29th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

The following amendment to the Constitution is proposed to preserve and protect the standard of living and quality of life in America from the effects of overpopulation. It explicitly precludes a dependence on the rest of the world for natural resources and requires an environmentally sustainable population. It does not preclude the consideration of other factors, such as labor force size, productivity, etc.

29th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

The Congress shall establish a target population for the United States for the purpose of assuring a high standard of living and quality of life for its citizens. The target population shall not be higher than can be continuously sustained by proven reserves of domestic natural resources utilizing existing technology, or by trading such excess resources for others not available domestically. Also, the target population of the United States shall be below the level that, if applied globally, is determined by science to pose no threat to the global environment. The Congress shall establish immigration quotas consistent with achieving the target population. The Congress shall also enact policies that, while leaving people free to choose the size of their families, encourage the population to move toward and stabilize at the established target level. The target population shall be reviewed by Congress annually and shall be retained or adjusted as necessary.

What This Amendment Does and Does Not Do:

  1. It forces Congress to address overpopulation and prevents it from ruining the standard of living and quality of life in America.
  2. It forces the United States to live within its means in terms of natural resources.
  3. It prevents the United States from contributing to an overall decline in the global environment.
  4. It forces Congress to face the mathematical realities of immigration policy as an integral component of population management policy, instead of only viewing it as “our heritage” or as some kind of fulfillment of an unspoken promise to the rest of the world.
  5. It does not say what the population target should be, nor does it define the standard of living or quality of life that we want to maintain, except to say that we must be resource independent and must not contribute to environmental degradation. But it does force our nation’s leadership to discuss and define these parameters.
  6. It does not say what policies should be used to manage the native population, except that they should leave people free to make their own family planning decisions. The intent is to preclude the adoption of forced measures – things such as a “one child policy” or forced sterilization – which have been employed by other countries faced with overpopulation. Tax policy would be an example of an economic policy that could be used.
  7. It does not say that we have to be independent in all natural resources, but that for those resources in short supply, we have other resources in excess for which they can be traded. For example, if we are short on oil, we should be able to pay for oil imports with exports of grain or lumber or some combination of these and other resources. If that’s not possible, then this clearly means that the target population would have to be reduced. 

27 Responses to 29th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

  1. […] 29th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States […]

  2. Dave says:

    This opens the door for breding laws. That is a bad idea. It would also prove dangerous as it could create forced abortion laws. Controlled breeding or abortion are the only ways to control population sizes. If you think that people will be okay with that, I have a bridge to sell you. I can see the government being okay breeding laws, if it is any consolation.

    • Pete Murphy says:

      Dave, I included the wording “… while leaving people free to choose the size of their families …” to address concerns like yours about “breeding laws.” I’m not sure what kind of “breeding laws” you have in mind, but this should prevent things like the “one child” policy of China. I believe that all that is necessary is revision to tax policy to encourage people to choose smaller families. The tax code currently rewards people with a tax deduction for every child. Instead, baseline tax rates should be reduced, while including tax “adders” for each child (or each child in excess of a certain number). It would also have to be indexed to income so that the birth rate is about the same regardless of income level. (It wouldn’t be fair for higher income people to more easily afford additional children.)

      To prevent such a tax policy from becoming an incentive for abortions, abortions should also be counted as live births so that an abortion would not prevent the tax consequences. Admittedly, this would be difficult to track and police. There would have to be laws that required doctors performing abortions to report each procedure performed.

      Yeah, it’s a tough subject, but one that won’t go away by ignoring it.

      • No! Less government control, not more. Never more!

      • Pete Murphy says:

        It takes more government to maintain an orderly society as a society grows more densely populated. Thus, opposing an amendment that would likely help to rein in and maybe even reduce our population over time actually works in favor of the “less government” model you’ve advocated.

  3. […] 29th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States   […]

  4. […] 29th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States   […]

  5. tanisia says:

    this is stuip shit!!!

    • Pete Murphy says:

      Normally, I’d have bounced this comment for violating the blog rules, but decided to leave it on display as a permanent embarrassment to “Tanisia.” Tanisia, a word of advice: don’t comment on blogs when you’re stoned. Or if you weren’t stoned when you made this comment, then you should avoid the internet altogether.

    • Edmond Lam says:

      Shut up Tanisia, read the proposed amendment CAREFULLY. Honestly, ur an …

  6. Fervidus says:

    Are you aware of that little country called China? It’s land mass is basically the same as the USA. It’s Population is 4 times as great. I do agree that immigration, legal and illegal, is used as a federal political tool. And that the American working Tax Paying
    Citizens are being screwed by both parties and the EPA. Honest politicians must set goals not impose edicts.

    • Pete Murphy says:

      No kidding? There is such a place? Wow, somehow that slipped past me. I’ll have to check into it. Thanks for the tip!

      Seriously, are you also aware that China is utterly dependent on exports, primarily to the U.S., in order to support their bloated labor force? Do you see any other Americas out there that we could turn to if we let ourselves get into that same predicament?

