Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

To: US Navy Vet

Comments and details edited out by me. Visit the link if you want those. #2 is the most critical one. I would go with 3/4 not 2/3 but why quibble?
#7 - I know how strongly most of the FReepers feel about his issue, but I think it guarantees Obama another 4 years if it is Perry vs Obama. 4 more years of him choosing Supreme and federal court justices.

1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.

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

3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.

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

5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.

6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.

7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.

28 posted on 08/19/2011 10:22:57 PM PDT by expat1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: All
Seven is far too many amendments. I'm loathe to amend generally but let's see what's on the table:

1. (Judicial term limits) May be a solution in search of a problem. Make the retirement age too low and we'll end up with far younger and less experienced justices. Strategic delay tactics could be used in anticipation of forced retirements to try to slow appeals to ensure fresh justices favoring one party over the other. Judge shopping at the highest levels. Yuck.

2. (Congressional veto over SCOTUS) Sounds like chaos could be unleashed. A time could come where the Congress looks like the CA legislature in terms of proportion with one party sitting on two-thirds majorities.

If I accept the premise as valid (and I'm inclined to reject it), two-thirds is frankly TOO LOW a burden. It should be three-quarters if SCOTUS is to be overturned by Congress alone.

You only need two-thirds to pass a constitutional amendment from Congress but you need three-quarters of the states to ratify. I don't trust Congress further than I can throw it.

I've heard a variant of this involving the legislatures which is less a threat to the independent judgement the court is meant to reflect.

There's already a way to overturn SCOTUS decision and that's the amendment process itself.

3. (Repeal Fed Income Tax) This works but some revenue system will have to exist to pay for the military and basic federal services. I assume Perry wants to do this as part of moving to his "Fair Tax" plan. More a "Flat Tax" fan from the '90s, I'm not fully on board with the "Fair Tax." That's topic for another thread.

4. (Repeal direct election of Senators) AMEN! Another dumb idea the early 20th century progressives gave us.

While we're at it, we must overturn SCOTUS ruling that destroyed state senates (Reynolds v. Sims, 1964) while we're at it? Sen. Dirksen (IL) tried because he saw the decision would lead to state legislative business being dominated by megacities at the expense of the other citizens. He was nearly successful but died and momentum died with him. A generation, later we see just how prophetic he was.

Without this change, repealing the 17th is moot. The major population centers would still control those representing the state in Congress, just indirectly.

5. (Balanced Budget Amendment / BBA) I like the BBA Hatch drafted to go with "Cut, Cap & Balance." It has safeguards against tax hikes, bans the courts from budget enforcement, caps spending at 18% of GDP, and provides an exception in a state of declared war. Balanced Budget Amendment, HJ RES 56 (same as SR RES 10)

The one that almost passed in '95 (1 vote short) was far more vague and full of danger. Text of proposed

6. (Marriage) I would propose DOMA Sec. 2 be the model for a "marriage" amendment.

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."

It would preserve individual state sovereignty over the marriage issue.

If we're going to believe in "10th amendment principles," we should recognize where states have had authority in defining the package of legal benefits and responsibilities each calls "marriage" and reenforce that thinking. Otherwise we end up with 38 states taking away what a few decided they wanted in an issue clearly in their domain.

7. (Abortion outlawed) Noble goal. Impossible to pass in our culture today. Even codifying the pre-Roe vs Wade world, with abortion as a state-level issue, would be a great leap forward.

48 posted on 08/20/2011 2:02:36 AM PDT by newzjunkey (We are the frog on slow a boil. More soft tyranny from this regime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

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