what contsitutional amendments would you propose?

Answer 1

The British enacted these in 1689
....
And thereupon the said lords spiritual and temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being new assembled in a full and free representation of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done), for the vindication and assertion of their ancient rights and liberties, declare:

* 1. That the pretended power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without consent of parliament is illegal.
* 2. That the pretended power of dispensing with the laws, or the execution of law by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal.
* 3. That the commission for erecting the late court of commissioners for ecclesiastical causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious.
* 4. That levying money for or to the use of the crown by pretense of prerogative, without grant of parliament, for longer time or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal.
* 5. That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal.
* 6. That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of parliament, is against law.
* 7. That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law.
* 8. That election of members of parliament ought to be free.
* 9. That the freedom of speech, and debates or proceedings in parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament.
* 10. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
* 11. That jurors ought to be duly impaneled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders.
* 12. That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void.
* 13. And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening, and preserving of the laws, parliament ought to be held frequently.

And they do claim, demand, and insist upon all and singular the premises, as their undoubted rights and liberties..
...Snip

In a mere one hundred years a revolution was necessary to re-establish those very laws (though a bit modified).

Today our own bill of rights, and these laws that were technically included in Common Law are all mostly no longer "operable"

We don't so much need new ones as to return the ones we already have. To guarantee that I would change the "Winner take all" voting system that forces there to be only two parties, Arizona style financed elections, with no gerrymandering possible, an independent (but not exclusive) BBC type media, and that only humans would have the right of being persons and not corporations, and no Corporation allowed to act in the stead of a government function.

Answer 2

That is an easy one. It would have two parts. The United States Congress cannot pass into a law an unbalanced budget and the President of the United States has the power to line-item veto any spending proposal or non-germane amendment or rider to any bill. Of course this veto power would need to be checked by giving Congress the power to override a line-item veto in much the same way it overrides a normal veto.

Answer 3

simply a no deficit spending amendment