Add These Amendments to the U.S. Constitution

[@iammrbeat]

So which amendment do you think has the best chance of actually passing? What other proposed amendments do you think we should consider?

[@mishapilsudski5505]

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

[@modesskiy774]

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.

[@alz2470]

@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.

[@tannerwilson4843]

@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.

[@gregflagg2927]

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

[@patstudios1184]

Last time I was this early, the Articles of Confederation was in effect.

[@iammrbeat]

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

[@nestoons4539]

Fancy seeing you here

[@patstudios1184]

@@nestoons4539 hello there

[@benselectionforcasting4172]

Anti-Federalist Represent!!!!

[@superrknight1858]

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

[@lifestories1446]

One other amendment: No governmental entity or agent shall deprive a person of their property without the conclusion of due process. Civil asset forfeiture are hereby prohibited.

[@saxmanb777]

This is a big one for me.

[@travisdejong2354]

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

[@Ratchet4647]

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

[@RipCityBassWorks]

Yes! This is badly needed.

[@benjaminmarchant2052]

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

[@michaelgreico9630]

If we're going to lower the voting age we should also make civics, law, and government classes mandatory in high school so that these teenagers know and understand the decisions they are making.

[@powerfulstrong5673]

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.

[@charlesspringer4709]

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

[@delighteddino9363]

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

[@powerfulstrong5673]

@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.”

[@powerfulstrong5673]

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

[@Abicated]

I'd propose an addition to the term limits by also assigning term limits to the staffers. A lot of them stick around and often times they write the massive bills Noone has time to read. With term limits, lobbyists would just approach them, so let's keep this from becoming an issue before it does.

[@iammrbeat]

Brilliant idea

[@whattheydidnttellyouwithbr2844]

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.

[@powerfulstrong5673]

Total Bullshits! Very bad ideas!

[@powerfulstrong5673]

@@iammrbeat Total Bullshits! Very bad ideas!

[@filrabat1965]

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

[@azpro2957]

How about this Amendment: The president shall not have the power to pardon any current or former member of his administration, or any member of a prior administration, and any member of his or hers family.

[@jerometaperman7102]

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

[@Kujakuseki01]

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

[@willnelson1931]

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

[@chrisaustin9949]

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.

[@drewpamon]

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

[@juliocesarvergaraquesada9122]

Update to the fourth amendment: “The right of all persons to be secure in their persons, houses, properties, papers, electronic devices, and other possessions from surveillance and unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and warrants shall only be issued upon probable cause, which shall be supported by Oath or Affirmation, to specifically describe the place or places to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[@AbeSandyWX]

Yes!

[@James-bw7rk]

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.

[@catherinelw9365]

Already covered.

[@juliocesarvergaraquesada9122]

@@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.

[@sijdnsd6460]

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

[@San_Deep2501]

10:50 Mr. Beat: How can one person represent so many people? Me, an Indian: Noobs

[@Selvariabell]

Literally all Dictators: AMATEURS!!!

[@PedroHernandez-zc4nw]

Totalitarians= what a bunch of amateurs, rookie numbers

[@adityamishra-10b35]

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

[@AndyZach]

Kudos to India for being the largest democracy.

[@danielbishop1863]

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.

[@KatSuYeah]

Maybe it's too small for an amendment, but I wish the presidential pardon had extra limits to avoid misuse. I was taught when learning about Watergate that it established not even the president is above the law. What I wasn't taught is that Nixon never faced criminal charges, and was even pardoned by Ford.

[@suarezguy]

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.

[@bear3616]

It was a good idea. We shouldn’t charge political opponents, especially presidents.

[@ericveneto1593]

It's WILD that the 16th was ratified on the EXACT anniversary of the 15th!

[@iammrbeat]

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

[@rosebudtv4660]

Amendment #28: “To each man, woman, and child resident in the United States, a pony shall be given.”

[@jonathanbowers8964]

What if I don't want a pony?

[@jonathanbowers8964]

@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"

[@AG-lh9ic]

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

[@jonathanbowers8964]

@@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?

[@AG-lh9ic]

@@jonathanbowers8964 I guess that's fine

[@alexilonopoulos3165]

I keep thinking he says “Im Mister Beast” and it keeps tripping me up

[@Nannywosabaanto]

Wait wait... He wasn't?

[@robertdaws4743]

The right of citizens to privacy in their daily lives and in interactions with others cannot be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State.

[@AbeSandyWX]

Aka rewording the 4th amendment

[@elzoog]

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.

[@torid5892]

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.

[@torid5892]

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.

[@elzoog]

@@torid5892 Well, there goes taxes

[@ethanplen88]

I respectfully disagree with a fair amount of this video but it definitely made me think more. Best video I've disagreed with.

[@iammrbeat]

I appreciate you

[@PlatinumGrande]

I disagreed with the last few sections of the SDA

[@neilflack1756]

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

[@aldewitt9]

I agree with you.

[@nathanhernandez7173]

@@PlatinumGrande why?

[@atozed932]

Last time I was this early, the constitution only had 10 amendments.

[@iammrbeat]

This comment is officially Mr. Beat-approved.

[@darthdarthbinkss]

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

[@redstonecraft1897]

@@darthdarthbinkss damn

[@sigmaballsnetwork]

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

[@redstonecraft1897]

Last time I was this early we were all dead

[@apieceofhair8449]

I’m getting ready for “The American Presidential Election of 2020”

[@joaomanuelaraujo250]

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

[@parsa0518]

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

[@slashingkatie7872]

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

[@ChipperMcManus]

if it ever ends!

[@superrknight1858]

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

[@wvu05]

Something else as far as increasing the number of representatives, when 435 was set, the US population was 92MM, or a little over one per 200,000 people.

[@rcstl8815]

The Reps primary job is not pork rather it is proposing spending of the people's money. The States are where people should be carefully represented.

[@wvu05]

@@rcstl8815 What does "pork" have to do with saying that having one member per 700,000 is far less representative and that this means that those offices are stretched much more thinly when it comes to things like constituent services?

[@rcstl8815]

@@wvu05 Constituent services are a local concern. I give no effs about the concerns of other state's peoples. All our federal government is supposed to do is Commerce and Defense. Not school curriculums and other individual's wish list items. The only good government is one you can walk to the mayor's house or your council person's house and chat. Otherwise, it is too anonymous. The Founders knew this and tried to save us from the normal societal decline caused by mobs we are seeing.

[@wvu05]

@@rcstl8815 Oh, so you're one of these people who never got over the Civil War. Got it!

[@rcstl8815]

@@wvu05 Oh, so you're a know-it-all that knows nothing and needs mommie to tie your shoes! (((Got it!)))

[@swanskogjsson151]

As a member of the Green Party of Sweden, I’m for all of these suggestions. I’ve recently resigned from the Politics in the Regional Council because of our ”12 year in office- rule” and wouldn’t like it to be different. Last month I got an office work and I’m very happy. Even though I’ve got lots of great memories from the years as a full time politician, I at the end of my three terms felt that I wasn’t as hungry for change as I was as a newbie. And my closest contacts had turned from local people to central chairmen from organizations and companies. That’s how it becomes when you work 70 or 80 hours every week and all you want to do, when home, is to relax with your nearest and dearest. So I truly think you’re spot on, mr Beat! Thank’s for a great KZbin Channel!

[@iammrbeat]

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

[@aaronbradley3232]

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

[@jeremypratt1185]

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!

[@powerfulstrong5673]

@@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.

[@gguerard]

Happy Birthday!

[@iammrbeat]

Thanks!

[@noemartinez3125]

1 day ago?

[@goncman]

@@noemartinez3125 he’s a Patron

[@aaronbradley3232]

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

[@Pringles147]

@@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.

[@maryhorn7734]

I'm 19 years old and live in IL. there's never been a year in my life that Dick Durbin hasn't been one of my senators. and he was eleceted 5 years before I was born. that's crazy to me. a term limit amendment would be great!

[@tubeofglue8117]

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

[@kenabbott8585]

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.

[@hectorvega621]

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

[@billybobrogers]

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

[@kenabbott8585]

@@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.

[@skullketon]

Also, great video! I really like the one about abolishing corporate personhood and money in politics.

[@elzoog]

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

[@skullketon]

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

[@elzoog]

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

[@skullketon]

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

[@elzoog]

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

[@GeorgeCowsert]

I personally think there should be a right to understand the law, for everyone. It should not take a lawyer to explain every single legal document you have to sign, and it should not be easy to hide malicious clauses amidst an ocean of filler legal mumbojumbo. Everyone should be able to understand the laws that they have to follow and the contracts they have to sign. I also vote for basically anything that prevents politicians from making money on the side. Their job is to keep our patch of dirt functional, not buy fifteen mansions after leveraging political influence and favors.

[@powerfulstrong5673]

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. ”

[@gilbertwilcox]

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

[@flatfingertuning727]

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.

[@HearBobbyRoar]

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.

[@thomasmaughan4798]

"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".

[@RC--ji2ov]

As an 18 year old, i would not have let 16 or even 17 year old me vote Teens today may be “smarter” in a schooling sense, but we are absolutely way more vulnerable to propaganda, populism, and simply misunderstanding what policies and such do

[@missingnola3823]

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.

[@computernerdtechman]

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

[@RC--ji2ov]

@@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.

[@missingnola3823]

@@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.

[@Solid_Hank]

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

[@bensteve-holt8125]

An amendment closing the revolving door would be nice. Something barring members of Congress from receiving money or any form of compensation or gifts from entities or individuals representing entities which exert political influence which could probably be measured by political contributions or lobbying expenses.

[@Justanotherconsumer]

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.

[@paulrodgers252]

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

[@davidhand9721]

@@paulrodgers252 Yeah that seems to be super effective.

[@jeffg.8964]

A 16-year-old can’t keep their room clean. Way too immature. Raise it back to 21.

[@niklasmolen4753]

The quality of democracy depends on the knowledge of the voters. Restrictions would be needed. The problem is that almost all restrictions can be used maliciously to influence which policies are being pursued. Like Gerrymandering. The only thing I have come up with that is the most difficult to be used maliciously politically is that the voter must have a passed high school education. Which at the same time provides an opportunity for younger voters if they finish school early.

[@scifience8297]

here are some video ideas I´d recommend: -ranking of the first ladies -The Presidency of William Henry Harrison -the history of American Anarchism

[@iammrbeat]

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

[@fun-gi8329]

@@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

[@divusgaiusjuliuscaesar4657]

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

[@codymoore1765]

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

[@dennisswaney644]

Actually your #2 proposed amendment, was essentially to be the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Remember there were 12 amendments proposed as part of the Bill of Rights in 1789. Numbers 3 through 12 were adopted in 1791 and became amendments 1 through 10. The number 2 proposed amendment was finally adopted 203 years later in 1992. The original number 1 amendment would have limited a representative to representing a maximum of 50,000 constituents. If it was in effect, the current House of Representatives would have 6,629 members (331,449,281 divided by 50,000)!

[@strangeworldsunlimited712]

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

[@exhaustguy]

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.

[@lordofthemound3890]

I like it. Where’s the petition?

[@cara-seyun]

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?

[@strangeworldsunlimited712]

@@cara-seyun they vote

[@kevinhover461]

Looking forward to the update. “The American Presidential Election of 2020”.

[@historyhub9211]

It is coming out tomorrow (Friday.)

[@Alex-yy5wo]

Wow, great vid

[@patricksanders858]

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

[@GrinderCB]

Increasing the House to 930 members in theory makes sense. Logistically it might be trouble to implement. They'd need to build a new, modern building for the larger House, but they could use the existing Capitol building for more ceremonial purposes. In theory a larger House would better represent the population but for any of the proposed Amendments that alter the voting levels where the dominant political philosophy could oppress all others I'd like to see a grace period, maybe ten years, before implementation.

[@optimisticneighsayer5823]

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

[@IrishmanGFS]

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

[@TheBunzinator]

"each representative represents 737000 people" No they don't. They represent a few dozen of their owner-donor corporations.

[@ryanm4013]

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

[@SpeedUpThatComputer]

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.

[@katalytically]

Bravo

[@paulmicheldenverco1]

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

[@powerfulstrong5673]

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.”

