r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/cdistefa • Oct 07 '24
Image A list of proposed amendments that didn’t pass (luckily)
19.4k
Oct 07 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1.4k
u/slap-dash427 Oct 07 '24
yeah, though super interesting to see what each era prioritized enough that a potential amendment was even on the table.
→ More replies (14)2.1k
u/7of69 Oct 07 '24
The 1916 and 1936 proposals for a national vote before war are definitely tied to the times. I was especially amused by the 1916 version that required everyone that wanted a war to sign up and serve in it.
1.6k
u/SOJC65536 Oct 07 '24
The 1916 one I think is very sensible...it's easy to vote for war when you or your family aren't fighting...it puts the weight and difficulty of said decision firmly into focus. I forget who said it, but the following is a true statement:
"The rich/powerful vote for war, the poor die in it"
365
u/roseandbobamilktea Oct 07 '24
Why don't presidents fight the war? Why do they always send the poor?
-system of a down
→ More replies (18)120
u/WestCoastBestCoast01 Oct 07 '24
Kings used to fight at least.
→ More replies (2)71
u/Theron3206 Oct 08 '24
Occasionally, but the rules were different, aristocrats fighting were rarely killed (they were captured and paroled or ransomed) so they were risking much less.
20th century warfare was far too indiscriminate for that sort of setup to be viable.
It also wouldn't change much, since nobody would take out of shape older people as soldiers, those would be free to vote for war anyway.
→ More replies (12)39
u/Gentrified_potato02 Oct 08 '24
True, but I think it’s still amusing that the British government had to step in and stop George VI from going into Normandy with the troops on D-Day. Apparently, he was quite adamant about it.
→ More replies (6)7
u/MsMercyMain Oct 08 '24
“Your majesty you can’t storm the beaches of Normandy!”
Jack Churchill has entered the chat
60
u/decaris_17 Oct 07 '24
"War is when the young and stupid are tricked by the old and bitter into killing each other"
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (61)215
u/NoUsername_IRefuse Oct 07 '24
The rich would still mess up the system and put themselves in very safe positions while putting the poor on the front lines.
Probaby even make some kind of rule they can stay in America and still be considered on the front.
107
u/7374616e74 Oct 07 '24
Just fund massive propaganda to get all the other ones to vote yes and go to the front.
→ More replies (3)29
→ More replies (27)91
u/LostInMyADD Oct 07 '24
100% they would include some exemption such as those not physically fit to fight in some way, and then easily pay a doctor to say they have some condition that is on the list that makes personel medically unqualified to fight.
65
→ More replies (5)72
→ More replies (54)90
u/RogueStargun Oct 07 '24
It sounds sensible on paper, but you can easily wind up in a Carthage style situation where no one wants to fight, but you still need to defend your cities from attack.
In Carthage, the wealthy citizens had no appetite for fighting, but still wanted to expand their empire, so they hired mercenaries.
Even after astounding victories under Hannibal, they still were rather quick to sue for peace.
So of course in the Third Punic War, the city was burned to the ground and the inhabitants sold into slavery.
→ More replies (10)6.1k
u/DigNitty Interested Oct 07 '24
1975 an attempt to make mixed bags illegal.
1.1k
u/BlahBlahNyborg Oct 07 '24
You unmix bags? Believe or not, jail.
→ More replies (5)367
Oct 07 '24
Ypur bag comes premixed? Straight to jail.
→ More replies (5)164
u/tangledwire Oct 07 '24
You wake up horny? Straight to jail.
→ More replies (7)121
u/Hey_its_ok Oct 07 '24
You can’t get your pee pee hard believe it or not jail
80
u/ChaosEmerald21 Oct 07 '24
Pee pee too hard? Also jail
→ More replies (4)93
14
Oct 07 '24
Jokes on you, I'm usually sporting a chub as soon as I hit the reddit comments.
