Tag: amendments

Term Limits for All

Warning: Undefined array key "adf" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 69

Warning: Undefined array key "sim_pages" in /home4/hpvcxhmy/public_html/wp-content/plugins/similarity/similarity.php on line 70

One year ago today I pointed out that the subject of term limits becomes popular after an election. Like clockwork it came up again this year. Jim DeMint jumped the gun a bit by announcing three weeks ago that he would introduce a term limit amendment. Yesterday he introduced the bill and today I read an opinion by Mark Tapscott on why he thinks it will actually happen this time.

In previous posts on the subject we have usually had some good discussions, but they tend to be the same from year to year. I’ll summarize the previous discussions in hopes that we can start a step or two down the road and have a more advanced discussion by doing so.

The discussion that we usually have boils down to the fact that term limits deal more with a symptom of our broken system rather than a cause but that treating that symptom might help to promote the curing of some of the underlying causes. Those who oppose term limits often argue that the people should be free to keep their same representatives as long as they want – but that thinking seems to obscure the fact that the position should always be greater than the person holding it and that society and the political system benefits from regular turnover so that we can’t mistakenly think that the junior senate seat from Utah somehow belongs to Bob Bennett, or that the senior senate seat from Massachusetts was some inalienable right for Ted Kennedy until his death.

Tags amendments, civic participation, connections, Jim DeMint, term limits

culture National State

Senator Jim DeMint on Term Limits

Post author By David
Post date October 23, 2009
7 Comments on Senator Jim DeMint on Term Limits

I started a discussion on term limits a couple of years ago on this site and between what I said then and what I have said on other sites I think my position on term limits is fairly clear – I believe that term limits generally produce benefits that far outweigh the drawbacks that opponents will cite. I think solid evidence of that is that not one state (out of 15) that has enacted a term limit law and had it start limiting terms has ever repealed their term limit law. (Six states did enact laws and then repeal them before they took effect – including Utah.) Coming from that position, I was happy to hear the announcement from Senator Jim DeMint that he plans to introduce a term limits amendment soon.

While I have some questions about some of the specifics of what he plans to propose like how he decided that three terms would be the appropriate limit for members of the House or how flexible he would be on the particular limits he is proposing, I found one statement that he made very insightful about the last time that term limits were seriously pursued by the political class.

Fifteen years ago, Republicans – who had been out of power in Congress for forty years – made term limits a centerpiece of their “Contract with America” agenda.

The term limits constitutional amendment ultimately failed, in part because so many new reform-minded congressmen imposed term limits on themselves. After six or eight years, these members voluntarily went home, leaving behind those Republicans and Democrats who fully intended to make a career inside the beltway.

The fact is, party doesn’t matter when it comes to reform. If you want to change the policies, you have to change the process.

He’s absolutely right that no significant reform will come in how Washington operates until we make structural changes that force it to operate differently. His comment that many of those who wanted to enact term limits voluntarily term-limited themselves – thus crippling the attempt by leaving it in the hands of those who had no interested in being term limited was insightful. I realized that anyone who wants to make such a change would have to take the attitude and make a pledge to stay in Washington as long as possible until they either got term limits enacted or else until they no longer believed that term limits were worth pursuing. Those who will impose their own limits independent of everybody else will limit their own comparative effectiveness by granting more power to those who do not believe in their ideals (specifically the ideal of having term limits).

Tags amendments, campaign promises, change congress, Constitution, ideals, issues, Jim DeMint, term limits, Utah

National State

We Must Be Clear About This

Post author By David
Post date September 25, 2009
7 Comments on We Must Be Clear About This

photo credit: roberthuffstutter

Bob Henline is promoting Electoral Equality today at Non-Partisan. The sentiment is admirable, but there are a couple of things that need to be cleared up before anyone jumps on the bandwagon here. Let’s look at his description of what he is promoting:

For those of you unfamiliar with it, National Popular Vote is an organization that is trying to bring some semblance of equality to American presidential elections. NPV is doing this through legislation at the state level, legislation that would create an interstate compact to award each of the member states’ electoral votes to the candidate that receives the nationwide popular vote majority . . . It’s a long road, but shorter than the other alternative, an amendment to the Constitution.

Thankfully Bob is upfront about the fact that this really should be pursued as an amendment to the Constitution. On the other hand, this movement is technically legal unlike other Constitution skirting movements. So there’s the first problem – they are not pursuing an amendment which would be the proper course.

The second problem is much more problematic and it holds true even if this were pursued as an amendment to the Constitution. The goal of removing the Electoral College or simply rendering it obsolete moves us further along the path that the 17th Amendment set us firmly on, namely the path of fundamentally altering our structure of government from being a republic to being a democracy. I admit that some people would openly pursue that change, but I highly doubt that most people even recognize the difference and thus they are unqualified to decide which form is more advantageous to the nation.

Tags amendments, Constitution, Elevated, federalism

General National

Future Amendment – Restore Federalism

Post author By David
Post date September 15, 2009
2 Comments on Future Amendment – Restore Federalism

The last of the four amendments I would like to see is actually an idea that is not ready for implementation. I would love to see the 17th amendment repealed – just like I would like to see the 16th repealed except that I’m not sure how I would deal with the issues that the amendment was designed to address.

I have previously discussed the problems caused by this amendment which is why I would like to see it repealed and true federalism restored. The two major issues that would have to be addressed if it were repealed are corruption in state legislatures that can arise based on their power to chose senators, and deadlocks within legislatures when attempting to make their choice. As far as deadlock goes, I think that states can learn to deal with deadlocks or suffer the consequences of being underrepresented in the Senate. Where corruption is concerned my best guess is that reducing the power of the Federal government and placing more power back in the hands of states might help to alleviate that problem so that picking senators is not important enough to generate corruption.

Tags amendments, Constitution, federalism, future

General

Future Amendment – Representatives in the House

Post author By David
Post date September 14, 2009
No Comments on Future Amendment – Representatives in the House

Not unrelated to the issue of whether the people of Washington D.C. should have a voting representative in the House is the issue of how the size of the House is set. Few people probably even consider that the number of representatives in the House is set by Congress and fewer still are aware that when the first Congress drafted the proposed bill of rights that Article the First, the first of their proposed amendments, was designed to answer the needs of an expected growth in population and that along with the second of their proposed amendments (later adopted as the 27th amendment) this proposed amendment was not ratified with the original bill of rights.

After the first enumeration, required by the first Article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred; after which, the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which, the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

When James Madison wrote the first draft of this three months before the final proposed Bill of Rights was adopted by Congress he included two changes to his proposal that I would include in any current discussion of the issue. First, he left the numbers blank besides that which had already been specified in the Constitution – thus allowing for the framework to be discussed and the final numbers to be arrived at by consensus. Second, he specified that after the first census each state should have a minimum of two Representatives. I would also add that with our population filled out to over 300 Million we may not need a multi-tiered approach anymore. We might be able to safely skip to the final proportion of the amendment. With those changes the proposed amendment would look like this:

The proportion of voters for each representative shall be so regulated by Congress that there shall not be less than [First Blank] Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every [Second Blank] persons, but each State shall have at least two Representatives.

One of the major changes that this would produce would be that Congress could no longer directly regulate the number of members of Congress – they could only regulate the proportion so that as the population grew (or even shrunk in some extraordinary circumstance) the size of Congress would automatically adjust accordingly.

In my previous writings on this topic I have suggested that the second blank could be 200,000 (a number I adopted from the Daily Kos) but I am more concerned with the principle that Congress be limited to regulating the proportion than with any particular number.

Tags amendments, Constitution, fourth seat, future

National

Future Amendment – Fiscal Discipline

Post author By David
Post date September 9, 2009
2 Comments on Future Amendment – Fiscal Discipline

I believe I have been very clear about what I think of the 16th Amendment. For anyone who wasn’t sure – I think it should go the way of the 18th Amendment and be repealed. Not long ago I found a group that feels the same way and is pushing for the 28th amendment to do just that. Their website does not give their proposed amendment a prominent a place as it deserves so I will copy their proposal here.

Section 1. The 16th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. Congress may collect no revenue by any means other than a flat individual income tax not to exceed 15% of an individual’s earnings, a flat corporate tax not to exceed 10% of net revenues, and actual user fees for services. All citizens and businesses shall be taxed at the same rate, and no exceptions, exemptions or credits will be allowed.

Section 3.

A. Any budget passed by the Congress must be funded by actual revenues collected through taxes as described in Section 2. Except in time of War as defined below, no deficit spending, borrowing on future funds, borrowing from other entities or other mechanism to meet budget requirements will be allowed.

B. For purposes of this section, “War” shall be defined as hostilities declared by the President of the United States in his Constitutional role as Commander-in-Chief, and duly authorized by the Congress under the terms of the “War Powers Act” of 1973. Any funds borrowed shall be used exclusively for executing that War and shall be re-paid entirely no later than 15 years from the end of the War.

Section 4. All agencies, programs, entitlements and other devices that will be excised by budgetary requirements will be returned to the responsibility of the individual States. No federal regulations or legislation will dictate how the States fund or execute such devices.

Section 5. The Congress may not make State eligibility for redistribution of revenue contingent on compliance with regulations or legislation that has the effect of a nationally uniform standard.

Section 6. Those areas of federal responsibility prescribed by the original Constitution will have budgetary priority. No bill will be passed that funds any other concern without first meeting the budgetary requirements of these areas. No funding will be included in the budget for a concern that is the responsibility of and reserved to the States.

Section 7. Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution is hereby amended to read as follows: “To regulate commerce with foreign nations and with the Indian tribes”

This proposed amendment solves a number of problems that currently plague our approach to government spending. The first two sections remove the sixteenth amendment and replace it with an income tax that is limited to 15% on individual incomes and 10% of corporate profits with no deductions or credits. I’m sure the intent of those rates is to be somewhat close to budget neutral. Although I would like to see budget reductions I think a constitutional limit on income tax rates is a positive step.

The third section stipulates that we not engage in deficit spending except in time of war. Section 3(B) defines war – although I appreciate the mandate that war debts be repaid within 15 years of the end of the war I see two problems with this section: first and most importantly, the President is not authorized to declare war (their definition of war should require that war be defined as conflicts that have been declared by Congress); second, requiring funds to be repaid within a set time after the end of a war would be a disincentive to acknowledge the completion of the conflict (it would be far better to require deficit war spending to be repaid within a set time after the beginning of the war – that would encourage the ending of conflicts both to hold down costs, and to allow for the repayment in a timely manner rather than delaying the date when repayment was required by keeping the “war” open).

Sections 4 and 5 help to restore state sovereignty in the use of their funds consistent with the 10th amendment. In Section 6 I would strike the word “original” as it may be necessary at some time to fund something through the government that was not included in the original Constitution.

Section 7 narrows the much abused commerce clause so that the government no longer has any excuse to regulate what I choose to pay my neighbor for mowing my lawn simply because he purchased gasoline that had been shipped across state lines.

Overall I think this a good proposal to remind people inside and outside government that Congress was not intended to babysit every aspect of society and commerce in the nation. It’s sad that such a reaffirmation would have to be written into the Constitution – but evidence suggests that it does need to be reaffirmed legally in that document.

Tags amendments, Constitution, fiscal restraint, future, taxes

National

Future Amendment – D.C. Representation

Post author By David
Post date September 8, 2009
3 Comments on Future Amendment – D.C. Representation

Having read and processed all the documents upon which our Constitution was built as well the Constitution itself and each existing amendment along with other significant expressions of American political thought through our history I think I have established a fairly solid foundation for my own political thinking that can be explored by anyone who might be curious about where I stand on fundamental issues of our government. Now I would like to venture into the future by exploring four amendments that I believe we ought to make to our Constitution.

These are not intended to be presented in any particular order (such as the order of importance in my mind) which is why I will not suggest any number for any of them. In fact, the first one I will present here was chosen only because I have already exposed my position on the issue multiple times already. (None of the four are new topics for my writing.)

The founders of our nation made a conscious decision to keep the federal government free from any particular local interest by stipulating that Congress should have complete control over the capital city and that the city should be independent of any state. They certainly did not expect hundreds of thousands of people to have no voice in the government that led them, nor did they intend for the federal government to be as powerful and controlling as the one we have built up. I have been a vocal opponent of the push to expand the house by two seats and give one of those seats to Washington D.C. but that is because the bill contradicts the current Constitution and rather than addressing the real issue in accordance to our legal foundation it ignores our fundamental law with a convenient but half-baked political compromise.

The proper solution to this situation is to pass an amendment that would allow Washington D.C. the legitimate voting representation in the House that their population warrants. I believe that the amendment should be worded so that it does not apply exclusively to Washington D.C.. Some might argue that not all our territories should have a voting representative in Congress but it seems only right than any territory in which residents pay the same federal taxes as the residents of the several states should have voting representation in the House of Representatives. Under that restriction Washington D.C. qualifies and anytime another territory has a legitimate claim about “taxation without representation” (the mantra that supporters of voting rights for D.C. have adopted) the problem would already be constitutionally solved rather than having to patch each leak in the boat that we may encounter in the future.

Tags amendments, Constitution, fourth seat, future, voting

General

Constitutional Amendment 27

Post author By David
Post date September 4, 2009
4 Comments on Constitutional Amendment 27

I was fascinated when I learned that the 27th Amendment was included in the original proposal for the Bill of Rights.

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Unlike the original 10 amendments this one, along with one other was not ratified. Apparently we thought better of that choice after 200 years when Congress was taking on more power and we realized that having one more check on there power would always be a good thing.

Tags amendments, Bill of Rights, Constitution, documents, history

General

Constitutional Amendment 26

Post author By David
Post date September 3, 2009
4 Comments on Constitutional Amendment 26

Like the 15th and 19th amendments before it, the 26th Amendment is direct and to the point in extending the right to vote to a previously disenfranchised group.

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

With three amendments extending the right to vote I think it is always fair to ask – are we done?

Tags amendments, Constitution, documents, history, voting

General

Constitutional Amendment 25

Post author By David
Post date September 2, 2009
5 Comments on Constitutional Amendment 25

I’m curious about what prompted Congress to finally address the issue of presidential succession when they did, but there were actually two proposals for the 25th Amendment. One would have given Congress the power to determine the presidential succession by law. The other stipulated the succession in the Constitution itself.

Section 1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

It’s a long amendment because it is meant to cover any contingency but I’d hate to think how political the congressional maneuvering and manipulation could get if the amendment has simply stipulated that Congress could decide. To get an idea just look at the situation in Massachusetts where the (Democratic) legislature made a law that the governor (a Republican at the time) could not appoint a successor if one of their Senate seats (both held by Democrats) became vacant. Now with the death of Senator Kennedy they want to override that law because they have a Democratic governor again.

Tags amendments, Constitution, documents, history, Massachusetts