When government gets too powerful and oversteps its bounds of authority, the Constitution give us all a way to fight back.
As President Obama has said, and said again, and then said some more, everything has already been said about the issue of what has been euphemistically called "National Health Care Reform" that needs to be said.
Surprisingly, I agree with him. From a substantive standpoint, those of us who know this whole thing is an agenda-driven farce have come to our conclusions. Nothing the Big O or anyone else says about it is going to change our grip on reality. Those who are in favor of bankrupting and ruining the US Health Care system to "improve" it aren't going to change their minds either. They are no more likely to concede that ObamaCare is designed to augment federal government power instead of improve the quality and level of healthcare services than they are to refute the notion that the US government is hiding aliens in Area 51 when it isn't blowing up the levees in New Orleans or perpetrating 9-11 as an inside job.
So, what exactly is there new to write about this issue? Since facts and figures don't matter (ten years of taxes and six years of spending do not equal a "deficit neutral" program; Medicare cuts cannot be "savings" if the money is immediately spent on other programs; you can't instantly add millions of new people to a system that cannot expand its specialized personnel and equipment overnight and expect that health care won't be rationed — you know, little things like this), all that is left is to appeal to common sense.
But even here this approach is flawed, because an appeal to common sense requires that the other individuals have some common sense in the first place, and if that was the case, we wouldn't be having this national conversation in the first place.
So let me take a different approach, and toss in something new to consider should the Dems succeed in rewriting, redefining, or ignoring enough rules and basic Constitutional provisions to ram "health care reform" down our collective throats. Right now a sufficient number of states have passed laws objecting to aspects of the socialization of 1/6th of our economy and/or the unconstitutional provision that the Federal government can require individual citizens to buy specific products or services, that we have reached a "constitutional threshold."
In other words, if the inevitable lawsuits that arise from the passage of ObamaCare are stuck down by the lower courts or upheld by the Supreme Court as "Constitutional," then an interesting option remains: change the Constitution.
"But," you say, "there aren't enough congressmen sympathetic to a constitutional amendment prohibiting such actions by the Federal government to get this ball rolling." That's true. But it's equally true that the Constitution can be changed even if every member of the Legislative (not to mention Executive and Judicial) Branch is opposed to this action. We do this not by originating a Constitutional Amendment in Congress, but by calling a Constitutional Convention of the 50 states.
I first wrote about this four years ago when discussing some of the, let us say, more "curious" Supreme Court decisions regarding our First Amendment and other rights. If what I wrote then made sense, it should hold up equally today as it pertains to the present issue under discussion. The only difference now is that enough states have already begun to act so that this is no longer a purely academic argument, but one that could very well signal a way to return the American system of government to its proper foundational roots.
So here it is, from November 29, 2006: "What We Need is a Constitutional Convention." As you read it now, think of how this might play out over the next 12-18 months should the Federal Government finally overreach and trigger a nation-wide, grassroots backlash.
* * *
Few people know this, but there are actually two ways to amend the United States Constitution.
The first is the only one we have ever used. Congress puts an issue to a vote, and if it passes muster at the Federal level, it's off to the states for ratification or rejection.
The second way is summarized nicely by Wikipedia:
Besides the more common method, there is an option to assemble a national convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution. Article V of the Constitution requires the Congress to "call a convention for proposing amendments" . . . "on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states." With 50 states presently in the Union, there must be applications made by lawmakers in at least 34 states in order to trigger this alternative procedure. The convention to propose an amendment (or amendments) has no ratification powers; it may only draft and propose the amendment(s), which must then be ratified by either the state legislatures or smaller conventions conducted within the individual states.
For years this second option was avoided like the plague for fear of ruining the very document it proposed to strengthen and protect, namely the United States Constitution. Unlike "Option One," which puts forth a single amendment for consideration, there is nothing to prevent a national convention from looking at every paragraph, clause and semicolon in the U.S. Constitution. In other words, the impetus could be, say, to further refine and/or define the succession to the U.S. presidency, but it could end up modifying or eliminating all together each one of the Bill of Rights, every other previous amendment to the Constitution, and any/all provisions within the main body of that document itself.
As a wet-behind-the-ears poli sci major in college, I was horrified at the thought that based on the whims of the times we might end up tinkering with the right to free speech. That right is sacrosanct in American political history, and more than any other provision embodies the essence and distinctiveness of the U.S. Constitution. If not free speech, then a Constitutional Convention run-amok could trash the right to a fair trial, restrict the right to vote, place undue restraints on the exercise of commerce and free trade, and harm the country in a number of other ways.
But then Congress decided a couple of years ago that it didn't like being criticized and passed something called "Campaign Finance Reform." [Note to file: The more egalitarian and uplifting the name of a particular piece of legislation, the more insidious and venal its intentions usually are. That's one way to know what to support and what not to support based on a cursory review of a typical hundred-plus page bill - loaded with earmarks and special provisions masquerading as high-minded principles. But I digress.]
Anyway, like most reasonable people who looked at the First Amendment and understood not only what it said, but what it meant,1 I was sure that the Supreme Court would strike this bill down as patently unconstitutional. But they didn't, and now George Soros can spend millions of dollars trashing what I believe, but I'll go to jail if I give too much support to a political candidate or political party that represents my views.
Then of course there was the case that made it all the way to SCOTUS (which, by the way, kind of decided a couple hundred years ago that it was the final word on all subjects constitutional, even though the Constitution itself didn't exactly give them this specific authority) where some homeowner objected to having his land taken from him by the state to give to a private developer. The Kelo decision tossed that one out the door, using the precedent where states can deny personal property rights for the common economic good. Yeah, sure, a new shopping mall will probably result in more local tax revenue than Joe Schmo's three bedroom split-level, but that's not the point. Thanks to Kelo, there's virtually nothing a State can't do to you, or your property, if some bureaucrat thinks the net effect will be better for his paycheck and pension plan.
Add to this the "right to privacy" that can't be found anywhere in the Constitution but exists anyway in the mind of the Court, and the right to abortion that flows from this hypothetical right to privacy, and a few dozen other diminutions of what it means to act as the Commander-in-Chief independent of Congressional permission (the War Powers act), conduct interstate commerce (if you assemble and sell your product entirely in Kansas, but breathe air from neighboring Missouri, you've just engaged in "interstate commerce" and are thus subject to Federal regulation), and so on, and so on.
Add it all up, and then ask yourself the Big Question: Exactly what is it we're protecting by not having a Constitutional Convention and revamping the whole ball of wax? Sure, the nuts on the Left will try to toss out the Second Amendment, and in light of the shoddy education most people receive today about politics, economics, and other formerly-important issues (see my Looney Liberal Chronicles, Chapter 1), they might just succeed.
