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).
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.
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.
Absolutely. The problem with current judicial impeachment is that we settled on a tradition of only impeaching a judge for personal misconduct. Kelo and other rulings are judicially legislated so that we don't ‘politicize’ the courts. So they choose to politicize themselves. [Irony.]
Kelo is a perfect example, but by no means the only one. The courts are now the oligarchy Jefferson had predicted. Now the eunuchs of Capitol Hill wonder what all the fuss is about. They lost theirs’, so why should we fuss over losing ours?
So the tradition is to lean on ‘precedent’ and admire judicial activists who blaze the ‘central power’ trail for them.
I don't think people should fear tyranny from the majority of states who can't draft a single federal court opinion. All they could do is taint court opinions.
That's a mop, not a paint brush. The “anti-power” concept.
The main evil is the the Commerce Clause, which does need to be reformed. The word ‘deregulate’ probably didn't exist in our Founders’ day even though that was their original intent.
‘Regulating interstate trade’ should be changed to ‘de-regulating’ that trade, and only the power to construct infrastructure that assists interstate trade. The only enumerated powers that should ‘fit’ with your strict requirements.
But we can't immediately change that wording because Social Security is today's ‘Peculiar Exception’. The GOP can't kill S.S. ‘cold turkey’ any more than George Washington could abolish slavery. We need a carefully constructed ‘transition phase’ that would take several decades to complete prior to beautiful simplicity.
[I continue this with S.S. reform and use ‘union-busting’ as an example.]