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. 
Advertisements

33 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.

      • Paul J says:

        As is much of our Constitution, this proposed Amendment is both specific and vague, and that very vagueness and power it would give the Congress is what is alarming some people. You are suggesting that Congress should be given the authority to pass legislation to set the target population AND how to achieve that population. If Congress were to determine that the US populations should be 275 million, instead of the current 300+ million, there is no restriction here on how to achieve it. So what laws would they pass to lower the population? Mass deportation of people? Maximum age limits where people would be expected to submit themselves to some form of death chamber or celebratory suicide (which has been the subject of various sci-fi novels, tv, and movies)? Executions? Short term or long term moratoriums restricting the number of births? Cancellation of funding for research in life extending medications? Congress (or more accurately the members therein) already doesn’t agree on things like global warming, budgets, and deficits, and hold the American public hostage by not passing annual federal budgets. Do you really want them to have this kind of power? I don’t. I think I understand your intention, but an Amendment with this current wording is not the way.

      • Pete Murphy says:

        Readers: I approved this comment as yet another example of the kind of hysterical reaction that the subject of population management elicits.

        Paul, why does your mind immediately go to things like

        “… Mass deportation of people? Maximum age limits where people would be expected to submit themselves to some form of death chamber or celebratory suicide (which has been the subject of various sci-fi novels, tv, and movies)? Executions?”

        Be serious. No lawmaker would even think such things. What they would think about are things like reduced immigration quotas and maybe economic incentives to reduce the birth rate ever so slightly, like reducing or eliminating the tax deductions for dependents, or at least limiting those deductions to a certain number. That’s all that’s necessary. I suspect that you stumbled across this page and that you haven’t read my book or researched what this blog is all about. I encourage you to delve deeper and find out why a growing population can actually become a major economic problem.

        Anyway, thanks for your comment.

  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

  16. Paul J says:

    And to address a few more items Mr. Murphy:
    1) You stated in a reply, “the amendment I proposed doesn’t say that the population should be reduced.” It also doesn’t state that it should be increased, only that Congress should decide.
    2) Your Amendment proposes that this target population level should be “if applied globally, is determined by science to pose no threat to the global environment.” What science? Which scientists? Some already think that our planet cannot sustain the 7+ billion we have now.
    3) What percentage of scientists need to agree on this? 50%? 80%? 100%? You will never get 100% agreement. So what if 2/3 agree (current percentage of votes needed in US House and Senate to override Presidential veto)? And what if they are wrong?
    4) Also, I believe the phrasing about if the US target population is applied globally is poorly worded. If taken literally, one interpretation could be that if the Congress decides that the optimum US population to achieve the goal of environmental sustainability and high standard of living is 400 million, then this should be applied to every country globally. Hmmm… 80 billion?!?!? How do you get 400 million in the area of the smallest country, The Vatican (100 acres)? Or Liechtenstein, or Belgium, or Luxembourg? I know this is not your intention, but the wording would not prevent this interpretation.
    5) To carry the last point a bit further… what if the UN decides we came up with a perfect model and wanted to spread this to the rest of the world (and the scientific community supported it)? How do you convince China that it would have to reduce it’s population by many hundreds of millions of people (based upon your statement that it is approximately the same size as the US)?
    6) Using The Vatican as the example again, it’s current population is about 1000 and seems to be perfectly sustainable without harming the earth or its neighbor Italy. So if Congress and scientists think this is okay, and applied to the 3.7 million square miles of the US, then we set a target of 3.7 billion.
    Yes that is a bit ridiculous and probably would not be done. But given the current ridiculousness of President Trump and our Congress do you really want this amendment to be so vague that it could happen? Again, I don’t.
    Find a better way to phrase it, or as we say in Brooklyn, FUGEDDABOUTIT! I don’t believe we need a Constitutional Amendment to do this. There is nothing in the current Constitution that prevents Congress from doing what you propose. Luckily I think there is enough common sense NOT to pass this Amendment.

    • Pete Murphy says:

      Paul, the purpose of such an amendment is to force lawmakers to think about the impact on population and all of its consequences caused by all of the various policies and legislation that they enact. For example, immigration quotas are raised out of sympathy for “the huddled masses yearning to breathe free” and for more nefarious purposes of propping up macroeconomic growth and corporate profits without any thought about the harm done to the quality of life of all Americans. The only effect of such policies is to grow the population. Yet, that effect never, ever enters into the conversation.

      The amendment is about controlling the population of the United States. The rest of the world can do whatever it wants. If the rest of the world wants to blindly continue growing their population until they’re all like India and Bangladesh, then so be it. By the way, China doesn’t need to be convinced that their population is a problem. They’ve already taken measures to reduce it, though those measures (like the one child policy) are crude and not something I endorse. There are much better ways to do it, like economic incentives for choosing smaller families.

      You don’t like my solution. Fine. What would be your solution?

  17. Jim Garner says:

    Pure and simple! It is unconstitutional!! It has not been voted on according to constitutional provisions concerning the several states!!Read it again!!!

    • Pete Murphy says:

      Of course it’s unconstitutional. As you pointed out, such an amendment hasn’t been proposed yet. This is proposed as something that’s needed in order to prevent the U.S. from self-destructing through overpopulation.

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: