council; shall retain the exclusive powers to sign or return the bills or resolutions or any other measures passed by both houses of Congress according to the rules and procedures as set forth in the original presentment clauses of Article One of the Constitution; shall have exclusive power (with the exceptions provided in the 25th article of amendment to the United States Constitution)to convene either House or both houses of United States Congress into special sessions on extraordinary Occasions when he think proper; shall retain the exclusive power to adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper in Case of Disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with Respect to the Time of Adjournment; shall have exclusive power to send envoys on behalf of the President of the United States to negotiate with foreign Nations concerning Treaties; shall have the powers to make or terminate Treaties by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate (provided two thirds of the Senators present concur); shall nominate and appoint Judges of both the Supreme Court and of inferior Courts of the United States and senior office holders of other agencies of the government of the United States (such other agencies may be created and abolished by law) according to rules and procedures of the original Clauses of Section Two of Article Two of the Constitution (provided that Congress may by law vest in the Courts of Law the power of the apointment of Judges of the inferior Courts); shall retain the power to recommend to Congress for consideration of such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers from foreign Nations; shall grant Commissions to Executive Councillors and to all the senior Officers in each of the Executive Departments or Executive agencies of the United States and to ambassadors and other executive officers of the United States; shall grant Commissions to all the Judges of the Courts of Law of the United States and to senior office holders of other agencies of the government of the United States (such other agencies may be created or abolished by law); shall give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union from time to time. ”

One page Max, double spaced for each bill, no riders

Although this would be more a matter of Congressional procedure than a subject for a Constitutional amendment, how about a principle that a congresscritters vote shall not be counted as being in favor of a bill unless the person has transcribed it longhand or been filmed typing it or otherwise reproducing it. Someone who knows of something objectionable within a bill should be entitled to reject it without having to read the whole thing, but someone who is going to vote for something should be required to demonstrate that they have read the whole thing and there is nothing objectionable within it.

How does a government give a person a "right" to understand something? Should laws be limited to something like "Be good", so that people with low comprehension levels can understand? Law is written in such intricate detail so that it is not left to just anyone's interpretation of what the law is. This is why it's interpreted by judges educated on the law and not farmers and even with that, these judges opinions and bias interpret laws different ways. It is the way it is because the simpler the law doesn't work, because of everyone's changing opinions. We humans are still a very faulted species.

"I personally think there should be a right to understand the law, for everyone." I came here for the stupidity. Found it! So you've got a person with I.Q. 80; and you want that person to "understand the law".

At most 9 right? You wouldn't want the president to say at some point some nominee HAS TO be confirmed.

It is coming out tomorrow (Friday.)

Wow, great vid

Update will say "same as the last three recounts...Biden won fair and square. The chump is a sorepuccyloser, thats all."

If you think the US Representative for my district actually represents my best interest, please wear a helmet in public

It's impossible to truly represent everyone individually because not everyone is the same. A representative's job is to listen to everyone he/she can in their district and then vote on the behalf of everyone in said district and propose bills in the house based on all the information gathered from the district they represent.

Bravo

@@SpeedUpThatComputer They get that. H0w can they n0t d0 c0rp0rate b1dd!ng?

DC CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATION AMENDMENT “Section 1. The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall entitled have two Delegates who shall be chosen every second Year by the residents thereof, No Person shall be chosen to hold the Office of the Delegates unless such Person shall be a citizen of the United States and shall attain to the age 25 years. (provide that No Person shall be qualified to be an elector who shall be entitled to cast ballots in choosing the Delegates thereof unless such Person shall be a citizen of the United States and shall attain to the age of 18 years) . Section 2. The Times and Manner of holding Elections for such Delegates shall be prescribed by Congress. Section 3. Without consents of both of the two aforesaid Delegates, No tax shall be collected under the Authority of the government of the United States from the residents of the said District. Section 4. On all questions and matters related to the said District, the aforesaid two Delegates shall entitled to debate and vote in both Houses of Congress as if they would be considered as members to be entitled to Represent in both Houses of Congress.”

Term limits for SCOTUS IS A BAD IDEA

@Heywood why is that?

@@daedalus2726 because the scotus judges are supposed to be outside the political whims of the times. If they had terms, they would act like politicians and be beholden to those politicians. They aren’t supposed to adjudicate according to popular opinion. And it has worked well for the most part even tho sometimes they don’t seem to. The SCOTUS is by far the most steady branch of the IS government precisely because they aren’t limited by elections or terms. Remember, it was democrats that removed the old barrier of needing a 60 vote senate majority to approve the presidents selection. It was very short sighted and it bit them in the ass. Asking to change the constitution when you don’t know how it works as a whole is equally bad idea.

