If I were to make one simple modification of the Constitution

[Centexfarmer]

^ I believe what Kulindahr is referring to is the War Powers Act, or more specifically the National Emergency of March 9, 1933, inacted under FDR which amended the War Powers Act.

The following quote come from a report dated November 19, 1973, that the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency presented.

"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Harry S. Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Richard M. Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971."[1] "These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes."[2] "Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."[3] "With the melting of the cold war--the developing detente with the Soviet Union and China, the stable truce of over 20 years duration between North and South Korea, and the end of U.S. involvement in the war in Indochina-there is no present need for the United States Government to continue to function under emergency conditions."[4]

The sources are present through the aforementioned links.

Here's something that's interesting, also contained within that report:

However, in relating an overview of the history of this emergency rule, the Committee admitted that
"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency. The problem of how a constitutional democracy reacts to great crises, however, far antedates the Great Depression. As a philosophical issue, its origins reach back to the Greek city-states and the Roman Republic. And, in the United States, actions taken by the Government in times of great crises have-from, at least, the Civil War-in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency."[5]

So to a certain degree Kulindahr has a point, though I don't support or agree with what I percievd as his defeatist view as presented in post #20.

Oh, as a footnote:

The Special Committee's opinion was that, "In the view of the Special Committee, an emergency does not now exist. Congress, therefore, should act in the near future to terminate officially the states of national emergency now in effect", although the Committee was also "of the view that it is essential to provide the means for the Executive to act effectively in an emergency. It is reasonable to have a body of laws in readiness to delegate to the President extraordinary powers to use in times of real national emergency."[10]

As best as I can tell, no action was taken. Which gave us this in 1993 (in Acrobat format):


The War Powers Resolution: Intent Implementation and Impact.






Sorry...
</IMG>

 

[Andreus]

just as a point of morality

there is nothing wrong with the richest nation to ever have existed on the globe taking care of its sick and poor

the idea that people should just starve and die is the height of decadence and a true symtom of moral decay in modern america

it's never suprising though, that the republicans, with their sympathisers and apologists, support starving children as a good method of governance

 

[Centexfarmer]

just as a point of morality

there is nothing wrong with the richest nation to ever have existed on the globe taking care of its sick and poor

the idea that people should just starve and die is the height of decadence and a true symtom of moral decay in modern america

it's never suprising though, that the republicans, with their sympathisers and apologists, support starving children as a good method of governance

No.

That would be a by-product of an idealogy that poses as a political party that refuses to accept reality over "responsibility."

Looks good on paper though!

But that's just my opinion.

 

[Kulindahr]

IMO, if the government would quit strangling the economy with a vast ocean of regulations, there wouldn't be any starving children.

As for taking care of the sick and poor, that's fine -- but not when it's done by coercion.

 

[Centexfarmer]

centex, knowing that you are so close to libertarianism in many of your posts, I can't help but ask if that libertarian closet from which you type is made of logs or if they have log Applebees in Texas?

No, but the Catfish King Restuarants look like log cabins.

 

[Andreus]

No, but the Catfish King Restuarants look like log cabins.

maybe if the libertarians hold their meeting there they can draw the gay republicans to their party

 

[Roland00]

Can we stop this idelogical chest pounding? My group is better because unlike X we don't do Y.

How about we go back to the original subject, or we advance the intelligence of the debate by actually talking about specific Regulation X, or Social Program Y. Painting all regulations and all social programs as the same is kinda stupid in my opinion. Not all things are created equal. Of course everybody here knows that, that is why we use strawmen after all.

 

[Centexfarmer]

I would do this.

I would change the Constitution so each state had 3 senators, but only 2 senators are in office at the same time. Each senator is elected for a term of 6 years, but 2 of those years are there off years where they are forced into vacation. They are not allowed during these vacation years to hold any political office state or national, nor are they allowed to be on any national, or state committees, investigation groups, projects what so every. They will serve for 2 years, get a year vacation, serve for another 2 years, get another year vacation, and then have to be re-elected to retain there senate seat. The time they are in office is similar to this.


I would also change the Consitution so each US Representative can have a term of 2 years, they may get re-elected for the next term, but they must take the third term off and are force in mandatory retirement where they face similar prohibitions as the senators.

It would look something like this.


