User:Red Shogun412/sandbox/Amendments


 * To solidify for the two methods of proposing amendments, as expressed in Article Five of the United States Constitution, that they shall both be of equal weight and unequivocally stand (regardless of the subsequent method chosen) as valid proposals when either a simple majority of both houses of the United States Congress vote, or a simple majority of state legislatures request, to propose amendments to this Constitution as such; and to solidify for the two methods of ratifying amendments proposed as such, as expressed in Article Five of the United States Constitution, that they shall both be of equal weight and unequivocally stand (regardless of the antecedent method chosen) as valid ratifications when either two-thirds of states, or two-thirds of state ratifying conventions, ratify amendments to this Constitution as such.
 * A proposal to revise Article Three of the United States Constitution to: (1) establish a non-exhaustive entrenched code of law expounding fundamental principles of fairness, morality, and justice to serve as a check on the judiciary, inspired by Corpus Juris Civilis, Roman-Dutch and Scots law, the Swiss Civil Code, and the German civil code (as it pertains to private law); (2) regulate federal judges and Supreme Court justices to strive to interpret the Constitution from a pragmatism grounded on a conscionable formalist understanding of the equal liberty doctrine (a rule according to higher law); and (3) bind all federal judges and Supreme Court justices to only enforce the principles as prescribed in this amendment dutifully, within the grounds of their jurisdiction, and without establishing binding legal precedents (which may still be used by judges and justices at their own discretion). This amendment establishes a mixed legal system, superseding the exclusive system of common law - inherited from the English tradition - that was enshrined by and for the judiciary itself in Marbury v. Madison (1803), which makes it more challenging for members of the judiciary to develop and fortify their own sets of laws against the will of the people (as expressed in the Constitution), demarcates rules pertaining to how federal judges and justices are to interpret fundamental constitutional matters within a standard of equal liberty, and more so incentivizes that members of the judiciary remain impartial and stringent on the words of both the man-made laws in question and of the fundamental principles as prescribed, of which no federal court, not even the Supreme Court, can overturn or be exempt from.
 * Mandating a single transferable vote for elections to the United States House of Representatives, with a quota rule to be passed by statue (advisably the Hagenbach-Bischoff quota) and apportionment strictly based on the population of each state (in accordance with Federalist No. 55), irrespective of apportionment into arbitrarily-drawn congressional districts within the states, with results calculated by a comparison of pairs of outcomes; this amendment provides for a more proportionally representative electoral system relative to the present Huntington-Hill method. It also supersedes both the Reapportionment Act of 1929 (which extended the cap of 435 Representatives for future sessions of Congress) and the Uniform Congressional District Act (which outlawed multi-member districts and mixed-member proportional representation). Due to these facets, this amendment also negates the need to apportion members into single-member districts, which would otherwise greatly congest states into numerous, smaller-sized districts that could occur if following the Wyoming Rule instead (which lacks any mention of dividing members into multiple districts to conserve district space). Taking all this into account, the amendment is designed to explicitly counteract the systemic trend towards a gerrymandered two-party system with sub-optimal voter efficacy and high probability of tactical voting that fails the independence of irrelevant alternatives, and prohibits the continuance of first-past-the-post voting that nurtures and entrenches the former conditions (see: Duverger's law & Disadvantages of plurality voting). Finally, this amendment also supersedes the pending Congressional Apportionment Amendment (or, "Article the First"), initially proposed as part of the Bill of Rights in 1789, which, arguably, would have been eventually replaced with an amendment similar to that which is now proposed had it been ratified by 1789-92, as keeping Article the First in place consistently would have produced an impractical and excruciating amount of over 6,000 representatives, made especially more problematic if single-member districts were to remain the norm.
 * Codification of the Lemon test to preserve a neutral, three-fold enforcement of the separation of church and state which adds a firmer layer to future exercises and interpretations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, superseding Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) as it pertains to Establishment Clause case law (but not in judgment), whilst also providing for this amendment to be enforceable against the states pursuant to the incorporation of the Establishment Clause.