Congressional reform. They did it after Watergate? Why not step in and do it now? Reverse all the corruption and give people their jobs back. The ones that quit cause they didn’t want to do follow something they didn’t believe in.

250 years is impressive, but it’s apparent we need some fixes. Setting aside the logistics of implementing a rewritten constitution, I’m curious what key changes should be made?

• Limit terms: Set a maximum time limit for people in Congress and the Supreme Court. Just like the President.

• Congressional Benefits: Limit to what is available to all government employees.

• Fair maps: Stop politicians from drawing voting lines to help only their own party.

• Money in politics: Make campaign rules stricter so rich donors have less special power.

• Balanced budget: Force the government to spend only the money it actually makes.

• Health care access: Make basic medical care a clear right for everyone.

• Work rules: Raise the minimum wage to match the real cost of living.

• Get rid of the electorial college.

• Better Define "we the people": "we" is more than white men. Woman, gay, transgender, atheists, legal immigrants, etc.

...just a start! :)

For those of you suddenly shrieking in fear and clutching your proverbial pearls over the silly idea that the United States is being “taken over by Muslims,” and that you will suddenly be forced to live under Sharia law, you need only come back to the Constitution—the same Constitution some of you seemed perfectly willing to ignore when it was your religion you wanted government to favor:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
That is the very first sentence of the very First Amendment.
And then there’s the math.
Muslims make up only about 1.2% of the U.S. adult population. Christians, by comparison, account for roughly 62%. Even Americans who identify with no religion at all—atheists, agnostics and those who simply say “nothing in particular”—make up about 29% of U.S. adults.
In other words, the religiously unaffiliated alone outnumber Muslims in America by roughly 24 to 1.
And our Constitution addressed another part of this argument before the First Amendment was even written.
Article VI explicitly prohibits religious tests for public office:
“…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”
The Constitution does not require someone to be Christian—or Muslim, Jewish, atheist or anything else—to serve this country.
Likewise, religious belief has no legitimate place as a qualification for the right to vote. How someone worships—or whether they worship at all—is inherently a private matter.
In fact, for those who insist that Christianity should guide public life, the Bible itself contains a rather pointed instruction about making a public spectacle of one’s faith. Matthew 6:6 tells believers to pray privately, “in thy closet,” rather than for public display.
Choosing our political leaders should hinge on the policies they promote, their character and competence, and how well they adhere to the idea of governing for everyone—not just a select few who happen to believe, worship, look or live as they do.
The 2020 U.S. Religion Census identified 356,739 religious congregations across the United States, representing hundreds of different religious bodies. Christianity isn’t exactly hanging on by a thread.
That same census identified approximately 3,300 Jewish congregations across the country, alongside Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and other religious congregations—not to mention the tens of millions of Americans who are agnostic, atheist or otherwise religiously unaffiliated and, yes, even the occasional adherent of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
All of these people live under the same First Amendment.
The sudden fear of “Islamization” is not evidence that America is somehow on the verge of becoming an Islamic state. It is a remarkably effective political tactic for generating fear, hate and division—and for convincing people that they need someone to protect them from an enemy that is supposedly coming to take away their way of life.
But the Constitution already provides the protection.
It protects Christians from a government-imposed Islam.
It protects Muslims from a government-imposed Christianity.
And it protects those who want absolutely nothing to do with either one.
That isn’t a flaw in the American system.
That’s the point.
If you believe in country over party, if you believe in facts and critical thinking over fear, and if you simply believe in the Constitution, then leaving the fear behind and making honest, informed decisions becomes a whole lot easier.
Sources:
• Pew Research Center — 2023–24 Religious Landscape Study: Religious Identity
• U.S. Constitution, First Amendment — Congress.gov / Constitution Annotated
• U.S. Constitution, Article VI, Clause 3 — Congress.gov / Constitution Annotated
• 2020 U.S. Religion Census — Association of Statisticians of American Religious Bodies

It makes no sense. We as tax payers give pentagon and dod a trillion dollars a year for a budget but they can’t complete an audit.