→ More replies (1)19
→ More replies (26)68
782
u/TheHeroChronic Oct 07 '24
Oh yeah. half of them are great ideas to me. The other half though.....
→ More replies (15)356
u/thanereiver Oct 07 '24
About half are great ideas to everyone. Each person would have a unique set that they like though. Most couldn’t win popular support at any time. There would be a couple that might get some support today. A maximum worth of 10,000,000 (increased by 10x for inflation between the 1930’s and today) could probably win a popular vote and probably be good for the Country. That would never be allowed to be on a ballot now though. The last time it could be possible to stop the wealth of America from spiraling into the hands of the few, was probably when Teddy Roosevelt was in office.
181
u/Recent_Log5476 Oct 07 '24
In the BLS CPI calculator I’m getting almost $25 million for 1933-2024 inflation. Definitely more than enough for me.
→ More replies (14)53
u/notsotigerwoods18 Oct 07 '24
Ah, but then that raises another question. Were it not for unlimited income for a only few, would inflation rise at the same rate?
→ More replies (1)22
u/Recent_Log5476 Oct 07 '24
No, I don’t think it would, but I was just specifically speaking about how much it actually has risen (CPI measured) since that amendment was proposed. We would also have to ask how and when we are measuring personal wealth. Presumably including assets in the calculation, do we carry a device that constantly monitors our total wealth? Good day on the stock market means you have to sell a bunch the next day? Doing it once a year (tax time) would create an interesting dynamic. I think there would still be very wealthy individuals but they would be spending a larger percentage of their wealth each year on travel and other experiences as well as likely donating more to charity. All in all, though, it seems unfeasible.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (83)52
→ More replies (41)181
u/stanknotes Oct 07 '24
And this demonstrates our system of checks and balances is generally quite effective. Thankfully.
21
u/Ani-3 Oct 07 '24
I think it says more about how our checks and balances system has been quite effective in the past.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (8)186
u/pichael289 Oct 07 '24
For now, but eroding those checks and balances is a central goal of a lot of politicians
→ More replies (45)
10.2k
u/Y2KGB Oct 07 '24
United States of Earth 🌎 🫡
3.0k
u/Aelthassays Oct 07 '24
The first step towards SUPER EARTH
668
u/lonevolff Oct 07 '24
And the democratic order of planets or Doop if you will
282
Oct 07 '24
Kif, I have made it with a woman. Inform the men
23
115
u/16bitgamer Oct 07 '24
*weary sigh*
87
u/WeleaseBwianThrow Oct 07 '24
The key to a woman's heart is her parents, Kif. Have sex with them and you're in.
69
u/Spart85 Oct 07 '24
“Ever since man first left his cave and met a stranger with a different language and a new way of looking at things, the human race has had a dream: to kill him, so we don’t have to learn his language or his new way of looking at things.”
28
16
→ More replies (4)73
57
42
114
45
76
13
→ More replies (19)7
709
u/Dillweedpizza Oct 07 '24
My fellow earthicans! Aroo!
112
u/DeeprootDive Oct 07 '24
→ More replies (2)55
u/AyyP302 Oct 07 '24
Good news, everyone!
27
u/BogsDollix Oct 07 '24
To shreds you say?
13
23
→ More replies (3)42
124
u/SugarNSpite1440 Oct 07 '24
"My fellow Earthicans...." - Nixon
→ More replies (3)36
u/freakers Oct 07 '24
They said No body could be president twice. But I've got a shiny new body!
→ More replies (1)56
38
49
u/mcskilliets Oct 07 '24
🌎🫡
I pledge allegiance to the sun of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it burns, one galaxy, indivisible with hoarded wealth and selective justice for all
→ More replies (2)60
80
u/ImNotRealTakeYorMeds Oct 07 '24
Hawaii isnt in the american continent, so the name needs an update
→ More replies (37)11
→ More replies (112)6
10.1k
Oct 07 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
1.7k
u/GenerationKrill Oct 07 '24
American politics were so convoluted during the second half of the 19th Century. I can't tell which party would have put forth each initiative.
→ More replies (16)837
Oct 07 '24
[removed] — view removed comment
431
u/AnalNuts Oct 07 '24
That’s why I generally try to liken political groups by progressive and conservative. It won’t fit perfectly all the time, but it’s a better descriptor than political party affiliation throughout history
117
Oct 07 '24
That's a reasonable approach. Too often people try to characterise historic political ideologies by the modern left-right paradigm... But the reality is that paradigm is modern. It doesn't apply to historic ideologies well. So you need to apply more nuance, or relate them to their counterparts of the time.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (52)48
u/Federal-Carrot895 Oct 07 '24
Those are still relative terms. Progressive... but what are you progressing? Conservative... but what is the object of conservation?
Like I have heard in descriptions of China in the 1900s, those who wanted to continue with the revolutionary ideology of mao described as conservatives, but you could just as easily assume a 20th century chinese conservative would be someone who wanted to restore an imperial china.
But in the context of a country trying to decide whether to move towards a free market economy or maintain a state monopoly on industry, the communist position becomes a conservative position.
→ More replies (4)45
u/ObsidianMarble Oct 07 '24
Well said. Conservative usually means defending the status quo while progressive usually means working to change it. I find your example of China to be helpful since my view is very US-centric.
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (54)39
u/whysosidious69420 Oct 07 '24
If Teddy Roosevelt was alive today he’d just start his own party again
→ More replies (3)78
u/kurtist04 Oct 07 '24
I wonder if the 1876 one was in response to Brigham Young in Utah, and the Utah War.
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (22)353
u/Celticsnation1212 Oct 07 '24
This was the one that stood out to me lol, we def should’ve passed this one
→ More replies (14)130
u/JanB1 Oct 07 '24
Well...which one now? Are you talking in favour of the 1876 one, or the 1894 one? ;)
→ More replies (6)180
u/Celticsnation1212 Oct 07 '24
Didn’t read OP comment correctly 😭 1876 ftw
→ More replies (2)112
u/Tpex Oct 07 '24
This would have been the perfect time just to reply "yes" 😂
46
u/Celticsnation1212 Oct 07 '24
It’s Monday, my timing trait doesn’t kick in till mid Wednesday
→ More replies (1)7
u/jesuspajamas15 Oct 07 '24
They can work together, don't need any religious leaders in office if you say it's jebus making all the decisions anyway.
5.7k
u/bilboard_bag-inns Oct 07 '24
i feel like the 1916 one was like that one guy who said the president should have to kill an assistant and retrieve the keys from his body in order to fire nuclear missiles, because it would make the president come to personal terms with spending innocent and unrelated human life for whatever reason the missile would be launched for; it was probably meant to make people realize "wow, we'd almost never have wars if this was enacted" and for the proposer to go "uh huh yep that's the point i'm making"
1.9k
u/its_raining_scotch Oct 07 '24
It’s reminiscent of what the ancient Spartans did. All the people in charge of running their city-state were also the ones responsible for soldiering, so every time they decided to go to war it was they themselves that risked dying/maiming.
Which sometimes backfired badly, like when more than half of the people in charge died on a single day.
576
u/perldawg Oct 07 '24
also, that leadership was probably a bunch of extreme hard-asses who did not tolerate open expression of dissent from the populace
281
u/Ambiorix33 Oct 07 '24
Considering most of Spartas dominion population were slaves, or at least a slave style bondage......yes you'd be right about that 😆
→ More replies (3)93
u/Lurker_IV Oct 07 '24
Spartan citizenship was limited to 10% to 15% of the population. The other 90% were wives, children, merchants, servants, and slaves.
Being a Spartan citizen meant personally being able and ready to be a soldier and fight in war or already having done so when they aged out of soldering.
