Posted on 11/01/2014 12:13:09 PM PDT by dignitasnews
I'm not saying don't try if you want to, but we are in the era of gangster government. By definition, gangsters do not obey the law.
Yes please.
The federal courts do not ignore amendments. They stretch their interpretation and intent in some cases.
Amendments that are discussed now will make it clear what lines the federal government may not cross.
Yours is a defeatist approach that leads to capitulation.
Throughout the 227 years under the US Constitution there have been amendments that have changed the course of American history. There will be from time to time more amendments. Right now is time to amend the Constitution to redress clear wrongs that persist from generation to generation.
I would not bet against him.
Personally I think we've reached the point where Thomas Jefferson's proscription is the only viable course of action.
If any federal employee (including The President and Vice President, members of the Presidents Cabinet, official advisers and Congress) is removed from their position due to malfeasance in office or convicted of a crime while in the employ of the US Government, shall forfeit all pension and retirement benefits earned.
If that went into effect today I think the Treasury would have a little more in it's account balance.
Proscription was the wrong word. Prescription, maybe.
Repeal of the second and tenth amendments, and elmination of tbe electoral college are already high on liberals to do list
What is this Constitution of which you speak? It sounds nice. We should get one.
a/k/a How to kill the Constitution and a Nation.
The Constitution does not need fixed, the people who are elected are ignoring it.
A bad idea never becomes a good idea by constant repetition.
I would love a ping to it.
Are you aware of/involved in this organization? They are making great progress!
http://www.conventionofstates.com/
Here are some of the amendments Mark Levin proposes. These are just ideas of possibilities, this does not happen all at once in some fictional “constitutional convention” that some seem to fear. It is a convention of states that only PROPOSES amendments. There are still several HUGE hurdles to get any of these passed. The only thing different is that the idea of amendments are started up from the STATE level and in the interest of the STATES, rather than depending on our U.S. Congress to propose ideas that would limit their own power. (which will never happen.)
From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Liberty_Amendments
According to the American Conservative, “Levin’s chief goal in The Liberty Amendments is to propose eleven amendments which will serve to restore the Constitution’s moribund chief components: federalism, republicanism, and limited government.”
Rather than via a Constitutional Convention, Levin instead proposes making the amendments via an Article V convention.[2]
Amendments[edit]
The eleven amendments proposed by Levin:[3][4]
1.Impose Congressional term limits
2.Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment
3.Impose term limits for Supreme Court Justices and restrict judicial review
4.Require a balanced budget and limit federal spending and taxation
5.Define a deadline to file taxes (one day before the next federal election)
6.Subject federal departments and bureaucratic regulations to reauthorization and review
7.Create a more specific definition of the Commerce Clause
8.Limit eminent domain powers
9.Allow states to more easily amend the Constitution
10.Create a process where two-thirds of the states can nullify federal laws
11.Require photo ID to vote and limit early voting
Okay, I’ll play: You’re not going to have an entirely conservative convention. Blue states will send delegates, too. In point of fact, you don’t know what would come out of this thing. Be careful what you wish for.
Thus, the senators would be elected, as now, but the legislators would be responsible for culling the field down to one Democrat and one Republican.
A good alternate plan would have the Senate candidates be running mates of the gubernatorial candidates - and/or, the Senators would serve at the pleasure of the governor - provided that the governor resign in order to fill the Senate vacancy he creates. This would assure that governors would be personages with clout in Washington. Removing all doubt that the Governor and not the Senator is the top dog.
My other proposal would be that since governors, not senators, are the closest thing in our system to “peers” of the POTUS, governors rather than senators should be the jury which convicts the president of impeachment.
Another irony should be addressed: because of computerized Gerrymandering, state legislatures actually have more sway over the constitution of their respective states' delegations to the House of Representatives than they have over the their senators. Either the states’ ability to Gerrymander should somehow be attenuated, or the House should have some roles the Senate now enjoys - and the Gerrymander-proof senate should be considered more like the House. And do we actually need two senators per state??? Reducing the Senate from 100 members to 50 members might be worth considering - and that would still be a lot more senators than the original founding generation sent to Washington.
The composition of SCOTUS is also susceptible of improvement. Maybe we should go to an 11-justice high court, and make 2 new justices running mates of POTUS candidates every four years. Thus, presidential choices would be subject to political scrutiny by the voters rather than being vetted by the Senate, and membership on the high bench would be for 22 years rather than good behavior. Life expectancy being what it now is, and what we realistically hope it can become . . .
That also brings up TERM LIMITS more generally . . .
On your proposed punishments for misbehavior, you should first rule out presidential pardons, and second you should look for ways to make presidents and cabinet members certain that they don’t want their subordinates doing any monkey business. I would argue for strict “it happened on his watch” accountability at least up to the Cabinet level.
On your reference to the 2nd Amendment, I would argue that explicit limitations be put on public arms, stating with CBN stuff and MOABS - thereby making things not forbidden, legal.
I would clarify the First Amendment by noting that the government has no authority to play favorites among the people, and that the rights of speech, press, and assembly are rights of the people, not privileges of the membership of the Associated Press. And that the people have a right to free and independent presses - plural - and that journalism united by wire services into a single entity does not qualify. The government has no right to impose “Fairness Doctrines” of any sort whatsoever.
That is an argument for endeavoring to make its provisions self-enforcing where possible.
New provisions will be ignored just as the rest of it is
I would clarify the First Amendment to mean that religious liberty does not justify the enforcement of religious strictures in criminal court. Civil action may be available in order to maintain the integrity of church doctrine against interlopers manipulating membership and voting privileges - but criminal sanctions, no. Anyone has the right to withdraw from any community, if adult. Any other concept would enable cults.
Very true, but just because it's oft repeated doesn't make it a bad idea — like a flat-rat income tax, or abolishing the Federal Reserve both good ideas that are repeated.
"...You’re not going to have an entirely conservative convention..."I don't see "not having an entirely conservative convention" as much of a problem. I can imagine amendments proposed will range from silly to well founded and desperately needed. The biggest problem *I* see is finding 38 states to ratify any of the proposed amendments.
I think we can get to 34 states to call for the convention. I'm not so sure many of the proposed amendments will get ratified, unless they are politically acceptable to both parties. For the life of me, I can't think of any amendment of any substance that both parties would agree on well enough to get GOP and DEM states to ratify it. Unless we will have 38 states in the GOP column... Is that possible?
Presuming we will barely have the 34 GOP state legislatures so we can call the convention, which other 4 DEM states would join the GOP in ratifying anything on limiting govt, reforming taxes, term limits, limiting the commerce clause, strengthening the 2nd Amendment, abortion, and on and on and on. There may be some DEM states that might join the GOP in ratifying one or more amendments (I don't honestly know for sure), but I wouldn't bet on it.
I don't have a problem with the states calling for the convention. I just think it will ultimately be a big to-do that winds up in a stalemate with just enough DEM states refusing to ratify anything, rendering the entire exercise a stalemate. I hope I'm wrong...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.