But then again, despite what Chuck Schumer and the national media tells us, the majority of people in this country are opposed to abortion, and don't want to see their taxes constantly raised by Congress to pay for social spending experiments, and would probably support a fairer system of free speech and religious expression than we have at the present (including placing restrictions on media attempts to influence national elections by deliberately misreporting or ignoring crucial facts).
So in the end, we'd probably come out ahead on most of the issues that are important to the future of the country. Sure, the resulting Constitution wouldn't have the hallowed history that the document created in 1787 can lay claim to. But to cite one of my favorite lines from My Cousin Vinny, "so I ax you, what difference does it make what kind of clothes the sonofabitch was wearing" when he shot Bambi's mother? Bambi is still dead, regardless.
The hallowed history of today's Constitution counts for virtually nothing in protecting the rights we all thought were perfectly clear when we read the original document. In the blink of a political eye 5 members of the Supreme Court can invent a new hypothetical "Right" that supersedes the old written-down Right, or define any term so broadly that it has literally no meaning at all.
Thomas Jefferson is rumored to have said that a good fire every 10 years is a great way to keep democracy alive. It clears out the deadwood and thins out the underbrush, and in so doing lets the world renew itself. We clearly don't need to put a match to the Constitution, for even with its flaws there is nothing to equal it in human history. But we can put a match, metaphorically speaking, to the deadwood of thoughts that has plagued this nation the past forty years and turned many of these hallowed principles on their head.
It's time to renew faith in the Constitution by renewing the Constitution itself. Rather than bleed it to death slowly as a "living document" that succumbs to every whim and fancy of the 9 Supreme Court Justices and their political followers, let's make it completely relevant again and have it reflect, once more, the true thoughts and aspirations of the people of this country.
Endnotes
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
All very true Phil, until BHO and his fellow travelers call such a convention an act of rebellion and try to call in the military to suppress a totally legal and proper action under the supreme law of the land.
We have come too far down the road for these travesties masquerading as elected representatives to give up without a fight. After all, their ultimate dream is to wield Stalinesque power.
Phil, the concept of a Constitutional Convention makes a great deal of sense. Key to the actual ability of the convention to make any progress is the determination of who actually serves as delegates for each state and their willingness to more clearly spell out the role of the supreme court and limitations thereon as well as developing a requirement that all federal legislation and rule making clearly cite the constitutional reference that allows the rule or law to be passed coupled with a similar curb on executive orders.
Otherwise we end up with more feel good items leading us into anarchy.
Oh one other thing on my list. Require any law passed to include the repeal of another law to help reduce the craziness in Washington.
But my fear is that a constitutional convention will bring out all the crazies and consitutional illiterates, who will remake the Constitution into their own image, and not the Founders’ image.
There are almost enough people on the government dole to be a majority. Will they contenance shooting themselves in the foot?
It’s ironic that on the 150th anniversary of Secession, states are poised to sue the Federal Government. There is even one state, in New England of all places, that’s actually considering secession. Which leaves me to wonder, is Great Father Obama doing all this to provoke states in Alinsky fashion to secede, thereby ushering the destruction of the Union which, according to many, would lead to a VERY vulnerable balkanized America — which in turn would “force” him (“in the name of the people”) to reestablish the Union with a radically new (read: dictatorial) Federal structure?
Echoing Mountain Man, as I believe I did when the original article was written, the only thing scarier to me than leaving the country in the hands of the socialist despots in every branch of government is giving “the people” the power to establish an entirely new constitutional structure. I am 100% confident that the result of a constitutional convention would be a neo-Marxist state to rival and, more probably, surpass the socialist democracies thriving so successfully in Europe.
As much as we would like to think otherwise, the old adage holds as true today as it ever has: we have exactly the government that we want, need, and deserve. American culture has undergone a paradigm shift. Despite the slim majority that opposes this health care legislation today, for example, wait until 10 years after it has passed and then try to remove it. Like Social Security and Medicare before it, it will become an untouchable third rail. Because America likes its collectivist welfare state. We did, after all, voluntarily elect every legislator and president who gave it to us, and we similarly continue to elect only those legislators and presidents who assure us that it will never be taken away (budgets be damned!). I’d rather drag out the decline over the next 50 years and watch America go out with a whimper than allow the same people who fainted at Barack Obama’s every speech take a shot at rewriting the constitution.
Last night Idaho governor was saying they already have enough states for a constitutional convention against obamacare. I’m sure I fall into the consitutional illiterate catagory; anyway if they have a convention it would be nice to see the following items added to the agenda.
1) term limits for senators and congressmen
2) repeal 16th amendment and institute Fair Tax system
Forgive my ignorance, but how difficult would it be for the Tea-Party movement itself to initiate a constitutional convention? More importantly, how would we go about doing that, and where do I sign up? :)
At an even more basic level, what would be the point in modifying the Constitution just to continue to ignore it?
I don’t think there is too much that is wrong with the one we have. But how do you force government to follow it?
MM you spelled the quandry in one sentence. If the supreme court is allowed to wildly interpret what they think is written then the constitution will be ignored. If elected representatives do not have to defend the constitutional basis for every law or rule the constitution will be ignored.
So, what do we do? The interesting is that the Obama supporting states in a secession are not the industrial powerhouse that the North was in the Civil War. In fact they consist of those with their hands out for various forms of welfare. Maybe letting NYC, LA, and Chicage attempt to survive on their own would be a good social experiment…as long as those inmates are kept within the confines of their utopia.
Since everyone is putting in their druthers, I’d like to add mine [constitutionally illiterate as it may be]. Have the constitution set the number of SC justices at one ten-year [minimum] resident from each state [no more rule by the Washington elite]. Require a 2/3 majority and a quorum of 80%. Limit terms to one ten-year term. Vacancy filled by the state from which the departing justice came. No “advise and consent” by the Senate.
I’ve been away for the day, so this is my first opportunity to react to your comments.
To respond to a couple of issues raised in the comment section, the state legislatures initiate the Constitutional Convention process. Some State will take the lead on this, and then others will be invited to join in until the requisite number is achieved and a Constitutional Convention is convened. Washington cannot prohibit this from happening without plunging the nation into civil war.
Since we’ve never gone this route before, it’s hard to say whether the convention can be limited to a single issue, or whether it’s analogous to the confab that turned the Articles of Confederation into the Constitution. My guess is that once the Con Con door is opened, everything could (and probably would) be on the table.
I sympathize with those who fear that this could result in a massive re-write of the entire Bill of Rights as well as other key constitutional provisions. But as I see it now, today’s Constitution has become more of a suggestion to Washington policy makers and SCOTUS rather than a concrete limitation on their power and authority, so very little is at real risk. If basic free speech rights can be arbitrarily defined away through campaign finance “reform”, and if new rights (like “privacy” and the “right” to health care) can be invented by SCOTUS or Congress, there’s not much of substance to protect.