[@clarkrrr]

My two amendments would be 1= American citizens don’t have to pay federal taxes until they’re 18. Paying taxes without being able to vote is taxation without representation, which is the whole reason we beat the British in the first place 2= To qualify to be tax-exempt, churches have to provide planning and spending budgets to the gov’t and donate a certain amount based on their income. Mega churches like Elevation spend millions and millions on themselves and their ceos and at that point it’s just a for profit business. However, a lot of churches do a lot of good for their local communities, and we shouldn’t tax and punish small local churches just cause of the Elevations of the world.

[@akzebraminer]

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

[@Chaotic_Pixie]

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.

[@powerfulstrong5673]

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.

[@charlesspringer4709]

Make it age 26 and I'm with ya.

[@adammckee3496]

@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.

[@johnaustin9808]

In the UK every Member of Parliament (MP) represents about 103,000 people. In Canada each MP represents about 112,000 people. This countries are less divided and MP,s are much more likely to get voted out of office than our repersentives. You are right on target about enlarging congress.

[@pauldudley8837]

I love that you tackled these contentious topics. It's going to be a while before any of these is taken up seriously in the US Congress.

[@TheRealDrJoey]

Let's hope. His ideas are disastrous.

[@macforme]

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

[@Delgen1951]

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

[@Prodigi50]

@@TheRealDrJoeyDisastrous how?

[@TheRealDrJoey]

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

[@SupremeLeaderKimJong-un]

DPRK constitution is the best, can't change my mind

[@iammrbeat]

Dude, you're biased. :)

[@uncannyhistory3657]

@@iammrbeat lol

[@jpe1]

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

[@iamsearchingforthefiletmignon]

Based

[@davidguthary8147]

@@iammrbeat And you're not?

[@WFM]

Are going to get another “PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS IN AMERICAN HISTORYYYYY” after this election?

[@iammrbeat]

lol heck yeah. Coming in February. :)

[@squidwardtortellini362]

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

[@ericveneto1593]

Once we have a winner.

[@jb894]

@@iammrbeat more like civil wars in history

[@dragonquesti8629]

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

[@lol-xs9wz]

Eh, I don't know. Repealing the 17th amendment would mean that gerrymandered state legislatures would have the power to appoint Senators.

[@lol-xs9wz]

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

[@Nyet-Zdyes]

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

[@Nyet-Zdyes]

@@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.

[@lol-xs9wz]

@@Nyet-Zdyes 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.

[@Nyet-Zdyes]

@@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).

[@danielpruitt8550]

7:55 100% Mr.Beat regardless of politcal orintation it is absurd we have people who server there whole life times in offices in the us.

[@aryabiss9445]

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

[@optimisticneighsayer5823]

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.

[@optimisticneighsayer5823]

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

[@americanexcep_yt]

Me: I can't wait for the next president elections in America history 2020: no

[@iammrbeat]

"OH YOU CAN WAIT." -2020

[@therealbaylee]

Jeb will win!

[@Ugly_German_Truths]

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

[@thehitman691]

@@Ugly_German_Truths Jeb is watching...

[@warholcow]

I would argue that the founders would not want the judicial branch “pushing through reform.” They would’ve definitely left that to the states/people to determine individually or for the legislative branch + states to work to add an amendment. Judicial branch as a super legislator is definitely not the view the Founding Fathers would have envisioned.

[@erikkrauss8481]

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

[@Nyet-Zdyes]

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

[@lol-xs9wz]

@@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?

[@lorettathomas3994]

@@lol-xs9wz lifetime appointment

[@wilber504]

why are 5 to 9 people allowed to make laws?

[@paolovd]

“It’s like my favorite Constitution ever”

[@christophmaier4397]

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

[@MarlboroMika]

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

[@christophmaier4397]

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

[@MarlboroMika]

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

[@LikaLaruku]

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

[@terrydodds919]

Absolutely agree with term limits!!!!!!

[@Delgen1951]

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

[@user-xk4zp2qr9c]

Im coming back to this video in 45 years

[@iammrbeat]

Please do!

[@Joe-sd2kx]

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

[@atozed932]

I would also repeal the section of the law respecting the number of Representatives to no longer mandate single-member districts. As an example, the Bronx could be a single district electing four representatives, and could do so using ranked choice voting. Ireland does their elections that way.

[@iammrbeat]

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

[@atozed932]

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

[@davidguthary8147]

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.

[@Ratchet4647]

@@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

[@thisissparta789789]

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

[@CalebCuzner]

I'd like some sort of amendment to give third parties more visibility and a greater chance in elections, and something to combat hyper-partisanism in congress, such as requiring majority leaders and speakers to have a certain percentage of votes from each party in their chamber.

[@AnExistanceOfNothing]

If you're interested in changes that would make third parties viable voting options, I'd highly recommend this video series on voting systems: kzbin.info/www/bejne/qWjXiHuAm82cr9E

[@tomservo75]

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.

[@n484l3iehugtil]

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

[@tomservo75]

@@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.

[@Jordan64852]

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”

[@Shermanbay]

I propose we pass the first ten amendments again, but add the phrase "and we really mean it" to each.

[@ray495903314]

There would need to be punishments baked into it

[@Stones_Throw]

I'd agree with adding an amendment setting a 9 SCOTUS limit, retirement at 80 years of age, and service to only 20 or 25 years.

[@davidlotti5407]

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

[@wiekeboiten6742]

@@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.

[@cakrit99]

@@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.

[@Dryym]

@@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.

[@Mutanninja]

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.

[@HankYarbo]

I think one of those 930 house seats has your name on it.

[@iammrbeat]

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

[@williamjones1419]

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

[@fionafiona1146]

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

[@AtomicReverend]

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

[@chilln0648]

Something that I realized about the constitution is that it doesn’t give American citizens the protected right to vote, it only prevents discrimination based on sex and race, but allows the mass closing of polling stations for example. I think we need a constitutional amendment to fix that. So here’s my first draft: “Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States, aged eighteen and higher, to vote shall not be denied or restricted by the United States or by any State on any account or reason. Section 2: Decisions made by the governing bodies of the United States that make the ability to vote more difficult, ether intentionally or otherwise, is hereby prohibited. Section 3: The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation, and Congress must, shortly after the ratification of this amendment, define a minimal acceptable level of access to voting. This minimal acceptable level of voting access can be further expanded if necessary.”

[@arcadiaberger9204]

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.

[@powerfulstrong5673]

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!

[@luck3yp0rk93]

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

[@diehard2705]

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

[@Vampirecronicler]

@@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

[@NateROCKS112]

Term limits for Congressmen should probably be set to something ridiculously high. I think the best approach is non-FPTP voting systems, such as Single Transferable Vote. I also think that, while we're amending Article V, it'd be best to amend it to include ballot referendum, thus overturning Hawke v. Smith and other ISL-esque cases surrounding constitutional amendment.

[@drugo5918]

The limit time for senators, representatives and so on is something I definitely like, a lot, there’s already too many power hungry people that are used to telling others what to do

[@powerfulstrong5673]

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. ”

[@jasonjames4254]

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!!!

[@AnOnlineDweller]

@@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

[@AnOnlineDweller]

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

[@thomasmaughan4798]

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?

[@EpicTrollingCentre]

In Australia, we have a retirement age of 70 for High Court Judges. Maybe that would be a good idea for the Supreme Court instead of a 25-year term limit.

[@johnbabylon7626]

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.

[@EpicTrollingCentre]

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

[@johnbabylon7626]

@@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

[@EpicTrollingCentre]

@@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.

[@johnbabylon7626]

@@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

[@papadragon695]

Even though I don’t agree with a few of these, and I don’t always agree with your opinions in your videos, you still brought up many good points and this was still a well put together video👍. Keep up the good work

[@powerfulstrong5673]

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.

[@papadragon695]

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

[@dataweaver]

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

[@papadragon695]

@@dataweaver kinda weird

[@powerfulstrong5673]

@@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!

[@marlonrodney2457]

Yes, I have thought of congress people serving 4 year instead of 2 year terms as well. One of the more underrated destructive features of American politics is the frequency with which congress people have to run.

[@ganaraminukshuk0]

Fivethirtyeight and 270towin: exists You, an intellectual: Tenthirtythree and 517towin Also, that alone will make ties in the electoral college harder to achieve, assuming that's still a thing.

[@JSmusiqalthinka]

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

[@Nyet-Zdyes]

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.

[@martyjackson4166]

@@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.

[@emperorpalpatine2531]

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

[@martyjackson4166]

@@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.

[@oliverphilippmonti6139]

Thank you very much for the videos. Makes American politics more visible for us folks in Switzerland!

[@societysbasement5369]

Just revisiting this. Not sure if I commented before, but I agree with #7 (about corporate personhood and lobbying) the MOST. America needs this.

[@suarezguy]

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.

[@Arjay404]

This is one of the biggest problems I think that the US currently faces when it comes to politics. Some people nowadays treat the Constitution like it was a tablet handed down by God. But even the people that wrote it made changes (or amendments) to it, so even they knew that it had to change and adapt over time. The further we have come from the writing of the constitution the more scared people are of changing and adapting it. Without really thinking about what those changes should be I think the constitution should easily have 15-20 new amendments to it.

[@pynkfloyd8105]

Dude...there are 27 amendments

[@Arjay404]

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

[@kekula69]

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

[@Sam6721]

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.

[@ThomasTHEONEANDONLY]

I have come up with a Human Rights Amendment.

[@kylesheehy876]

Here’s one: no one that looks TOO much like a turtle is allowed to be Senate Majority Leader.

[@KarmasAB123]

C'mon, man. He's clearly an aardvark.

[@alexanderpatterson9934]

@@KarmasAB123 I prefer to think about him like a deflating balloon as aardvarks and turtles are far too adorable to be lumped in

[@satisfyingcuts]

The neck skin is so close to a turtle’s this is spot on

[@johnharris6655]

No one who looks like the Crypt Keeper should be speaker of the House.

[@forrestcommander6283]

I believe there should be a “resign to run” amendment. Basically, no person can run for any office in the legislative or executive branch while currently occupying an office other than that they are campaigning for. Also, a provision of such amendment must be that not only must they resign their office, they may only run for one political office per election cycle, which includes any special elections between said general election and the date of the next general election, but not including political primary races for a separate general election.

[@powerfulstrong5673]

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.

[@violagreene4643]

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

[@dankmetalmemes]

Section 1 of the Saving Democracy amendment is problematic

[@saxmanb777]

If we’re going to have an electoral college, than let’s talk about letting States separate the electoral votes, just like Nebraska and Maine do. I wonder if that would be better? Therefore the conservatives in California would be heard, as well as the liberals in Texas. Maybe I’m wrong, but I know it would be exceedingly difficult to totally get rid of the electoral college.

[@paracelcius848]

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.

[@JacobMolnar]

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

[@wolftamerwolfcorp7465]

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.

[@botchamaniajeezus]

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

[@yoavmor9002]

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.

[@quidocetbenediscit]

Also, children under 18 cannot enter into valid contracts or get married, which shows the general consensus that such young people do not have the foresight or responsibility to take on the full array of citizenship rights. This is problematic for voting because laws can affect the contracts of others and even affect their status, but since children would not have any experience with either, giving them said vote might prejudice those who entered into contracts with said legal capacity. Thus, if children as young as sixteen are allowed to vote, they should also reach their majority at 16 and have the right to enter binding contracts, the right to marry, the right to bear arms, the right to quit school, the right to have sex with other adults, own real property, etc. Voting cannot be looked at in isolation from the responsibilities and perspective that accompany all other fundamental rights. Rather, it is the culmination of them.

[@malachiwalker5792]

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.

[@Zeromus725]

@@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?

[@rt_huxley9205]

@@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.

[@Arjay404]

@@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.

[@rt_huxley9205]

@@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.

[@jnyerere]

I feel like there needs to be some type of constitutional amendment putting an age cap on the president, congress reps, senators, and supreme court justices. And I'm being generous when I say this: When one of these officials reaches their 80th bday, they should be forced to resign.

[@LuinTathren]

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.

[@VictorSchmidt]

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

[@codymoore1765]

You are more generous than I. I say 75

[@iammrbeat]

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.

