SNEK POLICY
The SNEK Constitutional Amendment Package
Some SNEK reforms may require constitutional amendments. Those changes should be proposed openly and adopted through the constitutional process.
Separate amendments
Potential constitutional reforms should be proposed separately, debated publicly, and ratified through the established amendment process rather than bundled into one large package.
Potential areas
Congressional term limits, major changes replacing the Electoral College structure, and a substantially redesigned professional-jury system are examples of reforms that may require constitutional change.
Use the proper process
If the Constitution needs to change, SNEK’s position is to make that argument directly rather than trying to accomplish the same result through strained interpretation.
READ THE FULL POLICY
Why SNEK thinks this
Some reforms cannot honestly be accomplished through ordinary legislation. SNEK would rather say that directly and use the constitutional amendment process than pretend the Constitution means whatever is convenient for a desired policy.
How it would work
Potential amendments should be proposed separately so voters and states can evaluate each structural change on its own merits. Congressional term limits, a fundamentally redesigned jury system, and any major replacement of the existing presidential election structure are examples of changes that may require constitutional amendment. The normal constitutional amendment process should be used rather than strained executive or judicial interpretation.
Where we’re flexible or still working it out
This is a framework, not one giant omnibus amendment. SNEK can support one structural amendment while rejecting another. Exact amendment language should be developed only after the underlying policy is settled and legal analysis shows constitutional change is actually required.
Related SNEK policies
Public Office Should Not Be a Lifetime Career • Professional Juries