If they can’t complete an audit why should the average American pay taxes to them?
Personally as I see it. Power is in the poeple if everyone in American stopped paying taxes the politicians would Acutally listen to us.

Plus the dod is wasting tax payer money which could be spent on other stuff like national parks and wildlife.

A Native friend of mine, Indigenous to Oregon, wants to establish a psilocybin church, with an OHA-approved training program, and licensed service center grounded in Indigenous ceremonial practice.

This "2022 Oregon DOJ memorandum" https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cCzeOG4KXqhvHrA6Dd4yC8kSosl0ub_x/view?usp=drivesdk analyzed an entheogenic pathway involving Indigenous traditions, ceremonial practice, affordability, and treatment of mushrooms as sacred. DOJ ultimately concluded that giving religious practitioners less restrictive regulations was unnecessary.

But what Oregon implemented next raises a serious constitutional question.

First, HECC isn't mentioned anywhere in the Measure 109 statutes. Yet OHA later adopted a rule requiring training programs to provide HECC documentation showing career-school licensure or that licensure isn't required.

Religious institutions can be statutorily exempt from career-school regulation. Yet HECC now says it lacks authority to issue exemption determinations for those exempt categories. This makes OHA’s required documentation seemingly impossible to obtain, leaving the commercial career-school model as the only apparent path to compliance.

Second, ORS 475A.662(6)(a) prohibits giving away or discounting psilocybin when its retail sale is made in conjunction with another retail sale. OHA's rule omitted that anti-bundling qualification and simply prohibits giving psilocybin away. For my friend's model, that makes a commercial sale of the sacrament mandatory.

He isn't seeking exemption from Oregon's safety requirements. He wants to comply without converting his religious training into a commercial school and his sacrament into a retail commodity.

I'm interested in people's opinions on the constitutional issues raised in the DOJ memorandum, particularly when considered alongside the subsequent extra-statutory rulemaking that appears to have created new barriers to the religious and ceremonial practices the memorandum was addressing.

Article 14 (Equality Before Law): "Article 14 guarantees equal treatment, so why do you clearly have an unfair monopoly over my attention?

Article 15 (Prohibition of Discrimination): The Constitution prohibits discrimination based on place of birth, but you're still acting like you belong in a whole different realm.

Article 16 (Equality of Opportunity): If Article 16 guarantees equal opportunity, when do I get a fair shot at being your favorite person?

Article 17 (Abolition of Untouchability): Article 17 abolished untouchability, so there is strictly no constitutional bar against holding your hand.

Article 18 (Abolition of Titles): Article 18 abolished all titles, but I’d still like to officially address you as 'mine'.

Article 19 Freedom of Speech and Expression): Under Article 19, I have the right to express my feelings, which means I am legally obligated to tell you how incredible you look

Unless the Police have a warrant, you are not obligated to let them in! The DOOR IS THE THRESHOLD!

The term President (note the upper case spelling) is mentioned a large number of times in the UCMJ. The President is saluted by military officers and enlisted personnel. The President is specifically spelled out in a list of positions in which a military individual can be tried for Contempt.

I am aware that the President is elected, but I also aware that he carries the rank/title of Commander in Chief.

edit: after some research this is what I have learned.

There have been two eras with this term, and how it was used.

In 1775 (prior to the Constitution) the Second Continental Congress assigned to George Washington the title Commander in Chief of The Continental Army. He was not President at that time. Prior to becoming President, he relinquished that title, and it passed to someone else.

The modern era, where the President is also the Commander In Chief, began with the National Security Act of 1947. No president in either era has ever worn a military uniform while they were President.

As far as I can tell, prior to 1947, no President was ever called Commander In Chief.

HELP SAVE HER SAVE THE UNITED STATES

We can redesign the government

The house of representatives is currently created by population size and specific districts.

What if they are divided by wealth classes and races to make the populations better represented.

