Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Seven ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution
The Ticket via Yahoo ^ | 8/19/2011 | By Chris Moody

Posted on 08/19/2011 9:12:24 PM PDT by US Navy Vet

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-83 last
To: US Navy Vet

It is up to Congress to pass amendments to the Constitution and the staes to ratify those amendments.
The President can do nothing.

The left and the RINOS are clearly terrified of this guy.


51 posted on 08/20/2011 3:42:47 AM PDT by Wiser now (Socialism does not eliminate poverty, it guarantees it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sayfer bullets

The founders were very concerned about the Supreme Court because there was nothing to check the court. I’m sure they rolled when it came to pass that killing babies was some type of right....it’s an absurdity, just like gay “marriage”.


52 posted on 08/20/2011 3:50:18 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet
I'd like to see term limits.

English as Official Language

53 posted on 08/20/2011 3:51:51 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns

Thanks for the extract.


54 posted on 08/20/2011 3:53:01 AM PDT by Repeal The 17th (Proud to be a (small) monthly donor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns; All; US Navy Vet

Thanks, AnalogReigns, for posting the seven items that USN Vet refused to post.

I’m only unsure about #3 and #4, but agree fully with all of the others.

If Senators aren’t elected, then how would they be able to take office?

If no income tax, then how would the local, State and Federal governments be funded?

(full disclosure... I’m in Texas and we have no income tax, but the property taxes here are very high to compensate for that lack of funds to the government)


55 posted on 08/20/2011 4:03:18 AM PDT by octex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

Your post #40....

Very good analysis and explanation of the items in your comments.


56 posted on 08/20/2011 4:56:07 AM PDT by octex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

Oooops!

That should be your posting #48, not #40.


57 posted on 08/20/2011 4:57:54 AM PDT by octex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

I agree with him on the 16th and 17th amendments. I think we live with SC judges for life...I agree on the marriage issue. Abortion is either a crime or it isn’t. Apparently, to some states it will never be. Therefore, let the states decide on it. That would be a start.


58 posted on 08/20/2011 5:48:11 AM PDT by nikos1121 (Stand up is hard if you're not funny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SuperLuminal

Looks like room for a few more.........

Congress shall live under the same law(s) they pass

Eliminate/reduce their lifetime “salary” pensions

Term limits of not more than three terms for all elected Congress and Senator members

Others can reword these but you get the idea. I dan’t have time to create them right now...Bye!


59 posted on 08/20/2011 5:50:34 AM PDT by DaveA37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: SuperLuminal

Looks like room for a few more.........

Congress shall live under the same law(s) they pass

Eliminate/reduce their lifetime “salary” pensions

Term limits of not more than three terms for all elected Congress and Senator members

Others can reword these but you get the idea. I don’t have time to create them right now...Bye!


60 posted on 08/20/2011 5:50:44 AM PDT by DaveA37
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

“One such reform would be to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power. One proposal, for example, would have judges roll off every two years based on seniority.”


I’ve been saying this for some time. 18 year terms, so each presidency gets 2 nominations, and each Congress gets one confirmation. Past service does not exclude renomination for a second term, and vacancies are filled by the sitting President only for the remainder of the term.

If I were feeling cheeky, I’d have an “off the island” national popular vote election every two years to remove the least popular Justice! (That proposal needs work).

Or even a national popular vote for Justice every two years. Why not?


61 posted on 08/20/2011 5:59:39 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Government borrowing is Taxation without Representation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.


I agree. But I’d limit it to the subsequent Congress, so that the people would be able to select representatives to address the issue. Perhaps the current Congress could stay the ruling with a majority vote, and the next could overrule it with a super majority.


62 posted on 08/20/2011 6:01:35 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Government borrowing is Taxation without Representation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnalogReigns
4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.

Does Perry honestly expect two thirds of the Senate to vote for an amendment that would cause many of them from both parties to lose their seats?

