Posted on 11/18/2014 2:23:08 PM PST by Arthur Wildfire! March
First imagine if our state legislatures had just been elected by the most anti-leftist voters in US history.
[And that just happened. The democrats hadn't been this weak since the 1920s at the state and local level — a different party back then. They were klansmen more than leftist.]
People are ‘screaming bloody murder’. Well they should!
The amnesty blitz, o-care betrayal, ebola-VISA policy, unimaginable government debt, and ...
Let's not forget two other wildly popular ideas: Voter ID and a ban of Gay ‘Marriage’.
We the People want more religious expression too. “Merry Christmas”, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the Ten Commandments enjoy overwhelming support.
We want it all BACK!
o o o o
So yes, We the People are ready.
And please bear in mind, the worse things get, the more people are willing to support decisive change— people want more than just slapping band-aids on gangrene. This government needs surgery.
And these should be our most pressing amendments —
1) Voter ID enforcement. [Mark Levin's idea btw.] All but the last of these are ‘single-subject’ constitutional amendments.
2) ‘Gay’ Marriage Ban. This could also be a more comprehensive “Under God’ agreement that I will try to post soon in another thread. Would include Ten Commandments in every classroom, etc.
3) No adult illegal immigrant and no future legal immigrant should benefit from federal redistribution [such as social security].
4) States are free to enforce illegal immigration laws however they may choose.
5) The federal government or federal judiciary may no longer question any state's interpretation of what humane treatment of criminals is. [Among other things it prevents federal meddling of how illegal immigrants are procssed]
6) State empowerment that endures perpetually but also includes an ‘emergency option’ for a ‘Border Czar’.
... or to explain ‘6’ in one painful paragraph of ‘legalese’ ...
Targeted suspension of congressional rules for a multi-problem-solving constitutional amendment that empowers the states’ new Chief State Executive who can also, if empowered specifically through through super-majority state support via state legislators, appoint a term-limited ‘Border Czar’ who temporarily holds paramount authority in both a legal and constitutional sense to commandeer related federal executive branch authority with impunity, but only to focus strictly on border safety, illegal immigration, VISAs, and airport security. Only during our current controversy would this include a temporary power to correct flawed Obama policy regarding expedient amnesty measures even if it means that citizenship due to such expediency is later repealed.
Now back to plain speech ....
Since the majority of states elect the Chief State Executive and can replace him, I think you would spend your time better looking at how ‘crackpot’ DC is.
Why not repeal Amend. XVII? The States are represented by the Senate. This “Chief State Executive” idea only creates more government, not less. More opportunity for wickedness.
I like the solution from the 1780’s. Try The CONSTITUTION!
This shotgun approach to amending the Constitution has virtually no chance of succeeding, imo. That said, I applaud your thinking outside the box (way outside) and attempting to get others to begin thinking.
To me, a constitutional convention (state-initiated only) limited to only two things, perhaps three, would go a long way toward restoring the original intent of the framers.
One, an amendment that requires Congress to stay within revenues when appropriating funds for spending...requiring a balanced budget. There would need to be a provision to allow an exception in cases of national emergency.
Two, an amendment that restores the original intent behind the enumerated powers principle. This would force all federal spending to cease on all programs not specifically enumerated (with debate on issues such as phasing in the cuts, applying “savings” to retire the national debt, returning “saved” monies to the states/taxpayers, etc).
The only other possible amendment would be one to establish term limits on appointed judges (including the USSC).
bttt
You have obviously been thinking hard about all of this. It is a new thought to me that senators and congressmen might be required to debate.But it is not a new thought to me that when you are considering a convention, you can think outside the box. For example, you could dismiss any or all SCOTUS justices, and nobody could say it was unconstitutional!
That goes for the POTUS as well - if the states find a POTUS unacceptable, they can amend the Constitution to assign the job to some other individual. Probably but not necessarily VPOTUS.
Always provided that you can get the supermajority of state legislatures you need to pull it off. And that, say what you will about the high point the Republicans now enjoy, is not a barrier to be taken lightly.
IMHO it is fundamental to the legitimacy of the Constitution that it be, to parody Hobbes, “unnasty, unbrutish, and short. It has to be a compact statement of enduring principle and due process. And I just don’t see adding neither-fish-nor-fowl officers to the Constitution, if that’s what you’re doing.
We need a way of impeaching a rogue POTUS who has over 1/3 hard-core support in the Senate. It seems to me that that should be possible, but that it should be painful for those who do it.
FL 2000 should never have happened for a number of reasons, but the state legislature of FL should have “manned up” to their job and decided the election. If you are amending the Constitution, make that explicitly the responsibility of the legislature, so that there be no mistaking what should happen when the count is “too close to call.”
IMHO it should not require an amendment to fix it - it is implied already, but few see it - but, since memory of living man runneth not to the contrary, the US has had an Established Press. It is unified by the AP and the other wire services, it claims preternatural objectivity, and it controls the debate in this country. We can assemble a million protesters in Washington - that happened on September 12, 2009 - without any political effect on anyone but ourselves. The Established Press had no obligation to cover it - and they didn’t. The Established Press acts as a single entity with many faces but no actual diversity.
