Suggestion Box For Regaining Control of Government

Asmodeus | 10 June 2002 | Asmodeus

[altair]

The Supremes have ruled that term limits are unconstitutional, so you'll have to do them by a constitutional amendment the same way the presidency is term limited.

What problem do they solve? I don't see any reason for them other than getting someone out of office who you can't vote against. I voted for term limits in California for one reason only -- to get rid of Willie Brown and it worked.

[altair]

I strongly agree with all your suggestions, however #2 was tried and it didn't work. #3 is unenforceable. Perhaps prohibiting amendments altogether would work.

[Paulus Invictus]

HUH? Acording to the published stats from the IRS, the wealthy pay more than 60% of all federal taxes that paid, so your theory is typical RAT propaganda.

[altair]

Would you want Microsoft to dictate who gets into office? Do you want GM running the gov't?

So long as the government has vast far reaching regulatory authority, yes, I do.

[altair]

I'm assuming that this thread is primarily about the federal government. They are the source of much of the trouble at the state and local level that comes from the blackmail through withholding funds.

Yes. The state and local governments have different authority granted them by the 10th amendment.

[altair]

2. Limit the time Congress is in session to 1 month out of the year.

What problem does this solve?

[altair]

I think that's a great idea in theory, but how can you enforce such a measure?

See my post #39.

[altair]

Most of your suggestions have to do with state matters, not the federal government. Education should treated at the local level, the federal government shouldn't be involved at all.

The problem with #7 is that there is a simple workaround -- transfer agencies to the defense department. This is already happening. While I don't like the unions, they have as much right to make contributions as everyone else has and I think campaign contributions are too regulated now. Campaign finance regulation fails to treat the real problem. The problem is that the government has too much power and there is huge incentive for the victims to fight back with buying candidates, lobbying, etc. Reduce the power, and the campaign finance "problem" will go away all by itself.

#3 is scary. Actually, I'd like to see the distinction between churches and non-profits versus corporations go away (none of them should be taxed, in my opinion).

[Polonius]

Literacy tests required. Before a legislator is allowed to vote for a bill, he/she must pass a test based upon the contents of the bill proving that he/she read the bill and understood. Casting a no vote does not require passing the test. This is the only sure-fire way to get rid of the omnibus 1000 page bills with hidden poison pill clauses buried on page 457, paragraph 9.

Who would create and administer these tests? I just don't think this would work simply because it affords such an easy opportunity to rig the system. Why not just ban omnibus bills to begin with?

[supercat]

The Constitution is the instruction manual for the government of the United States. It lets citizens know when the government is acting legitimately and when it is not. Unfortunately, people have been delinquent in their duty to weed out government agents who act illegitimately.

[supercat]

Who would create and administer these tests? I just don't think this would work simply because it affords such an easy opportunity to rig the system. Why not just ban omnibus bills to begin with?

How about requiring them to publicise a tape of themselves reading the bill text aloud (unless they have a speech impediment, in which case they may either publicize a copy they've written in longhand or a videotape of them typing or otherwise entering it). BTW, on a related note, I'd like to see a rule requiring congresscritters and government agents to either read aloud or produce a longhand copy of the U.S. Constitution.

[supercat]

This is the only sure-fire way to get rid of the omnibus 1000 page bills with hidden poison pill clauses buried on page 457, paragraph 9.

I read somewhere (someone tell me if this is wrong) that all bills are supposed to be read twice on the floor of each house of Congress, but it is common to simply enter them into the record by "unanimous consent". What would happen if a Congresscritter were to refuse such consent? Could he force all bills to be actually read?

[altair]

Who would create and administer these tests?

The same staff people who write them.

Why not just ban omnibus bills to begin with?

That was in the Contract with America and did not get implemented. I don't remember why, probably lack of will.

An alternative might be to have a word or page limitation. No bill larger than 20 double spaced, typewritten pages, or something like that. The budget is so huge, though, it would have to have an exception at first and the budget is where all the problems with omnibus bills are the worst.

I like the tests because I think it would be the hardest limitation to subvert and I'm more interested in forcing a decades-long shrinkage of government than doing something radical and short term and having it undone quickly.

[philetus]

I don`t believe there is a way anymore.

[altair]

I read somewhere (someone tell me if this is wrong) that all bills are supposed to be read twice on the floor of each house of Congress, but it is common to simply enter them into the record by "unanimous consent".

It wouldn't surprise me if both of the above were true. Fixing it would simply be a matter of requiring the two readings with the additional requirement that in order to vote for a bill, a legislator would have to attend both readings. If we could require that in addition the bills would have to be read without a break, that would be good too.

[Flyer]

10,000 FReepers run for office.
(only the ones I approve of, of course)

[brat]

Make Lobbies illegal....maybe the average guy could actually have an effect on legislation again.

[wcbtinman]

"I don't there is a way anymore."

Yes, there is. Apply rule .308

[billbears]

Repeal the 14th since it was passed under quite a bit of question to say the least Constitutionally, it also violates the ex post facto clause. Overturn the 17th Amendment once and for all. I doubt you're going to get the 16th gone easily but heck I agree do make a stab at it.

[johnny reb]

No person can hold public office unless he or she has first worked in the private sector for wages or run a private sector business and paid the taxes on either.