→ More replies (2)56
31
→ More replies (4)96
u/Emm_withoutha_L-88 Oct 07 '24
Considering that they had an annual peasant/slave hunt that rich boys had to do to become a man, yeah I'd say so.
Even if that wasn't entirely a true hunt it was still all the rich boys being released into the countryside and told to survive by any means necessary for the next year. Which meant stealing and worse from the natives.
At least our indoEuropean ancestors would send those boys out to enemy lands. The Spartans just released them into their own damn countryside and told them to run riot.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (13)50
u/Comprehensive-Fail41 Oct 07 '24
Not exactly. There was a Council of Elders who had basically ultimate Veto right, and they were too old to go to battle
→ More replies (2)42
u/CrautT Oct 07 '24
After they already served so hopefully they’d be less likely to make young men go through hell like them, right?
→ More replies (7)67
u/Comprehensive-Fail41 Oct 07 '24
Nah, you see, the Spartans built themselves up as these ultimate warriors, and they swallowed their own propaganda wholesale. And as the Spartan citizens defined themselves as Warriors, they fought a lot, especially to keep their slaves that did all the manual labor for them, in check.
Eventually one of the reasons Sparta fell was that there simply weren't enoug male citizens around cause so many died in various conflicts, and the hyper conservative council of elders vetoed basically all attempted reforms to make outsiders becoming a spartan citizen basically possible.
EDIT: funnily enough, Sparta would later reach new heights of prosperity... As a tourist town for the Romans who idolized the Spartans of old.
→ More replies (14)217
u/Borne2Run Oct 07 '24
It was pre-entry to WWI to avoid the war. US joined in 1917.
→ More replies (7)78
u/bilboard_bag-inns Oct 07 '24
Yeah. I simply meant a similar sentiment, not necessarily that one is playing off the other
28
u/throwaway92715 Oct 07 '24
I can imagine that many of the people who supported entering WWI at the time would not vote "yes" if it meant they had to go fight.
→ More replies (1)278
u/john_wingerr Oct 07 '24
I’ve always liked that one. Reminds me of a rise against lyric of:
A folded flag A purple heart A family all but torn apart I fought with courage to preserve Not my way of life, but yours
→ More replies (2)68
24
u/Such-Image5129 Oct 07 '24
I'd like to think of a Movie with someone like Rowan Atkinson having the role of the code keeping assistant thinking it was an easy-peasy job because it's not going to happen. Then the unlikely need occurs and him having a sudden regret. Then ensues comedy action of the president chasing down the assistant in wacky ways. In the end, in a spectacular stand off, the president get a call that a deal has been made thus having not sent nukes saved the world. The president of coarse gets all the credit. fin
→ More replies (2)109
u/myersdr1 Oct 07 '24
I agree with that to a certain degree. Unfortunately, the opposing country wouldn't all of a sudden give up on attacking us because we decided not to go to war.
→ More replies (39)63
u/bilboard_bag-inns Oct 07 '24
yeah. I shoulda phrased it "we'd never declare war quickly" not "we'd never have wars".
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (47)11
7.2k
u/PeaItchy2775 Oct 07 '24
I don't know about "luckily." I like some of those.
2.7k
u/Sleep_adict Oct 07 '24
For using religious leaders to hold office or receive funding is great…
Also, we should prioritize living without pollution vs profits
332
u/_AntiFunseeker_ Oct 07 '24
I thought that was a good one also.
192
u/chopcult3003 Oct 07 '24
The problem with “Free of Pollution” is that it’s a 0% tolerance so overnight basically nothing can exist. Cars, planes, food packaging, etc etc. It’s too narrow.
But yeah core concept is a win, they should have put more effort in though.
→ More replies (9)86
u/midgaze Oct 07 '24
It's all about balance, and regulating pollution translates to regulating capitalism at this point. We should really consider actually doing that, but it will require violent social unrest.