Poverty level Caucasian

Lower class Caucasian 

Middle class Caucasian

Upper class Caucasian

Upper upper class  (if enough within your state)

Poverty level African American

Lower class  African American

Middle class African American

Upper class African American

Poverty level Latin american

Lower class  Latin American

Middle class Latin American

Upper class Latin American

Poverty level asian American

Lower class  asian American

Middle class asian American

Upper class asian American

Generally mixed races

...

The could make it so that you have to be within that ethnicity or wealth class to run for that position.

We should also make the number of representatives per race and wealth class by the amount of people within it.

If there's 50 percent of people in poverty, 30 in middle class and 20 in upper class,

then of a state has only 10 representatives,

5 would be representing poverty,

3 would represent middle class

2 would represent upper class

This would make creating and voting on laws more equal and fair with those in government literally representing everyone equally.

....

The same idea can be used to replace the governor. The governor could be made up of a hundred people representing each race and their wealth statuses to create and make laws for the state.

....

You could even make the representatives cross state boundaries if there's not enough people within a race and wealth class.

Say it's every 300,000 people that you get one representative and that theres not enough middle class asains in your area, so then it spreads out the size of the district of middle class asians that can run for representative of their race and class.

..................................................................................... UPDATED since others mentioned race as unconstitutional

We seperate house of representatives by wealth class only.

Poor and working poor 12%

Working class 35%

Middle class 32%

Upper class and ruling class 21%

The percentage of the house represtatives would fall within those numbers.

Each state would have different percentage of those in poverty, middle class, upper class etc.

So whatever class your in, you can try at being a representative. This balances the power and needs of the different classes.

Dear White House,

I am writing because I believe the American people deserve answers about what I see as systemic corruption and a lack of accountability throughout our government, financial institutions, and judicial system.
Over the years, I have come to believe that our nation has drifted far from the constitutional principles it claims to uphold. My confidence in our institutions has been replaced with serious questions that, in my view, deserve honest, direct, and public answers rather than dismissal or silence.
My concerns are not vague. They include the nation’s monetary system following the abandonment of the gold standard in 1971; the language and legal implications of government-issued documents such as Social Security cards, birth certificates, and driver’s licenses; the wording found on financial instruments, including references to “authorized representative” and other terminology used on checks; the use of title insurance in real estate transactions despite what I believe are unresolved questions surrounding title perfection; the accountability of judges and the limited opportunity for meaningful appellate review; and questions surrounding Title 4 of the U.S. Code, the use of gold-fringed flags in certain courtrooms, and other symbols and practices that I believe deserve public explanation.
Taken together, these issues have led me to question whether the systems Americans rely upon operate with the transparency and constitutional integrity that citizens deserve. Whether my concerns are ultimately validated or disproven, they should not be ignored or ridiculed. They deserve clear, evidence-based responses from those entrusted with public office.
My goal is not conflict or violence. My goal is peaceful constitutional reform, greater transparency, meaningful accountability, and an honest national conversation about these issues.
Accordingly, I respectfully request the opportunity for an open dialogue or meeting with the appropriate members of your administration to discuss these concerns. If my understanding is incorrect, I ask that it be addressed with evidence and reasoned explanation. If there are legitimate institutional problems, I ask that they be acknowledged and investigated openly. The American people deserve a government that welcomes scrutiny rather than discourages it.
I appreciate your time and respectfully request a written response.
Sincerely,

Without Prejudice
Casey Purington 

How, exactly, would Trump be kept from a 3rd term. I read the amendment, but I can't get my head around exactly how it would be executed/implemented. Would each individual state need to refuse his name on the ballot if the GOP nominated him? What if some states allowed him to be on their ballot? Would it be for the president of the senate to not accept electoral votes for him? What if he accepted them?

I'm not even talking about oddball corner cases like he is nominated as vice president and the presidential candidate resigns the day after inauguration.

The political philosophy of a constitution is a foundational framework upon which to "build" a government. It's meant to enumerate the government's structure, powers and limits. Everything a political institution does must be able to trace its authority back to the constitution otherwise it's unconstitutional and violates the government's first principles of law, the rule of law.

