Guest post from Shorter Half (a.k.a. Geodkyt)
I think it is difficult to argue that the balance of power in the United States hasn’t gotten out of whack. Whether you’re a liberal who feels that Chimpy McBusHitler and Darth Cheney abused the system to install an Imperial Executive who ruled by fiat and ignored the law; a conservative who feels the same about almost all Democratic presidents since Comrade El Presidente for Life FDR wheeled into the Oval Office*; or a guy who spent $30,000 Rogaining himself into a Wookie birthday suit, calls dollar bills “Federal Reserve Notes” that aren’t actually “dollars”, feels that the tipping point was when Washington decided to crack down on moonshiners, and proclaims that a standing army larger than the faculty at West Point is militaristic tyranny; there is a general feeling the system is badly in need of an overhaul.
Quite a few people have discussed the idea of a Constitutional Convention to “hit the reset button” on our democratic Republic**, to restore the ideals of the Founding Fathers.
Others (less radical) have proposed simply repealing the 17th Amendment, giving the control of senatorial selection back over to the legislatures of the several states (who could, if they wish, choose to select their senators by popular vote.)
Some think we need a recall procedure or term limits on the judiciary, including the Jedis of SCOTUS.
Let’s go over these options for a minute ...
Constitutional Convention? Look, you (regardless of political leanings) almost certainly think of yourself as a reasonable, responsible person. It’s those other guys who can afford (because they have no life and plenty of rich, uninhibited, power hungry nuts just like them to underwrite their living expenses) to sit around, day in and day out, arguing for months about the shape of the table, until all the reasonable, responsible people have had to go home. So, imagine a constitution written from scratch by the most bitter, partisan, and nutball types on the opposite end of the political plane from you. A Constitutional Convention is a last resort, suitable for a post-revolutionary period, or when you realize the government you just created is completely unsuitable to your needs.
Repeal the 17th Amendment? Well, it would likely restore some of the 10th Amendment balance that’s been lost – appointed senators who do not have to stand election may well be more directly responsive to the legislature that appointed them, and look out for the perceived interests of their state rather than public opinion. Of course, this overlooks the fact that the legislature itself has to stand election. Another difficulty is it simply isn’t going to happen – 2/3rds of both houses of Congress plus 3/4ths of the states are not going to vote to strip the American people of their direct election of Senators. (In all honesty, while I am in agreement that the 17th Amendment was a mistake in that it effectively gutted the 10th Amendment, I prefer to err on the side of the ballot box.)
Term limits and/or recalls for the federal judiciary? Maybe recalls of some sort, the same procedure to recall Sotomayor can be used to recall Thomas. As for term limits, what is a judge to do when he is running up against a Constitutional limit on his career? If he’s a crappy enough judge that you don’t want him on the bench, are you really getting warm fuzzies about the thought of him looking forward at his post-judicial career and figuring he better not offend any future employers, like any Congressman turned lobbyist?
Well, I was at the local Tea Party meeting, when this little gem of an idea was announced:
The Repeal Amendment
"Any provision of law or regulation of the United States may be repealed by the several states, and such repeal shall be effective when the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states approve resolutions for this purpose that particularly describe the same provision or provisions of law or regulation to be repealed."
Note what this proposed amendment doesn’t do –
• It doesn’t give the state legislatures the ability to create federal law.
• It doesn’t give the state legislatures the authority to override courts decisions they don’t like.
• It doesn’t alter the Constitution every time the people wish to stop something stupid.
• It doesn’t strip away any democratic procedure.
• It doesn’t allow individual states to just pretend to ignore federal laws they don’t like.
• It doesn’t permanently prevent the law from being reenacted if the people decide they prefer it after all.
• It doesn’t risk the complete reorganization of the Constitution.
• It doesn’t create an additional incentive for judges to issue biased rulings to set up his second career.
All it does it give the several states a veto. If a federal law or regulation is so abhorrent that 34 out of 50 state legislatures all reject it, chances are it was a bad idea. Since Congress can vote to reinstate the law under the usual legislative procedures if they feel the state legislatures are out of touch, all it really does is force everyone to slow down and take a second look at it.
Is it perfect? Probably not. For example, it could be worded so that the repeal would have to be overridden in the same manner as a Presidential veto ... but then, this amendment is unlike a veto as it can be used on laws already in effect, and it can be used on non-legislative regulations. I’d rather have this than risk swinging the pendulum so far over we have reduced the federal government to a shell of impotence, like the Confederate States of America, Articles of Confederation, or the Polish Parliaments of the 17th and 18th Centuries. Likewise, I wouldn’t mind being able to veto Senate confirmations or ratifications – but since confirmations and ratifications generally take effect immediately, just how long should treaties and officials such as federal judges be held vulnerable to a ex post facto veto?
For more details, I can recommend the WSJ article, The Case for a 'Repeal Amendment'.
* Well, except for Carter ... even the most rabid Dittoheaded Pajamahadeen sworn to the eternal service of Ronaldus Maximus will readily proclaim that Carter wasn’t even competent enough to function as an effective autocrat.
** Yes, the capitalization style is deliberate – North Korea is a Democratic Republic, Nancy Pelosi wants a Democratic republic – this nation is a Republic whose representatives are chosen by the people (democratic).
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Monday, September 13, 2010
Shorter Half expresses an opinion regarding a Constitutional Convention
Shorter Half received the following e-mail traffic, titled "Proposing that the legislature have to live with same rules as we". The first message said:
I know there are dangers with a Constitutional Convention but this is worth considering.
Attached was this (and it was unattributed)
The Time Has Indeed Come!
Governors of 35 states have already filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.
This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.
An idea whose time has come!
For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest was to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform ... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law.
I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.
A Constitutional Convention - this is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come. And, with the advent of modern communication, the process can be moved along with incredible speed. There is talk out there that the "government" doesn't care what the people think. That is irrelevant. It is incumbent on the population to address elected officials to the wrongs afflicted against the populace...you and me. Think about this...
The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971...before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc.
Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.
I'm asking each addressee to forward this Email to a minimum of twenty people on their Address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.
Someone responded with:
When I first saw this one going around the emails, I thought it was a good idea. But then I thought about it and I thought this won’t do a thing for me personally. Nor will it help restore Constitutional governance. I believe our legislation we will be unveiling at the convention will be much more effective than the one below. It too will require a Constitutional Convention but put the powers back where they belong. It will also beat back these regulations from these ever-growing and over-reaching agencies like the EPA who are getting more powerful and gaining a stranglehold on our lives. I would rather have their power reduced and defunded. That will change my life. The bill below will not as I believe Congress would only find new ways to spend our money to get themselves the power and the entitlements. A good point is the automatic raise in pay they get. We can’t do a convention for each of these affronts. Instead, we can defund their ability to do it. I dunno – still thinking about it. I’m just sharing the point at where I am on thinking through this.
And then Shorter Half responded with:
Agreed.
One way to handle the Congressional pay issue would be to decouple Congressional pay from military and civil servant pay – right now, NO employee of the Federal Government (excepting the President and Vice President) is allowed to make more than a Congressman. And, to make sure that senior officials get paid more than junior officials, the pay tables are pretty much all calculated off that max base pay, with each step down getting less, with the pay ratios painstakingly established to try and make the pay increase match the responsibility increase, while staying competitive enough that we don’t lose all the good troops to the civilian economy about the time they get fully trained up. The fact is, right about the time they are a true master of their specialty is about the time that the reality of family expenses really hits home. . . and the civilian economy is willing to pay handsomely for their technical skills.
This pay rule currently provides leverage other politicians can use against Congressmen – “My opponent claims to support the troops, yet he repeatedly voted against fair pay raises for our troops in combat!” As it stands right now, you can’t vote against a pay raise for the Congresscritters without voting against a pay raise for PVT E-1 Snuffy in Afghanistan with a pregnant wife alone at Fort Bragg, ¾ of a continent away from her hometown of Goat Path, Montana (Pop. 100).
However, there are two things to recall when proposing changes:
If you decoupled COLA increases from base pay (the rule about staying below Congressional pay rates only affects base pay automatically) altogether by statute, you could decide how to best implement a prohibition on Congress receiving any COLA increase, ever. (If they need a pay raise, they would have to pass it as a base pay increase – but anyone wishing to give the troops an across the board pay raise could do it via a fat COLA increase without raising Congressional pay. That little game of using the troops to politically blackmail people into voting for a Congressional pay increase just became unusable.)
Or, you could pass an amendment that states that pay earned directly from the government is tax free, except for elected officials. (It never made sense to me for the Federal Treasury to withhold funds paid from the Federal Treasury in order to pay them into the Federal Treasury as taxes, anyway.) PVT Snuffy (or the janitor at the Federal building in downtown Atlanta) would happily forgo an annual 2-3% pay raise if 100% of his pay was tax-free, even when he wasn’t in a combat zone.
However, the risks of a Constitutional Convention far outweigh the benefits. Just look at the difference between the Articles of Confederation and the original Constitution. . . and that resulted from a convention that was only supposed to “tweak” the Articles! Any future Constitutional Convention will be dragged out until it is dominated only by those who can afford to not go to work for a year or longer. Neither George Soros, anyone George Soros would be willing to pay living expenses to for attending (the man has BILLIONS, having him replace any lost income – or even double their old pay - by fellow-minded Convention attendees wouldn’t even dent his personal entertainment budget. . . and there are many mega-wealthy socialist fellow travelers like him, starting with Bloomberg and almost ANY popular entertainer), a lifelong welfare recipient, nor a 23 year kid who dropped out of college “to find himself and get his chi in balance with Gaia” are likely to write a new Constitution that I would approve of. The people who WOULD be likely to produce a Constitution that I could support are also generally the LEAST likely be able to show up in large numbers, every day, all day and often into the night, month after month.