This is all to get rid of complacency, and Washington group think. Additionally it would give more opportunity for challengers to win an election against an incumbent if they can't flood there district with pork due to the year prior to there re-election is there year off.

Your thoughts?

Okay, well what you're talking about is not amending the Constitution but rather repealing the 17th Amendment:

AMENDMENT XVII
Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913.
Note: Article I, section 3, of the Constitution was modified by the 17th amendment.
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Which I believe may conflict with the 27th Amendment:

AMENDMENT XXVII
Originally proposed Sept. 25, 1789. Ratified May 7, 1992.
No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of representatives shall have intervened.

source: The National Archives

Please explain why it is you think that an amendment/repeal of an existing amendment to the U.S. Constitution would:

......get rid of complacency, and Washington group think. Additionally it would give more opportunity for challengers to win an election against an incumbent if they can't flood there district with pork due to the year prior to there re-election is there year off.

On what evidence do you base this observation on?

In my opinion, it's lobbiest that have interceded between the electorate and their representatives.

"Money talks and Bullshit walks!" Is what I've always heard growing up.

If the incumbent and the challanger are on equal footing prior to and during an election in terms of how much money they can spend on their campaigns, the more even the playing field is.

They're called "campaign war chests." Which means that before a candidate can even expect to challange the incumbent he has to have the money to launch an effective campaign.

Campaing contributors tend to go for a sure thing, so why back a challanger unless you're planning on using your backing of the incumbent's challanger to get the incumbent to pass your legilslation/pork barrel.

Wouldn't real campaign finance reform do more to get rid of "complacency and Washington group think" than an Amendment to the Constitution?

 

[Kulindahr]

So his idea would change what some of the Constitution already says -- I think that was the idea!

As for lobbyists, the only way to make them go away is to trim the money the FedGov has to spend by about 50%. It's the chance of federal largesse that attracts those flies, and the chance of federal favoritism, giving them special privileges over someone else.

 

[Centexfarmer]

So his idea would change what some of the Constitution already says -- I think that was the idea!

As for lobbyists, the only way to make them go away is to trim the money the FedGov has to spend by about 50%. It's the chance of federal largesse that attracts those flies, and the chance of federal favoritism, giving them special privileges over someone else.

So that's your idea to solve how campaigns are financed?

Reduce federal spending, or just "earmarks" and pork, therefore getting the local defense contractors/chambers of commerces from bankrolling congressman because there won't be any more there for them to "compete" over?

 

[Kulindahr]

Pork and earmarks should definitely go. To help with that, we need not only a line-item veto, but a rule that allows committee chairmen to chop bills in two if they cover a broad area, and to preclude adding non-related amendments to bills.

But in line with the Grace Commission report, which 'way back when showed over $200 per year in pure waste, if those things were cut out today, we'd have a budget surplus even with the Iraq situation.

Then we could start trimming out the unconstitutional departments, and likely match the savings from eliminating pork, earmarks, and waste.

 

[Centexfarmer]

^ So you're suggesting, that "in addition to" campaign finance reform or a part of it?

Or are you saying that the implementation of your suggestions alone would go a long way to satisfying Roland00's desire to

......get rid of complacency, and Washington group think. Additionally it would give more opportunity for challengers to win an election against an incumbent if they can't flood there district with pork due to the year prior to there re-election is there year off.

I just don't think amending the Constitution would do anything more than to hamstring future Americans with a problem that can be fixed in other arenas.

 

[Kulindahr]

Campaign finance reform? If you look at the results, almost all of it (if not all) could be more accurately called "incumbent protection laws". I'd actually repeal most of it, starting with the ones (McCain-Feingold, for example) that strangle free speech.

But my recommendations for slashing the size of government would deal with lobbyists, corruption, and other items, because it would reduce the size of the pie to be fought over. If government stuck to its actual job of just guarding our rights, there'd be no reason to fight over what it can give.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Campaign finance reform? If you look at the results, almost all of it (if not all) could be more accurately called "incumbent protection laws". I'd actually repeal most of it, starting with the ones (McCain-Feingold, for example) that strangle free speech.

But my recommendations for slashing the size of government would deal with lobbyists, corruption, and other items, because it would reduce the size of the pie to be fought over. If government stuck to its actual job of just guarding our rights, there'd be no reason to fight over what it can give.