63 posted on 08/20/2011 6:16:11 AM PDT by SoJoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
The govt should stay out of the marriage business. There’s really no value in its involvement. Marriage is a function of religion.

What is the definition of "marriage"?

Cordially,

64 posted on 08/20/2011 6:25:00 AM PDT by Diamond (He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: sayfer bullets
1 and 2 make me a little jittery, ...the founders worked pretty hard to strike a three-way check and balance.

I agree with you, but things are a little out of balance at the moment. I'm not saying that 1 and 2 should be adopted outright, but they are a good starting point for a needed debate.

Number two is partly on the books already. It's basically a simplification of the amendment process. Other SCOTUS decisions are easier to overturn with a changes to the relevant laws.

65 posted on 08/20/2011 6:28:10 AM PDT by Tanniker Smith (I didn't know she was a liberal when I married her.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
The answer to your Or even a national popular vote for Justice every two years. Why not? Question can be summed up from a CA Supreme Court justice of yesteryear: Rose Bird.

Popular election of justices is soooo dangerous! Can you say Obama?

66 posted on 08/20/2011 6:48:05 AM PDT by fantail 1952 (They don't make 'em like Reagan any more. Now it takes a woman to do a mans job!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

I REALLY don’t like Perry for other issues (crony capitalism, corruption, state-level statism), but I do like these positions, except that three of them shouldn’t require constitutional amendments, which are virtually unattainable


67 posted on 08/20/2011 8:36:06 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

This may be a Trojan horse. All of the 6 could be window dressing for #2. One World Bilderburg types need a way to get around our “pesky” Constitution. I could agree on the rest, but I’m a big NO on anything that would circumvent our founding document and make the judicial branch less than co-equal.


68 posted on 08/20/2011 8:43:53 AM PDT by weston (As far as I'm concerned, it's Christ or nothing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet

How many of you even know how the US Constitution is amended? If so name the ways?


69 posted on 08/20/2011 8:50:36 AM PDT by US Navy Vet (Go Packers! Go Rockies! Go Boston Bruins! See, I'm "Diverse"!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lancey Howard

I share your frustration. The homosexual activists are about destruction as far as I’m concerned.


70 posted on 08/20/2011 9:15:27 AM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been Redistributed. Here's your damn Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Diamond

>> What is the definition of “marriage”?

A device used by the state to incriminate persons with the charge of discrimination.


71 posted on 08/20/2011 9:29:11 AM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been Redistributed. Here's your damn Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: fantail 1952

Bird was not elected by the people of California. She was appointed by Moonbeam, as CA justices are appointed by governors. She WAS removed by the voters in the confirmation process. CA justices face re- confirmation by the people every 10 years, which is one of the very few smart ideas in CA government.


72 posted on 08/20/2011 9:34:47 AM PDT by Mr Inviso (ACORN=Arrogant Condescending Obama Ruining Nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
A device used by the state to incriminate persons with the charge of discrimination.

Historically, traditionally, the definition [from Webster's 1828 Dictionary] is:

MAR'RIAGE, n. [L.mas, maris.] The act of uniting a man and woman for life; wedlock; the legal union of a man and woman for life. Marriage is a contract both civil and religious, by which the parties engage to live together in mutual affection and fidelity, till death shall separate them. Marriage was instituted by God himself for the purpose of preventing the promiscuous intercourse of the sexes, for promoting domestic felicity,and for securing the maintenance and education of children.

Marriage is honorable in all and the bed undefiled. Heb.13.

1. A feast made on the occasion of a marriage.

The kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage for his son. blockquote Matt.22.

2. In a scriptural sense, the union between Christ and his church by the covenant of grace. Rev.19.◁◁◁◁

Even if marriage were considered solely as a civil contract then the government would almost invariably be involved in cases of a breach of that contract, or a divorce, via the legal system. So I don't see how, even on a practical level, the government could possibly be kept completely out of the marriage business altogether, not to mention those instances where children are the product of that marriage.

Cordially,

73 posted on 08/20/2011 10:19:29 AM PDT by Diamond (He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: mylife

He won’t actively pursue all of them, but through his justices he’ll get many of them. The balanced budget (or something like that)...will be eventual.

But Perry did write about this.


74 posted on 08/20/2011 11:16:00 AM PDT by Rick_Michael (Obama Debt-Laden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: US Navy Vet
Unfortunately, Gov. Goodhair doesn't insist on making illegal immigration illegal.

Most of the jobs created in Texas have been from illegals taking American jobs at less than minimum wage. And Texas state debt has increased due to this unsustainable practice during Perry's tenure.

75 posted on 08/20/2011 11:39:31 AM PDT by meadsjn (Sarah 2012, or sooner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn

LOL! got a link for that?


76 posted on 08/20/2011 11:50:19 AM PDT by wolfcreek (Perry to Obama: Adios, MOFO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek
LOL! got a link for that?

Rick Perry's Texas jobs boom: The whole story (Whole Story For The Country?)

Rick Perry's Texas jobs boom: The whole story

But that doesn't mean that all is well with employment in the Lone Star State. Texas leads the nation in minimum-wage jobs, and many positions don't offer health benefits. Also, steep budget cuts are expected to result in the loss of more than 100,000 jobs.

Perhaps most importantly, Texas can't create jobs fast enough to keep up with its rapidly growing population. Since 2007, the state's number of working-age residents expanded by 6.6%, nearly twice the national average.

77 posted on 08/20/2011 12:40:19 PM PDT by meadsjn (Sarah 2012, or sooner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: meadsjn
Where in these articles does is say or infer anything about illegals taking minimum wage jobs?

The reason Texas might lead the nation in min. wage jobs is the fact we have the second largest population/workforce.

We've also added 100,000 jobs recently even though our unemployment rate has gone up due to more than 300,000 people moving here to seek work.

78 posted on 08/20/2011 1:11:00 PM PDT by wolfcreek (Perry to Obama: Adios, MOFO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Diamond

I’m not at odds with the definition you provided.

>> a civil contract ... not to mention those instances where children are the product of that marriage.

Arguably, the govt facilitates divorce. And I’m not sure how state sanctioning homosexual marriage benefits children.

I don’t have a problem civil contracts but I wouldn’t consider that a function of the state even though the state provides a judicial process for litigation.

Look at it another way. Should the state regulate taxes according to marital status? Should it regulate how insurance companies underwrite individuals, couples, families, and groups? Should the state prosecute an individual, company, or religious entity whom refuses to service homosexual marriage?


79 posted on 08/20/2011 1:53:01 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been Redistributed. Here's your damn Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: SoJoCo

All are interesting ideas...probably few if any are viable right now....


80 posted on 08/20/2011 6:47:37 PM PDT by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric
Should the state regulate taxes according to marital status?

No. Consumption taxes are a far better alternative than an income tax.

Should it regulate how insurance companies underwrite individuals, couples, families, and groups?

Corporations are creatures of the state, but I'm not conversant enough with insurance law to even begin to comment on what the proper level of state regulation on the insurance business ought to be.

Should the state prosecute an individual, company, or religious entity whom refuses to service homosexual marriage?

That's the easiest one. Absolutely not.

Cordially

81 posted on 08/20/2011 8:47:28 PM PDT by Diamond (He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: SuperLuminal

Limits or conditions on Congressional pay will assure only millionaires will run for office. We’ll be ass-deep in Kennedys and Rockefellers in no time. Its stupid and counter-productive.


82 posted on 08/20/2011 8:55:10 PM PDT by Deb (Beat him, strip him and bring him to my tent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Diamond

Great! An enlightening and indeed cordial Q&A.


83 posted on 08/20/2011 9:57:39 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been Redistributed. Here's your damn Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-83 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson