"And as our Declaration of Independence tells us, we are all made in the image of one almighty god.”
-Donald Trump, US President july 4, 2026
Question: When he finds out it doesn’t say that, if he tries to write it onto the Declaration of Independence with a sharpie, would anyone stop him?
I've spent the last several months thinking about a question:
Do America's biggest political problems come from politicians, or from the institutions themselves?
This isn't intended as a left-wing or right-wing proposal.
It isn't about socialism, conservatism, or any particular economic model.
It's about constitutional design.
The United States Constitution remains one of the greatest constitutional documents ever written, but no institution should be considered beyond improvement. The Constitution was designed to endure, yet its institutions should continue to reflect the principles upon which the Republic was founded.
The purpose of this proposal is not to replace the American Republic.
It is to renew it.
The central philosophy is simple:
«The Government serves the People. The Constitution governs the Government.»
Everything else follows from that principle.
Some of the proposed reforms include:
- Direct election of the President by popular vote.
- Requiring Presidents to have demonstrated public service in elected office before becoming eligible to run.
- Cabinet appointments drawn primarily from elected Members of the House of Representatives, with limited constitutional exceptions for specialist offices.
- Greater congressional oversight of the executive.
- An independent Constitutional Council to review legislation before it becomes law.
- Constitutional amendments requiring both congressional approval and direct approval by the American people through a national referendum.
- Leadership renewal through a mandatory retirement age for federal elected office while preserving experienced public servants in advisory roles.
The proposal doesn't tell Americans what policies they should adopt.
Whether the country chooses lower taxes or higher taxes, universal healthcare or private healthcare, stronger regulation or weaker regulation should remain the decision of the American people through democratic elections.
This proposal changes how power is exercised, not which policies should prevail.
The goal is to create institutions that are:
- More accountable.
- Less susceptible to patronage.
- More resistant to personality politics.
- More reflective of the constitutional principle of "We the People."
The Presidency should become the culmination of public service, not the beginning of political ambition.
The Constitution should belong to the people—not merely in theory, but in practice.
This is not a finished document. It is a constitutional thought experiment intended to invite discussion and criticism.
If you disagree, I'd genuinely like to know why.
If you think something would fail, tell me where.
If you think something is worth keeping, tell me why.
The best constitutions are not written by people who believe they are right.
They are written by people willing to have their ideas challenged.
In the spirit of patriotism I drafted some amendments that would address what I view as threats to American democracy. Particularly Super PAC's and corruption. They aren't perfect or legally written but I did my best and wanted to hear others opinions on them. I'll just share the first one for now.
Amendment: For-Profit Corporations, limited liability companies, partnerships, or other for-profit artificial legal entity are prohibited from using money in an attempt to influence federal elections, except for bona fide press, news, commentary, editorial, documentary, or publishing activity not coordinated with a candidate, campaign, party, or their agents. Congress shall have power to enforce this provision and prevent circumvention.
This would work to reverse Citizens United v. FEC.
The 22nd amendment, which codified the two-term limit, did not apply to the then-current President.
Is there a chance that those who think no President should be above the law find common cause with those who think that only Trump should be above the law?
Amazing how many MAGA criticize the Supreme Court's recent decision affirming birthright citizenship in the USA when it was clearly Congessional intent at that time. The argument goes that even if that were true, it is clearly not the best path forward in today's world.
Now look at the 2nd Amendment where clearly Congress intended arms for militias (certainty not for everyone, especially slaves). Yet MAGA argues that the 2nd Amendment is akin to a Commandment, even though it certainty was not Congessional intent, and proven to be dangerous and deadly in modern society.
Changing the money system is not the radical act it gets treated as, and the reason is already written into a document almost everyone accepts.
>We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
>
> -Declaration of Independence, 1776
The founders asserted a general right: the people may alter any form of government that stops serving their safety and happiness. Nothing in that principle exempts the machinery of money. And a monetary system is a governing power. Its design determines who receives newly created purchasing power first, whose holdings hold their value and whose erode as prices move, and what share of future output is pre-committed to debt service before that output exists. A power of that size is legitimate, by the founders' own logic, only so far as it serves the governed.
And it is a form of government in the fullest sense. It was created by government, legislatures chartered the central banks, authorized the borrowing, wrote the statutes. And it is run as government: the Fed's governors are presidential appointees, confirmed by the Senate, exercising delegated state power over the nation's money. That it was established lawfully is not a defense against changing it. It is exactly what places it under the principle the founders named. The principle itself is not in doubt: when a form of government stops serving the safety and happiness of the governed, the people keep the right to alter or abolish it, and to institute in its place one that does.
None of it is inevitable. The erosion of savings, the concentration of new money, and the servicing burden carried forward are outputs of a design, not facts of nature, and a design can be examined and altered.
This is not one people separating from another. It is the same people reclaiming a power they delegated and stopped watching, the authority to create money.
>What follows is that architecture: https://neo-solon.github.io/Citizens-Standard/Citizens\_Standard\_Engine.html
Amazing how many MAGA criticize the Supreme Court's recent decision affirming birthright citizenship in the USA when it was clearly Congessional intent at that time. The argument goes that even if that were true, it is clearly not the best path forward in today's world.
Now look at the 2nd Amendment where clearly Congress intended arms for militias (certainty not for everyone, especially slaves). Yet MAGA argues that the 2nd Amendment is akin to a Commandment, even though it certainty was not Congessional intent, and proven to be dangerous and deadly in modern society.
Hello, I am trying to gain momentum for my proposed constitutional amendment. I am curious to hear what you all think about it. For too long Gen Z has gone without rights which could have greatly benefited us and other generations. My proposal is to decrease the age to run for the senate and house to both 18 years of age. I believe this will be greatly helpful for our generation in a multitude of ways. First, it will give us long needed rights. Our country has given rights to the groups that have needed it the most, and I believe our group needs these rights the most now. The second is it’s time to bring some new ideas into these chambers, a new perspective that only our generation can bring to the table. We have been there with their long out of touch politics for a while, so it’s time for a change. In South Korea and Canada they both allow 18 year olds and older to run for their National Assembly and Parliament. You don’t hear complaints about the young people there though, you heard complaints about Trudeau and the president who shut his country down and then was impeached. Many people have told me that people of age are simply too immature to run for office, my rebuttal is have you seen how members of congress on both sides of the ails act, it’s insane! They’re screaming and cussing, cussing at reporters, and getting into fights with podcasters. I think adding a few young people to those chambers would not change that. Also, in a poll released by Gallup in March of 2026, Congress had a 86 percent disapproval rating and only a 10 percent approval rating. I think if things are this bad, we should get a younger generation in there with big bold new ideas. What do you think?
Hey Reddit nation,
Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution says "The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight".
This refers to the importation of enslaved people, but this isn't clear from the actual language of the Constitution. Is there an explanation behind this unusually vague language? Is this a euphemism readers of the 1780s would have understood? A pronoun/antecedent error caused by a previous section being removed during the drafting process? A product of legalese?
Are there any good resources about the drafting of the Constitution at a grammatical level?
What level of dystopia shall we reach in my lifetime? Seems like a contest to go as low as possible.
Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission takes aim at church-state separation
Guysss I need you to help me by giving me a unique topic or case to work on with Indian constitution context
Anything that you would think needs an analysis
There’s this short book probably little read that’s worth looking to in these dark days, fellows. It’s on William Tyler Page’s “American’s Creed”, a short statement of the American political faith or aspiration inspired by the Christian Apostle’s Creed. The book has many gems of explanation on the meaning of the American’s Creed. Early on, for instance, the people must be “trained in sound judgement otherwise loud men will seize power in their name.” Also that the “principle of self-government goes forth from self-control.” Has anyone here seen this book?
Same as title
I do agree the average USA 🇺🇸 citizen does not understand the basic social-economic system. We currently use in the USA a constitutional federal republic, which operates as a democratic republic. Or the reason why we have a two party system. I think everyone that has a state ID of some kind are required to take a free online Civics course upon renewal.