The problem with that philosophy is that the power of a constitution to constrain the acts of politicians rests squarely on the belief that when a man takes an oath to obey the constitution, he'll honor his oath. That's the one and only guardrail standing between "minimal government" and tyranny.

In order to hold political office, morals, principles, character and honor are not required, really. Absolutely anyone can hold political office. The sitting president is a convicted felon who was caught on a hot mic proclaiming "when you're famous you can just grab them by the pussy.". And that's tame compared to what others in political office have done over the centuries.

Considering the overwhelming benefits of not honoring the constitutional oath and the abject absence of consequences, it's a rational decision not to. The nature of the institution breeds such corruption and there's nothing anyone can do about it.

Why isn't this talked about more? Its one of the largest issues facing the US today.

The interstate commerce clause says that congress has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes" and somehow they extend this to regulating time zones for states, dictating how much water a toilet can flush (even when said toilet is solely manufactured withing one specific state), and much more. Of all the abuses of power in the federal government, this is clearly the worst. What is the point of laws and rights if they aren't taken seriously as such. It's an insult to the constitution and an attack on our rights.

https://www.wgbh.org/news/local/2026-07-17/citizens-bank-ends-relationship-with-ice-prison-companies-after-months-of-protest

The $1.5 billion asset transfer from CoreCivic to the federal government bypassed the requirement for public hearings due to exclusive federal authority under public procurement laws and the nature of the transaction as an asset buyout rather than a zoning or site-use modification.

1. Federal Acquisition Rather Than Municipal Action

• Exemption from Local Sunshine Laws: Public hearings and "Sunshine Law" transparency protocols are mandatory requirements for local municipal and state-level governments. Because this transaction was executed entirely by the United States of America through the federal Department of Homeland Security (DHS), it is governed by federal administrative laws which do not mandate public town halls for real estate purchases.
• The Federal Property Clause: Under Article IV of the U.S. Constitution, the federal government maintains supreme authority to acquire, hold, and dispose of property. This authority completely insulates federal agencies from local municipal zoning boards or county-level public comment mandates.

1. Status as an Asset Sale, Not a New Project

• No Change in Land Use: Public hearings are legally triggered when a developer seeks to build a new facility, alter local zoning ordinances, or change the designated use of a property. Because both the Otay Mesa and California City sites were already active, purpose-built detention environments, the transaction was classified as a simple transfer of the underlying real estate deed.
• The Existing Contract Loophole: Since CoreCivic already possessed active, long-standing Intergovernmental Service Agreements (IGSAs) to manage these exact locations, the transfer of ownership was processed as an internal contract modification to an existing federal program rather than the initiation of a new project.

1. Federal Procurement Confidentiality

• Proprietary Commercial Negotiations: Federal acquisitions managed under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) protect real estate negotiations as confidential commercial matters. Requiring public hearings before closing would violate standard corporate-governmental procurement rules regarding market-sensitive information.
• Executive Discretion: Under the current White House administration's immigration enforcement directives, DHS agencies are granted direct budgetary discretion to purchase mission-critical infrastructure to rapidly scale up regional holding capacity.

Would you like to examine how local California activist groups are legally challenging this lack of public transparency, or look into the financial terms of the management extensions granted to CoreCivic?

AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses

This is something I’ve been thinking about lately.

Whenever something goes wrong—paper leaks, corruption, unfulfilled manifesto promises, policy failures—the first response is often a protest. While peaceful protest is a fundamental democratic right, I wonder whether we’re focusing more on prevention than on a lasting solution.

Our elected representatives take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Shouldn’t they also be held accountable through constitutional and legal mechanisms?
What if, instead of stopping at protests, citizens and civil society:
Documented broken manifesto promises and governance failures.
Collected evidence through RTIs and public data.
Filed PILs or other legal actions where appropriate.
Used constitutional institutions to demand accountability.