  7. Donald Bly says:

    I’m of the opinion that the laws of supply and demand would adequately address our use of natural resources. No government intervention is necessary or constitutional (probably why you’ve made it the 29th Ammendment, huh?)when it comes to the population of the US.

    Immigration reform and effective enforcement is required.

    I’d rather see a more representative government beholden to their constituents rather than special interests.

    I would propose the following:

    No elected official may hold consecutive terms
    No elected official may accept a campaign contribution while in office
    The number of representatives will be one for every 30,000 citizens (see Article 1, Section 2 of the US Constitution on this on)
    Congress shall recieve no pensions
    Congressional pay shall be set and approved by a vote of the electorate.
    Repeal the 17th Ammendment
    Repeal the 16th Ammendment
    Institute a value added tax to fund government
    Nationalize the Federal Reserve Bank

    Since Public Corporations are a construct of the state:

    Public Corporations traded on a public exchange shall not pay executives a multiple greater than 50 of the average salary of all non-executive employees.
    Bonuses for executives and employees shall be of an identical percentage of base salary.
    There shall be no difference in the health care benefits, retirement benefits, severance packages, etc. shall all be identical as a percentage of base salary

    The above executive pay limitations/restrictions shall not apply to private corporations that are not traded on public exchanges.

    Just food for thought.

  8. Donald Bly says:

    I’d go more into depth on these things but it is late.

  9. Pete Murphy says:

    John, provide some intelligent comment or this one will soon vanish.

  10. […] In addition, at a time when our founding fathers scarcely understood the extent of the still-unexplored western reaches of our continent, they could never possibly conceive of the day when our land would become so populated that we’d be utterly dependent on hostile, foreign sources of energy for our very survival while congress sat idly by and did nothing about it.  Not to mention the effect upon the economy, steadily driving more of our people into poverty and dependence on government assistance.  If they could have envisioned such a time, they may very well have included in the constitution a provision for congress to enact population policy and manage our population.  (See https://petemurphy.wordpress.com/more-good-stuff/29th-amendment-to-the-constitution-of-the-united-sta…) […]

  11. […] deficits and population growth to pump up sales volumes and stock valuations.  (Thus, the 28th and 29th amendments I’ve proposed on this […]

  12. who do you find the papers on change in1964? RElating to amendment 29?

  13. John says:

    I do not believe in population control and will have as many children as I choose.

  14. Infidel says:

    This is beyond stupid. Either it is merely a suggestion in the form of a constitutional amendment which carries no weight, but amendments to the constitution are largely about securing personal rights from the government, not empowering the government.

    If it isn’t just a suggestion, then you’re embracing eugenics and genocide in a softer version with a smiley face and “good intentions”.

    Regardless, the idea of sustainability in terms of human population has been pushed and proven wrong decade after decade after decade. If the experts had been right all those times, then humans would have been in mass starvation at half the current world population. Yet you wish to hand over freedom to a bunch of scientists with political agendas who are consistently wrong.

    Further, you can find such stupidity in Marx’s communist manifesto with different wording.

    Someone has been reading too much bad science and opinion with small doses of communism and socialism.

    • Pete Murphy says:

      First of all, it should be noted that the amendment I proposed doesn’t say that the population should be reduced. Since the only effect of immigration policy is to grow the population, this amendment would simply require that the government understand the effects of population growth. If it’s determined that the population is too small, then the target would be to grow the population. If it’s determined that the population is too great, then it should be reduced.

      What is that you fear about this? That a complete scientific analysis would actually determine that we have too large a population? If you are right that this is all just “stupid” and “bad science,” and you were confident in your belief that the population can grow forever without negative consequences, then you should actually favor such an amendment, since clearly you believe that the target population would be set much higher than the current level and our population could be grown more rapidly than it is now.

      “Eugenics” and “genocide?” Exactly where did I suggest anything that even remotely suggests such things? This is the kind of hysteria and hyperbole that those afraid of a rational discussion about human population always fall back on when they can’t present more reasonable arguments.

      Have you read anything else on this blog about the inverse relationship between population density and per capita consumption and, beyond a critical population density, its implications for worsening unemployment and poverty? I challenge you to quote anything previously published that even comes close to the subject.

      Nothing on this blog deals with the traditional, Malthusian concerns about overpopulation – things like resource shortages, environmental degradation, etc. If you had read my book, you would know that I actually concede that mankind may be ingenious enough to overcome all such obstacles to population growth. But it is absolutely impossible to overcome the economic effects of the collision between falling consumption and rising productivity.

      I encourage you to get a copy of the book and approach it with an open mind. If you’re willing to read Marx’s manifesto, then I wouldn’t imagine that my book would be too scary for you.

  15. Mark V Cykala says:

    Why do we have to deal with okay when we have all the resources we need here in the US and Supply jobs for everybody makes no sense except for the fact vet people sitting behind desks are filling their pockets with cash

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: