I saw this circulating around and thought it was an interesting read.
Some of these are horrendous, some are funny, and a few made me think "Hmm, maybe not a bad idea"
I like the 1916 one. A lot, actually.
this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2024
369 points (99.5% liked)
Just Post
590 readers
19 users here now
Just post something π
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Based Based Based Cringe Based Cringe Cringe Cringe Based (lol) Based Based Cringe Cringe Cringe Based
I don't know about the second one - people shouldn't be discriminated based on religion, so is it really right to discriminate against "religious leaders"? That goes a step beyond separating religion from law and into hindering people based on their beliefs.
No senate? and deconstructing the US Military before the World War Era? What?
1948 isn't a bad one, but you have to accept being relocated to a shitty reservation. A Christian Nationalist lunatic reservation would make everything so much better for the rest of us.
United States of Earth is hilarious
Arooo.
Thinking way down the road
USE! USE!
A limit of $1 million in 1933 inflation adjusted would be $24.4 million today.
I love that amendment, and have wanted it to exist for years. Nice to see I'm not the only person to come up with it.
How would that work with inflation / deflation I wonder, you hit the limit, can't make anymore, you retire, all is well. Then what, you need to get rid of 5% of your wealth? How do you define the limit, dollars in X year? Why that arbitrary amount?
A progressive wealth tax with the final bracket being 100% at $24.4 million.
I seriously support this
We make minimum wage an arbitrary amount untied to inflation. This would be the same.
Tie it to inflation, set the number high enough to maintain an upscale property and life for 100 years (that way babies inheriting money won't suffer), and enforce it via military strikes on offenders and their families.
load more comments
(10 replies)
Some of these are bangers but others are utterly deplorable.
That 1876 session sounds lit
We should revisit those. The senate thing could be moderated with each state getting an extra two representatives. Iβd add to the βno religious leader can hold officeβ one that churches are no longer tax-exempt by default, they can file as a 501(c)3 like every other charitable organization and show the community work theyβre doing.
As a layperson who hasn't given it too much thought, the 1916 sounds interesting. I assume they'd only use a small percentage of volunteers since having 200 million new soldiers would be a bit unmanageable. The pessimist in me thinks they'd just do "military exercises" and never actually go to war and a vote though π
Registering to volunteer would basically be the same as the current requirement to register for selective service (the draft). It doesn't mean they need to immediately start serving, just that they need to volunteer and serve when needed.
"Don't cast the vote unless you're on the boat".
As former infantry, I complete approve.
But as someone involved in a large group that does a lot of peacekeeping, I think our obligation to the UN is important and needs to be stepped-up to give the UN some teeth.
load more comments
(10 replies)
Shouldn't be an amendment, but we should impose a "securities" tax to achieve something like the $1 million limit on personal wealth.
An annual, 1% tax on stocks, bonds, mutual funds, and other financial instruments, payable in shares of that security. (Which will then be slowly liquidated on the open market, such that the liquidated shares never comprise more than 1% of traded volume in any given time period)
The first $10 million directly held by a natural person are exempt from this tax.
Wealth isn't problematic in and of itself. The issue is when wealth is used primarily to purchase wealth-generating assets, rather than the products and services that generate wealth for workers.
No make it an amendment so the rich who want to be richer have a much harder time abolishing it. And since you can't stop the worst people from getting rich, it's better to do an across the board blanket ceiling. If you can't control the assholes, you have to say least throttle them.
1893 and 1933 sound so coool
No army, no too rich people
I'm guessing the Council of Three got shot down because the office of the President shouldn't be that powerful anyway. And yet we slowly made it that way.
The office of the president is so powerful because congress keeps passing more and more responsibility to the office.
Congress is supposed to declare war, but they give the president a bunch of limited power and follow their lead when it comes to military actions.
Congress is supposed to create the budget, but they start with a proposed budget from the president.
Congress is supposed to be the ones leading legislative change in general, but they defer most of that to the president.
etc.
load more comments
(2 replies)
2nd and 3rd and last all sound top-notch.
view more: next βΊ