Terry Savage has some suggestions for improvements to the Constitution, should there be a convention. I agree with some, disagree with others (mostly around the edges — for example, I see nothing about serving as a US Senator that would qualify one to be president, as the current occupant of the White House demonstrates), but they are all thought provoking and debate provoking.
Of course, my fear is that there were to be a convention, the result would be a document much more dedicated to “positive rights,” and an expansion of the franchise to non-citizens, and possibly the world…
How about This genius’ idea’s?
Looks like a one trick pony using “rational” thought as an excuse to attack religion.
Only one I agree with definitely is “creation science” and “intelligent design.
And that is why their will not be a second constitutional convention (short of spilling a lot a blood)
Exactly. I know there’s a movement to have a constitutional convention, but I can’t imagine we’ll get anything remotely better than what we have already.
I can easily imagine something horrifically worse.
The problem is not so much the Constitution we have now as the rather poor way we adhere to it. We don’t need a constitutional convention, we need a political sea change in Washington. The power of all three branches of the government need to be pruned back to constitutional levels.
to prune back that power, the people and the states will have to do the pruning. And express it at the ballot box, steadily, over a long period of time.
I am not gonna hold my breath on this one.
Our federal constitution is just fine as it is,
Pretty much every state needs a constitutional convention, so many contradictory amendments, sometimes with the same amendment twice (repeal, re-instate) that it’s nasty, it would be a good idea to have constitutional conventions, at least on a provisional basis, to either fix the problems with state constitutions, or to point out the flaws in some of the representatives thinking on what the Con should be.
I’m starting small: I’m trying to prune back my town’s power by changing my town’s municpal code. I wonder if any of you can help:
It seems to me that there is a distinction between a law like a noise ordinance and law which creates a town-wide ban on, say, tubas.
A noise ordinance stops people from infringing on other people’s right to the quiet enjoyment of their homes. A ban on tubas infringes on the rights of responsible & innocent tuba players even though the law was intended to do the same thing as a noise ordinance.
I’m trying to rid my town’s municipal code, as much as possible, of laws which ban things and activities that innocent and responsible people might otherwise be able to own or enjoy.
I’m having a hard time getting the town council to understand that there even are two abstract categories of laws here.
Is there a phrase which captures the difference between these two kinds of laws?
Thanks!
Tubas shouldn’t be banned, but it’s reasonable to require responsible tuba players to use a mute at all times. At least that’s an argument I once heard from a progressive regarding gun control and the Constitution.
Leland, yes, gun control, as an analogy, has come up quite a bit in the discussions. I’m glad I read this blog. Personal positions can evolve, you know! The actual subject matter isn’t really tubas or guns, but rather pets and vehicles… Yesterday’s discussion was laws limiting the number of pets one can own, as opposed to laws banning annoying behavior from pets. I was for the latter. Gun control was brough up 10 seconds into the conversation.
The actual subject matter isn’t really tubas or guns, but rather pets and vehicles
BS, the actual subject matter has to do what Rand blogged about, and at least number 18 of that subject matter included guns. If you met Set A, Section III, part c, you could have figured that out.
As for the actual subject matter, I disagree with much of it there, but mostly because of the wording. For instance, I like the first requirement as it relates to making English the official US language, such that all US government business is transacted in English only. But what is written require some level of accomplishment in English, which would mean all children failing to meet the requirement wouldn’t be citizens (some could argue that’s the intent, but it would cause problems with international travel).
I like number 5, a lot. Only thing I don’t like is I’m not in part B.
13 can be beefed up as to what can extend a copyright.
Back to number 18, “law abiding citizen” is likely to be as bad if not worse than the militia part of the 2nd amendment. All that needs to be dropped from the 2nd amendment is the militia portion, so there is no qualifier. Yes, that means criminals can have guns, but since the government has a role in declaring whom are criminals, its a big loophole for infringement to say “law abiding citizen”. Better wording?
I like 19 the most. That alone should cause government to focus on what’s important to the country, rather than buying off special interest voters.
As for what Rand said, I’m not sure we need to muck with what qualifies to be President, especially in requiring political experience. Maybe military experience, but that’s not always a good idea either. There’s a lot of people who’d punch their military ticket who could care less about the military (thus being a threat to their fellow servicemen) and then go on to cause the same problems that exist today.