Wouldn't it be great/interesting if we could just scrap everything, and start all over? I mean we keep the U.S. Consitution as is, but start all over with everything else.

Everyone is equal under the law, and the preamble is taken to mean "today."

PREAMBLE
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.​

My favorite US Constitution website is here: ConstitutionFacts.com

No campaign finance, no lobbiest, no NRA or ACLU just bam start from scratch.

I wonder if we'd end up in the same place?

It all just seems so hopeless. How do you fix what's wrong?

I don't agree that amending/repealing aspects of the Constitution would do much to change anything.

We sure as hell don't have the leadership to tackle anything as serious as campaign finance reform, redistricting, and/or how we vote; paper-trail, or electronic ballots.

Just because there's legislation already on the books doesn't mean that it's going to be enforced. Immigration comes to mind.

One vote, one voice. How about those parties or factions who choose not to enforce laws that they don't agree with?

Aaaaagh! It makes my head hurt!




</IMG>

 

[Kulindahr]

I wouldn't mind ditching everything except the Constitution. We're like two states away from doing it, actually -- enough states have called for a convention to revise the Constitution that it will only take two more. And if my understanding is correct, that sort of suspends the Constitution briefly and everything else gets terminated -- no more Cabinet, no FCC, no NSA, etc.
I think the huge growth of the FedGov is one of the reasons Thomas Jefferson called for a revolution every generation -- toss out all the bozos that have entrenched themselves in positions of privilege, and start over.

We'd have to change the Preamble, though -- phrases like "form a more perfect Union" are sort of historically based.

 

[Centexfarmer]

I wouldn't mind ditching everything except the Constitution. We're like two states away from doing it, actually -- enough states have called for a convention to revise the Constitution that it will only take two more. And if my understanding is correct, that sort of suspends the Constitution briefly and everything else gets terminated -- no more Cabinet, no FCC, no NSA, etc.
I think the huge growth of the FedGov is one of the reasons Thomas Jefferson called for a revolution every generation -- toss out all the bozos that have entrenched themselves in positions of privilege, and start over.

We'd have to change the Preamble, though -- phrases like "form a more perfect Union" are sort of historically based.

The was the idea wasn't it?

To form a more perfect union?

I'm not that up Kulindahr on the ratifications that you're talking about concerning temporary suspension of the Constitution, could you enlighten me?

I know from studying American History, that there was NO love lost between Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton.

I tend to support Jefferson's more "individual liberties" and "state's rights" stance over Hamilton's Federalist leaning.

Because of the differences between the two I believe it's what ultimately led to the "war between the states," and other "seperate but not equal" provisions in the Constitution.

As a living document, I've sworn with my life to it's defense and protection having duly served in the USCG.

Short of a revoltution as Jefferson suggested, I wonder what it would take to

toss out all the bozos that have entrenched themselves in positions of privilege, and start over.

How would we keep the "special interests" out?

I'm of the opinion that many Americans have handed over their responsibility of active participation in the political processes to Political Action Committees and Political Idealogies, which neither defend nor protects the Constitution, but act instead to undermine....at the expense of others...the very intent of the Founding Fathers of this country.

I don't subscribe the theory that every great civilization must fall.

I'm reminded of this exchange with Benjamin Franklin:

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”

“A Republic, if you can keep it.”

source: http://www.bartleby.com/73/1593.html

In my view, that's all that we have to do is to find some way to "keep it."

I've had friends of mine, every time a party changes power here in America, express the sense of awe at how it's done without any blood shed or a coup d'etat.

But in some ways now, with influence being what it is in our campaigns and elections, a coup d'etat is exactly what it is. Except it's one PAC, or Party influencing on opinion over another, regardless of how "right" or "wrong" that opinion may be.

Those are my thoughts at the moment.


</IMG>

 

[Kulindahr]

The "form a more perfect Union: phrase was a dig at the rather imperfect Union under the Confederation. If anything, we have too much union, contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and the Ninth and Tenth amendments especially.

I'd add a line about "to refresh the Republic", partly to remind us all that this is supposed to be a republic, not a direct democracy.

Crap -- I can't even think where to start looking for the constitutional convention business. That's not actually what it's called in the Constitution, and I can't remember what it is called -- which would be kinda necessary for a search, I think. Dang -- I hate when my mind goes fuzzy.