If SCOTUS has only one 20 year term, there is no reelection pressure. They can't be reelected, so what do they care?

@@alvarofernandez5118 Justices aren't elected.

lol heck yeah. Coming in February. :)

@@iammrbeat hoo boy that’ll be an interesting video, can’t wait

Once we have a winner.

@@iammrbeat more like civil wars in history

@Mr. Beat it will probably take until next election to get this one sorted out lol

You are wise beyond your years. I don't think I began to be a "good voter" until I was 30. I was following the party that I thought was right, but that really was based on believing them telling me the other party was wrong. It took a while to understand the difference. I'd go with no voting till 21, but also no income taxes till 21. Young people likely don't have incomes that contribute much in taxes, yet those extra dollars would mean a lot to them. Let's align voting and income taxation and set the bar for both a tad higher.

If being vulnerable to propaganda should be a disqualifier of the right to vote, than 50% of Republicans would lose the right to vote.😂

@@computernerdtechman no one is immune to propaganda, i'd be willing to bet 70-80% of all and i mean ALL democrats AND republicans are at least in some way influenced by propaganda, what im saying is teenagers are like walking mouthpieces when it comes to this stuff, have a debate with any 16 year old and as long as you know the source (likely a youtuber/streamer) then you can instantly pinpoint their arguments, because they dont actually care for policy they just regurgitate what their favorite ideology person says.

@@computernerdtechman And likely ~50% of Democrats, too. Seriously, I think anyone who thinks too highly of either of those parties is drinking some kool-aid.

Maybe you also think there should be voting restrictions based on education following that logic, and we all know how that turned out.

Senators are not supposed to be representatives of the people, but of the state government. The House of Representatives already serves the role of representing the people. This is why no law can be passed without first going through the HoR.

@@spacevan1204 Ah okay. Yeah, if you get rid of gerrymandering and other voter supression tactics, then I wouldn't mind it at all.

He suggests DIRECT election of the Pres/VP instead of the electoral college... Yet suggest INdirect election of the senators? SMH

@@spacevan1204 First, yes, I think the electoral college is quite a ways from its original intent... and yet it still seems to serve that purpose to SOME extent. It also still has a GENERAL (not precise) reflection of the will of the voters, albeit indirectly, instead of directly. As for Texas, yes, I expect you're right that there will come a time when Texas goes blue, and then basically Texas, California, and New York will darned near decide the Presidential election AND control of the House, almost by themselves... which would happen anyway, if the President is DIRECTLY elected by popular vote.

@@nyetzdyec3391 I feel like arguments like this often treat people in their respective states that they're some homogenous block who always act the same and have the same thoughts. Do you know how diverse Texas is? Western Texas has more in common with New Mexcio than Eastern Texas which has more in common with Louisiana. Plus, if Texas turns blue in the EC, than Democrates are always destined to win so your argument kinda falls flat. Without the EC, Republicans in larger states would be represented as well. And Trump basically proved, that Republicans can be mobilized to vote in very large numbers.

@@lol-xs9wz Yes, I know how diverse Texas is... and how different E. Tx. is from W. Tx. In fact, it hasn't been long since I argued exactly that point in another thread, elsewhere. (I'm not sure what brings it up HERE, since I can't read all of the other comments in this thread... can't refresh my memory of everything that's already been discussed here...) I'm also aware that while Texas remains red, currently, it's moving towards purple. At the same time, like when it comes to the Electoral College, and passing laws in State Legislatures, and getting amendments to the Constitution passed, the ONLY thing that matters are the individual MAJORITIES. For example, if the vote is 51-49 in presidential elections, in almost all states, the ENTIRETY of the state's votes goes to the one candidate. When it comes to ratifying an amendment, of the vote in the state legislature is 50.1 to 49.9, it might as well have been 100 to 0... that state has ratified it, and that's all that matters... in PRACTICAL terms (and legal ones, too).

You've wanted to see that Anarchism video for awhile now. You've certainly put it in my mind permanently. :)

@@iammrbeat actually want to see Harrison's presidency. even though he only served a month, I'd like to see how you'd break it down lol

@@fun-gi8329 or at least who ol’ tippecanoe was as a person.

Become a patreon member at the George Washington level and he will make a vid of your choice once every 4 months

That is not accurate. Look it up.

