What’s missing? What would you add to the United States Constitution

If you could, what amendment would you add to the United States Constitution?

Our Nations founding fathers – worked collectively in order to write a series of documents. After hours on end of deliberation, representatives of several colonial states – compromises – and commissions – our Nations constitution emerged – with it a ‘prosperous nation.’ That is, because our founding fathers set forth the ground works to function effectively. Well, one would come to believe that, especially when taught under the rose colored lenses that is ‘US history’ in our Public School’s government backed, special interest created textbooks. But the truth is – our founding fathers where far from creating a ideal constitution. Whether it be – leaving out freedom for ‘all men’ – or leaving out the women’s right to vote – several fundamental changes have been made to the constitution, via amendments in order to improve our nation, or in some instances – make a effort to ‘improve’ the constitution – which then leads to detrimental effects – to the point where the amendment is cancelled out by another. Such as prohibition in the United States.

Recently, the American public and younger generations such as Millennials and Gen z, are becoming more and more involved in the political process – in so – has sparked discussion regarding our nations political process. If I could add one constitutional amendment, to the United States Constitution – I would add the following.

‘As Government must only be a position of public service and not financial enrichment – every member of congress shall henceforth and in perpetuity receive no more compensation in any form, from any source during the tenure of their term than a yearly salary equal to the annual median income of the citizens of the state  that they represent.’

To often we see highly unqualified and uneducated candidates hold political office. Such as conspiracy theorists – who believe the Parkland School Shooting, resulting in the death of 17 high-school students, is a hoax and was staged in order to increase public sentiment on gun reform, a ‘politician’ who verbally berates survivors, of said shooting – for her own campaign. We also see candidates who simply run, do nothing or the bare minimum for their constituents, and they enrich themselves through political office by receiving money from special interests groups.

This amendment has been discussed by several people – and reached public audiences through the internet and public forum – In so, several flaws had been pointed out – in return several subsections or ‘edits’ have been proposed. As any amendment is not perfect, it comes with subsections. Consider the following:

Section 2: In order to ensure equitable access to the electoral process, all political campaigns for federal office will be publicly and equally funded and may not make use of any additional funding from any private source.

(This subsection exists for the purpose of equitable elections, time and time again we see good candidates get driven out of the election, or chances at nomination, due to the other candidates receiving Super PACS from several groups or special interests groups. If campaigns are publicly and equally funded – then each campaign has a level competitive ground – how the campaign chooses to use said funding is up to each candidate respectfully – adding another strategic aspect to running to political office. Further requiring the collective competence of not only the candidate, but their strategist.)

Section 3: To Curtail the acceptance of any additional funding from a private source – if a incumbent or running candidate does accept any additional funding outside of public funding – their campaign is to be terminated, and removed from the ballot. Should a elected official receive additional funding from any private source – their term in public office will be forfeited – and a emergency election will take place to replace their seat. The Independent financial oversight department will be responsible for monitoring the funding of political representatives. 

(This subsection, highlights the consequences of breaking the federal procedures for those seeking or holding political office. Those who enrich themselves – through passing legislation that would benefit them or their ‘interests’ such as lighter restrictions on Big Pharmaceutical companies – or Big Oil Companies – should have no say in the political office. The United States is not, and should not be permitted to be controlled by large corporations. Politicians do not serve Chevron or Shell oil companies, they Do not serve Tech Giants, they Do not Serve pharmaceutical corporations – they represent and serve their constituents. They represent the American populous – that is their job – if they are incapable of serving their constituents, they should not hold political office. )

Section 4: All Members of congress, their spouses, and their dependents shall be afforded the use of government living accommodations during the tenure of their terms. In addition to receiving a supplemental monthly basic allowance for subsistence equal to that granted to enlisted members of the United States Military. 

(This subsection, could use editing or reformatting. This is to account to the fact that representatives in US Congress have to essentially own two living places, their homes in the states that they live in and represent. As well as a house, or other form of residential area in Washington D.C. – Which, with politicians who do not drastically benefit from special interests – find it difficult to afford two residential living areas. If this amendment where to pass congress, highly unlikely (This can be addressed later), Politicians would make subjectively less – so providing housing in the D.C. Area would curtail the need to seek out additional funding from other groups in order to afford the extra residential area. This reduces the need or motivation for corrupting political officials. A proposal in regards to housing would be the following:

Edit: Each State government, may have a building in Washington DC [or area] dedicated to their representatives in Congress. These buildings, owned by state governments, should be used for housing, and extra offices for their political officials in the District of Colombia.

Section 5: Any Work related expenses incurred by a member of Congress during the tenure of their term may be submitted for reimbursement – pending approval by a Bipartisan financial oversight department.

This amendment proposal – focuses on curtailing corruption on US Politicians through the acceptance of large sums of money from special interests groups. There are more comprehensive plans against Corruption in general, a entire bill, that will likely not pass through the congress that benefits from it. Which can be found online.

A amendment, with the aim to curtail the enrichment of public officials, would struggle to pass through the congress of which benefits from amendment like this not existing. This is one of several reasons why the US congress and the two Major Parties – Democrats and Republicans – benefit from US Extremism / Polarization. Which we can dive deeper into in a future analysis. So long as Republican voters, dislike Democrats, simply because of their party, and Vice Versa, then holding congressmembers accountable would be unimaginable. This is why.

In Article 5 of the United States Constitution, There is a provision for state government to be propose constitutional amendments TO congress rather than BY Congress. If the legislatures of Two Thirds of the States (34 out of 50) submit applications proposing a amendment to the constitution then Congress is legally obligated to hold a Article V convention of states to consider the amendment. If Three Quarter of the States (38 out of 50) [Four States Needing to join in, or ‘flip’] then vote to Ratify the proposed amendment – it would bypass the authority of Congress and go into effect.

Although not successful yet, it has been attempted. For Historical context: 1969, 33 States submitted applications proposing an amendment intended to overturn Supreme Court Rulings related to the drawing of electoral districts – just barely missing the required 34 state threshold.  Again in 1983 – 32 States had submitted applications proposing a balanced budget amendment to the United States – once again, missing the 34 state threshold.

This provision allows for the general public – regardless of party – to hold their elected officials accountable by any means. If the general public organizes, and creates sufficient momentum across the United States to end political greed & corruption, a grass roots movement, and pressures their state legislatures to submit applications for this amendment – then it can pass. If not, we can continue the broken cycle of American politics – and continue to have less and less say in Federal legislature – and allow for our representatives and senators to be bought out by special interests groups. We will never advance as a nation – we will only remain bickering – going back and forth – moving a inch forward – and jumping a foot back. It is the responsibility of the governed to hold accountable those who govern them.

What constitutional amendment would you add? What are your thoughts on this amendment? What are some primary issues you see in American Politics today?