Repeal of 17th Amendment starts in Utah
We need another 34 states to join them, but this would be HUGE.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Here in New Jersey we tried to recall a Senator. And our own Supreme Court said the provision in our own Constitution...was unconstitutional! Because the Federal Constitution does not explicitly provide for a State to recall its Congressional delegation, or any part of it.
The Articles of Confederation, in contrast, made all Congress members recallable.
Wow. Didn't anyone bring up the Ninth and Tenth Amendments which specifically state that anything NOT delegated to the Federal Government remains in the hands of the several States? The original intent of the Senate was to have Senators be responsive to the State Legislatures, while the original intent for the House was responsiveness to the People. Control of recall initiation should be from those respective institutions - not Congress itself, I agree.
If a State wants popular vote, let them.
Also, make the States pay for their own Senator/Representative. Why is this a FedGov payroll thing? Same with their staffers. The FedGov should pay the custodial services, that's about it.
Let the State pay them whatever the State wants to pay them.
That said, I approve your idea that the Senators should draw a State, not a federal, salary.
Here, on the subject of the House of Representatives, is a link to another suggestion: http://www.americaagain.net/the_last_...
The premise: why shouldn't Representatives spend most of their time in their districts, and meet virtually instead of actually and physically? Incidentally, the House must meet this way, if it is to grow to the original maximum level of one Representative for every thirty thousand persons. I'm sure the OpenSim virtual-world environment (intended for Massively Multi-player On-line Role Playing Games, like "Second Life", but with open-source technology) would be readily adaptable to virtualizing meetings of the House.
Yes, I agree virtual meeting. There is no reason for Reps to travel to DC, or spend time there.
This would increase the cost to lobbiest greatly. Now, they would have to travel state to state, instead of just camping out in DC.
However, I'm not sure I agree with1:30000 - i see something like the Senate in Star Wars.
We can barely get consensus now. What could be done is a mach 1:30,000 Reps.
Set up a virtual House, proportioned as such. Put bills before it and see how it works.
The problem arises when you need a 2/3 or 3/4 majority vote. I don't know how you get 7000 reps in line. It would be like herd cats.
Yes, I agree virtual meeting. There is no reason for Reps to travel to DC, or spend time there.
This would increase the cost to lobbiest greatly. Now, they would have to travel state to state, instead of just camping out in DC.
However, I'm not sure I agree with1:30000 - i see something like the Senate in Star Wars.
We can barely get consensus now. What could be done is a mach 1:30,000 Reps.
Set up a virtual House, proportioned as such. Put bills before it and see how it works.
The problem arises when you need a 2/3 or 3/4 majority vote. I don't know how you get 7000 reps in line. It would be like herd cats.
Recall
and Majority required or 50 % plus one
and None of the above always on the ballot and requiring a majority for any winner including None of the above except Yes and No with for single candidate or position/question races.
One option is to pay the Senators and Representative - Congressionals a base salary stipulating that the costs incurred IN Washington DC would be paid by the federal government as part of the government operating budget. Then referring to all Congressionals as Delegates to the Federal Government from and for the State of -------
Each state might also choose between Two Senators direct vote, two senators appointed by vote of the Assembly or legislature of the state of one of each. A Senator Delegate At Large representing the District of the State of ------ and A Senator Delgate of the State Government to somewhat define the two.
and after that income tax...heh heh heh....
I love seeing good ideas come to fruition one no longer feels so quite alone.
Of course, with Amendment XVII gone, each State legislature could do what it likes in choosing Senators.
Jim Crow.
( hunkering down, awaiting the replies )
The original intent of creating multiple bodies in the Legislative Branch was to create representation of two kinds: one House that represented the People at large and held the power of the purse (since taxation had to apply to everyone but in many cases the smaller states would benefit more than they contributed), and another Senate that represented the interests of the various States and especially landowners. The Founders were very leery of a large and controlling Federal Government, because they knew that a concentration of power would inevitably lead to tyranny. To check the rise of a large Federal Government required smaller but more powerful State and local governments and their respective representation and presence in the Legislative and elective procedures. It's another reason for the creation of the Electoral College so that the Executive Branch was responsible for selecting a President rather than public whim (thank in part the 11th Amendment).
The 17th Amendment was a result primarily of one man - a mining baron from Butte, Montana, who effectively paid off the State Legislators in order to get elected - and re-elected. (To give you an idea of how wealthy he really was, he put the Rockefellers to shame. See Wikipedia on William A Clark) Now he wasn't the only case, but the most flamboyant because he bragged about it. Progressives took this as a signal that the system was broken and used it as an excuse to call for the popular election of Senators. The problem is that this removed one of the primary checks and balances inherent in the bi-cameral legislature: the States themselves. It also rendered the Senate redundant in its policies and responsibilities: there were now two bodies beholden to the People, yet none to represent the interests of the States. What this did was give a huge amount of power to the large States with their large population bases. And as we have seen, the larger the population base, the easier it is to encourage that population to vote based on emotions rather than logic or good practice due to media influence.
Does that help at all?
First, thank you for taking the time and effort to go into such detail. I really appreciate it. Second, no wonder our country is going down the drain - I'm not a dumb person, but even my interest starts to wander when presented with this topic. It's ironic that the system that is supposed to protect our freedoms is so hard to ( find interesting enough ?) to learn / focus on.
That being said, I appreciate the purpose of dividing the powers. What is eluding me is how a state's interest will diverge from a citizen's interest? And I can also see how, originally, landholders would be given ( take) more power, especially given the stark class / education distinctions that I believe were present at our founding. ( not to say the same isn't true still) but somehow that doesn't seem how a free and equal (opportunity, not outcome) society would be. But my main question is why the state, an an entity, is better to have power than individual citizens collectively having the power of a vote ? Does it come down to who will be easier to bribe ? And who will be easier to educate or b.s. ? Maybe I just need to go read Mark Levin's book...
I frequently marvel how smart and well-educated our founders were to craft the documents they did.
That's a great question. Ideologically, if everyone were seeking to uphold individual rights and respecting free commerce, I suspect that the differences would be small. Unfortunately, Benjamin Franklin noted that those who would seek for Federal offices would be largely "knaves" and those attracted to power and its exercise. The effective counter is to spread out the power to make it more difficult for the rise of individual tyrants.
Additionally, there are always regional interests of various farmers, mechants, miners, fishers, etc., that are better dealt with on a local or regional level than at the national one. I would advocate that education is definitely one to lump here as well.
Why is Common Core such a disaster? Aside from the fact that it doesn't care one whit about actual education, it is a one-size-all approach to managing tens of millions of students. And yet at the same time you see people complaining about class sizes because of the lack of individual attention and the tailoring of the program to individual needs. This is key. The reason the market works is because it ultimately gets down to individuals making choices for and being responsible for their own welfare. The more you abstract the decision-making away from the individual, the less efficient it becomes, the more centralized becomes the power, and the less the individual retains control over one's own destiny.
As to why it is better for the State to have power than the individual, that actually isn't the case. Remember, the People already have one legislative body wholly responsible to them: the House. But as we see with mob mentality rules, as a voting bloc, the People are notoriously bad at making long-term decisions. Why? Because the vast majority have neither the time nor inclination to really research the proposals, understand the issues, and develop plans to deal with things. That's a full-time job for someone. The market is replete with examples of specialization. Government is no different, we just treat it differently because of its penchant for abuse of power. But there is a reason for local planning and development organizations as a function of local and State government. There is a reason for a Public Works department to manage utilities. It is because these people can specialize in those fields and leverage that knowledge to bring better outcomes to their respective markets. The Founders were all men of extraordinary learning, and they literally debated from dusk to dawn for months on how to craft a new government. If they had not been the professional political science experts they were, they could not have drawn up a compact as sound and groundbreaking as they did.
In summary, the bicameral legislature exists to make sure that those paying for a government program get a vote, and those implementing the program get a vote. Both have their opportunity to contribute.
Jan
Cheers
When the 17th amendment was approved, it effectively took away the voice of the state, and the bicameral congress, and gave us a House of Reps of 535 members of which 100 served a 6 year term.
The Senate served 6 years, which moved slower at the state level, but Representatives served 2 which better reflected the changing population. It was supposed to prevent drastic changes in policy.
Prior to the 17th, Senators were not career politicians like we have now. They were chosen from the State Legislature, which means they were 1. already elected by the people, 2. vetted, with a voting history in the state. Further, most of those chosen hated the job, and rarely held the seat for more the 1 or 2 terms. So, repealing the 17th could effectively give you term limits.
In Md, our state leguslature is so fractionated due to gerrymandering ( we have two congressional districts in a SCOTUS lawsuit over the issue ) that I'm not sure we'd get a better result than someone who has to be directly elected.
Now both the Senate and the House are directly beholden to the people, bad things happen. Figuratively, the Child (the house of rep's) says, "We should get a pony!" Now, another child (the senate) replies, "We should get TWO ponies!"
No longer is there a voice of reason and restraint at the table of the federal government. It's not a coincidence that the vast majority of federal programs and spending followed this amendment. The people literally learned that they could vote themselves the money.
Also, the original intent was that the House represented the people and the Senate represented the states. Now the states have no direct representation and the Feds have been walking all over state's rights.
We, the People of the United States of America, having created, in 1791, a constitution in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves,and our posterity note that in the ensuing two-hundred and twenty plus years the goals of that constitution have been obscured and obfuscated with a drift toward tyranny, do hereby amend the constitution to re-direct the country to regain the goals therein stated.
Article 1: It is hereby clearly and specifically stated the first Amendment to the Constitution in assuring the Right to freedom of Speech, of Religion and of the Press shall be wholly unfettered and includes any and all means of personal and mass communication currently in existence and any which might be invented in the future. Any challenge regarding issues of “religion” shall be adjudicated with the understanding the first Amendment assures 'Freedom of Religion', NOT Freedom from Religion. Courts shall rule consistent with this interpretation.
Article 2, section 1: In retaining the constitutionally prescribed offices, the following changes and stipulations are hereby imposed:
Serving in any constitutional office is restricted to total term of 18 years -- either serially or with interruptions in service.
Members of the house of Representatives shall serve a term of 3 years, eligible for re-election – either serially or with interruptions in service – five (5) times.
Senators will serve a term of nine years; eligible for one(1) additional nine year term. Each senate seat during each three-year “off-year“ election shall be subject to a vote of confidence. If two-thirds of the electorate vote “no confidence” the serving senator will cease to serve in that office and a replacement Senator shall be selected during the next legislative session within the state.
A President shall be elected/selected via the Electoral College and serve a term of six years; being eligible for re-election -- either serially or with interruption – twice. Each off-year election shall include a vote of confidence. If a two-thirds vote of the electorate shall indicate 'no confidence' the President shall cease service as President and the vice-President shall assume the office of President of the United States to complete the term originally due the President removed by a vote of no-confidence.
Justices of the Supreme Court shall serve from the time they are confirmed by the Senate to the end of the court term in which Eighteen years of service is completed.
Elevation of a sitting Justice to the office of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall likewise result in serving an Eighteen year term ending at the end of the court term including the eighteenth year of service as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Section 2: Compensation for members of the House of Representatives, the Senate and the Presidency shall be limited to cash payments: No fringe benefits, perquisites or pensions shall be paid or accrue. The amounts of compensation are based on the median cash income of the constituents each office holder represents.
Members of the House of Representatives shall receive one and one-half (1.5) times the median income of the constituents they represent in the year prior to the year in which they are being compensated.
Senators shall receive two (2) times the median income of the constituents of the state they represent. As “President of the Senate” the Vice President of the United States shall also receive 2 times the median income of all American citizens in all states and territories constituting the United States of America.
The President of the United States shall receive three (3) times the median cash income of all American citizens in all states and territories constituting the United States of America.
Supreme Curt Justices shall receive twice the uppermost salary of the most highly paid civil service employees. Health care service for constitutional officers shall be available during the term in office through available government owned/operated healthcare facilities.
Article 3: We hereby repeal the sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Article 4: We hereby repeal the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Article 5: We hereby repeal the twenty-second Amendment to the Constitution.
Article 6: We hereby repeal the twenty-sixth Amendment to the Constitution.
Article 7; Section 1: We hereby stipulate that all laws passed by the Congress of the United States and signed into law by the President of the United State or which became law through constitutional procedures without the President's signature shall become null and void after a period of fifteen years'
Section 2: We hereby stipulate that all laws passed by the Congress of the United States and signed into law by the President of the United States or which became law through constitutional procedures without the President's signature prior to the passage of this document shall be randomly assigned a numerical value from one to fifteen. Beginning in the second year after ratification of this amendment the laws numbered one through fifteen shall, with each subsequent year, become null and void.
Section 3: Excepting Amendments one through ten (the “Bill of Rights”) – and exempting the 16th, 17th, 22nd and 26th Amendments which are hereby immediately repealed – each amendment to the Constitution passed previous to this document and which shall have been in force for 50 or more years shall be submitted to the several States for re-ratification . If the previously ratified amendment is not again ratified by the necessary number of states it shall be considered repealed.
Section 5: Each article of this document and any future ratified Amendment to the Constitution shall likewise by submitted for “re-ratification” after 50 years.
Article 8 ,Section 1: Proposals presented for consideration within either the House of Representatives or the Senate of the United States shall include a preamble statement to include a specific reference to the article and section of the Constitution of the United States, as amended which would empower the Federal Government to take the action proposed. Proposals without such constitutional authority shall not be considered, voted on or passed.
Section 2: Proposals presented for consideration within either the House of Representatives or the Senate of the Unites States shall not exceed 50 pages in length (standard legal paper with at least 12 point font.)
Article 9. No federal facility, building, park or other project shall be named for any individual living, nor shall such be named for any person deceased prior to that person having been dead for at least 50 years.
Article 10. Persons actively engaged as members of the armed services of the United States of America on election day shall have their votes counted twice. Citizens serving in the armed forces of the United States who have not reached the age of 21 and therefore are ineligible to vote, shall be allowed to vote once as a member of the armed forces.
Article 11. When a sitting constitutional officer of the Federal Government is impeached by the House of Representatives a trial shall be held with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. “Jurors” shall be selected by each Governor or each state of the Union. Each State being allotted one Juror; those jurors being legal citizens, but not being elected officials of any public body.
given special voting priveleges.
It would be very wrong to put Amendments 13,
14, and 15 in danger every 50 years. (Do not for-
get the neo-Confederates in the lily-white South
who treated the black people like dirt for nearly
100 years after slavery was abolished, and de-
prived them of the vote with rigged 'literacy
tests",etc. This is from a Southern white fe-
male).
Freedom of religion does mean freedom
from religion. Freedom of thought and free-
dom of conscience (which include freedom of
religion) should be held as sacred.
In theory, I could support ways to limit voting too, by some individuals (those easily distracted by shiny objects -- Bernie Sanders voters perhaps), but obviously the abuses of freed slaves and other "African-Americans" must be taken into consideration. And since power corrupts it is easy to see how Jim Crow could be easily revisited. Neil Neil Boortz's answer to too many voters with too little knowledge is to find a way to give extra votes to the successful in our culture (I think he suggested one vote for every $10000 in taxes one pays).
The amendment to "sundown" every law after a set period ensures that bad, obsolete or unnecessary laws go away. Issues of import should be reviewed by our representatives on and ongoing basis.
Freedom of religion has been assailed by groups with deep pockets and a willingness to sue to create pockets of Freedom From Religion. Thus, my Amendatory directive to the courts. Freedom of thought and conscience are sacred and must be actively defended. Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction (R. Reagan)
blacks could have been Constitutionally put back
into slavery, subject to being lynched while the
State governments sat on their hands, and deprived
of the franchise. Of course, most of that oc-
curred anyway, but at least the Supreme
Court was eventually persuaded to recognize
the Fourteenth Amendment. And the Voting
Rights Act was passed.--Sorry, you can't sell
it to me.
I would add in a repeal of the 12th Amendment, which provided for political party-based control of the Executive. While I agree that the method of electing the President was somewhat problematic, the general effect of the 12th Amendment has been to effectively nullify the threat of Impeachment and Conviction of Executive Officers - especially the President. It also strongly encourages a two-party system.
Since you are going to clarify the First Amendment, I'd suggest that a clarification of the Second Amendment be similarly injected to read that the individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed nor shall the People be prohibited from forming Militias.
With regards to Term limits and duration of terms, I found your idea of a no-confidence vote intriguing. I'm going to have to think about the ramifications more before commenting, as I can see both positives (greater accountability) and negatives (cost of constant voting, susceptibility to mob rule).
Regarding compensation, I have an alternate proposition: have all representatives and their staffs (and offices) be paid for by their individual States as determined by them. If the State wants to pay their Legislators a million $ each, that's up to them to decide and similarly if they want to make them members of a Healthcare exchange. ;) With the President and Vice President, I'd actually suggest no salary at all, given that their needs are paid for by the taxpayers. (See President Obama's recent vacation tabs for egregious waste.)
Article 7 Section I: I like the idea of having automatic sunset provisions - especially on spending bills - but the randomized nature is not really clicking with me.