We are a center-Right country at heart. The center-Left has co-opted the Constitution and re-written and re-interpreted it to allow these insidious policies to become the law of the land. I see a lot more potential for good than harm by forcing the country to look again at the whole Constitutional basis for our government and the laws it produces, and thus clarifying, or re-writing, the basic provisions of the Constitution to once again define what the meaning of “is” is.
The professor fails to mention the most important point regarding an Article V Convention call. He forgot to mention the states already have applied in sufficient number to cause a convention call. The Constitution mandates Congress call a convention if 34 states submit 34 applications. The public record shows all 50 states have submitted over 700 applications for a convention call. The applications can be read at http://www.foavc.org.
It is time for people to realize the only solution to this issue of a runaway government is an amendments convention or Article V Convention. Nothing else will work. Those who say the Constitution will be scrapped by such a convention simply fail to realize the government has done that already and only a convention can put things back right.
If you don’t think members of Congress fear a convention and what it can do. Call them up, ask to speak to them about it and see how fast you are dumped even if you are trying to talk to them face to face.
Bill:
If Congress has ignored all other past applications, what hope is there?
I believe 34 states must submit 34 identical applications calling for a constitutional convention.
It’s not sufficient to have 5 states ask for an amendement on X, 12 states to ask for an amendment on Y, and so on and so on.
Same language, same details, not just scattered requests here and there added up over the years.
They aren’t the ones you should be talking to about a Constitutional Convention. It’s your state legislators that control this process.
Phil:
Re: “I believe 34 states must submit 34 identical applications calling for a constitutional convention.”
I have, at various times, been president or vice-president of two homeowners associations and noticed that you couldn’t get two people to agree that it is daylight at noon. Requiring the applications to be similar is understandable, but requiring they be identical is to make it virtually impossible, as though requiring a super-majority wasn’t enough of a hurdle. Contrast that with the Supreme Court where [unless I'm mistaken] only three justices can call for a case’s hearing.
Sedona: Not really. Here’s the language: “We invoke our Article V right that a Convention be convened for the purpose of amending the U.S. Constitution”.
That’s it. The Convention would then meet and decide upon specific amendment(s) to be offered for ratification by the 50 states, following the normal ratification process to add them to the Constitution.
Unless I’m missing a key issue here, there really isn’t an issue in calling a Con Con if 34 states have the political will to do so. It’s an entirely different matter to get a requisite number to agree on specific language to propose a specific Constitutional Amendment: that’s Step #2.
But the only real barrier to Step #1 — getting a convention actually convened — is the political will to do so. Until now, there’s been no reason to initiate the amendment process via the States instead of Congress, as it has traditionally been.
I totally agree. My amendments would be that all laws sunset every 20 years, so each generation has to re-affirm the burdens placed on them by their fathers. Also, mandatory Constitutional conventions by state lawmakers, as outlined here, every 100 to 120 years.
Then change the House of Lords, I mean Senate, to be more representative, by perhaps adding seats to states with larger populations.
Is Sedonaman advocating a 100 person Supreme Court? That seems like a way to make it more political, and more like the Senate. I would agree that adding justices, perhaps 2 more, is a good idea. But Congress has the power to do that now, as they set the number of Justices.
I wouldn’t want to see much, if any, tinkering with the Document or Amendments, except perhaps to clarify that many protections apply to all “persons” not just citizens.
As a matter of housekeeping, Phillip is wrong to call the Health Care bill “socialist,” and you’d think old school cold warriors would be able to tell the difference. If the plan were socialist, health care stock wouldn’t be surging right now. The government isn’t going to control health care, its’ going to force you to participate in a corporate monopoly. That may be a conspiracy between government and corporations to assure growing market share, but whatever you want to call it, it ain’t socialism. Medicare may be closer to socialism, but I’m not getting that until I’m 67. or 70. or 72, or whatever they change it to by the time I get that old.
My bet is that the States fail in their lawsuits, or that they scale down the the things they object too pretty quickly as to make the exercise meaningless. This will not, unfortunately, result in enough outrage for the above call for a CC to materialize.
Phillip,
I hate to be the one to throw cold water on this but I feel as if this would be a bad idea. I’m going to set it up by repeating portions from your essay. First; “…should the Dems succeed in rewriting, redefining, or ignoring enough rules and basic Constitutional provisions to ram “health care reform” down our collective throats.”
This is a given. If the democrats succeed in gathering 216 votes through existing arm twisting measures, they will schedule an up or down vote in which they will be victorious. If not, they will use ‘deem & pass’ as this amount of governmental control is too important to pass up. Even as I write this the President is addressing democratic members of Congress and the commentators are reporting that democrats have the votes to pass health care.
Second; “In other words, if the inevitable lawsuits that arise from the passage of ObamaCare are stuck down by the lower courts or upheld by the Supreme Court as “Constitutional,” then an interesting option remains: change the Constitution.”
I’m confused as to why one would offer such a suggestion. If constitutional ideals and process has been so denigrated by the current majorities in Washington; then let’s go ‘all-in’ with a Constitutional Convention?
I guess one could take the pragmatic approach to this and say; “If the resulting convention causes us to rewrite the document so completely as to match the constitution Stalin wrote in 1936 as opposed to the original: Well at least what the powerful in Washington are doing will then match the current document.”
I would remind you that regardless of the social persuasions of the balance of the country, it is the nerds who stand in line all night awaiting the opening of the next “Star Wars” release. It won’t be majorities of liberty loving Americans that end up populating the halls of the venue hosting your Constitutional Convention.
Once such a proposal is made a crescendo of voices shall begin the chant that “such an important event should completely eschew any hint of political influence! This is too significant to allow the taint of partisan politics!” Who do you think would then begin to form in the line of ‘volunteers’ to serve as the participants of this convention of yours? Probably some of the most radically motivated Non Governmental Organizations in the United States, that’s who. Regardless of the procedure utilized to populate this convention, this opportunity would be too good to pass up for the progressives that have always most desired to tear up that document. They’ve worked for generations to destroy our constitution, so we’ll offer them the opportunity to do so immediately.
It won’t be you and I, who are invariably too busy living our individual lives to put it all aside to spend the next four to six months, without compensation, to see this through to the end. Even if we were willing to participate, the process of choosing these delegates would be shot through with unseen manipulation. In the end, it would be the membership of the various American NGO’s that would form the majority of the delegates.
I cannot see how you could avoid having such a site being overstocked with members of left wing NOG’s and special advocacy groups intent on authoring a manuscript that places their specific considerations into the controlling document of the wealthiest country on the planet. Here are just two sites that list NGO’s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_international_organizations and http://www.summit-americas.org/ngolist2.htm
Admittedly most of the organizations on these lists would probably overlook such an opportunity. The point here is that by initiating a constitutional convention, in my mind, we would be gambling what’s left of America’s future on a single throw of the dice.
Worst case, how ridiculous would such a constitution be? How about an amendment banning the consumption of all meat courtesy of PETA? Maybe an amendment that immediately shutters all coal fired plants in the country, compliments of the Sierra Club. What about a mandatory union participation clause from the SEIU, or maybe a guaranteed 10% annual funding increase for public schools by the NEA. Oh, I’ve got a better one; how about a constitutional amendment outlawing all forms of education other than public education, on top of that annual increase?
Let’s not forget mandatory prison sentences for any citizen found to be in possession of a firearm thanks to Handgun Control Inc. Why don’t we just dispense with this nasty two party system altogether and insert a constitutional amendment that we are now a single party nation. I wonder which of the two parties would be ‘eliminated’?
Go ahead; say it’s a stupid hand wringing gesture from a paranoid to believe such things could possibly happen. We all said the same thing about the government takeover of the health care fourteen months ago didn’t we?
While we may lament the current ugly state of power politics in Washington; the Founders gave us remedy within our Founding Documents. Before we risk losing the entire gift they bequeathed to us; let us show enough confidence in their wisdom to trust the mechanism to be as self-correcting now as it has been in the past.
Bill: The people re-writing the Constitution, so to speak, would be the members of the state legislature, not the public at large. This is the body that would convene and “staff” a Con Con. Once an amendment is proposed by the Constitutional Convention, it would go through the normal ratification process for all Amendments.
The purpose of a Con Con is to strip the power away from Congress to (a) block any new amendments at all, and/or (b) propose only the amendments they want written the way they want them written. It returns control of the process to the states through their local elected representatives. And local governments are far more reflective of the Center-Right nature of this country than the Federal government.
It is quite possible that we’ll end up with some crazy-ass amendment(s) proposed for ratification. At least the states (with one “vote” each, regardless of size — thus giving Wyoming equal power to New York or California) will be the ones putting the amendment forth and ratifying it.
If the country wants to give my dog full civil rights, then I can at least take comfort in the fact that the country actually decided this, and not some bureaucrat, or Committee Chairman in Congress, or some judge in our court system.
I believe that a serious effort to amend the Constitution via the Convention process would bring out a corresponding seriousness in the people participating in this process that would do more good than harm. I, for one, would like to see the country decide whether abortion is a Constitutional “right,” whether the Federal government can mandate that we purchase a good or service, as well as re-define the 10th amendment back to its original intent, and so on, and so on.
The founders gave us the Constitutional Convention option precisely to deal with an out-of-control federal government. I think it’s time we seriously considered its use. This isn’t an abandonment of the Constitution, but a reaffirmation of it and the principles upon which this nation was founded.
An observation by de Toqueville is in order here. During his 1830s tour of our young republic, he wrote in his Democracy in America that the House of Representatives was full of every kind of scalawag you could imagine, but the Senate was full of real statesmen. He attributed this fact to the indirect election of senators and predicted that the country would move toward more indirect election to increase the quality of our elected representatives. Sadly, we moved in the opposite direction; and as anyone can see, we have gotten worse politicians. Perhaps we can return to indirect election of senators.
I am not advocating a 100-member Court, but one justice from each state, placed there by the state. To qualify, a candidate must have been a resident of his state for at least 10 years immediately preceding. [This would also go for representatives and senators. IOW, no carpetbagging].
What about subsidiarity? Surely we can come up with an amendment better than the 10 th to ensure that a legitimate function of government is not raised to a higher level than necessary [no more federal funding to count dogs in Oxnard, CA].
So a 50 seat Court? Interesting, but still unwieldy. how would you break a 25-25 split, not that I think you’d have all that many. Thinking about it, having this many Justices may in fact lesson the polarization, as there is probably more legal consensus in numbers. This merits more discussion, definitely.
Where do we get the statesmen to replace the whiny b**ches we have now? Term limits don’t work, as we have learned here in California. Limits simply mean the hacks have to keep moving upwards (often promoting their spouses for their old seat as they go – you’d be surprised where name recognition can get you in a State Rep seat), and the only way to sustain the cash for that is to be corrupted by the lobbyists who aren’t term limited from passing out cash for favors.
I know you are as origionalist as they come, but I don’t think you’re going to get much traction among we the other people to let Senators be appointed by state legislatures.
I think the best way to make a difference is publicly funded elections, with commercial airtime required as part of a broadcast license. I realize this is a “socialist” an idea as they come, but it does have Constitutional support in that elections are mandated, and so the means of election should be borne by the government.
I think it would do much to subvert corruption, migrate it to another aspect of political influence perhaps – corruption will always find a way – but it might actually encourage these “Statesmen” you speak of to enter politics. Of course, it might encourage more of the politically inept to entertain, but may the best statesman win!
I understand that a great many of our founders were elitists, with a view that sometimes our betters should be chosen for us by our other betters, and that some of them would not agree with this idea. But I think a great majority of our population has moved on from this world view, present company excepted.
Point taken. Although knowing what I know regarding state legislatures; having lived in Illinois, California and Arkansas, does little to assuage my concern over what the possible makeup of such a convention ‘staffed’ by these august bodies would look like.
As a T.E.A. Party member, we’ve ascribed to the belief that current conditions in Washington are as much our fault as anyone else’s. The activities occurring today inside the beltway have sanction because these same activities have been going on in the state legislatures for thirty years, and in county and city government for generations. The price we’re paying for our lack of political vigilance is that the ‘best and brightest’ of these sneaky individuals took their show on the road.
Our conclusion is that to repair this problem we must change government in the same manner it was altered to begin with; a crawl, walk, run philosophy if you will. Fix city/county government first, then take that to the state house, and finally to the federal level. I understand that many may feel the commitment may not be there to see such a challenge to the end. The fact that here in Garland County we have three of fifteen T.E.A. Party candidates running for county offices who are all under the age of 30 says different. These young men and women, if they properly mentor others, are the vanguard of the new civil servant. Personally, I’d prefer to give them that opportunity prior to betting the fabric of the country on a single spin of the wheel.
“If the country wants to give my dog full civil rights, then I can at least take comfort in the fact that the country actually decided this, and not some bureaucrat, or Committee Chairman in Congress, or some judge in our court system.” is very true. I guess it all boils down to; do we care for the country we have, or the country that might be.”
The difference between the politician and the civil servant is that the politician will always seek personal advantage in any constitution.