If we could pull that kind of majority support to stick through the long haul and keep the crazy out of the new Constitution, then by definition, we would have more than enough political power to achieve anything we desire in the Constitution via the traditional amendment route. Without the risk of a Constitution that, for example, formally surrenders ultimate sovereignty of the United States to the transnational debating club called the UN. . . placing our liberty at the tender mercy of the same people who put Iran and Syria on the Human Rights Committee.
If you want to imagine a modern Constitutional Convention, think of the half dozen silliest or most dangerous Public Propositions you have ever heard about from ANY state in the Union. That’s the sort of stuff that would end up in a Convention, were it held under current social and political conditions. (“Everyone has a right to an above-average income” – there was a movement to do exactly THAT, in California a few decades ago! The first time I heard that statement my brain derailed. . . )
A Constitutional Convention is a complete reboot and from-scratch system install of the nation. Like reformatting your hard drive and putting a brand new operating system on a perfectly empty drive. I could see doing one after a successful rebellion against a truly tyrannical government. . . but we haven’t even fully exhausted the FIRST of the three options (soap box, ballot box, cartridge box, in that order) for government change. Armed rebellion isn’t even on the horizon at this time, so I would prefer to avoid altogether the reorganization procedure that generally only works well immediately after one.
Constitutional Conventions work well then, because it’s really apparent to EVERYONE that the old system was a failure, AND you generally can legally exclude the side that lost the war from participating. Not the case here.
Shorter Half
If you think he’s only a gun geek, you haven’t heard him talk military history. And even that pales in comparison to his political junkie geekery. He reads legal code for fun. Considering that when we met, I had little interest in modern firearms, and next to no interest in politics, I’m still not sure how that whole courtship thing came about. I have a feeling that if, when the time comes, Sweet Daughter has an incompetent "Government" or "Poli Sci" (or whatever they'll be calling it by then) teacher, things are going to get ... interesting.
I know there are dangers with a Constitutional Convention but this is worth considering.
Attached was this (and it was unattributed)
The Time Has Indeed Come!
Governors of 35 states have already filed suit against the Federal Government for imposing unlawful burdens upon them. It only takes 38 (of the 50) States to convene a Constitutional Convention.
This will take less than thirty seconds to read. If you agree, please pass it on.
An idea whose time has come!
For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed (such as being exempt from any fear of prosecution for sexual harassment) while ordinary citizens must live under those laws. The latest was to exempt themselves from the Healthcare Reform ... in all of its forms. Somehow, that doesn't seem logical. We do not have an elite that is above the law.
I truly don't care if they are Democrat, Republican, Independent or whatever. The self-serving must stop.
A Constitutional Convention - this is a good way to do that. It is an idea whose time has come. And, with the advent of modern communication, the process can be moved along with incredible speed. There is talk out there that the "government" doesn't care what the people think. That is irrelevant. It is incumbent on the population to address elected officials to the wrongs afflicted against the populace...you and me. Think about this...
The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971...before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc.
Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.
I'm asking each addressee to forward this Email to a minimum of twenty people on their Address list; in turn ask each of those to do likewise.
Someone responded with:
When I first saw this one going around the emails, I thought it was a good idea. But then I thought about it and I thought this won’t do a thing for me personally. Nor will it help restore Constitutional governance. I believe our legislation we will be unveiling at the convention will be much more effective than the one below. It too will require a Constitutional Convention but put the powers back where they belong. It will also beat back these regulations from these ever-growing and over-reaching agencies like the EPA who are getting more powerful and gaining a stranglehold on our lives. I would rather have their power reduced and defunded. That will change my life. The bill below will not as I believe Congress would only find new ways to spend our money to get themselves the power and the entitlements. A good point is the automatic raise in pay they get. We can’t do a convention for each of these affronts. Instead, we can defund their ability to do it. I dunno – still thinking about it. I’m just sharing the point at where I am on thinking through this.
And then Shorter Half responded with:
Agreed.
One way to handle the Congressional pay issue would be to decouple Congressional pay from military and civil servant pay – right now, NO employee of the Federal Government (excepting the President and Vice President) is allowed to make more than a Congressman. And, to make sure that senior officials get paid more than junior officials, the pay tables are pretty much all calculated off that max base pay, with each step down getting less, with the pay ratios painstakingly established to try and make the pay increase match the responsibility increase, while staying competitive enough that we don’t lose all the good troops to the civilian economy about the time they get fully trained up. The fact is, right about the time they are a true master of their specialty is about the time that the reality of family expenses really hits home. . . and the civilian economy is willing to pay handsomely for their technical skills.
This pay rule currently provides leverage other politicians can use against Congressmen – “My opponent claims to support the troops, yet he repeatedly voted against fair pay raises for our troops in combat!” As it stands right now, you can’t vote against a pay raise for the Congresscritters without voting against a pay raise for PVT E-1 Snuffy in Afghanistan with a pregnant wife alone at Fort Bragg, ¾ of a continent away from her hometown of Goat Path, Montana (Pop. 100).
However, there are two things to recall when proposing changes:
- Anything that can be done via statute can be undone by statute the very next day if both houses vote it through and the President signs it. So, simple statutory law will not restrain Congress (and Congressional Rules are even weaker).
- If it goes into the Constitution, it had better be important enough a principle to send boys off to die over it. Because that’s what their oath says.
If you decoupled COLA increases from base pay (the rule about staying below Congressional pay rates only affects base pay automatically) altogether by statute, you could decide how to best implement a prohibition on Congress receiving any COLA increase, ever. (If they need a pay raise, they would have to pass it as a base pay increase – but anyone wishing to give the troops an across the board pay raise could do it via a fat COLA increase without raising Congressional pay. That little game of using the troops to politically blackmail people into voting for a Congressional pay increase just became unusable.)
Or, you could pass an amendment that states that pay earned directly from the government is tax free, except for elected officials. (It never made sense to me for the Federal Treasury to withhold funds paid from the Federal Treasury in order to pay them into the Federal Treasury as taxes, anyway.) PVT Snuffy (or the janitor at the Federal building in downtown Atlanta) would happily forgo an annual 2-3% pay raise if 100% of his pay was tax-free, even when he wasn’t in a combat zone.
However, the risks of a Constitutional Convention far outweigh the benefits. Just look at the difference between the Articles of Confederation and the original Constitution. . . and that resulted from a convention that was only supposed to “tweak” the Articles! Any future Constitutional Convention will be dragged out until it is dominated only by those who can afford to not go to work for a year or longer. Neither George Soros, anyone George Soros would be willing to pay living expenses to for attending (the man has BILLIONS, having him replace any lost income – or even double their old pay - by fellow-minded Convention attendees wouldn’t even dent his personal entertainment budget. . . and there are many mega-wealthy socialist fellow travelers like him, starting with Bloomberg and almost ANY popular entertainer), a lifelong welfare recipient, nor a 23 year kid who dropped out of college “to find himself and get his chi in balance with Gaia” are likely to write a new Constitution that I would approve of. The people who WOULD be likely to produce a Constitution that I could support are also generally the LEAST likely be able to show up in large numbers, every day, all day and often into the night, month after month.
If we could pull that kind of majority support to stick through the long haul and keep the crazy out of the new Constitution, then by definition, we would have more than enough political power to achieve anything we desire in the Constitution via the traditional amendment route. Without the risk of a Constitution that, for example, formally surrenders ultimate sovereignty of the United States to the transnational debating club called the UN. . . placing our liberty at the tender mercy of the same people who put Iran and Syria on the Human Rights Committee.
If you want to imagine a modern Constitutional Convention, think of the half dozen silliest or most dangerous Public Propositions you have ever heard about from ANY state in the Union. That’s the sort of stuff that would end up in a Convention, were it held under current social and political conditions. (“Everyone has a right to an above-average income” – there was a movement to do exactly THAT, in California a few decades ago! The first time I heard that statement my brain derailed. . . )
A Constitutional Convention is a complete reboot and from-scratch system install of the nation. Like reformatting your hard drive and putting a brand new operating system on a perfectly empty drive. I could see doing one after a successful rebellion against a truly tyrannical government. . . but we haven’t even fully exhausted the FIRST of the three options (soap box, ballot box, cartridge box, in that order) for government change. Armed rebellion isn’t even on the horizon at this time, so I would prefer to avoid altogether the reorganization procedure that generally only works well immediately after one.
Constitutional Conventions work well then, because it’s really apparent to EVERYONE that the old system was a failure, AND you generally can legally exclude the side that lost the war from participating. Not the case here.
Shorter Half
If you think he’s only a gun geek, you haven’t heard him talk military history. And even that pales in comparison to his political junkie geekery. He reads legal code for fun. Considering that when we met, I had little interest in modern firearms, and next to no interest in politics, I’m still not sure how that whole courtship thing came about. I have a feeling that if, when the time comes, Sweet Daughter has an incompetent "Government" or "Poli Sci" (or whatever they'll be calling it by then) teacher, things are going to get ... interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)