Article 8 Section I: YES. This should provide the bases for all legal challenges to any particular enactment. Similarly, Executive Orders are subject to the same and should begin with a clause like "Pursuant to [insert US Code, etc.] ..."
Article 8 Section II: As an alternative, simply insist that all bills must be read in their entirety on the floor before a quorum of members before it may be voted upon. Say goodbye to these 2000+ page boondoggles. In my home State, all bills require three complete readings before final passage. It really forces the Legislature to focus on important matters and keep the legalese to a minimum.
Re: the no confidence vote. Remember elections would only be held every three years, thus 50 per cent fewer elections than we currently have. The vote of no confidence would not require campaigning (just good governance)
you lost me on a requirement for religion. Which is the way it reads.
Anyone but a lawyer may comment
EXCELLENT POST
Much of the antagonistic acts by courts are from ACLU agendas being placed before ACLU judges by ACLU lawyers.
We can redefine religion, freed of to include religion freedom from and redefine speech to exclude the buying of votes buy other than registered voters in any geo-political which would not deny free speech by virtue of the level from local to the state level to the two federal positions. Thus much of the rigged election aspects would disappear.
Who could not contribute?
Any entity or person who may not vote at the level involved or in question.
The correction would increase freedom of speech by ensuring all those that may vote were not drowned out by wealth instead of rhetoric.
containing
1. Title (which must define the purpose, intent and scope)
2. A Mission Statement which expands on the same with emphasis on limitations
3. Constitutional Authority - to put forward the legislation
4. Cost with CBO
5. Source of Funding and Availability OMB .
6. If a budget over ride is required due to war or natural disaster the reason and a statement the cost over run to be the first item of the next years budget.
the 1930's. Amendments should not be periodically resubmitted for ratification. The citizens would have already had too many of their rights wiped out of the Constitution... And why "other than the bill of rights"? If Numbers 22, 13, 14, and 19 could be put in periodic danger, why not the entire Bill of Rights?--
There should be a provision that if a new A-
mendment were not ratified within a certain per-
iod (like 7 years), it would not become part of
the Constitution.
Prior to the Patriot Act the Bill of Rights ensured a jury trial, right to an attorney, led to 'probable cause' as a reason for arrest and the use of warrants signed by judges, trial by jury among other items.
Currently with an 85% approval of Congress arrests can be made for "suspicion of terrorism or suspicion of supporting terrorism" Along with that comes a complete suspension of the preceding paragraph.
Your choice. The Seven year rule you propose is already in effect.
I would however add to the Bill of Rights a provision for felony arrest/impeachment and trial and conviction for ignoring the Bill of Rights and other portions of the Constitution. Which would have put the President and 85% of Congress in jail where they belong after their vote mentioned above.
Your choice...Bill of Rights or knock on the door in the night.
A time limit on ratifying new amendments is an excellent idea. Just as in the 1789 convention their will be lots of .... (shall we call it) debate.
subject to popular whims every few years. Of
course, 50 years seems like a long time, but it is
not so long, if you look over time.
Anyone who loves sausage and/or law, should never see how they are made.
like the interminable one with FDR. And and elec-
tion every 4 years ensures that we get a chance to
get rid of the person after 4 years.
One amendment would place the Act of Succession as President, Vice-President, Senate President Pro Tempore AND from the same party.
Why? Senators are elected by entire States. Representatives by Districts of half a million population or so. I would exclude Cabinet Secretaries who have zero votes and are needed at their posts.
Choosing from another party internal revolution. Therefore the VP should be the Senate President Pro Tempore. The Senate choosing the Act of Succession individual(s) Thus the intent of the Constitution is restored and electing clowns, light weights or another LBJ is hopefully blocked.
That one is an easy fix.
Time to "Stop doing business" with the federal government.
But remember the old adage: "Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst."
Such is how he praised Obamanationcare.
Both places are a desert to Bama boy.
Both for jobs and energy independence.
Besides plastic money IS acceptable and had replaced the gold, credit, faith standards.
So what's your problem with letting business do what they do anyway it's just routing digits. something you participate in every day.
why is it all of a sudden a problem.
That leaves the cash only market. Yard Sales and swap meets. If that is a significant worry we really are in trouble.
It does bring up another question. Under end user consumption tax is that on new goods or include used goods.
I think the business community is heavily involved.
Although you may be one of the few who don't use plastic for anything nor have a bank account.
Or would rather have a fascist sales tax and an IRS.