“…Phillip is wrong to call the Health Care bill “socialist…”
So how much poop do you have to have in a bucket to call it a bucket of poop?
What is your definition of Socialism then? The most socialist policy would be single payer, and this bill isn’t even close to that. There isn’t even going to be a public option, so the government wont’ be ‘running’ healthcare any more than it is now, which is to say, Medicare and the VA. If the government isn’t expanding it’s stakeholder status, it isn’t even becoming ‘more’ socialist, under any known definition of the term.
My state, and probably yours too, demands I purchase insurance to drive my car, but there’s nothing socialistic about it… AAA competes against Progressive for my hard-earned cash.
What we have here is ‘forced capitalism,’ whereby the government demands we buy health insurance – mandatory coverage (and is this even in the bill?) from private companies. In exchange for tens of millions of new paying customers, the private companies have to abide by some market rules.
That’s not socialism as far as I can tell, even though it might be poop.
Bill: You are pursuing the exact strategy I’ve always recommended. Change will come when people rebuild from the bottom — which takes time, but produces the desired results — instead of focusing only on changing one or two people at the top.
We have an opportunity through the TEA parties to remake and reinvigorate the American political system. Some of the effects will be felt in 2010, but most of the fruit of this effort will pay off in later years in a sustained, far-reaching way.
In this sense it’s better to take over and re-invent one of the existing parties than try to start a new one. This is what the Left did. It took over the Democrat party. Their problem is that they then used this base to push an ultra-Left agenda in a Center-Right country, which pushed back.
Thanks to Obama, Reid, Pelosi and others, they’ve incentivized middle America to become politically active and begin this process with the Republican party. Since our values are closer to what most Americans share, our success will be more sweeping and longer lasting if we remain true to our basic values. Instead of trying to cram an unpopular piece of legislation down the country’s throat through parliamentary maneuvers, we’d be implementing the will of the electorate. Two or three simple changes in the existing health care system that the Republicans have proposed could achieve the rhetorical objectives of the Pelosi-Reid-Obama bill. The fact that genuine tort reform is excluded from the present bill, and other immediate fixes (such as truly national health care policies instead of limitations by state, more aggressive use of health care saving accounts, etc.) are also excluded, only underscores the fact that the P-R-O plan has an entirely different agenda in play than their stated one.
This is why I think a Constitutional Convention would ultimately work. The people who are running now, and will continue to run in later years, for state legislature and other posts are exactly the kind of people who really want to fix problems instead of create new political fiefdoms. 2010 will just be the start of returning the country to its real foundation. If Washington continues to block the will of the people, then the Constitutional Convention option can circumvent this obstruction. If 2010 produces a strong enough counter reaction, then the influx of new elected officials — backed by an aroused and informed citizenry — may be enough to keep the momentum going without having to resort to a Constitutional Convention.
It all depends on what happens with the “health care reform” charade in Washington, and the outcome of the November elections. These two factors will steer us in the correct direction of going the Con Con route, or just continuing to throw the bums out and replace them with more competent, and truly representative officials.
“My state, and probably yours too, demands I purchase insurance to drive my car…”
1) Only people who drive must buy insurance
2) The insurance protects other people, not me
3) I can post a bond in lieu of buying insurance
4) It is the state, not the feds, who govern car insurance
“AAA competes against Progressive for my hard-earned cash.”
1) There is no government option
2) I can choose “none of the above”
“What we have here is ‘forced capitalism…’
1) Are you serious? How inane. The government forcing people to buy anything has nothing to do with capitalism.
MM what Chasm meant to say was that the health care as proposed is fascist not socialist. Much more akin to Germany in the 1930s than Russia.
Here is the definition of facism from Miriam Webster:
: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality
Part two of Article V of the US Constitution is NOT a “Constitution Convention.” the “great statesmen, our founders” made sure there is no provision nor authority in the Constitution to ever have another “Con-Con.” Our founders were wise enough to know that there would come a day when the Federal Goverment would get too big and realized the need to balance that Supremacy by giving the Several States the power to make needed changes to reduce the size of the Federal Government in a Constitutional manner, instead of WAR! It gives them the power to call for a Convention to Propose Amendments to the Constitution. The proposal can be in the form of new amendments, clarifications, repeals, or changes in existing amendments. The “proposals” would then have to be sent to the Several States to be ratified by 3/4 of them.
You need to understand that there is a “Costitutional Convention” convened right now. Congress is a continious Convention to Propose Amendments to the Constitution, made up of 535 people. Any one, that’s right one of them can make a proposal. Most of them never make it out of commitee, some of them get the the floor of one House or another for a vote and don’t get enough votes to go to the the other House, still others get enough vote in one house, but not the other. 33 times, out of over 10,000 proposal, a proposal got enough votes of both houses to send them to the states to see if they can be ratified and be made a part of the Constitution. Of those two have failed ratification by the required three-quarters of the state legislatures and four are still technically pending before state lawmakers. You will hear people say “Oh no a “Con-Con,” as they like to phrase it giving the idea as negative a face as possible, could change our Constitution for the worse.” They fail to point out that a “Con-Con” is always convened in Congress and that’s working out real well for us, isn’t it. Fear of an Article V Convention to Propose Amendments to the Constitution convened by the states only serves the status quo and the status quo is unacceptable, wouldn’t you agree?
Push the legislature as THE TOP PRIORITY to call for an Article 5 Convention to Propose Amendments to the Constitution.
We have let DC distract us for far too long with issues like abortion, gun rights, welfare, taxes, health care, etc. knowing full well they could use these distractions to violate their oath of office and we would keep looking the other way. It’s time we all got wise to this game and force adherence to our Constitution and our laws.
An Article V Convention is the ONLY Constitutional Remedy For Stopping Out-of-Control Government. Our vote obviously does not work. DC IS stealing, criminally, the wealth of America’s future, generational theft, the epitome of taxation without representation, taxing the unborn. The madness has to stop and the states have the power to stop it. They have all been castrated by the National Government and I am looking for candidates with, excuse me, with IRON BALLS!
Wherever you are demand your next governor push the legislature as THE TOP PRIORITY to call for an Article 5 Convention to Propose Amendments to the Constitution.
PLEASE STOP CALLING IT A “CONSTITUTIONAL COVENTION” OR “CON-CON,” INSTEAD USE “ARTICLE 5 CONVENTION.”
I appreciate that, Mickey. But I thought that fascism is everything that Republicans do?
The following are only generic observations: In the formative stages, fascism and socialism are largely indistinguishable. They insinuate themselves into free societies in the same way, under the guise of curbing the supposed excesses of capitalism.
In actual practice, only the flavor of government oppression differs. The consequence of each is still the exaltation of government to the detriment of the individual.
As to what chasm believes or doesn’t believe, who the h*ll knows? You are imputing to him a reasonableness and procession of logical thought that has yet to be evidenced. Witness his regurgitation of a leftist talking point regarding car insurance.
Phillip,
That is why, for all your (and my) above listed reasons, I think a Con-Con is premature. Once we’ve had the opportunity to affect change the state house, then hold that Con-Con. That will give the majority of states the opportunity to reassert their sovereignty; and maybe whittle down those thirty enumerated federal powers down by about a third.
Remember this is a RENO year! Re-Elect No One!
I’d have to agree that a Constitutional convention might be a bit premature. And also perhaps not of the effect we want, given our government’s predilection to ignore said.
Imo, there’s a couple of legal ways to disobey, if congress and the president continue to burn offerings to leviathan:
First off, congress is full of people under the delusions that they ultimately control the purse-strings. Congress needs to be stripped of this mental armor.
Everyone that owns a small business that morally can cease production, should give their workers warning, and close shop for long enough to cause pain. Pain, not hurt to society. This should be accompanied by appropriate, civil, MATURE, notification to our government, on all levels, that unless they stop running our society down the drain morally, economically, and in terms of survival, we will cease to support them… and we have to be prepared to back that up. We also have to have a workable, correct game plan to pull the producers out of the loop of supporting the downfall of this society (legally take our taxes out of government), because our government overlords(so they think themselves) my call our bluff.
This will have great effect – those of us who have worked around, say, a supermarket, know how thin the golden production chain is. One truck not coming in has a serious effect. Imagine 20% of the truckers in the states … taking a weeks vacation, all at the same time.
The hard part of this is that this must be pulled off nation-wide, all at once, in a orderly manner, to work. Which is why I believe this MUST percolate up to the leaders of the tea party movement, and that these disparate leaders must than work together to provide a workable timetable. Perhaps Michelle Bachmann? Who knows, but it must be organized, such that the producers have maximum effect in stopping the runaway of public SERVANTS, and just as importantly, so the producers will have a timetable upon which to stock up.
To those who are afraid of what they may lose their jobs or businesses by closing their doors up: I merely need point towards the actions – actions on record – of our government, that will drive us out of business, and shortly. For one, they’ve injected, I believe, ten billion dollars into the currency. Hyperinflation weimar republic style has gone from being an extreme improbability to a distinct possibility. Private companies have been forcibly taken over by the government. Banks have been *forced* to take protection money, called “bailout.” The anti-freedom to do as we should to watch after our families behavior (what I call capitalism, on some small scale) is evident.
Secondly, we need to spread far and wide the knowledge of the fourth box, the one nobody knows about, that our founders gave us. It sits between the voting box and the ammo box, and it is called “jury nullification.” yes, you and your friends may all know about this… but how many of you learned about it in public school?
http://fija.org/links2/
In a nutshell, you are not required to convict on a law that you disagree with. If enough juries return no-convicts, even though they could have convicted under the law, the law is considered struck down.
This is NO LIGHT DUTY. But it is a viable tool – it was used here in the US by jurors to work against the 1850′s fugitive slave law. The use of this must be carefully considered, but against this heinous power-grab called obama care, and the other abominations this government is trying to pass, it can be rightly used.
Carefully and done with the utmost consideration, these are two very potent tools to reign in the would – be tyrants legally.
Chasm:
Re: “…how would you break a 25-25 split…”
I had included a 2/3 majority and a quorum of 80%, so there would never be a tie.
A Constitutional Convention is not ‘Congress in session’, other than in the most general sense — where the generality loses all relevant points of distinction. Instead, it’s the commonly accepted way to describe a specific path where the states, not Congress, initiate the Constitutional amendment process.
If and when the states go the route of a constitutional convention, I’m sure they’ll use the precise legislative language required to initiate it. When communicating a general idea, one uses the common vernacular to get an idea across. It’s why we talk about the Obama-Reid-Pelosi “Health Care Reform” bill instead of the “H.R. 3590 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”. When the effort is made in Congress to vote on, amend, or challenge this legislation, they incorporate the actual legislative language into their effort. When the issue is discussed as a general principle, the term “Health Care Reform” is used.
In other words, don’t argue an arcane point of semantics in a discussion of general principles. We’re not promoting or revising legislation here, where this nomenclature is critical.
As for the phrase “con con”, it’s just a shorthand way of not continuously writing “constitutional convention”. You’ve got to stretch to turn it into a negative.
Bill: The danger of acting on platitudes (“re-elect no one”) is that there are some people who need to be re-elected. Do you really want to see Eric Cantor and other key Republicans opposed to Obamacare defeated in 2010?
Phillip,
I know, I know. I can get really surly on a Sunday Afternoon. Especially with what’s on the ‘telly’ right now.
But your response does beg the question; “How does one ‘reward’ failure in any other business or employment situation?”
Bill: I fall back on the issue I’ve always stressed. This is an institutional 2 party system. Even the most conservative Democrat will allow Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to remain in control of the House and Senate, if the number of Democrat officials outnumbers the number of Republican officials.
So, the first thing that needs to be done is strip the Dems of their control of both Houses. The only way this is done is by electing more Republicans (Uber-Conservatives and RINOs alike) to the House and Senate. In this case I’d support a liberal Republican even if he ran against a Conservative Democrat.
Therefore, I plan on voting a straight ticket in November period, no further questions asked. [I have tried to influence who will be on that ticket by voting in the Republican primary. But even if my candidate lost to a RINO, I’d still support the Republican in November).
THEN, once the Reps are back in control, I’d work like hell to elect the most conservative candidate in each district in the following election.
We’ve got to take control of the House and Senate away from the Dems first and foremost. Then we can focus on the ideology of the candidates running for office.
It’s Party first, ideology second when you are out of power.
It’s ideology first (as in supporting the most conservative Republican candidate electable in each district) when you are in power.
NEVER, and I mean NEVER vote for a Conservative Democrat as long as the majority of that party is Liberal. All this does is insure that people like Pelosi and Reid get power.
(If the candidate was truly conservative, they’d understand this too, and become a Republican).
One only wins in politics if you understand the real rules of the game, instead of pretending that fantisy is reality by focusing exclusively on ideology when the institutional power in the US resides in parties, not in philosophies as they do in a parliamentary system.
Agreed. This policy is being utilized in variation to retake the republican party as opposed to trying to convert the democratic party. First the republicans are closer to the conservative ideals held by the T.E.A. Party. Second, they are better ‘aligned’ than the democrats. I’ve said for quite awhile that the republican party is more disciplined just because of the makeup of the democrats. They are a loose confederation of special vicitm’s groups, each of which would be more than willing to throw all the other groups under the bus to get what they want. At least you can get republicans to stick together.
