I agree add to the wish-list:
* Maximum expiration date of 5-20 years(i think a generation is fair).
* Each act of congress limited to say a few pages long.(One issue spesfic is too arbitrary and thus difficult to enforce honestly.)
* Each and every Act of Congress must be read Aloud in full on the house and Senate floor before a vote.(I would even go so far as to say any and every congressman who has not read a bill shall be assumed to have voted against it. So at least 50%+1 of Congress shall have read and agreed with the bill.)
In article 1 section 8 it specifies that the Congress can not fund the army(and by extension the Air-force) for a duration of longer then 2 years at a time. It says nothing about the duration of war, or the Navy for that matter. I think the Founders saw the navy as a non-threat to freedoms on land, and “State of War” issue to be mute without an Army to enforce the Presidents/dictators will upon the people and their States.
I would stick to that but if we must modify it in recognized of the increased capability of the U.S. Navy we might think about just including the serous land effecting parts of the navy as part of the army. Or Defining army as any military force which is capable of occupying and controlling the territory of American States.(That might help us with excessive Federal “law enforcement” forces too...)
On the representation issue there is an amendment still going around the States which was one of the 12 amendment original “bill of rights”, 10 of which became the “bill of rights” 1 was finally ratify in 1994 becoming the 27th, and the remaining one that is still floating among the States Might do the trick if we just got enough states to ratify it.
Once again Taking control of our State governments is the signal most important thing we can possibly do. We need them for so many things far more important then what congress can or will do for us.
Ratifying that last member of the bill of rights might be one of them things we could do. That being said I’m not sure we would want that.. It would give big States an even bigger advantage, and it would also make the house of reps to an even more strongly party line based body, thus diluting the individual even further. (what good is more reps in congress if your rep means less?)
Lastly I agree they won’t give up power easily indeed they will(if history is any reference) when forced to face the facts clam to face them while making only as token a cession of power as possible.
Our prudent and practical objective is therefore not to get them to “give up” power but rather have someone else take it from them.
In this case our founders left us with an ingeniously completive system known as federalism. the True American invention, in which our States have the practical miltiary and enforcement might to Say no and put the Federal Government and its political leaders in a real pickle.
But in order for us to really use that might we need to disarm the same government. We will need sufficient support for our cause in at least 1 chamber of congress to veto their spending bills and make the Federal Government shut down thereby robing the Federal Government of its force options. Thus leaving our State Governments as the only player on the field.(The default victor, to be given as much time as they need to consolidate and defend that position.)
Yes we the people can dictate the outcome of this conflict by manipulating both sides, and thereby dictate the meaning of the Federal Constitution. its an old dusty set of tools but they still exist, we simply need to learn how to use em.
I’m still readin what you posted. And may I say “Wow,” thanks for the great post. I would just like to clarify on one point. With reference to this:
“In article 1 section 8 it specifies that the Congress can not fund the army(and by extension the Air-force) for a duration of longer then 2 years at a time. It says nothing about the duration of war, or the Navy for that matter. I think the Founders saw the navy as a non-threat to freedoms on land, and “State of War” issue to be mute without an Army to enforce the Presidents/dictators will upon the people and their States.”
I wasn’t referring to no exceptions to the duration of the war. I was saying no exceptions to all bills, being read during normal business hours, meaning Congree could pass no middle-of-the-night bills, without people knowing, including war preparations. I was saying if there were such a crisis, that the President can move the limited number of troops, meaning the Congress could still vote the next Congressional Working business day (year right), as it were, and there’d be no excuse for midnight bills and shady “quick, vote while they’re in the bathroom” measures. That’s what I meant.
Ok, I’ve finished. I wanted to address a specific concern you noted:
“Ratifying that last member of the bill of rights might be one of them things we could do. That being said I’m not sure we would want that.. It would give big States an even bigger advantage, and it would also make the house of reps to an even more strongly party line based body, thus diluting the individual even further. (what good is more reps in congress if your rep means less?)”
That was the entire thought process between what is now known as “The Great Compromise.” The two bodies of Congress, are split up for that very reason. They agreed upon:
1)A number of Representatives to represent each set of 30,000 people, which I firmly believe in. It’s harder to blackmail and lobby with 25x the number of representatives. Additionally, we were never meant to have a two party system, and if we ever do get back to constitutional pronciples, I think we would see few, or division along a two party line (but what do I know, people always form into groups).
2) The body of the Senate which represents each state equally, regardless of the number of inhabitants. Thus, the bill has to be passed by both bodies in order to become law (after presidential approval, of course). This would be further strengthened if we repealed the 17th amendment, and Senators could be recalled by legislatures, if they did not represent the stat’s people, vs. being in secret political pacts (See Snowe and Collins).
So, I think the claim that is often made of conceding to the bigger states is moot, as if we followed the U.S. Constitution A) The Federal Government would be limited to it’s proper role and B) We’d have greater, not less representation, in my opinion.
P.S. I agree highly with further restriction on Fed LEO’s, as the SCOTUS has ruled that a Sheriff is the Supreme LEO within his Jurisdiction, there should be NO Fed LEO’s in my opinion. They should appeal directly to State Governments, and they in turn to the Counties, but who knows how that would all work out?