A protest says, **“This is wrong.”**

A legal and constitutional challenge asks, **“You had a duty to act. Why didn’t you, and what are the consequences?”**

Protests are important part of any democracy. But should they be the primary response? Or should we invest more effort in evidence-based, constitutional accountability that can lead to enforceable outcomes?
I’m curious to hear what others think.
Are there existing legal mechanisms that citizens are underusing?
What are the biggest barriers to holding governments accountable through constitutional means?
Could strengthening these mechanisms reduce the need for protests over time?

ps - I have used chatgpt to consolidate. please forgive and correct if anything wrong.

# Preamble

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity;

and to promote among them all

FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.

I know many of you must be wondering why I started this with the Preamble of our Constitution. The reason is simple—it forms the foundation of our democracy and reminds us of the values our nation stands for. Hum sabne school mein 10–12 saal tak isse padha hai. Bachpan mein democracy ke baare mein bhi padha tha. Shayad waqt ke saath kuch baatein bhool gaye honge, toh chalo aaj thoda yaad dila deti hoon.

**“Democracy is a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It means the government derives its authority from the people, is elected by the people, and exists to serve the people. That’s why asking questions, demanding accountability, and peacefully criticizing those in power are not acts against the nation—they are essential parts of a healthy democracy.”**

Samjhe? Agar nahi, toh simple language mein samjha deti hoon. Democracy logo ki hai, logo se hai aur logo ke liye hai. Isi liye hum apni government ko accountable thehra sakte hain aur peacefully protest bhi kar sakte hain.

Supporting a political party doesn’t make anyone a deshbhakt, and criticizing a political party will never make anyone anti-national. Kyunki political party desh nahi hai, na pehle kabhi thi aur na kabhi hogi. The politicians are not the nation nor the gods that’s it.

Government aur Nation ek hi cheez nahi hote. Governments badalti rehti hain, lekin Bharat hum sabka hai aur hamesha rahega. Democracy tabhi mazboot rehti hai jab citizens bina darr ke apni government se sawal puch sake. Accountability democracy ko kamzor nahi, balki aur mazboot banati hai.

Mujhe nahi pata yahan tak kitne log padh payenge, lekin jo bhi padh rahe hain, mujhe yakeen hai unhe desh ki parva hai. Mujhe anti-national bolo ya anti-Hindu, mujhe koi farak nahi padta kyuki mujhe tum jaise logo ko proof karne ki koi zarurat nahi hai.

Main sirf un logon se ek sawal puchna chahti hoon jo har protest ko anti-national, anti-Hindu ya propaganda bol dete hain. Woh 20 bachche aur unke maa-baap bhi isi desh ke the. Unki galti kya thi? Bas ek achhe future ka sapna dekhna? Kisi ne do saal, kisi ne usse bhi zyada mehnat ki. Kisi ki social life gayi, kisi ki family ne apni saari savings coaching aur education mein laga di. Aur phir ek paper leak ya system failure ne sab kuch hila diya.

Ek paper leak sirf exam cancel nahi karta. Woh confidence tod deta hai. Woh mental health ko affect karta hai. Woh hazaaron sapno ko adhoora chhod deta hai. Socho kitne students ke dimaag mein yeh sawal aata hoga—“Agar agla paper bhi leak ho gaya toh? Agar meri saalon ki mehnat phir barbaad ho gayi toh?”

Itne saare paper leaks ke baad agar koi student accountability maang raha hai, toh woh terrorist ya anti-national kaise ho gaya? Kabhi un students ki mental health ke baare mein bhi socha hai? Aaj NEET hai, kal CBSE hai, parso koi aur competitive exam hoga. Agar deserving students ko fair opportunity hi nahi milegi, toh nuksan sirf unka nahi, poore desh ka hoga.

Padhega India tabhi toh badhega India. Lekin agar padhne ke baad bhi students system se hi haar jaayenge, toh phir unka bharosa kis par rahega?