Are you sick and tired of being sick and tired? Did you know it is the CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY of your state to protect your right and liberties? We are in EMERGENCY MODE now! Washington is not listening to us, it is time our state governments earn their keep.
Sign this petition, then print it and deliver it personally, by email, by fax, by petition and any other way you can to your state legislators. Tell everyone you know to do the same.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/doyourduty/
P
I think a Constitutional Convention is a non starter
The following is my answer to some non-lawyer friends of mine about the Constitutionality of all this & where we go from here:
First: I’m not sure that the Fed Courts will take this massive legislation on. Thus we would be stuck with it as far as the judiciary is concerned.
Here’s a good summary of the Constitutional issues:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126316838618223965.html
I can see that you haven’t got your hopes high.
So what will happen with “the people”, by which we mean the voters? Will The One give a zillion of the illegals amnesty so that they can become voters?
Will ACORN & others see that there are more Al Franken elections which Dems always win? Will your name be voted. Will your dead parents’ names be?
A Law Prof blogger [Ann Althouse] took this position:
“People aren’t going to stay fired up. The natural process is to stabilize and find normal. Isn’t that why we’re so conservative in the first place?”
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?postID=5469866286169419094&blogID=6329595&isPopup=false&page=2
I don’t know where this is heading in the long run. Is she right? My “independent” friends who voted for Obama because they liked the cut of his jib & his alleged Ivy League intellectualism as opposed to, gasp, McCain & Palin, fooled themselves into thinking that he’d govern from the center or center Left. And they never thought what he’d do with a supermajority of Dems in Congress. No, they were gonna teach the GOP a lesson, by golly.
Here’s a thoughtful response by a commenter [Scott @9:50 AM on 3/22] to the [Althouse’s thoughts:
It's not going to stay at a fever pitch forever. But the civil war that started yesterday will be part of the background noise in American life for decades.
Saul Alinsky assumed that when the left took over, people would complain but they wouldn't act. He no doubt drew on his experience as a community organizer. But what he didn't notice was, when a particular neighborhood is under the thrall of (corrupt) leftist politics, the opposition doesn't need to fight back -- they just move to another neighborhood with fewer assholes.
But with nationalized health care, there is no place for an American to move to escape it. This is where Alinsky's analysis breaks down. Some people may just sit there and take it, but a large percentage of the opposition will feel a constant pressure to fight it; to take a vigorous stand against creeping Democrat fascism, because they will see no viable alternative.
The question then becomes, how far will the Uglycrats go to suppress opposition? Is Obama going to don the mantle of Chavez, or Castro, or Mao, or Stalin? Or will he create new mechanisms of soft tyranny?
These are uncharted waters. It could get ugly. I think it ultimately will.
And below is a non-lawyer’s intellectual analysis of the bill. [“Everything about the House-passed bill smacks of political excess rooted in ideological purity.”]
**************
http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Robert_Zelnick_50F65C65-369D-4EEF-9A88-2B7046612AAA.html
These words are mine not the Althouse commenter’s:
And below is a non-lawyer’s intellectual analysis of the bill. [“Everything about the House-passed bill smacks of political excess rooted in ideological purity.”]
**************
http://www.politico.com/arena/perm/Robert_Zelnick_50F65C65-369D-4EEF-9A88-2B7046612AAA.html
This HCB is pure Nazi style facism.
Are you sick and tired of being sick and tired? Did you know it is the CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY of your state to protect your right and liberties? We are in EMERGENCY MODE now! Washington is not listening to us, it is time our state governments earn their keep.
Sign this petition, then print it and deliver it personally, by email, by fax, by petition and any other way you can to your state legislators. Tell everyone you know to do the same.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/doyourduty/
thasay:
Maybe if you repeat the same message verbatim a third time, but this time throw in the word “communist” or “socialist” as well as “Nazi”, you’ll convince those reading your comments in this forum who are otherwise still undecided.
There’s a reason they call this website “Intellectual Conservative” instead of the “Conservative Daily Kos”. You’ll notice that the people here most prone to offering silly excess in the guise of making a point are the Left-leaning trolls who pop in to tell us how they feel about things. When you imitate their behavior, you lose any effectiveness you might otherwise have.
If you have a substantive point to make (other than simply repeating the same message again and giving us another website to look up), please contribute. Otherwise, we get it. You think we’re in an “emergency mode” and we need to sign your petition.
Phil
It’s all interesting to think about, but is there any language that could be drafted that could not be twisted and turned by those with a progressive agenda? Common sense is required to understand the current Constitution, as well as any new one.
The bottom line is we can’t permit children to get behind the wheel – even if we think it might make a cute picture – ever again.
The consequences of an Obama victory are every bit as serious as some of us said they would be. And he’s just getting started.
Draft this:
Proposed amendments and repeals needed to restore the United States of America
1. Congress can no longer farm out their Constitutional duties. i.e. to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; to establish Post Offices and Post Roads. Abolishing the Federal Reserve and operating the Post Office in the black.
2. Congress will no longer collect any funding, (taxes, fees, tariffs nor levies) from any American, individual nor company directly. They shall do a balanced Federal budget with at least 2/3′s vote from both houses and signed by the President then send a bill to each state for payment based on that State’s population. The federal debt shall be added to the bill to the States at a rate of 5% per year plus interest until paid. The States will collect and hold in Escrow and released not more than one year from the date the Budget Statement is received. The Federal Government shall borrow nothing, excluding periods when our nation is imminently at risk of war with another country or a recognized military unit.
3. Repeal the 16th Amendment: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
4. Forbid income based taxation by any government or government agency …Federal, State or Local. Income includes inheritance, winnings and gifts of any kind.
**5. Establish term limits of for both Federal houses.
6. The Federal Government shall promote the general Welfare …defining promote as: To urge the adoption of; advocate. The Federal Government shall not control, manage, regulate or pay for any welfare or social programs.
A process of getting out of any such programs, differing them to the States, shall be establish and implement on a first priority bases. This includes, but not limited to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, education, housing, welfare, health, environment, energy, labor, and transportation, with an exception for Interstate Highways as a National Defense matter.
7. No government or government agency …Federal, State or Local shall impede a completely free press at all times, including the Internet. With the exception of establishing a .xxx Internet domain (e.g., http://www.notforkids.xxx) and imposing steep fines and significant jail time for all sites that provide access to pornographic or extreme violence material outside of this domain. The terms pornographic and extreme violence has to be defined.
8. Federal Government initiatives, like national parks, highways, licensing of the airwaves, etc. shall be the states responsibility. With an exception for Interstate Highways as a National Defense matter.
9. The Federal Government shall not financially assistance any private company or organization.
10. Establish a presidential line item veto.
**11. States’ rights over Federal rights at least 90% of the time.
12. Establish Congressional pay, indexing the salary, and replacing the Congressional pension with a standard 401k retirement plan.