[@SnackKing1]

Is that ageist? 😂😂😂

[@John-tr5hn]

One very important amendment would be that each bill proposed by either chamber of Congress must have a mandatory reading period of 10 days before such bill could be voted upon by either chamber. If the bill is longer than 100 pages, additional periods of 10 days shall be required. So, for example, if a Congressperson proposed a 283-page bill, on August 1, then it couldn't be voted upon until August 31. This would give other members of Congress, the press, and citizens the ability to read each proposed bill before voting on, reporting on, or commenting on it.

[@TheAdrianMonster]

This was a pretty good video. BASED takes

[@iammrbeat]

Glad you dug it!

[@aspiringretard]

this isnt based its cringy

[@engagementengagement8836]

@@aspiringretard how

[@NotANameist]

Lol it’s takes you could hear from people like Trevor Noah and John Oliver all the time

[@Chimrasify]

Happy birthday! Cant wait for the 2020 election video!

[@iammrbeat]

Thank you, and I can't wait to make it. :)

[@dragonquesti8629]

@Mr. Beat it'll be a crazy one

[@humzahahmad2818]

The only reason why 18 years can vote is because they can be drafted into wars. If that’s repealed then the 26th amendment is going away too. This is why I don’t really see why we should allow 16 year olds to vote even though they can have jobs. In some states 14 year olds can work, should we extend it to them too?

[@Zayindjejfj]

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.

[@jymbo1969]

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

[@dustinobrien7970]

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

[@jymbo1969]

@@dustinobrien7970 you may be right.

[@htseg]

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.

[@ThomasTHEONEANDONLY]

The only one I hate is your proposal to repeal the seventeenth amendment. I do not find it in the best interest of the people of this country to have their senators chosen by only up to four-hundred-fifty people, where there could be up to forty-million people in a state. It is the right of the people to chose their politicians.

[@uni4rm]

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.

[@GuildsmanPirate]

Doubling the house? Having more representation of the people? You absolute Chad

[@iammrbeat]

I'll take it

[@samuelsparenga6405]

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

[@GuildsmanPirate]

@@samuelsparenga6405 #VotePirate

[@fauna1128]

Where they gonna fit all these mf's??

[@nigelwest5776]

Well they wouldn't have more power

[@lindsaymanning704]

On this day in history, I wish Mr. Beat a Happy Birthday. 🥳 🎂 🎁

[@iammrbeat]

:) thanks Lindsay!

[@BatailleRapTishort]

@@iammrbeat Happy birthday !

[@aquilescastro1794]

@@iammrbeat Happy Birthday!

[@ep1475]

I think since nothing gets done on capital hill we should over double the amount of representatives, that should help

[@wvu05]

Something that I wonder is whether the Founders realized just _how_ difficult they were making it to amend the Constitution. Once parties became a thing, getting 2/3 of the vote in Congress was going to be a big ask.

[@deliriousdavies7552]

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.

[@dirtydan2721]

@@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.

[@BigBen444]

I think 16 is too young. I'm 19 now and I can confirm that I and all of my classmates were WAY dumber when we were 16.

[@tastyrootbeer]

It’s not really about being “smart,” as there are dumb people of every age. If you change your mind based on what you believed at 16, that’s totally fine. It’s not like what we believe at 18 will also be how we vote forever either. It’s about representation of people who are subjected to laws that affect them. Like Mr. Beat said, 16 year olds work, pay taxes, can go to prison, etc.

[@yolobuck2553]

its actually leftist nonsense to decrease the age. The democrats have always had a larger uninformed voting base and young people tend to vote leftist these days. used to be liberal but i'll call it leftist now.

[@iammrbeat]

Many of us consider ourselves the smartest people in the room when we are not.

[@theskysaboveourheads]

@@yolobuck2553 Agreed. Marxism is in full effect in the states. Expect every freedom revoked, if your opinion does not line up with theirs. Anyone think I'm kidding? People from every walk of communist life, are pleading Americans to see that this is going the same way that their countries fell. Don't be deceived into hating your own country., and swindled with racial politics. It is designed this way, to take you over.

[@Axyo0]

@@theskysaboveourheads You should consider writing for the Onion

[@KarmasAB123]

"It's currently really difficult to amend the Constitution, which makes no sense, as the world is quickly changing!" If we're going to ratify something that affect all of us, shouldn't a large majority have to be on board with it?

[@lol-xs9wz]

Isn't two-thirds high enough?

[@KarmasAB123]

@@lol-xs9wz Probably?

[@boygenius538_8]

@@lol-xs9wz two thirds is a l lot, 3/5 or 4/6

[@CelsiusPC]

I’m a big 2nd amendment guy so imho, that’s an amendment that should stay permanent in the constitution

[@wheelspinproductions9214]

@@CelsiusPC yeah if big changes in government were easier we’d be in a tyrannical state right now

[@manputty4u]

We need to add to the bill of rights. Namely, the right to privacy.

[@stevied3400]

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

[@manputty4u]

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

[@melynn44]

Hard disagree on the first one. I consider young me to have been more mature, more wise, and more interested in social studies and politics than most teenagers. And I still know I had absolutely no business voting. I missed the 2000 election by 3 weeks, so my first election put me at 21, almost 22....that age felt much more right than being a senior in high school. I agree with someone else to actually raise the voting age. Also...on the ERA, not sure I can say it better than the great Ainsley Hayes.....but I don't need the ERA. I have the 14th amendment. I am not a special subset.

[@lukedetering4490]

Agreed on the age one. I definitely wasn't smart enough to vote at 16. At 16, most people start developing their own political opinions and start to understand the complexities of politics. At that age, you are just too inexperienced to really understand the world around you. I also agree 18 is kind of low too, but you at least have some exposure to the real world to make an educated decision. I think 18 is a fair age as if one has to go to war involuntary if the government choses, they should have a say in that. But I do feel 20-21 is really the age one can actually fully comprehend everything.

[@kevinstfort]

Have you seen people who are at rallies and get interviewed about who and why they cast their vote? To even think that people of older age are so mature and informed to vote is laughable. The youth are very much invested in the future of this country and should have a say.

[@Laz3rCat95]

I would've been able to vote in the 2012 election if the first one was passed because I was 17 at the time. But yeah I agree I would have no business doing so, I was so clueless about politics back then. I would raise the age for both voting and serving in the military. It doesn't make sense to me that we can do those things at 18 but not drink until 21.

[@jordanpeterson8163]

@aarqa This argument is fallacious for a number of reasons, studies have shown that each generation of teenagers has progressively become more and more politically informed. This is partially due to the increasing importance of being "in the know" about current political things, as well as the ever-growing list of things that teenagers are facing such as climate change, school shootings, etc that affect them directly and are pissed about the inaction regarding these issues. I will admit there will be teenagers who are completely clueless, as there are at any age. This does not infringe on their right to vote. The fact of the matter is that at 16, most are working jobs and paying taxes and deserve to be represented.

[@War450]

You just need to look at the politics of teenagers to know they have no business voting. They will vote for whoever promises them the most free stuff. They're not mature enough to understand that the good the nation sometimes requires people to make sacrifices. I mean look at how easily teenagers and young adults can be swayed to vote for you merely by promising them to remove student loan debt. Teenagers should be kept as far from the voting booths as humanly possible.

[@owen______]

These are such good ideas and it makes me sad that they will never happen

[@breakingboardrooms1778]

We could make it happen. There are more of us than there are of them.

[@rodrudinger9902]

They will happen, if our leaders are responsible, ethical, and do their jobs; and the people will it.

[@breakingboardrooms1778]

@@rodrudinger9902 which means it'll never happen. Unless we remove the leaders as an obstacle.

[@GenerationX1984]

@@breakingboardrooms1778 Exactly. Our leaders are more unpopular than they've ever been but ignorant people keep voting for them year after year. Our leaders are obstructionists.

[@davidmehling4310]

Imagine the millions if not billions it would take to grease enough palms to make any of this happen. Only those at the top financially whom I imagine would generally oppose these have the money necessary. I'd be happy with an end to gerrymandering aka deciding elections ten years in advance by drawing lines on a map. Go with proportional representation since most just vote party loyalty rather than a person's qualities

[@willjennings5252]

I'm a Brit geeking from abroad. However from a great distance it seems odd that there can be a faithless elector. Why not just have those votes won automatically allocated to the chosen candidate rather than allow a system where an individual or group of individuals can go rogue.

[@xp_studios7804]

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

[@GuiSmith]

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.

[@TheEldritchGoth]

I think the fact that the ERA hasn’t been ratified is honestly baffling.

[@AG-lh9ic]

I watched this documentary by CNN about the 1970s and they talked about the ERA in one of the episodes and there was this clip of an old interview with an anti-feminist woman who opposed the ERA, she said in the interview that she was happy that she had to get her husband's permission to do anything

[@TheNiteWolve]

The ERA would most likely negatively impact women anyways.

[@TheEldritchGoth]

@@TheNiteWolve with that mindset, you’re no better than the people that campaigned against it

[@TheNiteWolve]

@@TheEldritchGoth The people that campaigned against it weren't wrong. That said, I'm not necessarily against it.

[@AG-lh9ic]

@@TheNiteWolve How?

[@zodi9783]

Not just term limits, but age limits. Nobody that is a senior citizen should really be in a position wherein they decide the path of the country.

[@rateeightx]

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?

[@bear3616]

Why have any age limits?

[@zodi9783]

@@bear3616 because 2 in every 100 people aged 65 to 69 has dementia and that occurrence rate doubles about every 5 years of age.

[@mathieuleader8601]

1. Make the day of the election a federal holiday 2. the creation of a federal open university available to all citizens 3. make assisted dying legal 4. strengthen PBS/NPR on a constitutional basis 5. make ambassadors nonpartisan

[@himagainstill]

I don't know about making the election a holiday, because lots of people work holidays anyway, but generally making it easier to vote is a good thing. If you're waiting in line more than 5 minutes, you don't have enough polling places, and if work makes it difficult for people to vote, they're not open long enough. Our polls open at 7am and close at 10pm, and most polling stations only serve around 2000 voters. We also have no-excuse postal voting.

[@Contributron]

Assisted medical suicide is a good idea for an amendment. It really sickens me how we force people with terminal illnesses to live through extreme pain. We could easily make that suffering go away. Imagine if instead of watching a loved one wither away and saying your final goodbyes to a barely conscious shell of their former self, you could say your final goodbyes while they’re still fully aware. Big pharma and whatnot would fight it like crazy though. They rely on people’s suffering for profit.

[@KarmasAB123]

@@Contributron Assisted suicide is homicide.

[@Nebulasecura]

Man this 2020 election might go down in history as one of the worst, looking forward to seeing you cover it afterward lmao

[@goncman]

Ikr. It’s coming to the point where I don’t even care who wins, I just want it to be over.

[@ngc4260]

@@goncman Abigail 😳

[@Nebulasecura]

@Ringsofearth even if he wins (which I would love) it is still one of the most corrupt and biggest voter fraud attempts in American history.

[@the_opprankster]

@@Nebulasecura Evidence?

[@alz2470]

Why would it? Trump got elected, everything* got worse, why would it be better the second time? (I'm not trying to start an argument, I just don't understand why people think anything would change instead of him continuing the downward spiral the US is currently in) (*economy, health care, climate change, conflicts between extremists etc)

[@littlerichardthetruekingof1028]

I went to cpac in tenth grade and one of the speakers talked about why the 17th should be repealed.

[@bobbywise2313]

There are arguments for and against but it certainly was a blow to the balance of power between the federal government and the states. The founders set it up the way they did for a reason.

[@bobmarlowe3390]

It's only been amended 17 times, and one of those amendments was to repeal another one. The first 10 are the Bill of Rights and were added to assure ratification of the Constitution by the individual states.

[@garymccoy6564]

That is not accurate. Look it up.

[@guessit3341]

@@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.

[@roberthoward8576]

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

[@violagreene4643]

The Bill of Rights is STILL 10 amendments.

[@IrishmanGFS]

​@@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

[@unagjac890]

3:50- Because you can get drafted and fight in the military. That's why the voting age was lowered to 18 in the first place. Anyway happy Birthday, good video.

[@angusb99]

Why is 18 the age at which people can get drafted?

[@unagjac890]

@@angusb99 I'm assuming because they're legal adults. I couldn't find an answer online

[@theyellowcardinal5526]

I don’t want women to be drafted but neither do I want men to be drafted either. Let’s just get rid of the draft.

[@unagjac890]

@@theyellowcardinal5526 honestly

[@angusb99]

@@unagjac890 That's the point Mr Beat is getting at. The age of legal adulthood, voting, and draft eligibility is arbitrary.

[@OnlineAdjunct]

With regard to increasing the size of the House of Representatives, the present nunber already requires a rule on each bill to limit how much time each Representative can speak about the bill on the floor. Double the size and each Representative will barely be able to speak at all,

[@poling1990]

I agree, increasing the size of the body will simply make it more unmanageable. Its dysfunctional enough with its current population.

[@Isometrix116]

@internet person but now you’ve given even more power to political parties, which just seems like a bad idea considering how messed up the parties have become.

[@Isometrix116]

@internet person I fail to see how that relates to what I said. Maybe I’m just missing something but that just seems like a non-sequitur. Why does it matter if people can be messed up? How does that relate to the political parties being messed up? The parties have too much power as is, they do the need more. I guess I probably should explain what I mean by messed up: they control just about every aspect of politics, and thus society and policy and are not accountable to anyone. They can do as they please because there are only two options. Their influence over media companies allows for a very strong us vs then narrative, allowing them to push nearly any policy or politician and have acceptance from around half the population just because they are “the party I like.” There’s a lot more to it, but the point is that they have too much control and are able to do whatever they please. That’s messed up. They’re messed up.

[@x_Batkid_x]

I’m working on a project for my history class where we have to create a 28th amendment and this was very helpful. Thank you. :)

[@jackmcclain534]

"The number of Justices on the Supreme Court of the United States shall be nine." court packing would be impossible.

[@suarezguy]

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

[@slyninja4444]

One idea... "Rights granted by the first amendment apply only to individual persons and may not be used to limit or stifle the first amendment rights of other persons." Aka: Freedom of speech does not give you the right to censor other people's speech, freedom of religion doesn't give you the right to force your beliefs on others, etc.

[@woojoo6382]

Honestly agree. There's a lot of places on college campuses that limit people's first amendment rights. You should be able to say your mind anywhere, at anytime

[@n484l3iehugtil]

@@woojoo6382 That's a recipe to breed extremism and terrorism though. There should be limits on what constitutes free speech.

[@n484l3iehugtil]

@@woojoo6382 Oh and college campuses aren't the government. The First Amendment merely stops the government from prosecuting (i.e. fining or jailing) you for speech, but whatever institution you are under such as a college or workplace are in their full right to punish you if you say something intolerable.

[@woojoo6382]

@@n484l3iehugtil So, what are we doing now? The vast majority of colleges dampen or censor anything right of center. Limiting anyone to the right of the compass to speak in "free speech zones", which are really places for people to ostracize you for your political views. Meanwhile, their bias only strengthens and more students fall under sway, as to not get expelled or have lower grades.

[@woojoo6382]

@@n484l3iehugtil Limiting what constitutes free speech will create a society for terror, when one party, left or right, uses it to cancel the other's speech.

[@knightshade2654]

I disagree on further lowering the voting age; the reason the voting age was lowered to eighteen was because eighteen year-olds faced all the responsibilities of an adult, with the main issue being the draft without having many privileges of an adult. While there are many sixteen and seventeen year-olds who work, most still focus on school or family, and they are still not yet legal adults.

[@caseclosed9342]

Not just that, they don’t know enough about the world and how it works. I recently had an argument with a youngster who thought Wall Street needed to be punished because “stocks and shares don’t benefit the 99%”. I tried explaining how 401k’s and 529 plans work but he didn’t understand. Imagine if he could vote

[@xoliag8524]

@@caseclosed9342 The problem is that there are plenty of adults who don't understand much if not anything about politics either, but still vote. There are also plenty of teenagers with a well rounded understanding of politics. You're essentially saying that because of someone's political beliefs they shouldn't have the right to vote, which was mentioned as problematic in the video.

[@fauna1128]

@@xoliag8524 401k's aren't a political belief and either is that stock market, it benefits the entire country

[@dogguy8603]

@@caseclosed9342 voting should be dependent on national service, only those who serve should be able to vote

[@xoliag8524]

@@fauna1128 That's not my point. People disagree all the time on objective facts (wrongly) but they should still have the right to vote. The argument isn't about whether they understand the issues or not, because that isn't based on age, rather whether or not the fact that they can be tried as adults or can be forced to pay taxes should make them eligible to vote.

[@rustylidrazzah5170]

Great list! I would add a taxation amendment. Language that would limit favoritism, special interest taxes, and simplify the tax code. No, not a flat tax, but brackets informed by a ratio to the poverty line. And language to define the poverty line. Maybe squeeze language to eliminate arbitrary numbers that get dismantled by inflation. Basically fixing all tax and budget numbers to a form of COLA. Once again, clearly defining how the cola is calculated.

[@timnellis2885]

Just repeal the 16th and go with a consumption tax like the FairTax. You more than double the tax base and people don't have to waste time each year worrying about filing taxes.

[@rustylidrazzah5170]

@@timnellis2885 That is a regressive system. The less you make, the more a consumption tax effects you. I understand everyone hates taxes, but they are necessary for a large modern society to function. Grover Norquist’s starve the beast method only hurts the lower income people, and only benefits the people who are already living as comfortably as anyone in all of human history. My idea was meant to simplify a progressive tax code, and make it so it fluctuates with real income distribution without having to rely on politicians to modify ever changing numbers. Make the COLA, poverty line, and inflation calculations transparent. Then base the brackets on those calculations. If society wants to alter who carries the greatest burden the brackets can be adjusted, but the calculations stay the same.

[@powerfulstrong5673]

@@timnellis2885 Hell No!

[@eevee6930]

I would base taxation on an individuals expendable income, and have the IRS tell you how much you owe while still letting you do the math if you don't agree.

[@rustylidrazzah5170]

@@eevee6930 I like the sentiment. But expendable income can easily be manipulated. And what is considered necessary vs. expendable is subjective. How many vehicles until the expensive isn’t considered necessary. Is there a usage of utilities that is considered wasteful and unnecessary? What is cosmetic and necessary maintenance on a property? The list is infinite. Trying to itemize, and justify, every expense may be even more complicated than our current system. I do like the idea of it being the IRS’s responsibility to say what’s owed, but that would require a larger workforce and in turn more taxes because of a larger budget.

[@aaronbritt2025]

I'd put term limits on ALL elected positions and SCOTUS. 12 years for Representatives and Senators, 20 years for SCOTUS.

[@Heywoodthepeckerwood]

Term limits for SCOTUS IS A BAD IDEA

[@daedalus2726]

@Heywood why is that?

[@Heywoodthepeckerwood]

@@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.

[@alvarofernandez5118]

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

[@aaronbritt2025]

@@alvarofernandez5118 Justices aren't elected.

[@gguerard]

Some great ideas! Would like to see some of those put into reality! I would like to see term limits. I'm a bit pessimistic about our government leaders doing anything that helps the people and not themselves.

[@iammrbeat]

It is definitely difficult to be optimistic these days.

[@jwil4286]

Term limits for legislators? Fine. Term limits for judges? I’d advise you to read Federalist 78

[@thatsaboat2882]

I’m gonna be honest as a sixteen year old, I don’t think the voting age should be lower lol

[@jeffwilliams2828]

As 39 year old, i can tell you those immature borderline dumb classmates you’re thinking of… most will be no different 20 years later. They actually tell us their opinions are important whether they know what they’re talking about or not. Some hold office. Sixteen is fine. 14 is probably fine.

[@tompeled6193]

10) Only if they pay income tax.

[@iammrbeat]

Fair enough!

[@uploadvidz4490]

That's one I'd leave on the table indefinitely. The idea that there be a national age minimum for voting that the states can give more credence or less credence to depending on their population demographics is more palatable to me. It would make elections more competitive for every 10 year time span.

[@dudusbarbosa]

People's right to vote, in a democracy, shouldn't be based on their income or any economic/financial criteria.

[@user-en7dx1qp3k]

I think that a supermajority of Congress should be allowed to overturn a presidential pardon. The pardon has far too much power as is.

[@openminds8765]

Great idea 💡

[@ray495903314]

There would need to be a time limit on that sometime could have been pardoned for 15 years and then Congress overturns it.

[@str.77]

Reinterpretation of the Constitution by the Supreme Court is actually not a legitimate substitute for amending the Constitution but a violation of it, a corrupt practice that cannot be justified.

[@j.d.-alawyerexplains5064]

Yes, and thus a reason that packing the Supreme Court should be unconstitutional ab initio.

[@martyc909]

@@j.d.-alawyerexplains5064 What is court packing exactly. As right now there are no limits to the SC to how many justices we can have. The first Supreme Court had 6 people. So should we go back to 6? Is the court packed right now?

[@j.d.-alawyerexplains5064]

@@martyc909 You need an odd number on the court so you can get a final decision. When you have an even number 4-4 there is no way to resolve the issue at the high court, and whatever the result was below is the result that follows. 9 judges seems to work well, although state supreme courts have smaller numbers (Missouri has 7) and those also work well. What you have to guard against is having so many judges that the process of oral argument becomes something like a slugfest with liberal and conservative judges duking it out through some poor schmuck lawyer who's caught in the crossfire. I'd be good with 7. I would not be good with more than 9. Packing is increasing the number of judges solely to change the outcomes to the way you want them. You put 3 new judges on who don't believe in the 2nd amendment, and you now write the 2nd amendment out of the Constitution by dictate. That's what packing is really all about, and why cooler heads prevailed when Commissar Roosevelt tried it.

[@martyc909]

@@j.d.-alawyerexplains5064 Yes, I am actually aware of all the arguments you have made. What I am saying is that throughout US history, we've just settled at 9 based off of where we were after the Civil War. But there is nothing in the Constitution that is a magic number. So in reality, Court Packing does not exist. In reality, if a justice dies, there is no law forcing congress or the president has to fill that seat. So if say, Justice Thomas dies, the seat doesn't have to be filled by a Democrat right now, and then another justice dies, the same thing. And with the filibuster, theoretically the Republicans could filibuster the seats closed, which would be a way of preserving the Republican majority in the SC right now. So there are many issues with the courts which might be something we'd want clarify in the constitution.

[@j.d.-alawyerexplains5064]

@@martyc909 Only problem here is that the filibuster died with Judge Kavanaugh. There is no filibuster on Supreme Court nominations now. Congress does get to decide how many judges. The idea of making it a set number, however, is something I would be for if it was nine or less.

[@martyjackson4166]

I agree with most of these, except getting rid of the direct election of senators. I don’t think we should have half of Congress that is not directly chosen by the people. Especially when the Senate has the power to approve treaties, confirm Presidential nominations, etc.

[@powerfulstrong5673]

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.

[@charlesspringer4709]

The Senate was appointed by State legislatures until 1913. They could also be fired and replaced at any time.

[@martyjackson4166]

@@charlesspringer4709 Yes, I know this. Just because we did it in the past doesn’t mean we should do it again.

[@charlesspringer4709]

@@martyjackson4166 It is easier than writing a new amendment and it is a very good idea. The only reason it was changed is the Democrats had a moment of power. They had a hell of a time ever getting control of the Senate because the needs of states tend conservative and against growth of federal power. The had to strip power form the states in order be more likely to win. This is the same problem as with all the popular vote ideas. The US is basically 50 little countries glued together by a common rule of law (or it was anyway). The perfect is the enemy of the good. The States need their voices back.

[@nunyamyob9555]

@@martyjackson4166 The thing is that there are 3 parties to the constitution. The states, the people, and the "United States" which was created by the constitution. Direct election of senators removes the states' representation in congress. We are a union of states, with a federal government representing us to the world. We are not really, structurally, a single country.

[@Andrescxli]

Absolute flat out hell no the 16 year old voting age, that’s ludicrous😂😂😂 I would not have wanted to vote at age 16 or let myself do so. It is completely crazy to me that idea.

[@turtle4llama]

Then kids shouldn't have to pay taxes

[@Andrescxli]

@@turtle4llama Nah, let em pay taxes and not be allowed to vote till they’re not a minor.

[@benmurawski]

You actually have smart ideas, Mr. Beat.