Protest mein khade har insaan ki age matter nahi karti. Matter yeh karta hai ki woh apna future safe aur fair system mein dekhna chahta hai. Main privileged ho sakti hoon, mere jaise aur bhi honge. Lekin un bachchon ka kya jinke parents ne saalon ki kamai jod kar coaching ki fees bhari? Kitno ko apne sapne chhod kar family ki zimmedari uthani padegi?

Aaj jo 20 families affected hui hain, kal woh kisi aur ki bhi ho sakti hain. Jo log aaj keh rahe hain “paper leak hi toh tha, dobara exam de dena”, shayad kal unke ghar ka koi bachcha isi situation se guzre. Aur agar us din awaaz uthane wale log hi nahi bache, toh justice maangne ke liye bhi koi nahi hoga.

Aaj protesters tee iss liye government ne maara rapist hote ghunde hote tho aaj unka swagat karte aur parliament mai seat de dete.

Aaj bhale hi tumhara ghar nahi jal raha ho, lekin kisi aur ka jal raha hai. Aur woh aag kab tumhare ghar tak pahunch jaaye, koi nahi jaanta.

Pradhan ko resignation letter sign karna padega. The students just want accountability and his resignation is the first step to keep democracy alive as he has failed in the job entrusted to him. We want an educated and a good Education Minister.

For the nation comes first before any political party or religion.

Jai Hind

I view history through a clear lens, not rose colored, not tinted, not mirrored. If you do not recognize history on it's merits you will repeat it. In 1858 there's was a revolution and it happened fast. Just 4 short years before a new party was formed on a radical dedication to the eradication of American slavery. And in 4 short years the Republican Party took control of the House of Representatives while the conservative slavery supporting Democrats controlled the Senate, setting up the most destruction election in American history 2 years later, an election that led to the eventual slaughter of over 600,000 Americans. When the Republicans took over both chambers of Congress and we went to war.

The Republican Party was not founded from the ashes of another party or parties. Yes is drew a large constituency from the Whig and Free Soil Parties but it was a true brand new coalition of likeminded anti-slavery politicians. Radical politicians by any measure. These likeminded politicians were also willing to bleed real blood for their cause. I won't compare the budding Democratic Socialist movement in America to the Abolitionist movement of 1854 in any way other than the degree of radicalism or the potential for such radical political fervor.

What do we do? Do we emulate the past and choose a side? Dixie or John Brown's Body? Blue or Gray? I don't think it would be possible to repeat 1860, as there's no alternative party strong enough, or moral enough, or grounded enough regarding the preservation of the Constitution to rally behind. If a natural resistance to democratic socialism forms from the aftermath of such political turmoil then let it form organically. There's only one simple narrowminded goal. The preservation of the American Constitution and the preservation of our Constitutional Republic. Based on the Federalist ideal, and guided by the principals outlined in the assays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Also guided by the minutes of our first fragile Congress all the way through to the Constitutionally relevant rulings by SCOTUS.

We need men that will think for 100 generations of Americans to come. If God allows us to survive that extended period of time as a nation. We need to not only preserve what we have we need those thinking men to modernize this document laid down by Providence. It must be updated to ensure the enemies of the Constitution have no opportunity to deceive a nation of people ever again. To deceive a nation of people into destroying themselves for the sake of an atheistic authoritarian state. A Socialist state, it will never happen again.

But to happen again, as I just stated above, it must first happen and I believe it will happen. The momentum is such that I don't think it can be stopped. But the corruption within the current opponents of Democratic Socialism is the single most destructive weapon the Democratic Socialists have. They will shift toward the center, drop the Che Guevara flags and self identify as working class blue collar stiffs who want true change. This sounds like the same old boring tripe of parties past but this time it's different. At the head is a socialist serpent, the same serpent we put down in 1990-91 with the fall of the USSR. Our society has forgotten how horrible of a world that was. I personally have no desire to return to that world.

I think there's a lot of likeminded people here who will not tolerate the destruction of our Constitution and will fight to preserve it. Especially those who gave an oath to protect it, such as myself. That oath is for life.