13. Guiding principles shall always override technicalities and special interests/extremist groups.
14. Re-establish and re-clarify equal rights for all over special rights for a few (e.g. prisoners, seniors, students, gays, and minorities)
15. All Federal Government programs shall have a clearly established objective and an end date of no more than ten years from the date of creation.
16. All legislation shall be limited to one subject.
17. Establish a maximum limit amount of foreign aid provided to any one country, in any year, and only allow any one country to receive funds for a maximum of two years in any five year period, excepting those nations in a declared war with a foreign enemy or a genocidal situation.
18. Limit foreign aid to ten or less countries in any year.
19. Federal budget shall not include any item whose benefit is primarily for a single state (e.g., a bridge in Alaska, or a levee in Louisiana).
20. English shall be our national language. English shall be the exclusive language used in all public institutions and on all public material.
21. All public institutions and on all public material shall not refer to the word marriage. Civil Union shall be used instead. Marriage is a religious event and shall be separated from state.
22. Preservation of human life and personal property shall take precedence over the welfare of any plant or animal regardless of its status as protected or endangered.
23. Establish when the moment of life begins, then re-affirm that the un-natural ending of life is murder.
24. Clarify the right of all American citizens to bear arms once and for all. Every American citizen has the right to carry a concealed weapon, as long as they can demonstrate basic firearm competence, but excluding those who have been convicted of a felony or deemed to be incompetent.
25. Final legislation shall be reviewed by the Supreme Court for Constitutionality then, if deemed Constitutional, shall be available for public review at least seven days prior to a vote. If signed by the President, all rules and regulations to enforce that law shall get the same review before becoming law.
26. Making financial promises and/or guarantees while campaigning for any elected office shall be strictly forbidden.
27. Specifically affirm that we are a nation under God, that all man are endowed by their Creator (God of choice or lack their of) with certain unalienable Rights that We the People of the United States blessed by our Creator (God of choice or lack their of) with Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity, that our creator (God of choice or lack their of) is welcome in all that we do, but no person can be forced to participate into worship or religion at any time or in any way.
Religious or spiritual activities on local, state, and federal property (such as schools, libraries, and municipal buildings), shall be at the discretion of the members of each site.
28. The legalization and regulation marijuana shall be the same as alcohol.
29. The National Guard of each State shall be completely controlled by the States they are in, except in time of a declared war and may be used to control our borders and prevent illegal immigration.
30. Deployment of United States troops shall be limited to 10,000, including support personnel, for a maximum of three years, in any country which we are not at war with and have not been for any of the last ten years.
31. Total military spending shall be no more than 3% of GDP, excluding periods when our nation is imminently at risk of war with another country or a recognized military unit.
32. Total foreign aid contributions shall be no more than the average contributions of the leading countries in the world in absolute dollars.
33. All people who commit a crime against a U.S. citizen who are not U.S. citizens shall be processed in military tribunals, not the U.S. legal system.
34. A “Law of Common Sense” shall require judges to hold individuals accountable for their actions, particularly when the predominant majority of society would have known better.
35. The worst 3 percent of judges each year, determined by the number of decisions overturned by a higher court shall be removed.
36. Only the Constitution and the laws of the United States shall be considered when deciding cases or writing opinions, judges shall not apply the “standards” of international behavior.
37. Lawyers shall not knowingly misrepresent the truth to defend their client.
38. Establish a maximum timeline for all criminal cases, ensuring that court proceedings begin within three months, end within one year, that appeals extend no more than two years through the highest court possible, and that both the defense and prosecution must adhere to the timeline with penalty of contempt of court charges and license revocation if they do not – including death penalty cases.
39. People who entering the United States illegally shall not receive any government benefits, federal, state or local, directly or indirectly.
40. Establish a Guest Worker Program that allows non-U.S. citizens to work in the United States for no more than five years.
41. Require those who have entered our country illegally to leave the country, when caught by any law enforcement agency.
42. The number of immigrants who can become citizens in any single year shall be no more than one percent of the population of the United States.
43. Citizenship to a child born in this country, whose mother is not a U.S. citizen, not married to a U.S. citizen, or not in the country legally shall be not be granted and leave the United States with parent(s).
44. Those in the United States illegally shall not have any of the rights granted to U.S. citizens, other than the right to humane treatment.
45. Employers shall be fined at least 3% of their gross receipts if they hire illegal immigrants not registered as “Guest Workers” on their first offense.
46. An Instant Runoff Vote for all Federal elections (e.g. President, Senate, and House of Representative) shall be done whenever a runoff vote is needed.
47. Repeal the 17th Amendment.
States United For Americans
Restoring the United States Of America
http://www.statesunitedforamercicans.org
Um, thasay. I think Phil was pretty clear.
A copy and paste of a three page document from your website does not qualify. While we may agree with much of what you pasted here, we are interested in what you personally believe in your own words, with your thoughtful analysis and commentary of the issue.
Try again.
thasay:
WRT #12, C’mon. Get real. From page 8 of a report on the retirement for members of Congress [for those first elected after 1984]:
“The Thrift Savings Plan: An Integral Component of FERS. The TSP is a defined contribution retirement plan similar to those authorized under Section 401(k) of the tax code for employers in the private sector. For all federal employees covered by FERS, their employing agency contributes an amount equal to 1% of base pay to the TSP, whether or not the employee chooses to contribute anything to the plan. In 2007, employees covered by FERS can make voluntary contributions of up $15,500. Employee contributions of up to 5% of pay are matched by the employing agency. Contributions are made on a pre-tax basis, and neither the contributions nor investment earnings that accrue to the plan are taxed until the money is withdrawn.”
http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30631.pdf
In short, those elected after 1984 already have a retirement plan that is a combination of savings and Social Security, similar to he private sector, IOW, a 401(k).
Here’s an idea: since representatives in effect work for the states, leave it up to the individual state to pay for the salaries and retirement of their representatives. I know this goes against most politicians’ concept of fairness, but if a representative is particularly valuable to a state, it can pay him accordingly. It also gets the representatives out of setting their own pay.
I love that. Let’s take it a little further. The states budget their entire DC budget which would include travel, staff, expenses, etc. and his/her pay/retirement. The more they save, the more they may make.
The retirement of course, would be base on one or two terms, not a lifetime of service.
I wrote “Proposed amendments and repeals needed to restore the United States of America” I posted them to get feed back like sedonaman gave me and would appreciate any intelligent recommendations or additions.
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by IC_politics: Toward a Constitutional Convention: When government gets too powerful and oversteps its bounds of authority, the C… http://bit.ly/bNnPMP...