California's worthless Legislature (Time to start over?)

They are a worthless group that individually and collectively have ignored the state's toughest problems.

Translation: "Those stinking lousy Republicans refuse to raise taxes."

Here's what the text of the 10th amendment reads:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I think a lot of "state right's" conservatives seem to have trouble remembering the last part of that amendment, so I empathized it. Ideally, powers should always be given directly to the people and NOT the government, unless the people are unable to do it for selves (I can certainly decide who my U.S. Senator should be without having my corrupt state legislature "take care of it" for me)

Many seem to have no problem with massive, tyrannical government, as long as it's done on the state level. If we implemented their policies and gave states absolute power to do as they wished, we'd end up with 50 mini versions of the USA in North America, all fighting with each other.

My state government doesn't need any MORE "rights". They already have far TOO much power as it is. The corruption you see in states like Illinois and New Jersey is a direct result of state governments having a monopoly and a flawed state Constitution that makes them feel they can get away with anything and impose whatever they want on their citizens.

The 10th amendment also makes it clear that state governments have powers to do things that are NOT already given to the federal government. This too, seems to be ignored by many state government officials who go around abusing their power. For example, our previous Governor of Illinois decided to unilaterally make himself an ambassador and have the taxpayers of Illinois fund his "good will" trip to communist Cuba and sign an "Illinois-Cuba" trade deal with federal Castro to "open up foreign markets to Illinois products" since the federal government wouldn't do so.

Now, last time I checked, the U.S. Constitution clearly gives the FEDERAL government the sole power to engage in trade relations with foreign countries, and in fact specifically prohibits states from doing so, saying "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation with any foreign Power, nor without consent of Congress, enter into any agreement or compact with another State or Power; nor lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports". So in this face, the "10th amendment" doesn't apply in giving George Ryan "states rights" to have an "Illinois-Cuba" treaty since our founding fathers already restricted him from doing so unless he got direct permission from the federal government to do so. I would have impeached George Ryan just for violating the U.S. Constitution's very clear limitations on state government powers, which he had flagently abused.

Furthermore, as this "state rights" clause is the 10th AMENDMENT, the folks ranting and raving about abolishing the 17th amendment because it's not in "the original constitution" would have to abolish the "states right" amendment too, just to consistent with their demand that America return to the exact same government the founders implemented in 1789. The clause on "state rights" was ratified and became law in 1791, so it's not part of "the original constitution". So shall we repeal both the 17th and 10th amendments to get back to the government "the founders" instituted?

I always thought these freepers who trust big government to select their Senators FOR them should be forced to sit down at the state capitol and watch their legislature "in action" for about 3 weeks straight. Maybe then they'd stop insisting that politicians would select better Senators than the voters.

The purpose of having state legislatures elect senators was to ensure that there would be a body acting to limit the size of the federal government.

What took the lid off the federal government were two amendments, the 17th (direct election of senators) and the 16th Amendment:

Amendment 16 - Status of Income Tax Clarified. Ratified 2/3/1913.
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Note the last half of the text. Prior to the 16th Amendment, if excise taxes and customs duties were not enough, the federal government had only one extremely unpopular way to get revenue - direct taxes.

Article 2, section 2:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

What did that mean? It meant that the federal government would have had to say to each state legislature "Hey New Jersey? You account for X% of the population of the US. You are responsible for X% of the revenue we need. New Jersey Legislature, get the money and send it in please."

As some of you no doubt know, I've been arguing for a while on this board to go in the OPPOSITE direction that the “Let crooked state legislatures pick our U.S. Senators for us” crowd wants. I have been advocating the voters have a direct say in who our federal judges are, instead of leaving the choice in the hands of Barack Obama. Many states currently have elected state Supreme Courts (Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, etc.)
, and on the whole, the voters do a far better job picking judges than the kind of judge Ahnuld or Gray Davis wants for the job.

So instead of the scary prospect of allowing the obscenely incompetent California General Assembly to name Fabian Núñez as Senator-for-life after Diane Feinstein retires, imagine what would happen if we passed THIS during Obama’s presidency. Just a thought:

Amendment XXVIII

DIRECT ELECTION OF FEDERAL JUDGES

The people shall have the sole power to nominate and elect judges to the federal courts, except in cases of sudden vacancy.

The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of a justice from each federal judicial district,except in the case of the D.C. circuit, which shall share its votes with Maryland's justice. They shall be elected by the people thereof, for a period of ten years; and must be have attained the age of at least 30 years but no great than 80 years to be eligible for the office. No justice shall serve more than three ten year terms in total, or past their 80th birthday, whichever shall come first. The President of the United States, by and with the consent of the Senate, shall select a Chief Justice to serve as first among equals on the court, but cannot select a new Chief Justice until such a vacancy occurs.

