Congressional term limits.

All you’d have to do is issue bench warrants for the entire Trump administration for refusing to follow court orders, and have the US Marshals go and arrest them.

Mandate a minimum of five parties.

Get money out of politics.

No campaigning and/or fundraising until 2 months before the election.

Federal elections are national holidays.

Elect three presidents, and two of them have to agree.

Every person age 18 or above can now cast “approve” or “disapprove” votes. If disapproval is 50% or more, the president is executed. If a person dies without casting “approve” it is presumed as “disapprove” (this prevents the president from ordering the death of people).

Democrat, Republican, Whatever, somebody need to have a sustained positive approval, or they die. Politics is solved.

I would give myself control of the nukes, hit the red button, and end it all. Hopefully whatever evolution cooks up next is better.

I would also like an answer.

The only one I’ve thought of is to change to a constitutional monarchy like the UK and put me in charge. (Obviously, it would be me because I am the one waving the wand.) The king would have absolute power to resolve constitutional crises, and would otherwise just have a ceremonial role.

The only change needed to prevent any of this (or Bush Jr) is language that prevents anything like the Electoral College.

The EC was a concession made to get the constitution ratified in the first place, but with a magic wand you could make that happen.

Judiciary has no enforcement arm. Remove the DOJ from the executive branch and place it under the Judicial branch.

Now you no longer have reason to go “We don’t prosecute sitting Presidents.” ;)

This has always been a problem with the court system:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia

“In a popular quotation that is believed to be apocryphal, President Andrew Jackson reportedly responded: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!”[7][8]”

As long as we’re talking pie in the sky and checks and balances and such… there needs to be an easier way to over-ride bad Supreme Court decisions than simply ignoring them.

As kids, we’re all taught that Executive/Legislative/Judicial are like Rock/Paper/Scissors.

Legislative passes laws, Executive signs or vetoes them, Judicial states if they’re constitutional.

But while the Legislative can over-ride a veto with a 2/3rds majority, if the Supreme Court makes a ruling, the only way of reversing them STARTS with a 2/3rds majority in the House AND Senate, and then requires a 3/4 majority of states.

That bar seems entirely too high. Perhaps add an over-ride by 2/3rds of Circuit courts. There are 13 circuit courts, so 9? You get 9 / 13 courts saying “No, that’s a shitty decision.” Should be good enough to vacate.

I have three ideas. Any armchair constitutional law experts feel free to tell me why this is dumb.

1.) Term Limits for ‘any and all officials elected.’ Two terms each and no person who has become ineledgable for the US presidency may be vice president, speaker of the house, or otherwise within the chain of succession should the possibility of their ascending to the president be needed.

2.) Clear enforcement mechanisms if ‘any government official elected or otherwise be found in violation of constitution or ammendment statuets.’ As is, Trump’s effectivly going ‘Well I’m not obeying you. whatcha gonna DO to me?’

3.) Clear accountability proceedures for supreme court justices.

I dont think that you can design a constitution capable of this, because at the end of the day, a constitution is just words on paper, so if you can get enough people capable of violence to follow you, you can simply directly violate the thing and declare yourself dictator, and an elected executive must by being elected have a significant group that at least somewhat approves of them, and by being an executive have some ability to ensure the law is carried out implying the capacity for violence. You can try to weaken the executive to make this more difficult I suppose, but you probably cant make it impossible without breaking the functioning of the executive completely, and you also need to avoid a case where one of the other two branches seizes control from the rest as well.

Ultimately what you need for a healthy democracy is two things: an election system that actually represents the wishes and interests of the people, which is anywhere from very difficult to not technically truly possible, and a populace that cares enough about their system to not use their electoral power to elect someone (or pass laws in the case of a direct democracy) that demolish or usurp that system. The US fails at both of those at the moment, the latter possibly in part due to a long time deficiency in the former.

What in the damn Sam hell is this it says right at the top of the page

Lottery system. No more elected positions, just random appointment based on lottery from pools of qualified volunteers that throw their hat in. Similarly for top appointment positions. Some lottery pools have requirements, like to be a supreme court justice, you have to have practiced law for X years. Top generals, you have to have served at or above a certain rank for X years and still be active duty. And so on.

No more campaigning, no more political parties, no more consolidation of power. You essentially just end up with a random assortment of minimally qualified citizen peers every term rotation. They generally don’t know each other, and so aren’t incentivized to cover up institutional corruption.

You could argue that random (but technically qualified) people could be crazy, or have wild values different from their peers. You could also argue they might not be the best choice for the job vs. peers. But look at your elected officials today. Are they anything like your peers? Are they truly the best, brightest picks? Do their values really represent common citizens?