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.]
[Continuing ...]
The same with union-busting. Regarding government pensions, leftists hide behind heroes. They hold the pay and pensions of firefighters, rescue workers, and police hostage.
Solution?
Divide and conquer. Grandfather the heroic side of unions.
I would even not object to ‘grandfathering’ current postal workers. It's theoretically a self-funded service and arguably honest work.
- Cutoff Period -
But future firefighters, police, rescue workers, etc. should not have union power. ‘New-hires’ can enter the job with their eyes wide open, no union-based expectations.
And that is basically how Social Security can be reformed too, a grandfathering sliding-scale plan so that no household currently in need ends up in a crisis due to abrupt reforms.
And a sliding system that ‘phases down’ future recipients by 1% each year [each ‘grandfathered’ at that reduced level] with a ‘cutoff’ point, such as possibly 40 years from now. Anyone who is financially vigorous for three consecutive years would no longer be grandfathered.
At first it will be easy to buy private insurance to supplement potentially lost S.S. Only people 20 years from now would feel a 20% loss, and they have time to anticipate it.
In the meantime, no new redistribution schemes — no more leaks in the ship.
During this process, people could be incentivized to save for themselves, to buy their own contingency supplemental insurance, and ‘opt out’ of Social Security. And no taxes on insurance or protected savings — etched in constitutional stone.
Employers could offer fatter paychecks if a waiver can lead to no ‘employer matching’ and FICA reduction.
At some point down the road, our nation could once again enjoy the the blissful simplicity of personal accountability. [And that simplifies the Constitution too.]
But it's decades away.
Another idea is also to debate the impact of grossly-self-inflicted disabilities on taxpayers. Where's the personal accountability? Someone contracts AIDS through risky behavior, or someone suffers mental problems from drug abuse, etc.
Why not voluntary charity from-the-heart that does the soul good? That could be part of education reform [such as debate].
[Just a quick thumbnail of a future suggestion. Only union busting at the federal level is covered in the plan of this thread however. That's one of my compromises here to keep this plan from getting more complex.]
Back to the Commerce Clause
Good scholars explain that ‘deregulation’ is original intent of the Commerce Clause, but few legal graduates of today agree with that. Whether original intent is true or not isn't the point.
That is the way DC grabs power, and ‘breathing document’ ‘commerce clause’ interpretation is probably embedded in almost every modern text book on constitutional law. In their minds, we originalists are Don Quixote jousting with windmills. And the few patriots among them shake their heads sadly, knowing that today's voters would refuse to tolerate original intent. That's the hard truth that few conservatives are willing to face.
So they don't say much when Congressman Conyers oh-so-brilliantly quotes the ‘Good and Plenty Clause’ [which Pat on the Glenn Beck program pointed out is part of the Preamble.]
[Mister Good-and-Plenty wanted to promote his product, so he ‘snuck’ it in the top of the Constitution. I guess Mister Good-and-Plenty had a time machine.]
But now I'm digressing to future ideas rather than state power.