The Federal Appellate Courts of the United States shall be composed of judges from each federal judicial appellate court district,except in the case of the D.C. circuit that shall share its votes with Maryland's justice. They shall be elected by the people thereof, for a period of five years; and must be have attained the age of at least 25 years but no greater than 75 years to be eligible for the office. No judge shall serve greater than four terms total.

The Federal Circuit Courts of the United States shall be composed of judges from each federal judicial circuit court district,except in the case of the D.C. circuit that shall share its votes with Maryland's justice. They shall be elected by the people thereof, for a period of two years; and must be have attained the age of at least 21 years but no greater than 70 years to be eligible for the office. No justice shall serve greater than five terms total.

When vacancies occur in any judgeship due to death, resignation, impeachment, or inability to discharge the duties of their office, the President shall, by and with consent of the Senate, appoint replacements to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the appointed official shall serve until the next general election in the United States, at which point the people may elect anyone to that seat of their choosing. Congress, by two-thirds vote, shall have the sole power to determine if a judge is unable to discharge the duties of their office.

The voters of their respective judicial districts shall have the sole power to recall any federal judge before their term has expired.

All federal judges currently holding office at the time of the adoption of this amendment shall be subject to go before the voters during a special election, to be called in a time or manner of their choosing, but must be provided for no less than three years after the ratification of this amendment.

As some of you no doubt know, I've been arguing for a while on this board to go in the OPPOSITE direction that the “Let crooked state legislatures pick our U.S. Senators for us” crowd wants. I have been advocating the voters have a direct say in who our federal judges are, instead of leaving the choice in the hands of Barack Obama. Many states currently have elected state Supreme Courts (Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, etc.)
, and on the whole, the voters do a far better job picking judges than the kind of judge Ahnuld or Gray Davis wants for the job.

So instead of the scary prospect of allowing the obscenely incompetent California General Assembly to name Fabian Núñez as Senator-for-life after Diane Feinstein retires, imagine what would happen if we passed THIS during Obama’s presidency. Just a thought:

Amendment XXVIII

DIRECT ELECTION OF FEDERAL JUDGES

The people shall have the sole power to nominate and elect judges to the federal courts, except in cases of sudden vacancy.

The Supreme Court of the United States shall be composed of a justice from each federal judicial district,except in the case of the D.C. circuit, which shall share its votes with Maryland's justice. They shall be elected by the people thereof, for a period of ten years; and must be have attained the age of at least 30 years but no great than 80 years to be eligible for the office. No justice shall serve more than three ten year terms in total, or past their 80th birthday, whichever shall come first. The President of the United States, by and with the consent of the Senate, shall select a Chief Justice to serve as first among equals on the court, but cannot select a new Chief Justice until such a vacancy occurs.

The Federal Appellate Courts of the United States shall be composed of judges from each federal judicial appellate court district,except in the case of the D.C. circuit that shall share its votes with Maryland's justice. They shall be elected by the people thereof, for a period of five years; and must be have attained the age of at least 25 years but no greater than 75 years to be eligible for the office. No judge shall serve greater than four terms total.

The Federal Circuit Courts of the United States shall be composed of judges from each federal judicial circuit court district,except in the case of the D.C. circuit that shall share its votes with Maryland's justice. They shall be elected by the people thereof, for a period of two years; and must be have attained the age of at least 21 years but no greater than 70 years to be eligible for the office. No justice shall serve greater than five terms total.

When vacancies occur in any judgeship due to death, resignation, impeachment, or inability to discharge the duties of their office, the President shall, by and with consent of the Senate, appoint replacements to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the appointed official shall serve until the next general election in the United States, at which point the people may elect anyone to that seat of their choosing. Congress, by two-thirds vote, shall have the sole power to determine if a judge is unable to discharge the duties of their office.

The voters of their respective judicial districts shall have the sole power to recall any federal judge before their term has expired.

All federal judges currently holding office at the time of the adoption of this amendment shall be subject to go before the voters during a special election, to be called in a time or manner of their choosing, but must be provided for no less than three years after the ratification of this amendment.

What an elected Supreme Court would look like:

District 1 (Circuit 1): David Souter (RINO) - Justice for ME, N.H., MA, RI
District 2 (Circuit 2 & 3) : Ruth Bader Ginsburg (D) - Justice for N.Y., CT, VT. PA, DE, N.J.
District 3 (Circuit 11) Clarence Thomas (R) - Justice for AL, GA, and FL
District 4: (Circuit 4) John G. Roberts (R) - Justice for W.V., VA, NC, SC
District 5: (Circuit 5) Antonin Scalia (R) - Justice for TX, LA, MS
District 6 (Circuit 6 & 7) John Paul Stevens (RINO) - Justice for IL, WI, IN, MI, OH, KY, TN
District 7: (Circuit 10) Stephen G. Breyer (D) - Justice for WY, UT, CO, KS, OK, N.M.
District 8: (Circuit 8) Samuel A. Alito (R) - Justice for N.D., S.D., NE, MN, IA, MO, and AR
District 9:(Circuit 9) Anthony M. Kennedy (R) - Justice for CA, NV, AZ, OR, ID, WA, MT, AK, HI