The legitimacy of the FEC depends on the conceit of journalistic objectivity, without which there is no sense to drawing a distinction between a free press and “campaign contributions.” But of course what we have is a Jonathan Gruber press - the furthest thing from objectivity, divorced from the very thought of disinterested analysis. So the FEC is illegitimate, and should be disbanded. Simiilarly, any thought of a “Fairness Doctrine” runs into the same objection, and the FCC should be defanged and made politically agnostic.
As I say, this is logically implied in the Constitution as it is, but I certainly would have no objection to making it more explicit. Tho I wouldn’t appreciate a failed effort at such . . .
I would favor having 2 prospective SCOTUS justices run as running mates of a presidential candidate. Winner gets two SCOTUS justices, and two existing justices step down. That would imply a 22 year term for each justice, if SCOTUS were expanded to 11 justices. There would of course presumably always be retired SCOTUS justices who could fill in for any justice who died in office. Perhaps selected by lot for each case.
“I would favor having 2 prospective SCOTUS justices run as running mates of a presidential candidate.”
Interesting idea, but I’m not sure it would be a good thing, depending on who is elected POTUS. For example, Obama would have brought four new Justices with him in the ‘08 and ‘12 elections...and four others would have had to step down. If the four that had to step down were the more conservative variety, then that would tilt the SCOTUS too far to the left. Or am I missing something in this scenario?
“[And that just happened. The democrats hadn’t been this weak since the 1920s at the state and local level — a different party back then. They were klansmen more than leftist.”
Plenty of them were leftists.
I do love the idea of cutting federal spending.
But I have a lot of trouble seeing an article v convention coming to fruition let alone achieving in such radical change.
I don’t like the idea of some official appointed by the states having such VAST power.
“I don’t like the idea of some official appointed by the states having such VAST power.”
I understand that concern. But all of it is ‘anti-power’ except for a ‘safe borders’ czar. It weakens centralized power otherwise. Easily replaced by the states, I don’t see how the Chief becomes a tyrant.
“This “Chief State Executive” idea only creates more government, not less. More opportunity for wickedness.”
Let’s see ... spending cuts create ‘more’ government?
... veto of newe legislation creates ‘more’ government?
That’s all the ‘tyrannical’ power he has.
I would love the 17th amendment repealed, but that doesn’t appear wildly popular.
“I like the solution from the 1780’s. Try The CONSTITUTION!”
Me too. But the 17th amendment torpedoed two ‘anti-power’ branches of the government at the same time.
— The senate now represents ‘central power’, and they confirm the judiciary which now also dances to the tune of central power.
And when will voters give up their right to vote for senators?
Thoughtful post.
“I applaud your thinking outside the box (way outside) and attempting to get others to begin thinking.”
Thank you.
“This shotgun approach...”
If you combine boldness with common sense you build excitement. I believe in killing as many birds as I can with one stone. Just one new office that the states pay for themselves could be a counterrevolution.
“One, an amendment that requires Congress to stay within revenues when appropriating funds for spending...requiring a balanced budget.”
There would need to be a ‘simple majority’ loophole to prevent sheer panic. Social Security recipients would also feel concerned — are they ‘emergencies’?
That’s why it would be tremendously helpful if someone is appointed by the ‘lean-budget’ states to start initiating small cuts and freezes. Up to 6% a year via 1% every two months. Targeting options, union-busting option, etc.
“Two, an amendment that restores the original intent behind the enumerated powers principle. This would force all federal spending to cease on all programs not specifically enumerated (with debate on issues such as phasing in the cuts, applying “savings” to retire the national debt, returning “saved” monies to the states/taxpayers, etc).”
— That would terrify the S.S. recipients. Third rail. Need to be careful with that.
“The only other possible amendment would be one to establish term limits on appointed judges (including the USSC).”
— That’s fine. I agree with almost all of the Liberty Amendments although Levin’s spending plan would cause perpetual disagreement.
But I do applaud your effort.
If you want, I’ll private message you my own S.S. reform plan for deliberation — a gentle phase-out with grandfathering and partial grandfathering except for those who rise from the poverty level. It would encourage everyone to work too.
It’s Rube Goldberg nonsense.
I’m not sure it would be a good thing, depending on who is elected POTUS. For example, Obama would have brought four new Justices with him in the ‘08 and ‘12 elections...and four others would have had to step down. If the four that had to step down were the more conservative variety, then that would tilt the SCOTUS too far to the left. Or am I missing something in this scenario?“I would favor having 2 prospective SCOTUS justices run as running mates of a presidential candidate.”
Yes, of course you are right, you are not missing a thing. But what is the alternative?? As matters now stand, a president can score big in SCOTUS nominations, or be completely shut out - it’s completely indefinite. And a president can be unable to get his picks confirmed - be they never so well-trained, experienced, and judicious. Think what a disaster SCOTUS would have been, if Reagan hadn’t had the nominees that he did - even with Sandra Day O’Connor. Suppose it had been Obama getting four nominees out of nine on the bench!! And I am proposing that each justice have a 22 year term. That’s a pretty long time, but lifespans are increasing and Alzheimers’ is a serious threat if you are in your eighties. Increasing the size of the court to 11 softens the impact of the selections of a single president, even a 2-termer.The idea of having the SCOTUS justices committed to before the election is the best I can come up with as a way to soften the ideological nature of the nominees; I would hope that a damaging paper trail of “wise latina” type comments would have to be avoided by a presidential nominee.