@@garymccoy6564 It IS accurate, and yes, I DID "look it up" and read about it. There are several letters and other writings of the Founding Fathers that state as such.

The first 10 were added after the ratification of the constitution… so yes it has been amended 28 times… They are Amendments…

The Bill of Rights is STILL 10 amendments.

​@@violagreene4643Still 10 amendments, yes, but they were not usual amendments. They were proposed on, voted on, and ratified all as a single piece of legislation

According to the Constitution, SCOTUS judges are not appointed for life. They are appointed to their position “during good behavior.” A SCOTUS judge can be removed for quite literally anything Congress doesn’t like.

@@johnbabylon7626 Yeah but practically, when does that happen?

@@EpicTrollingCentre Never. The system is broken not because the Constitution doesn’t work but because Americans don’t know how it’s supposed to work. And no Constitutional amendment can change that

@@johnbabylon7626 It doesn't happen because there is an unwritten understanding that the legislature should not interfere with the judiciary, not because people don't know how the constitution works. I suppose if politicians wanted to make the Supreme Court a *complete* partisan farce, then they could remove justices. However, I think my method preserves judicial independence better.

@@EpicTrollingCentre justices have been removed from the bench for cursing in the courtroom. Back when “good behavior” meant something. 9 people “appointed for life” who claim all authority in any matter of law whatsoever is not a free republic. It is an authoritarian oligarchy. Read the Federalist Papers; the Supreme Court was always intended to be the weakest of the three branches and dependent on the other two for any practical authority

how is that a funny quote, theres more than 1 constitution in the world

@@christophmaier4397 he didn’t even say it was funny

@@MarlboroMika yet he still posted it as if it was extraordinary

@@christophmaier4397 we don’t know why he posted it or how he wanted it to be understood

Has he ever done a video on other countries constitutions? I think Australia's needs work.

Dude, you're biased. :)

@@iammrbeat lol

What aspects of the DPRK constitution do you most admire? Perhaps Article 9? Or Article 25?

Based

@@iammrbeat And you're not?

"OH YOU CAN WAIT." -2020

Jeb will win!

@@therealbaylee Puh-lease... Jeb doesn't even win the "what's for breakfast" vote in the Bush household.

@@Ugly_German_Truths Jeb is watching...

Please do!

Wow just wow will youtube be a thing in 45 years??????

I seriously considered this amendment as well. I appreciate you bringing this up.

@@iammrbeat This probably would just be a change to the Apportionment Act, allowing states to do it during redistricting.

Fun fact: the state of Delaware was allocated two representatives from 1813 to 1823. Instead of drawing two congressional districts, they kept their one at-large district and just had two people elected from that one district.

@@davidguthary8147 Goes to show how some of the methods used in the US in most or all of the states, like winner take all electoral votes in every state but 2, are that way not by federal law but by the states overall moving in one direction over time whether by their own laws or just shifting norms and practices

I’d rather have single-member districts and then statewide party lists based on proportional representation.

@@killergoose7643 Missouri and some other states have a way of appointing justices that's less partisan

@@killergoose7643 Sounds like a good idea... but the catch, in this case, is HOW? What law/amendment COULD do this?

@@killergoose7643 how? whats the metric for this? why dont we just elect justices by a supermajority like in any other country. and why does only the senate confirm justices?

@@lol-xs9wz lifetime appointment

why are 5 to 9 people allowed to make laws?

I agree. I would like to keep its purpose of giving slightly more say to smaller states, but remove winner takes all. This way we’re not competing for swing states where 10,000 vote change = 10+ electoral votes, and the original purposes stay.

Yes, we need to abolish the winner take all system. This needs to be talked about more.

Still suffers from the issue of gerrymandering being a thing but definitely agree that this is a far better way of handling it than states being winner takes all.

Aesterlan except it doesnt do that at all, plus people just magically forget the house and senate exist. just because idaho and montana dont get to decide the president doesnt mean they arent represented

There is no need to push it through a Constitutional amendment. Let the states decide how exactly they want to vote. If Partisan states want the winner to have it all and swing states want to split it than so be it. Would actually help both parties get elected more equally.

In the words of Libertarian radio talk show host, with the passing of the 17 amendment, the country of Georgia has more representation in Washington than the US state of Georgia.

@@JosephNalbone I believe it. The 17th Amendment was a mistake. My proposed constitutional amendment would be called the "One and Done" amendment. I'd make the Senate serve only six years like the President of Mexico and the Governor of Virginia.