Regarding THAT subject matter, I disagreed with a lot of Terry Savage’s proposals, but most of my disagreements wouldn’t be interesting to Rand and the regulars here. I did think that Savage’s singling out of combat veterans was unfair, as whether veterans experiences combat during their service is very much not up to them, even if they serve during wartime. I also thought that discriminating against renters was manifestly unfair — the vast majority of renters are model citizens — my family knows a renter who works for the CIA, and the thought of depriving him of the vote seems pretty bizarre.
Mr. Savage would require a presidential candidate have experience either as a governor or U.S. Senator. Governor is good, but I would make anyone who’s ever served in the Senate permanently ineligible to be president. At least.
Hell, if I had my way everyone who ever takes the Senate oath of office would be deported immediately, to be shot dead should they ever return.
Bob, your issue is one of “causes” vs. “effects.” You want the effect to be outlawed, but they have instead outlawed a list of likely causes. Sort of how the “effect” of murder is already outlawed, so there’s no reason to outlaw the ownership of guns given their lawful uses.
Set A-II is stupid. Why must they own a residence? I would change that to “must pay taxes.”
Per McGhee, I don’t think being in the Senate qualifies anyone to be President. Governorship or “Military Flag Rank” isn’t a bad requirement though.
(4) should be just be “non-defense spending” …
(5) isn’t great. Just re-set SS to what FDR first enacted, adjusted for inflation (not wages) and age expectancy. That’s perfectly affordable and we’re wealthy enough that we can keep our seniors from eating cat food.
(6) is dumb. The income tax is a reasonable method of revenue generation. The “fix” should be elimination of all credits, write-offs and loopholes. The Tax Code should be no more than five pages in length.
(7) is REALLY dumb. Why shouldn’t the 1st Amendment apply to the States?
(8) is fine.
(9) is tricky. What if Kentucky wants to secede? They’re right in the middle of the USA and could free-ride on a whole bunch of shit, not least of all Defense (just like Canada does). I’m not sure what the answer is though.
(10) is good.
I would amend (11) to cause laws after the Fix to expire after a period of time too.
(12) and (13) are much needed.
I would amend (14) to end with the word “granted.”
(15) is stupid. That’s a necessary restraint on power.
(16) is legislating an outcome (sort of like positive rights, or Prohibition). Not smart.
(20) is a land-mine of abusive invasions. Information obtained under torture, which is later verified by other means, would be “reliable.”
What does the level of english comprehension matter? All of our presidents, but one, I think, in the last. . .
90 + years went to private schools.
we won’t be isolating the public school children from civic office, because we already do.
How about we just make it that anyone who was member of the US Senate during the current session is eligible to receive Electoral College votes? Force the prima donnas to give up their lifetime tenure at least two years before a run.
And I don’t like the all the specificity about percentages and dollar limits and time limits. Anyone who’s been paying attention knows that those can be easily circumvented. Too much specificity also starts to make it look like just another state constitution.
And not providing definitions for vague phrases like “law abiding” is just asking for the Supreme Court to grab back any power that might be taken away. And again, a long list of definitions gets into state constitution territory.
And speaking of courts, he never mentions them. Surprising seeing how much they have contributed to causing the problems he wants to fix (exclusionary rule, for example.) At least getting rid of life-time tenure would be a start.
If a state can secede, we also need to have the ability for the rest of the country to throw out a few of ’em too. (Massachusetts would be at the top of that list, payment for the congressional delegation they’ve inflicted on the rest of us all these decades.)
And can we change the 3rd amendment to say “This space for rent” ?
Some of my improvements:
1. Get Thomas Sowell to write the document. He is the master of explaining highbrow issues in everyday folks’ language.
2. Include a section that explicitly defines kep terminology like “States,” “High Crimes,” “Misdemeanors,” “General welfare,” etc.
2a. The definition of “due process” explicitly eliminates “substantive due process” as part of its definition.
2b. “Press” is explicitly defined as any medium of distributed publication; this covers all levels of technology from cuneiform to Internet.
3. Reword the Second Amendment in clear language, with no confusing gun-grabber-baiting references to the Militia.
3a. The State may prohibit certain classes of weapons: WMDs (nuke, chemical, biological), those that use explosive ordnance (tanks, cannons, USS Iowa)
4. The First Amendment states explicitly that the govt shall neither prohibit nor force peaceable assembly. (Among other effects, this guarantees the right of the BSA to deny membership to those who don’t believe its creed.)