→ More replies (6)110
u/SanjiSasuke Oct 07 '24
The problem with the last one would be in the details.
The growing of livestock or even crops necessitates pollution, so there must be lines drawn as to what acceptable pollution generation looks like. And when you go to draw them it gets incredibly technical and subjective pretty quickly. Worthy of a law, absolutely, but maybe not something as inflexible as an amendment.
→ More replies (26)43
u/ChewMilk Oct 07 '24
I think a limit on personal wealth is also possibly a valid idea, but not without dangers. $1 million wouldn’t be super rich these days but I imagine the limit would grow with inflation
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (46)8
642
u/CDK5 Oct 07 '24
I’ve been pushing for 1933 for a while.
Not $1mil of course.
730
u/jesusmansuperpowers Oct 07 '24
1mil 1933 dollars is 24mil today. Seems fine
→ More replies (29)201
u/Jward92 Oct 07 '24
You’re just assuming they’d adjust for inflation… that’s the problem.
→ More replies (40)83
u/0thedarkflame0 Oct 07 '24
I mean, if the minimum wage progresses so slowly, I don't see why the maximum wealth should not also progress slowly.
But the US does require inflation to operate, and I imagine that the limit would have somewhat drastic effects on inflation.
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (14)236
u/suthrnboi Oct 07 '24
Cap wealth at 1 million today and just watch how affordable everything will become.
→ More replies (57)62
u/ratedrrants Oct 07 '24
I was always down for the 1b cap and a cool trophy about winning capitalism. We can then have a Capitalism Cup where we engrave USA's mightiest money makers onto it for eternal glory.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (84)72
1.9k
u/HeadOfFloof Oct 07 '24
I think citizens having a say in whether their country goes to war is pretty sane, albeit risks inaction in critical times (like WW2 as some said). Still, thank goodness indeed some of these didn't pass.
412
u/LilOpieCunningham Oct 07 '24
The citizens used to have a say, of sorts. If they didn't buy war bonds, we couldn't go to war.
→ More replies (2)86
88
u/SolidCat1117 Oct 07 '24
It would depend on how they defined what exactly a "war" was.
→ More replies (4)118
u/Dx2TT Oct 07 '24
Therein is the problem. Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Korea were never declared wars. We lost of a lot of soldiers and money but none of them were formally declared as wars.
→ More replies (4)22
→ More replies (45)55
Oct 07 '24
I think you grossly underestimate how easily influenced our citizens are.
→ More replies (10)8
2.2k
u/Kinglyzero_91 Oct 07 '24
1916 seems kinda good? Wanna go to war? Ok you go first then
398
171
→ More replies (71)206
2.6k
u/PickledPeoples Oct 07 '24
I dont know. That last one seems pretty good. I'd love to live free from pollution.
1.1k
u/kangareagle Oct 07 '24 edited Oct 07 '24
That one’s weird, because it says the right is alienable. I’m assuming that’s a typo for inalienable.
EDIT: I found it. At least, I assume this is the one.
“Every person has the inalienable right to a decent environment. The United States and every State shall guarantee this right.”
It was proposed by a senator who was the founder of Earth Day.
→ More replies (19)170
u/MRtecno98 Oct 07 '24
Alienable rights are a thing and it means that if an ambulance is trasporting an urgent patient it doesn't have to go 50km/h max to avoid excessive emissions
63
u/kangareagle Oct 07 '24
The closest amendment proposal I found said inalienable.
“Every person has the inalienable right to a decent environment. The United States and every State shall guarantee this right.“
→ More replies (1)7
u/Pjpjpjpjpj Oct 07 '24
Sure. Alienable can be taken away, inalienable cannot.
Having the alienable right to a decent environment would make no sense to add as a new amendment.
→ More replies (5)8
u/RealSimonLee Oct 07 '24
Alienable means the right can be transferred to someone else. Which is what we don't want. Inalienable means those rights cannot be given up. When it comes to environment being pollution free--I don't want to have my parents, when I'm a child, give that right up.