Without the electoral college a handful of large population centers would set policy for the entire country. I live in a rural state so I would basically have no say. I think eliminating the electoral college is a horrible idea and I would fight to prevent that. 🤓🍻🤬

@@alsaunders7805 ...no matter how you slice it, a vote from Wyoming should NOT carry the same weight as 8 California votes. This is utterly antithetical to democratic ideals. Where you choose to live has consequences. It's called _freedom._

@@frisco21 large population centers running rough shod over rural areas is antithetical to freedom. The electoral college promotes freedom and democracy.

Term limits for Congress an Voter Identification elimination of mail in voting in all elections elimination of electronic voting machines keep the electoral college it levels the voting so the higher population statesdon’t control the election

@@davidlotti5407 Thats the thing, if you remove the electoral college and thus the voting by state, every person regardless of if they live in california or alaska have the exact same power, if that means california and new york dominate then that is because a large part of the population lives there. Those two states together have aproximatly 20% of the entire us population living within them, so they should have 20% of a say in who is the president.

@@wiekeboiten6742 The United States of America is a federation of states, not individuals. The Founders envisioned making states equal across the board. If you allow California, New York, Texas and Florida to dominate all national elections, what's the point? Preserve the UNION of states and keep power, in my opinion, where it belongs, i.e. with the individuals states.

@@cakrit99 Here's a big problem with the system behind the electoral college. Under this system, If you are a Republican living in California, A Democrat living in Wyoming, An independent, Etc. Your vote may as well be thrown out, Because it doesn't mean anything. In practice, All the electoral college does is change which states rule over the election, And make it possible for someone to win without the popular vote. The system is flawed. And while other systems aren't perfect, It can be better.

The whole reason we don't have term limits for S.C justices is to prevent corruption. If a president appoints a Justice the justice doesn't have to abide by the presidents ideals only the ideals of the rights of the people. If we had term limits the Justice would pass more party line decisions that could undermine the rights of the people for political gain.

If you're interested in changes that would make third parties viable voting options, I'd highly recommend this video series on voting systems: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/qZ2kiqt7y87NqaM.html

I think we need more third parties too, and that might itself combat the partisanship. Right now a Democrat can run all the way to the left, or a Republican all the way to the right and say, "Well what are you gonna do, vote for the other guy?" A centrist party would keep the other two reasonably honest.

Third parties are naturally supported by changing the voting system to approval voting or ranked choice or score voting or better.

@@n484l3iehugtil Agreed. But that has nothing to do with the Electoral College, it's not an either-or. Frankly I don't even know why Beat brought up the "too many choices" argument. It's a red herring I think, no one has ever made that argument. We can have an electoral college and have ranked choice voting in the individual states.

Having the ranking system would greatly help third parties; basically if your number 1 doesn’t win then your vote would go to your 2 and so on so there wouldn’t be anymore “throwing away your vote”

The wording isn't quite perfect, but the premise is spot on. We absolutely need to protect the right to vote. Unfortunately, we have a political party in this country which depends on depriving millions of their right to vote in order to retain relevance, since their party platform is extremely unpopular with the American people. If you find the above hugely offensive and you feel an overpowering urge to call me an idiot and an anti-American Communist, &c., I think I know what color of hat you wear.

The Unitary POTUS executive power should be abolished by a constitutional amendment! A constitutional amendment should be proposed to vest the executive power in the executive council headed by the POTUS instead of vesting enormous executive power in the POTUS alone!

@@arcadiaberger9204 “extremely unpopular” they have half the countries national votes??

I don’t think you’re a communist I just think you’re massively ignorant. The Republican Party is still relevant and popular, just maybe not in your circles where you live. Similarly, voter I.D laws (which I’m assuming you’re talking about) don’t suppress votes from US citizens, it helps prevent non-citizens from voting

@@arcadiaberger9204 the thing is, we don't need Congress to pass amendments. You can also get a majority of states to vote in favor of a constitutional convention

ha, well that is literally the only public office I would ever run for, and only if I didn't have to beg people for money

@@iammrbeat dude you so should! I'd love to work with someone like you. Im headed there myself in a couple terms.

I'd take him for MEP any time, Germany hasn't any law requiring people running for office to have anything but residency permits (voting is more difficult) "die Partei" has been hoping to improve accountability trough attention on transparency and might very well be open to Americans with a platform if they persist without gender parity

@@iammrbeat what happened to you throwing your hat in thw ring for governor? I could have swore about a year ago you mentioned it.