===========================================

Aside from Justice Breyer pretty much guaranteed to lose his job due to his conservative constituency (and I'm NOT changing anything here, he's already "assigned" to "represent" the 10th Judaical circuit and all those conservative western states under the "current" system), the Supreme Court would pretty much remain as is. Most of these judges fit the ideological tilt of the states they represent pretty well. Souter is a RINO representing New England, Kennedy represents a swing religion of the country and is a swing vote on the court, Clarance Thomas is an staunch conservative representing a "safe" solid GOP region, etc.

So shall we repeal both the 17th and 10th amendments to get back to the government "the founders" instituted?

Absolutely not. The 10th should stay (as well as the 13th through 15th, the rest of the Bill of Rights, the amandment repealing Prohibition, and so on). The 17th should go. Just because states like MD, IL, NM, and NJ are corrupt, because most of their people seem unwilling to stop it, does not mean that the rest of our states, and their people within, should continue to suffer under unchecked Federal encroachment.

State officials SHOULD be punished for encroachments on Federal jurisdiction (if necessary, in ways that, were I to mention them here, would get me a nice, long suspension). Some Federal officials deserve to be punished in unmentionable ways as well.

I certainly do not advocate for absolute power for states, nor do I favor "massive, tyrannical government" on any level. I, living in Maryland, already live under the "massive, tyrannical government" that you speak of. (If I ran Maryland, there would be one single, low consumption tax, a privatized education system, and no social programs to speak of. No income tax or state property tax.) To you, therefore, it would probably seem insane for me to advocate repealing the 17th. I'm not. I'm simply not willing to see all states continue to be punished by an out-of-control federal government (which is a bi-partisan clusterf*ck, but I digress) because I'm worried about who my utterly abominable state legislature will put in the Senate. It just means the I will need to work harder to help knock out the bad apples, such as state senator/oppressor Jennie Forehand (which is not easy to do in Moonbat Central).

As far as being able to choose our own Senators, I will cheerfully go to the polls and vote against Mikulski and Cardin every time they're up for re-election. I have no problem taking advantage of the power while I still have it; it is my duty to vote AGAINST the Mikulskis and Cardins of this world. :-)

As far as the gerrymandering problem goes, Kookifornia approved an initiative that would put redistricting in the hands of a supposedly impartial council, so we'll see how that goes. If it works, and takes place in other states, perhaps the legislatures will be more trustworthy in the future (since people won't be guaranteed re-election).

Your idea about electing judges is interesting. At the very least, people should have the power of recall, because Congress has utterly fallen down on the job of impeaching these a**holes.

I think the 16th Amendment and the Federal Reserve banking cartel should go, too. Easier said than done, admittedly. :-(

There is also the whole “regardless of where the income originated” aspect of the 16th Amendment to consider. I read part of an article (by Sheldon Richman, IIRC) that stated that repealing the 16th wouldn’t necessarily mean a complete end to the income tax. The article seemed to imply that such taxation would be restricted to wages and salary, however. Capital gains would be off the table. Such a view would accommodate a flat tax, such as the one Steve Forbes has proposed.

However, I would be more than happy to eliminate the income tax on general principle, if it can be done. :-)

Just a quick comment on the idea of voting for judges. I would not want the office of Supreme court Justice to deteriorate into a Presidential like contest. They are becoming almost intolerable in their length. I would like to see campaigning limited to 6 months before election, but know this would be difficult. At any rate I would like to see no primaries for judges. All judges who wish to run would put their hats in the ring, voting to be on one day, no early voting, and a run off between the top 2 runners unless one candidate has a clear majority. I think their terms should be 8 years but the years to be on odd numbered years. We would need to avoid the hoopla that goes with a Presidential election. No limit on money to be spent but a strict limit on how many minutes of advertising could be run during any given campaign, how many ads could be placed in written media and how many ads in other media. Ads by support groups(such as the 527 groups we have now)to count towards a candidates total ad count. News articles not paid for by a candidate but favoring one candidate over another to be counted toward a candidates total ad count. I can think of others but we need reforms of this type, as well as a repeal of the McCain/Feingold amendment, to be implemented if fairness is to be brought back to our elections.

I’m all for elected judges.

It’s looks like Kennedy’s district leans D.

But at least 5 of them should probably elect Rs.

I don’t like Illinois’s long ass judicial retention ballot. I don’t know about you but I take the time to vote NO on all of them.