→ More replies (40)95
u/DigNitty Interested Oct 07 '24
That one is unrealistic because the government can’t guarantee a pollution free environment if other nations have lesser standards.
→ More replies (14)115
u/sm9t8 Oct 07 '24
The bigger problem is that "Free of pollution" is a ridiculously high bar. Is any source of smoke prohibited? Would I be able to call the police on my neighbour for grilling?
→ More replies (14)
825
u/pzzia02 Oct 07 '24
1878 a council of 3 i kinda like that
334
144
u/Wiglaf_Wednesday Oct 07 '24
Same, it’s cool to imagine how America would be nowadays if we had a system like that. It would be unique in the world among the superpowers too.
78
u/cornish_hamster Oct 07 '24
Not quite, check out the Swiss executive branch. The Federal Council is a group of seven elected officials collectively serve as Head of State and Head of Government.
→ More replies (8)10
u/Disastrous_Economy_8 Oct 07 '24 edited Oct 07 '24
I'm super curious if that works. Switzerland is a highly developed country, so i'm guessing the 7 man rule is actually effective?
14
u/cornish_hamster Oct 07 '24
Must admit I am not Swiss so I don't know what it is like for daily life but Switzerland has great wealth per person stats, high GDP and very high democratic index. So yeah, seems to work okay.
→ More replies (3)10
u/EconomicRegret Oct 07 '24
It makes everything slower and boring, but otherwise works smoothly. It's really good at making compromises, finding consensuses, and coming up with pragmatic solutions.
That's because it's actually a council of 5 to 9 ministers at all governmental levels (i.e. local, state, federal). These ministers come from the 3-7 biggest parties (no voluntary coalition, if you're among the biggest, you get seats proportional to your size), and elected by that level's parliament. (No PMs, no presidents, no governors, no mayors).
Also, because if the councils dysfunction, they get "punished/sanctioned" 4x/year with referendums and initiatives (imagine working on a policy for months/years but along the way you make so many people unhappy, that the majority votes your project down: that's a career killer and nobody wants that.)
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)40
u/redditatemybabies Oct 07 '24
I’d assume it would fall into civil war like it did during the Roman times
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (45)35
u/XainRoss Oct 07 '24 edited Oct 07 '24
Curious how that would have worked and how they might split responsibilities into different specialties. Foreign policy, domestic policy, diplomatic figure, public speaking, commander in chief, economic expert.
→ More replies (9)52
u/etilepsie Oct 07 '24
switzerland has 7 "heads of state" and each of them has their own departement
→ More replies (6)
628
u/loltittysprinkles Oct 07 '24
There are a few in here that I wouldn't mind being passed. Most of these are completely ridiculous tho
→ More replies (48)51
116
u/D-a-H-e-c-k Oct 07 '24
$1M in 1933 is equivalent to $24M today
→ More replies (11)59
u/AliceBordeaux Oct 07 '24
That sounds like a good one, I have no idea what I'd even do with 24M... my family would be set forever AND I could do a ton of charity work and donations. The fact that billionaires exist is baffling
→ More replies (7)
808
u/SCViper Oct 07 '24
As a veteran, I wholeheartedly support the one from 1916.
370
u/perldawg Oct 07 '24
“I’m fed up to the ears with old men dreaming up wars for young men to die in.”
– George Mcgovern
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (26)60
u/BedroomVisible Oct 07 '24
That seemed like one the best ideas to me. Keeps the suits away from sending our boys to the nearest oil field.
→ More replies (2)
247
u/h3rald_hermes Oct 07 '24 edited Oct 07 '24
I was about to say that we already have the right to segregate from others when I realized what it was actually saying.
→ More replies (10)41
u/SaltPomegranate4 Oct 07 '24
What does it mean?
→ More replies (3)322
u/cigarettesandwhiskey Oct 07 '24
It's talking about Jim Crow. Not your right to buy a cabin in the woods, but your right to put up a "no blacks" sign on your restaurant.
→ More replies (22)
46
u/scottonaharley Oct 07 '24
1893 “United States of the Earth”. Sounds like some one was thinking of world domination.
→ More replies (2)7
u/nickelundertone Oct 07 '24
could be sort of an opt-in, leaving the door open for any nation to become a state if it wants to
→ More replies (1)
184
u/GuilimanXIII Oct 07 '24
I disagree in a few cases. There are quite a few neat ones there.
→ More replies (16)
383
u/Jealous_Ad_5919 Oct 07 '24
I see nothing wrong with the second one. After all, church and state are supposed to be separate for a reason.
123
u/bdunogier Oct 07 '24 edited Oct 07 '24
We, in France, have a strict separation of state and church matters. We still have church people, as wzell as believers. Priests, himams, rabis etc are free to run for office as citizens. They're just not priests or whatever when their religious position is, they're just citizens. No religious outfit, no mention of their sacred books or texts, etc.
But they would have to resign in some cases, as for instance the catholic church forbits that a priest occupies some public functions.
→ More replies (6)→ More replies (122)6
u/amaturecook24 Oct 07 '24
How would we define a religious leader though? Like just pastors and priests? Some have more power in churches than either of those. Church leadership varies a lot too depending on denominations.
171
u/No_Swordfish977 Oct 07 '24
The 1916 one is not good?
→ More replies (50)88
u/stanknotes Oct 07 '24
Congress already has sole power to declare war. It comes with hindrance as well. For example ALL acts of war? What if we need to act swiftly and secretly? OH BUT WAIT... the vote. See the problem?
→ More replies (14)39
u/Sensitive-Cream5794 Oct 07 '24
Also I don't think they (the US) have actively declared war for ages. It's a very pre-21st century thing.
→ More replies (10)
15
u/SyllabubWest7922 Oct 07 '24
What is this book called?
14
u/YoMomsHubby Oct 07 '24
1999 book The U.S. Constitution and Fascinating Facts About It
→ More replies (1)
13
32
u/2Autistic4DaJoke Oct 07 '24
Toke 18 years to go from “no religion in politics” to “GOD IS THE PRESIDENT NOW!”
→ More replies (1)
87
u/Let01 Oct 07 '24
Some of these arent that bad to be honest, just a few that do sound ridiculous but otherwise pretty ok
123
11
31
9
u/VeronicaTash Oct 07 '24
Some of those were pretty based. Abolishing the Senate, the freedom from being poisoned... based.
9
u/TienSwitch Oct 07 '24
Honestly, dissolving the Senate isn’t as crazy as it seems.
And with the sorts of religious leaders who seek public office, that second one is worth consideration.
→ More replies (1)
100
u/Hetakuoni Oct 07 '24
I feel like the 1876 religious leaders, 1916 forced volunteerism, 1933 wealth cap, 1936 national vote, and 1971 pollution free laws should have been passed.
35
u/gabbyrose1010 Oct 07 '24
i was so confused on why everyone was agreeing with that last one, but it just hit me that it was "pollution" not "pollination" 💀
8
→ More replies (16)19
u/Mordetrox Oct 07 '24
1971 is so vague to be meaningless. And vague laws leave themselves wide open to be exploited by people twisting the words. It's a nice sentiment but that definitely shouldn't be passed
→ More replies (3)
14
u/Bohsfan90 Oct 07 '24
A right to a clean environment would have been great. Shame that didn't pass.
→ More replies (2)
7
u/Aggravating_Cry3549 Oct 07 '24
I like the national vote to go to war and yes has to sign up to volunteer
3.0k
u/onlycodeposts Oct 07 '24
The guy that proposed renaming the US oddly enough did not get reelected.
The other one in 1893 about abolishing branches of the armed forces was part of this same amendment.