Most entities/groups are formed for, in at least some way, a business/economic purpose, most political issues are in some way about economics, with it you would be banning or highly restricting, highly giving to the government control over most political speech period.

I respectfully and vehemently disagree. Even now, 18-year-olds are limited in their full rights (i.e. not being able to buy alcohol or nicotine products in some states and not being able to own a handgun). It is, and should be, very easy to separate the right to vote from other rights. Mr. Beat already pointed out how they must pay income taxes and property taxes if they own a car. That alone should be good enough to allow them to vote. Taxation without representation was a major grievance of the founding fathers and now the same is being done to teenagers. Also, all of these ages are arbitrary, and in reality, there is not much difference between a 16-year-old and an 18-year-old in the grand scheme of things. I find it a little odd you decided to mention the age of consent and legal marrying age, but those are state issues, and there are states where 16 is the legal age of consent and child marriage, with parent consent, is, unfortunately, legal in some states.

@@malachiwalker5792 I think you bring up a lot of good points, including that some of this varies by state. I still think 18 is a good set number though because of the points by the original comment and some research on brain development (which in some ways isn't complete until age 25), so perhaps then it should be the case that we keep the voting age at 18, but allow an exception that those below the age of 18 who pay taxes are also allowed to vote?

@@malachiwalker5792 I disagree. A child who is 8 can pay a sales tax to buy a chocolate bar. That doesn't make them of sound mind to vote in an election. 18 as a voting age isn't inherently arbitrary. You could make the same argument that 15, 14, 13, and even 12 year old's could do the same thing.

@@rt_huxley9205 16 wouldn't be that arbitrary, 16 is usually the are that people finish high school so they should have a decent idea of how things work, so I think making it 16 if you have finished high school otherwise 18 would be a good compromise.

@@Arjay404 The only reason why Mr Beat wants to lower the voting age to 16 isn't because he believes that 16 year old's are smart. It's because they vote majority Democratic and Progressive. He's a Charlton mate. Even the most nicest, on the surface looking neutral of people, have an agenda. Mr. Beat is no different. You have assumed that 16 year old's would have a decent idea of civics without evidence. Most people who are young voted for Joe Biden and now they have a near 39 from a high of 59 percent approval rating of him and it hasn't even been 2 years. If anything, it demonstrates the sheer ignorance of 18 year old's. Just imagine what happens to 16 year olds voting. I would neve put the future of laws & order in the hands of such ignorant fools.