5. The Establishment Clause shall be reworded: “Congress shall not establish a national church.”
6. The Fourth Amendment will be a bit more specific about when Warrants are required and when they’re not.
7. Allow foreign-born citizens to run for the Presidency if they have ever done time in a Communist prison. (Havel/Biscet 2012!)
8. Explicitly ban public and private monopolies. (I had the Slaughterhouse cases in mind when I came up with this.)
8a. Due to the Second Amendment, the armed forces do not count as a monopoly, even if they do have some hardware barred from citizens.
9. Explicitly state that wooden stocks do not constitute “cruel and unusual punishment,” not even for persons who have served in Congress.
10. Explicitly ban DC statehood. For purposes of Congressional representation, DC residents shall be considered citizens of Maryland.
11. To close the Bill Ayers loophole, illegally obtained evidence is admissible. However, the person who obtained that evidence (“agent”) must serve a sentence equal to that as the individual whose conviction rested on that evidence. (If multiple convicted parties are involved, agent’s sentence = that of individual with the longest sentence. If a capital offense, agent does life. Judge has the discretion of adding to agent’s sentence one day in public stocks outside of law enforcement agency for which agent was employed.
I think a lot of people would like to see the Constitution cranked up to 11 🙂
Raoul,
Maybe we need some state mergers, like Rhodetticut and Verhampshire. And what’s Delaware – three counties pretending to be an entire state? Let Maryland assimilate it.
random thing,
Isn’t Texas the only NEGOTIATED state in the union?
Texas was a state itself, and it’s state constitution validates it’s fundamental indipendence and describes how it accepted annexation, away from what was previously the mexican state?
I think there are things that make Texas different from other states based on the fact that Texas joined the union while still a republic.
California was it’s own state prior to joining the union, but it was waging a war, and basicaly surrendered to the US without negotiation, so that the fed would help them to fix the whole mexican problem.
Oh, hell yes. I second that motion.
“To date, sixteen senators have also served as president of the United States. Three senators, Warren G. Harding, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama moved directly from the U.S. Senate to the White House. ”
Truman and LBJ were VPs who had strong senate careers.
Ford was House Minority Leader elevated up.
As for the Owning property to vote, that’s a southern
poll tax. We could change the constitution to only
allow the landed gentry to vote, but, we should toss
any claim to being a democracy. It would just be our
elites running the country.
There have been three Senators who became president without having first had executive experience in public office — and Harding had at least been a lieutenant-governor before going to the Senate.
Harding was a skirt-chaser and never really engaged with the responsibilities of the presidency. His legacy has been forever tarnished by the face the Teapot Dome scandal — which didn’t even come to light until after his death — incubated on his watch.
Kennedy was a skirt-chaser (one of his indiscretions turned out to be with an East German spy) who was humiliated diplomatically by Nikita Khrushchev and who betrayed Cuban freedom fighters, but whose legacy survives mostly untarnished because the press corps loved him and he was cut down by an assassin.
Obama, to the best of my knowledge doesn’t chase skirts, but the not-engaging and the consorting with enemies of the U.S. fit the mold pretty well.
I rather hope he doesn’t make the drying-in-office thing a trifecta, if only because the last thing we need is another martyr to be worshipped by Leftists.
“Drying” in office? That R shouldn’t be there, but leave it in — maybe it’ll draw a snarky comment about GWB.
Brock, thank you.
Here’s my concern: If I use the word “causes”, I’m worried that the town council will be happy to ban “causes” of bad effects, even though said causes may lead to completely innocent effects as well. I tried using the internment of loyal Americans of Japanese ancestry during WWII as an example (which admittedly was over-the-top, for considering limits on pet ownership!) Continuing with that example, loyal Japanese-Americans were not a “cause” of spying, even though spying was the bad effect that the USA wanted to address. I’m still looking for the right term… …maybe something about presuming innocence until proven guilty?
Interesting ideas for discussion. But I would oppose a new constitutional convention with every fiber of my being because I tremble at the thought of what the idiots out there would create.
Now if I could make all the decisions…