Constitutional Convention

ITT we post Sup Forums approved Constitutional Amendments. I'll start:

>Repeal of the 20th Amendment; amount of Supreme Court Justices back down to 7
>Repeal of the 16th Amendment; no more Fed
>Repeal of the 17th Amendment; Senators return to being elected by State Legislatures
>Repeal of the 19th Amendment; sluts back in line

Imperium:
>A President can be granted 20 years of Imperium minus however many years already served as President
>This would grant him authority to legislate within the bounds of the Constitution and declare war
>Only able to be granted by the same method as Amending the Constitution (3/4ths of the Senate, 2/3rds of the House, 3/4ths of State Governors)
>Can only be granted in the 6th to the 8th year of Presidency
>An Emperor can be removed by 5/7ths vote of the Supreme Court or by 3/4ths of the Governors
>Secession of States is nullified
>Serves to attract great men to the Presidency over career politicians

States' Rights:
>States would be granted the right of Secession, no war may be declared on a Seceded State during the current President's rule
>Serves to even the balance of power between State and National governments

Admission of States into the Union:
>States must have at least one border on a Natural Formation
>Serves to allow access to common resources among states as well as appease my autism

Immigration:
>Immigrants may only be Naturalized if they are of European/Aryan descent
>Serves to keep niggers and other members of foreign hordes out

Also, there should be a 2nd Constitutional Convention to make some things in the Constitution un-repealable.

>bill of rights cannot be removed under any circumstance
>this amendment cant be removed either

Which one? The whole thing? Based.

anything that violently restricts the Fed's jurisdiction PLEASE

>Secession of States is nullified
>States would be granted the right of Secession

Oh noz; you just created a constitutional crisis

>restrict
Nigga we gettin rid uh dat sheit bruh

Lol this is the most bat shit insane nonsense ever poster

yup the whole thing
its the bill of rights. not the bill of needs, not the bill of wants, not the bill of desires, not the bill of conveniences, not the bill of fantasies

its... its perfect

I was asking about my proposed amendments

>bat shit insane
>posts a nigger reaction
You've exposed yourself user

>The Democratic Party and any ideology similar to the left is banned and is revoked of all Constitutional Rights and Protections
This can replace the 17th Amendment

i meant the amendment that would explicitly state that the bill of rights cannot be removed or modified in any way would also itself never be removed or modified

It requires the Amending Process to grant Imperium to a sitting President. It would be extremely difficult to elect an Emperor, the Emperor would have to have the respect of pretty much everyone, and reason would suggest that the Senators that vote for Imperium would be from different States than the Governors that vote for Imperium. No crisis.

How do you solve the Journalist problem? Journalists were supposed to protect the people from a corrupt government by having the absolute right to tell the truth. Instead they protect a corrupt government from the people by abusing an absolute right to tell lies.

Yeah that's why I said we needed a Constitutional Convention. At the 1st Constitutional Convention, everything was decided upon Unanimously. This was not just tweaking the governing process like so many Amendments have done, this was the framing of the Nation. Similarly, we are framing something new, as the Founders did, so therefore, you would need Unanimous Decision to decide upon what should be Permanent. I don't think you'll have any problem getting Unanimous Decision for keeping the Bill of Rights permanent though.

>How do you solve the Journalist problem?
>Instead they protect a corrupt government from the people by abusing an absolute right to tell lies.
First, we've solved the Jewish Problem by only allowing Aryans to become Citizens. Second, the libel/slander laws should be strengthened (perhaps an Amendment in and of itself). Something along these lines:
>The causation of irreprable harm to the Character of any Citizen or American Institution by the propagation of falsehood, intentional or otherwise, by an American Media Institution, this offense may be tried in Civil Court.

Another good reason for Imperium is that an Emperor would not have to worry about his political career for him to do what is necessary for the good of the Nation. I forgot to put that.

How is a 70 y/o grandma supposed to take on multi-billion dollar CNN in court after they accused her of working with Russia just because she supports Trump?

We are talking about a post-Jew America here. There would be no media organizations the size and scope of something like CNN, mainly because they will become unviable economically. The only reason such organizations exist today is because they can inflate their ratings for ad revenue and because they (likely) get outside support from (((like-minded individuals))) (I put this in parenthesis, but this is probably the CIA). The media apparatus only exists today because it is useful for pushing an agenda. That use is dropping, and in the future it will be totally economically unviable. In a post-Jew America, there would be no reason for a White Man to desire to own or operate such a company.

First Amendment revision
>protection for hate speech officially codified into law
>designate that online social media is considered a public forum regardless of site ownership
>designate that any university that receives government money is considered a public forum

>clearly state that Freedom of Association includes the right of business owners to refuse to to business with anyone they want to, and that this amendment takes precedence over any and all civil rights legislation

>require that in order to use freedom of the press as a legal defense in a libel or slander case after running a false story, a media outlet must prove that:
>1: They made a reasonable effort to verify the story before running it
>2: When it was shown to be false, the retraction was made with equal prominence to the original story

Second Amendment revision
>legally define the militia as "all adult citizens and legal aliens, with the exception of those who have been adjudicated mentally incompetent or convicted of a violent felony"
>explicitly state that military weapons, hunting weapons, handguns, and ammunition are protected
>prohibit any kind of license or permit requirement to own a weapon
>prohibit any registries
>nationwide constitutional carry (open and concealed)
>officially classify any violation of this amendment by a state or territory as a civil rights violation, and require the DOJ to prosecute them

Electoral reform
>require proof of citizenship before someone can register to vote
>mandatory nationwide voter ID law
>dual citizens are prohibited from holding elected office, cabinet positions, ambassadorships, or senior positions in any federal agency
>12 year term limit for Congress, shared between the House and the Senate
>16 year total term limit shared between Congress, the Presidency, and the Vice Presidency (Presidential term limit stays at 8 years)

I think that there would be no greater danger to the well-being of this nation than another constitutional convention. To expect the fags of today to be able to do anything without somehow certainly fucking up the whole process is unrealistic, and to act as if they even have the moral right to touch any bit of the constitution is entirely ridiculous, the original convention was a meeting of likely the greatest minds in all of American history.

The only convention that I'd lend support to is one that eventually comes around through revolution or something very similar, I wouldn't let any of these limp-dicked enemies of liberty anywhere near the constitution if I had a choice.

I'm reading through Ketcham's book on the topic right now, I might have gotten it from the Sup Forums literature torrent but I can't remember, the fellows at the convention definitely weren't of one mind, a lot of the document was built on compromises that were plain old necessary to move forward with the debates. The "compromises" of today would no doubt be some sort of hellspawn.

How does one stop the Supreme Court from fucking the country over with false precedents?