How about this EMPOWERED EXECUTIVE CABINET AMENDMENT?“SECTION 1. The executive power shall be vested in one Executive Council which shall be chaired by the President of the United States. SECTION 2. The Executive Council shall be composed of a number of Executive Councillors whom the President of the United States shall nominate, and shall appoint by and with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. No Person shall be appointed as Executive Councillor who shall not be a Citizen of the United States and shall not have attained to the age of thirty five Years. The number of Executive Councillors shall be fixed by law But shall not be less than three nor more than nine Councillors. Each Executive Councillor shall serve during the same time period along with the the President who appointed such Person as Executive Councillor unless such Person shall be removed from Office on impeachment and Conviction of any felonies or misdemeaners, or may be removed from Office by the President of the United States by and with the advise and consent of the United States Senate. Provided, when there are vacancies, the President of the United States shall make temporary apointments as Councillors who shall serve on the temporary basis for a short time period not exceeding two months (provided that such Person who shall be apointed to serve as Executive Councillor on a temporary basis shall be chosen from amongst the Officers in Each of the executive departments and other executive agencies of the United States or amongst other executive Officers of the United States or amongst ambassadors). No Person holding the Office as Executive Councillor shall be a Member of either House of Congress during Continuance of such Person in Office as Executive Councillor. SECTION 3. The decisions of the Executive Council shall be determined by a simple majority of votes. Each Executive Councillor shall have one vote. The President of the United States shall chair and shall set the business agenda for the Executive Council and shall have the same one vote as Each Executive Councillor, but he shall have one additional vote when the votes are evenly divided. The President and Each Executive Councillor may from time to time require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer or Head in each of the executive Departments and other executive agencies of the United States, or of all of the ambassadors and other executive officers of the United States upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices. SECTION 4. The President shall issue executive orders, executive directions, and proclamations upon the decisions of the Executive Council and shall Command the Armed Forces of the United States upon the decisions of the Executive Council and shall grant Reprieves and Pardons upon the decisions of the Executive Council for Offenses against the United States except in Cases of Impeachment. And upon the decisions of the Executive Council, the President of the United States shall appoint or depose the senior officers of Civil or Military in each of the Executive Departments or other executive agencies of the United States and ambassadors and other executive officers of Civil or Military of the United States according to the regulation of law, but when they think proper Congress may by law switch the manner of apointment of certain number of such senior officers in each of the executive departments or other executive agencies and the manner of appointment of certain number of ambassadors and other executive officers to the rules and procedures as set forth in the original clauses of Section Two of the Article Two of the Constitution. And further Provided that Congress may by law vest in the senior officers of each of the executive departments or the other executive agencies the powers to appoint and depose the inferior officers in each of the executive departments or other executive agencies that such inferior officers herein mentioned which may be created and ascertained by law . SECTION 5. The President of the United States shall have the exclusive powers to chair, to convene and to set the business agenda and the Rules of its Procedings for the Executive Council; shall retain the exclusive powers to sign or return the bills or resolutions or any other measures passed by both houses of Congress according to the rules and procedures as set forth in the original presentment clauses of Article One of the Constitution; shall have exclusive power (with the exceptions provided in the 25th article of amendment to the United States Constitution)to convene either House or both houses of United States Congress into special sessions on extraordinary Occasions when he think proper; shall retain the exclusive power to adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper in Case of Disagreement between the two Houses of Congress with Respect to the Time of Adjournment; shall have exclusive power to send envoys on behalf of the President of the United States to negotiate with foreign Nations concerning Treaties; shall have the powers to make or terminate Treaties by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate (provided two thirds of the Senators present concur); shall nominate and appoint Judges of both the Supreme Court and of inferior Courts of the United States and senior office holders of other agencies of the government of the United States (such other agencies may be created and abolished by law) according to rules and procedures of the original Clauses of Section Two of Article Two of the Constitution (provided that Congress may by law vest in the Courts of Law the power of the apointment of Judges of the inferior Courts); shall retain the power to recommend to Congress for consideration of such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers from foreign Nations; shall grant Commissions to Executive Councillors and to all the senior Officers in each of the Executive Departments or Executive agencies of the United States and to ambassadors and other executive officers of the United States; shall grant Commissions to all the Judges of the Courts of Law of the United States and to senior office holders of other agencies of the government of the United States (such other agencies may be created or abolished by law); shall give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union from time to time. ”

Sorry, but you can't protect the people from their own stupidity by limiting who they can vote for. We already have effective term limits. It's called an election. Vote the bums out!!!

@@jasonjames4254 Well, we can't vote people who don't have term limits out, that's the problem. This allows federal bodies like congress to get power hungry, knowing that as long as they are not outright caught AND don't get told on by major news sources, (Which typically have PLENTY of bias) even if the people hate their bad laws, there's not anything the people can do

@@powerfulstrong5673 Nobody's gonna read that long of a comment. I'd recommend giving a summary of all that

Term limits already exist. If people vote to keep a senator, that is the people's wish. If they wish to replace a senator, that also is their wish. Are you opposed to democracy?

Exactly. How low do we want to take it exactly? We need a fine line and we need to stand by it rather than view it as an obstacle. 18 is where it should stay.

No taxation without representation. Those under legal voting age should not be required to pay taxes.

@@jymbo1969 I feel like this will become a way for parents or buisnesses exploit tax free labor

@@dustinobrien7970 you may be right.

is it just me or is it interesting that the same people who propose lowering the voting age because “maturity”, ALSO tend to support raising the gun buying age to 21 because “maturity”. Folks you can’t have it both ways.

Dude...there are 27 amendments

@@pynkfloyd8105 I know that, I was saying that the constitution could easily have 15-20 more amendments on top of what it already has.

i don't know, it might lead to the first amendment being changed if they do it so liberally

Thats why the constitution is not a living breathing document as leftists put it. If it was then we wouldn't have needed to amend it so many times.

I have come up with a Human Rights Amendment.

Mathematically it would be harder if not impossible, since 1033 is an odd number.

This would add a MASSIVE amount of BS to every bill that Congress managed to get passed... much worse than it is today... because they would HAVE to add so much crap to every bill to build a large enough "coalition" to get the bill passed. Nor would it do anything to prevent gerrymandering except to make it take twice as long.

@@JSmusiqalthinka it’d be possible in a three-way race. Or when in a two-way race with faithless electors, or one state that vote third party.

A tie was very likely in the 2020 election. If Donald Trump performed 1% better, there would have been a tie.

@@emperorpalpatine2531 That’s a bit oversimplifying it. Donald Trump would have to win Pennsylvania, Georgia, plus specifically Nebraska’s 2nd district, which Joe Biden won by almost 7 points, so not really all that close. Trump was much closer to outright beating Biden than he was to tying Joe Biden. An outright tie would have been tremendously hard to do. I mean, I guess Trump could have tied it by winning Nevada, Arizona, and Pennsylvania, but for those to all go for Trump but Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin all still go to Joe Biden seems very unlikely. If those first three went to Trump, again, it’s likely he would have won the rest as well, and thus would outright win the election with 311 electoral votes. A tie seems very unlikely there. And 1% wouldn’t have meant a tie, it could have still meant a Biden win or a Trump win. Your statement is so flawed and simplifies stuff so heavily. The statistics show there was about a 1-2% chance of an electoral tie. Usually anything below 5% isn’t statistically significant.

Minors not needing to pay taxes could be abused by parents for business reasons…

I agree whole heartedly with your second statement. They should be subjected to the same regulations as other non-profits... which should also be tightened. As for your first one, that's far more complex than you can imagine and it would actually serve to just make the wealthier, more wealthy. I've been paying taxes since I was 12. I didn't have a job until 18. I however did have investments in my name made at my birth by more financially stable family. When I was 12 is when those investments began seeing returns high enough to pay taxes. Also keep in mind that those under a certain income status see all their taxes returned to them except for those that pay for healthcare & social security... which is an investment in your own future anyway. I received every penny I paid in at the federal level back until I was 29? The state level will ding you though. I never saw a penny back for state taxes, regardless of my age or income status.

EMPOWERED EXECUTIVE CABINET AMENDMENT Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in one Executive Council which shall be chaired by the President of the United States. Section 2. The executive council shall be composed of a number of Councillors who shall be nominated and appointed by the President of the United States by and with the advise and consent of the United States Senate. The number of councillors shall be fixed by law But shall not be less than three nor more than seven councillors. Each Councillor shall serve with the President of the United States who appointed him or her unless he or she shall be removed upon the convict of impeachment or may be removed by the President of the United States by and with advise and consent of the United States Senate. Provided, when there are vacancies, the President of the United States shall make temporary apointments as Councillors who shall serve on the temporary basis with a short time period which time period lenngth shall be ascertained by law. Section 3. The decisions of the Executive Council shall be determined by a simple majority of votes. Each Councillor shall have one vote. The President of the United States shall chair and shall set the business agenda for the Executive Council and shall have one vote as the Councillors. Section 4. The President shall issue executive orders, directions, and proclamations upon the decisions of the Executive Council. And upon the decisions of the Executive Council, the President of the United States shall apoint or remove the senior officers in the Executive Departments or independent agencies according the regulation of law. Section 5. The President of the United States shall retain the sole powers to chair the Executive Council, to call either House or both houses of United States Congress into special sessions when they shall be adjourned, to nominate and apoint Judges of both the Supreme Court and of inferior Courts of the United States according to regulations and procedures of the original appointment Clause of Article Two of the Constitution.

Make it age 26 and I'm with ya.

@BaltimoreAreaTech most side income would end up being registered to people's kids. Hell, if you had a significant enterprise and no kids, I could see unscrupulous individuals adopting kids solely for this purpose. Many laws that sound good have huge downside risks that most never consider. For example, if we move away from income tax entirely to sales tax, we'll see a huge surge in black markets.

EMPOWERED EXECUTIVE CABINET AMENDMENT Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in one Executive Council which shall be chaired by the President of the United States. Section 2. The executive council shall be composed of a number of Councillors who shall be nominated and appointed by the President of the United States by and with the advise and consent of the United States Senate. The number of councillors shall be fixed by law But shall not be less than three nor more than seven councillors. Each Councillor shall serve with the President of the United States who appointed him or her unless he or she shall be removed upon the convict of impeachment or may be removed by the President of the United States by and with advise and consent of the United States Senate. Provided, when there are vacancies, the President of the United States shall make temporary apointments as Councillors who shall serve on the temporary basis with a short time period which time period lenngth shall be ascertained by law. Section 3. The decisions of the Executive Council shall be determined by a simple majority of votes. Each Councillor shall have one vote. The President of the United States shall chair and shall set the business agenda for the Executive Council and shall have one vote as the Councillors. Section 4. The President shall issue executive orders, directions, and proclamations upon the decisions of the Executive Council. And upon the decisions of the Executive Council, the President of the United States shall apoint or remove the senior officers in the Executive Departments or independent agencies according the regulation of law. Section 5. The President of the United States shall retain the sole powers to chair the Executive Council, to call either House or both houses of United States Congress into special sessions when they shall be adjourned, to nominate and apoint Judges of both the Supreme Court and of inferior Courts of the United States according to regulations and procedures of the original appointment Clause of Article Two of the Constitution.

@@powerfulstrong5673 why’d u comment on my comment?

@@papadragon695 he's commenting on everyone's comments.

@@dataweaver kinda weird

@@papadragon695 The unitary executive power POTUS system should be replaced by a some kind of form of government of Empowered Executive Cabinet by a constitutional amendment!

I'll take it

Pirates for representation of the people! 🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️🏴‍☠️

@@samuelsparenga6405 #VotePirate

Where they gonna fit all these mf's??

Well they wouldn't have more power

EMPOWERED EXECUTIVE CABINET AMENDMENT SECTION 1. The executive power shall be vested in one Executive Council which shall be chaired by the President of the United States. SECTION 2. The executive council shall be composed of a number of Councillors who shall be nominated and appointed by the President of the United States by and with the advise and consent of the United States Senate. The number of councillors shall be fixed by law But shall not be less than three nor more than seven councillors. Each Councillor shall serve during the same time period along with the President of the United States who appointed him or her unless he or she shall be removed upon the convict of impeachment or may be removed by the President of the United States by and with advise and consent of the United States Senate. Provided, when there are vacancies, the President of the United States shall make temporary apointments as Councillors who shall serve on the temporary basis with a short time period which time period lenngth shall be ascertained by law. SECTION 3. The decisions of the Executive Council shall be determined by a simple majority of votes. Each Councillor shall have one vote. The President of the United States shall chair and shall set the business agenda for the Executive Council and shall have one vote as the Councillors. SECTION 4. The President shall issue executive orders, directions, and proclamations upon the decisions of the Executive Council. And upon the decisions of the Executive Council, the President of the United States shall apoint or remove the senior officers in the Executive Departments or independent agencies and ambassadors according the regulation of law. SECTION 5. The President of the United States shall retain the sole powers to chair the Executive Council, to receive ambassadors from foreign states, to call either House or both houses of United States Congress into special sessions when they shall be adjourned, to sign or return the bills or resolutions passed by both houses of Congress according to the rules and procedures set forth in the original presentment clause of Article One of the Constitution, to nominate and apoint Judges of both the Supreme Court and of inferior Courts of the United States according to rules and procedures of the original appointment Clause of Article Two of the Constitution.

Would you make an exception for a sitting VP to run in the next presidential election?

ELECTORAL COLLEGE REFORM AMENDMENT “Section 1. The appointment of Electors for the election of the President and Vice President of the United States in the District constituting the seat of government of the United States and in each State shall be in accordance to the results of preliminary popular election thereof for the President of the United States as such manner Congress may provide by law and such manner shall be uniform throughout the United States. Section 2. Each elector for such preliminary election for President of the United States shall cast a single vote for one person. Section 3. The electors for such preliminary election for President of the United States in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of Senators and Representatives in Congress from that State, except that the legislature of any State may prescribe less restrictive qualifications with respect to residence and Congress may establish uniform residence and age qualifications.”

At the very least, they should be taking a much more in-depth test for cognitive decline. Not the test that Trump keeps claiming he won.

The PRC does that. That's why they have rotation.

You are more generous than I. I say 75

I mean, some 80 year olds are cognitively just fine and capable of handling the demands. Plus, technology is allowing us to live longer and healthier lives.

Is that ageist? 😂😂😂

the constitution was wrote back when that wasn't a possibility (remember travel took months, and in that time there may be legitimate reason to change your mind) and we just haven't gotten around to changing it

Most states have laws against them, and many are intending to pass more. There are also many states with laws that help make the Electoral College into a popular vote block, part of the faithless elector laws. It’ll take over an election and probably be brought to court by those who like the EC, but the NaPoVoInterCo (National Popular Vote Interstate Compact) isn’t likely to be overturned as it doesn’t violate any federal election laws, at least that I’m aware of. tl;dr: Faithless electors are going away via state laws and in their place is a national popular vote instead.

"The size of the House shall be determined to be, using the method of apportionment approved by Congress, the least number reached when at least one additional seat has been allocated to every state."