Posted on 08/19/2011 9:12:24 PM PDT by US Navy Vet
Rick Perry has many ideas about how to change the American government's founding document. From ending lifetime tenure for federal judges to completely scrapping two whole amendments, the Constitution would see a major overhaul if the Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate had his druthers.
Perry laid out these proposed innovations to the founding document in his book, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington. He has occasionally mentioned them on the campaign trail. Several of his ideas fall within the realm of mainstream conservative thinking today, but, as you will see, there are also a few surprises.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
“One such reform would be to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power. One proposal, for example, would have judges roll off every two years based on seniority.”
If I were feeling cheeky, I’d have an “off the island” national popular vote election every two years to remove the least popular Justice! (That proposal needs work).
Or even a national popular vote for Justice every two years. Why not?
Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.
Does Perry honestly expect two thirds of the Senate to vote for an amendment that would cause many of them from both parties to lose their seats?
What is the definition of "marriage"?
Cordially,
I agree with you, but things are a little out of balance at the moment. I'm not saying that 1 and 2 should be adopted outright, but they are a good starting point for a needed debate.
Number two is partly on the books already. It's basically a simplification of the amendment process. Other SCOTUS decisions are easier to overturn with a changes to the relevant laws.
Popular election of justices is soooo dangerous! Can you say Obama?
I REALLY don’t like Perry for other issues (crony capitalism, corruption, state-level statism), but I do like these positions, except that three of them shouldn’t require constitutional amendments, which are virtually unattainable
This may be a Trojan horse. All of the 6 could be window dressing for #2. One World Bilderburg types need a way to get around our “pesky” Constitution. I could agree on the rest, but I’m a big NO on anything that would circumvent our founding document and make the judicial branch less than co-equal.
How many of you even know how the US Constitution is amended? If so name the ways?
I share your frustration. The homosexual activists are about destruction as far as I’m concerned.
>> What is the definition of “marriage”?
A device used by the state to incriminate persons with the charge of discrimination.
Bird was not elected by the people of California. She was appointed by Moonbeam, as CA justices are appointed by governors. She WAS removed by the voters in the confirmation process. CA justices face re- confirmation by the people every 10 years, which is one of the very few smart ideas in CA government.
Historically, traditionally, the definition [from Webster's 1828 Dictionary] is:
MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.
- Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb.13.
- 1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.
- The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. blockquote Matt.22.
- 2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Rev.19.◁◁◁◁
Even if marriage were considered solely as a civil contract then the government would almost invariably be involved in cases of a breach of that contract, or a divorce, via the legal system. So I don't see how, even on a practical level, the government could possibly be kept completely out of the marriage business altogether, not to mention those instances where children are the product of that marriage.
Cordially,
He won’t actively pursue all of them, but through his justices he’ll get many of them. The balanced budget (or something like that)...will be eventual.
But Perry did write about this.
Most of the jobs created in Texas have been from illegals taking American jobs at less than minimum wage. And Texas state debt has increased due to this unsustainable practice during Perry's tenure.
LOL! got a link for that?
Rick Perry's Texas jobs boom: The whole story (Whole Story For The Country?)
Rick Perry's Texas jobs boom: The whole story
But that doesn't mean that all is well with employment in the Lone Star State. Texas leads the nation in minimum-wage jobs, and many positions don't offer health benefits. Also, steep budget cuts are expected to result in the loss of more than 100,000 jobs.
Perhaps most importantly, Texas can't create jobs fast enough to keep up with its rapidly growing population. Since 2007, the state's number of working-age residents expanded by 6.6%, nearly twice the national average.
The reason Texas might lead the nation in min. wage jobs is the fact we have the second largest population/workforce.
We've also added 100,000 jobs recently even though our unemployment rate has gone up due to more than 300,000 people moving here to seek work.
I’m not at odds with the definition you provided.
>> a civil contract ... not to mention those instances where children are the product of that marriage.
Arguably, the govt facilitates divorce. And I’m not sure how state sanctioning homosexual marriage benefits children.
I don’t have a problem civil contracts but I wouldn’t consider that a function of the state even though the state provides a judicial process for litigation.
Look at it another way. Should the state regulate taxes according to marital status? Should it regulate how insurance companies underwrite individuals, couples, families, and groups? Should the state prosecute an individual, company, or religious entity whom refuses to service homosexual marriage?
All are interesting ideas...probably few if any are viable right now....
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.