Fanatics, such as we have several of here on JUB, certainly treat an election like it was a coup.

Oh -- economists will tell you that people don't vote because they don't notice enough difference in things due to their voting, like an insufficient return on an investment. Part of that is that our government does too much; people lose track, and lose interest.

 

[Centexfarmer]

The "form a more perfect Union: phrase was a dig at the rather imperfect Union under the Confederation. If anything, we have too much union, contrary to the spirit of the Constitution and the Ninth and Tenth amendments especially.

I'd add a line about "to refresh the Republic", partly to remind us all that this is supposed to be a republic, not a direct democracy.

Crap -- I can't even think where to start looking for the constitutional convention business. That's not actually what it's called in the Constitution, and I can't remember what it is called -- which would be kinda necessary for a search, I think. Dang -- I hate when my mind goes fuzzy.

Fanatics, such as we have several of here on JUB, certainly treat an election like it was a coup.

Oh -- economists will tell you that people don't vote because they don't notice enough difference in things due to their voting, like an insufficient return on an investment. Part of that is that our government does too much; people lose track, and lose interest.

You know you may think I don't like you, and I'm not really sure how you feel about me, but I'm enjoying this! I can imagine you and I really hashing this out over a couple of beers somewhere.

You seem much more up to speed on your Constitution History than I do at the moment, which essentially means that you and I are suffering from the same "fuzzy mind" syndrome.

My favorite Constitution web site is www.constitutionfacts.org

I'm curious about your economists comment.

So what you claim that they're saying is, 'so long as it's not in their backyard, and it's not costing them anything that they can directly feel or know about, then that they don't care'? IOW, 'the government has them covered.'

Is that what I'm hearing?

Because if that's the case, wouldn't a "simple modification" of the U.S. Constitution requiring all U.S. citizens to vote change things up a bit?

Not to criminalize their not voting, but to institute a fine so to speak which goes toward paying for community awareness about voting.

If you're a pissed off American, and you're required by law to vote, wouldn't the first people you voted out be those who supported the measure?

That would change things up real quick, and at the same time I think would force the electorate to pay more attention.

What say you?
</IMG></IMG>

 

[Kulindahr]

You know you may think I don't like you, and I'm not really sure how you feel about me, but I'm enjoying this! I can imagine you and I really hashing this out over a couple of beers somewhere.

You seem much more up to speed on your Constitution History than I do at the moment, which essentially means that you and I are suffering from the same "fuzzy mind" syndrome.

My favorite Constitution web site is www.constitutionfacts.org

I'm curious about your economists comment.

So what you claim that they're saying is, 'so long as it's not in their backyard, and it's not costing them anything that they can directly feel or know about, then that they don't care'? IOW, 'the government has them covered.'

Is that what I'm hearing?

Because if that's the case, wouldn't a "simple modification" of the U.S. Constitution requiring all U.S. citizens to vote change things up a bit?

Not to criminalize their not voting, but to institute a fine so to speak which goes toward paying for community awareness about voting.

If you're a pissed off American, and you're required by law to vote, wouldn't the first people you voted out be those who supported the measure?

That would change things up real quick, and at the same time I think would force the electorate to pay more attention.

What say you?
</IMG></IMG>

Maybe a tax credit for those who vote?
I'd be happier just requiring that the votes of those who don't exercise their option to, be counted as "None of the Above". After a little bit of not having elected officials to do things, people would turn out!
A fine would penalize people who can't afford it, BTW.

The economics thing is fuzzy right now, too -- which is annoying; I discoursed on it recently to someone I met. I know that David Friedman has a section about it in one book, and I'm sure that the late Nobel-prize-winning Milton Friendman (no relation) covered it in one of his books on freedom. But what you said is part of it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Having the freedom to choose your own government must also include the choice of not having a government -- or at least of not having any of those offered on the current ballot.

IC07, if you don't like marking the non-voting as "None of the Above" (which I think is reasonable since obviously none of the candidates draws their interest enough to get out and vote), maybe we should mark them down as "I don't give a shit". But whatever you want to mark them as, they have voted -- a null ballot, to be sure, but they have voted. And a candidate, to win, ought to have a majority of all the voters, not just the ones who got off their asses and marked a ballot.