Yes, indeed. There is Dr. Floyd Ferris's confession when he is trying to intimidate Rearden, and Rearden says, "After all, I did break one of your laws." (Once,when I called a radio talk show, and made a remark about creating a situation where the citizens were bound to be put in the position of law-breakers, and the guy on the radio seemed to recognize it, and replied, "I'm not a Randian.")

I especially like Number 8. (Perhaps such rules should be subjected, one by one to Congressional approval.)

Like term limits, you have to make lawmakers who make the laws to go along with that. Impossible!

I have nothing basically against greed. I am greedy myself, and proud of it. I admitted this when an adolescent, on my job as a carhop. But corruption is when dishonesty is involved, or power-lust, or actual or attempted violation of the rights of others. I was greedy for the money (including tips) that I wanted to actually earn myself.

Perhaps we could have a law (I think that this applies to the President already) that a Congressperson's salary is not to be increased or decreased during his/her time in office. (Unless he or she gets out of office and someday gets back in again.)

That's not true. Your don't want Amendments #13, #14, #15, #19?! Abolition of slavery, blacks guaranteed not to be disenfranchised because or their race, equal protection under law (including protections from lynching), woman suffrage? Or perhaps you want the citizen to be handed over to be the serf of his state government? (Comment regarding freedomforall's remark about not using any of the Constitutional Amendments after #10.)

Exactly. That would lead (or necessarily imply) racism. (:I'm agreeing with bradAnderson.)

All awesome ideas... Looks like you’re going to the Convention of States.

2. Great idea -I would expand to the executive branch as well, also I would disallow pardons after the incumbent lost.

5. Concerned with unintended consequences – an amendment that forces equal application of laws - Congress would be forbidden from passing laws that give one state, industry, business, person an advantage or burden that others do not receive or pay. Would force a flat tax as well as remove the incentive for corruption. Laws couldn’t be passed bestowing favorable teams one corporation, no reason for the corporation to pay the congressman for their vote.

6. This is a great idea, have not hear of this before.

7. Can you elaborate?

8. Agreed, regulatory bodies shouldn’t be able enforce regulations on people. I would deny regulatory rules completely, any regulatory rule would have to be a law passed by congress before it could be enforced.

9. I think this could have some major problems and will be overturned in the future. Think about war, how would we increase spending in the face of a threat? First, we fire/layoff most federal employees. It would cheaper with them on welfare and we wouldn’t have to deal with the poor decisions they make. We would privatize most functions that were deemed necessary. The BLM, once disbanded, has tons of resources owned by the people, these should be privatized, the profits utilized to pay our federal operating costs. We would start again with a budget of zero, any increase must be paid for and voted on by congress. The source or the funds must be in the bill, and how the law is dissolved if funds become unavailable. Each and every bill would have to contain a life cycle of the law.

Aristotle's "Priest Kings" comes to mind. Invert communism. Those in charge are not allowed to have luxury or wealth.

100% open books for public officials (and SES people). If you are in government, all your financial information is open to all, and all communications are open to the public.

A constitutional amendment limiting congress from passing laws that favor some over others. Congress would be forbidden from passing laws that give one state, industry, business, person an advantage or burden that others do not receive or pay.

This would remove the incentive for corruption and force a flat tax.

In the same amendment, I would severely limit the executive branches use of executive actions in the same vein as above or just limit it to the implementation of existing law. I would also deny regulatory rules completely, any regulatory rule would have to be a law passed by congress. We need to make those sorry ass-wipes do their job and do it in the best interest of the country.

Sorry to say that digital version of Lost Legacy has some transcription issues, not to mention that the pasted link is malformed by the gulch editor.
http://www.sfsfss.com/stories/Robert_...

The simple question underlying your real question is this: can one force the human soul? Or in more proverbial terms "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink."

Ultimately, people have to individually choose to accept a positive moral code to live by. Some will choose to do so and some will choose to eschew morals in favor of power, money, etc. So all one can do is try to hold politicians accountable for their actions. This is where structural measures such as separation of powers, veto, impeachment, etc. all have their day. It is veritably true that some are more effective than others. Here are a few of my comments on some structural reforms I believe could assist.

1. Repeal the Twelfth Amendment. Many have never even heard of it or understand its significance, but the Twelfth Amendment paved the way for political parties by putting the President and Vice President on the same ticket. I support repealing this Amendment to allow for multiple political parties to more closely align with voter blocs.

2. A lame duck clause which ends the term of any Congressman or Senator who loses their re-election bid no later than the Friday following the election (Tuesday) and barring any appeals. Once the people have spoken, they have spoken.

3. All costs, salaries, etc. for Senators and Congressmen shall be paid for by their respective States rather than from Federal Funds. Congress should NOT be allowed to control their own pay or benefits. Congress would still set the budgets for the other two branches of office as well as the maintenance/security of the Capitol building itself.

4. Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment. The individual States have been largely excised from any kind of control over the Federal government with the popular election of Senators. The States should be in charge of the Federal government and right now just the opposite is true. In order to do that, the States have to have their role in the Federal Government reinstated: Senators should be elected by their respective State governments. (The People themselves would maintain their participation through direct election of Representatives.)

5. Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment. The personal income tax is oppressive in several ways and should be repealed immediately. First, it divorces government income in large part from the economic base upon which it should be responsive. When government can tax its own people for their commercial intercourse, it only gives incentive to grow its power through greater and greater tyranny. Government revenues should primarily originate from international trade tariffs and import duties. These also have a potent feedback mechanism as a result of international diplomacy and provides a potent check on both pure isolationism as well as unfettered grants of Most Favored Nation status.
The second - and potentially even more problematic - issue is that the implementation of a personal income tax - and its extension as corporate income taxes - has an inherently chilling effect on Free Speech. Any time speech is suborned through the permission of a government agency - especially one as potent as the IRS - you are introducing and tolerating the very tyranny the Founders revolted over.

6. Automatic review of federal appellate judges whose rulings get overturned by the Supreme Court. We have a real problem with the Federal Judiciary being more ideological than judicial. The Founders originally anticipated that Impeachment and Conviction could serve as a reasonable check on such behavior. Unfortunately, the history of Impeachment of judicial positions shows that it is almost completely ineffective, allowing Federal judges - especially appellate judges - to be appointed and rule from an increasingly ideological perspective. I would propose a second check: that Federal judges who are repeatedly overruled by the Supreme Court (I'm looking at the Ninth District especially) would be immediately subject to review and reconfirmation by the Senate.

7. An Amendment which directs the Judicial Branch to use a "strict scrutiny" standard when adjudicating whether or not an action taken by the government is Constitutional. Deference to the judgement calls of bureaucrats ends forever.

8. An Amendment clarifying that any Executive agency enacted by Congress must get Congressional approval to issue ANY rules. The Constitution delegates specifically to Congress the power to pass laws and this has been largely bypassed by the enactment of agencies with rule-making authority.

9. An Amendment dictating that Congress may not allocate in its Budget any more than the actual Revenue brought in the second year prior to that being budgeted. No more unlimited spending. Priority goes to paying down debt. The rest Congress gets to fight over to allocate. But it is a fixed amount.

Anyway, that's a starter list.

Thanks, Aeronica.
Download of that interesting story here:
https://archive.org/download/TheRevol...
One of my favorite novelettes that has a similar plot is Heinlein's Lost Legacy (also called Lost Legion.)
http://www.sfsfss.com/stories/Robert_A.Heinlein-_Lost_Legacy.pdf

Something about "the consent of the governed" comes to mind. I have run out of consent. I agree - term limits and full disclosure of all assets.

I don't have answers either, but this is a good explanation why.
I think corruption goes hand in hand with over regulation. As in regulation equals law. Actually it doesn't.
I agree with the oft quoted AR passage about passing laws for the sole purpose of having good people break them.

Only if it's by car crusher feet first televised on National TV.

Yes. One Law.
Once a leaders corruption is proven...
Their ENTIRE BLOODLINE and SPOUSES of said bloodlines are Executed.

And we get REALLY consistent on enforcement.
Within a few years, and after witnessing Ryan, Romney, and other families exterminated...

I am WILLING to bet that they think twice...

Furthermore, any attempt to pass laws definitively weaken this law (just the attempt), would be punished in the same way!

I read some of this website a while ago. Interesting.

Yes, balance indeed.

This is a difficult question. Laws and regulations will not, I believe, stop it. Our politicians pass laws allegedly to prevent a problem and then sit back and expect bureaucrats and law enforcement to apply the laws. However, the corruption is deep. So what leads to corruption? Is it not the loss of ethical standards, of integrity, of keeping one's word, of compassion, of understanding, of honesty? And then there is the outright mental illness: personality disorders, sociopathy, and psychopathy, disorders that seem to be growing exponentially. The next question is how we shall deal with these anti-human chaos-makers that have taken over in pursuit of death? North Americans have become divorced from our own lives. We elect these people on the basis of too many assumptions and not enough data. Do the politicians and we have spiritual lives apart from organized religion? What I know is that we must have a balance between the intellectual and the spiritual to live a moral life. That is all that I know. I have no answers. I wish I did.

Strict term limits, a lifetime ban on contact with lobbyists, and lifetime forensic audits of their personal finances.

Change the constitution to prevent government from taking from one and giving to another. That is the real problem.

It would help. The way politicians make money is selling our government to willing purchasers. This only happens because our government can take from one and give to another. THAT needs to stop, and if stopped, the "anothers" wont want to bother purchasing favors from politicians.

That's pretty good. Misanthropic, but definitely an honest point of view.

Or added to the long list of Clinton-Assisted Suicides.