Of course, we had a serious case of demagoguery going on in 2008, and you can’t fully protect against that. As it happens the current system wasn’t a disaster recently, but it did get pretty bad in the forties and fifties - but how could it have been otherwise, after the “twenty years of treason” under FDR and Truman?
I just had a thought, though - it’s possible to consider the option that any presidential candidate pulling at least 1/3 of the electoral college vote could have one SCOTUS nominee installed on the court. That way there would be no wild swings on SCOTUS due to presidential elections, and naming those justices in advance would put pressure on the presidential nominees to choose with an eye to getting elected. We could hope that that would mean prudent choices, altho . . .
Anyway, the spirit behind my calculations is the realization that senate ratifications are a zoo. Good men are put through the wringer, and the not-so-good nominees are waved through, if the Senate is in Grubercrat hands. And not-so-good nominees are confirmed even when the Senate is in Republican hands. This “borking” system has to stop.
“FL 2000 should never have happened for a number of reasons, but the state legislature of FL should have “manned up” to their job and decided the election. If you are amending the Constitution, make that explicitly the responsibility of the legislature, so that there be no mistaking what should happen when the count is “too close to call.”
Excellent point!
This might be the biggest surprise response yet since I first posted ideas post-election.
While not as urgent as ‘voter fraud’, supreme Court meddling could one day overturn obvious popular votes due to claims of ‘racism’ or ‘affirmative action’ or due to claims of ‘controversial campaign finance’, or ‘fill in the blank’.
That's what I classify as a very important ‘Law Reform’ idea although it is ‘hard sell’. Some voters ‘dug in their heels’ insisting that the supreme Court should have supported Gore over ‘pregnant chads’.
[Sadly, internal polling is part of the constitutional amendment process. But voters are furious with the democrats at the moment. So it would be good timing.]
If the state legislators aren't willing to ‘go there’, they could at least make debates [on that constitutional matter] something for students to watch. Then national debate will help clarify the constitutionality question.
Sure, scholars complain about ‘too many words’. But we have too many problems to solve and no magic ‘one subject’ wand that somehow makes every phrase compact and elegant.
Step One - Brainstorm. Be creative and supportive.
Step Two - Agree on basic concepts.
Step THREE — That's when you trim out obsolete plans, and trim the wording.
No magic to it.
Now back to your point
The Florida state legislators cowered before the supreme Court.
And guess who prepared those legislators for this conflict? Professors. They educate state legislators and almost every key person who ever has a shred of government power. Mandatory debates for professors — something to think about.
With this plan, future Chiefs far in the future [or possibly sooner] could suggest tainting that unconstitutional ruling [via opinion] you mentioned. And the state legislators would mull it over in deliberation before any tainting is official.
... But ...
The Chief could not replace that ruling with anything either.
With no court ruling, the state legislators would have filled the power vacuum and resolved that dispute.
The tainting ‘power’ is a mop that cleans, not a legislative ‘paint brush’ while federal judges paint legislation all the time. That's why I call tainting an ‘anti-power’ authority.
Federal judges are already tyrants. But a Chief of the states, limited to a three year term, would never get to legislate anything. He might threaten people with censures to fulfill some agenda, and then a simple majority of states could replace him as quickly as it takes to network online.
States could even make dismissal of the Chief even easier in the amendment’s wording.
For example, perhaps the House could dismiss him with a 2/3 super-majority, a power that might be postponed for the first four years after ratification [two-term cleanup period]. So we can make the Chief easily ‘booted out’ through a variety of means.
Even the majority of county governments could remove the Chief for that matter. [But that's probably not necessary.] Or the President could challenge the Chief to a game of chess, and the loser must resign.
Or even a duel could settle it.
[How I wish!]
More fundamentally, the ‘tainting process’ would inhibit judicial activism. The safest choice a judge could make is to use untainted precedent as his or her fortress. That would make precedent even STRONGER than it is now.
“The legitimacy of the FEC depends on the conceit of journalistic objectivity ... But of course what we have is a Jonathan Gruber press...”
WELL SAID!
Yes, media bias is a problem.
Currently media’s power keeps fading. This communication revolution warms my heart!
So naturally, the Ruling Class wants to crush ‘anti-central-power’ communications and ‘water them down’.
And a powerful tool to defend free speech would be the mandatory debate process — more speech instead of less. It is actually an ‘anti-power’ authority, an equalizer the same as a gun equalizes violent conflict.
[It’s in the spirit of the 2nd Amendment.]
Not clogging your ping with all of my responses. Actually I’m happy to face a strong counter-point. Pleasantly surprised to anticipate every point people here made so far [with your one shining exception], so please don’t take offense.
Despite my spirited responses, your combination of virtues and talents — I appreciate them.
God bless you. FRegards ....
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.