A Constitutional Convention is Needed

[g5000]

A Congressman is able to insert a rider giving a tax break to a special interest into any bill which happens to be in the pipeline.

In return, that Congressman gets a hefty bag of campaign money from that special interest group.

This scheme tilts the electoral field heavily in the incumbent's favor, and goes a long way toward explaining the 98 percent re-election rate of Congressmen. We have an American Politburo.

Ban tax expenditures, and the special interests will no longer have an incentive to give cash to the incumbent in exchange for tax breaks.

The government can ban tax expenditures without a Constitutional amendment.

However, since banning tax expenditures would go against the self-interest of the incumbents, then we might need the state legislatures to pass a Constitutional amendment banning them.

But then again, state legislators have their own state tax expenditure scheme going on...

Democracy is messy...always has been and always will be,...in spite of or maybe because of...the dogooders

We have a $16 trillion debt, which the Pentagon has called a serious threat to our national security.

Tax expenditures cost us over a trillion dollars a year.

We are way past "messy".

 

[nodoginnafight]

A Congressman is able to insert a rider giving a tax break to a special interest into any bill which happens to be in the pipeline.

In return, that Congressman gets a hefty bag of campaign money from that special interest group.

This scheme tilts the electoral field heavily in the incumbent's favor, and goes a long way toward explaining the 98 percent re-election rate of Congressmen. We have an American Politburo.

Ban tax expenditures, and the special interests will no longer have an incentive to give cash to the incumbent in exchange for tax breaks.

The government can ban tax expenditures without a Constitutional amendment.

However, since banning tax expenditures would go against the self-interest of the incumbents, then we might need the state legislatures to pass a Constitutional amendment banning them.

But then again, state legislators have their own state tax expenditure scheme going on...

Democracy is messy...always has been and always will be,...in spite of or maybe because of...the dogooders

We have a $16 trillion debt, which the Pentagon has called a serious threat to our national security.

Tax expenditures cost us over a trillion dollars a year.

We are way past "messy".

Hard to argue with that

 

[Foxfyre]

On Presidential term limits, if we passed the Amendment for Congress I proposed, that becomes much less of an issue. Perhaps term limits for a President who has such far reaching powers as nominating Supreme Court Justices makes more sense than they do for Congress. But take away Congress and the President's ability to enrich themselves in their positions, and we will be blessed with people who want to be true public servants and are more likely to do what is best for the entire country rather than what enriches themselves.

IMHO, there are very few competent people who want to be true public servants. Politics is about power, money, and influence. People may decide to run for public office with good intentions but just doesn't last.

That is true today yes. You're absolutely right. And I believe the vast majority of those running for office now are lawyers who have strong motive to seek high office for the purpose of becoming influential, powerful, and rich. They don't tell you that of course. And they sure don't tell you that they are willing to run over everybody, including their own grandmother, to achieve their goal.

But it was not always that way. Before say Teddy Roosevelt--I think the worm started turning in his administration--we did have citizens who served for a time and then went hom to live under the laws they passed. They did not see elected government as a career position.

If we have the will, we could return our government to that concept.

 

[OKTexas]

An Article 5 Amendment Convention has already been requested by every State in the Union, Congress has ignored them, why do you think that will change? Here's a link to the request, check it out.

Friends of the Article V Convention - Congressional Records

Presto! You have a constitutional convention.

What amendments do you want made?

First and foremost, no elected official may receive a remuneration or allowance beyond their term in office. If you eliminate retirement benefits and other perks, the professional politician will mostly become a thing of the past.

Second would be to require the federal government to relinquish all lands not held in accordance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. There is no reason for the federal government to own nearly 1/3 of our nations land.

I could go on but those would be a really good start.

 

[nodoginnafight]

An Article 5 Amendment Convention has already been requested by every State in the Union, Congress has ignored them, why do you think that will change? Here's a link to the request, check it out.

Friends of the Article V Convention - Congressional Records

Presto! You have a constitutional convention.

What amendments do you want made?

First and foremost, no elected official may receive a remuneration or allowance beyond their term in office. If you eliminate retirement benefits and other perks, the professional politician will mostly become a thing of the past.

Second would be to require the federal government to relinquish all lands not held in accordance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. There is no reason for the federal government to own nearly 1/3 of our nations land.

I could go on but those would be a really good start.

So you want to do away with national parks?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I disagree.
The office of the presidency has evolved quite a bit over 230 years and we have codified a lot of what used to be vague notions of checks and balances to the point that I do not believe a three-plus term Bush would pose as big a threat to the balance of power as a three-plus term Washington could have been. But the power of the presidency - in the hands of one person - still justifies the two-term limit imho.

Since the first Presidency of George Washington, we as a nation have debated and struggled with the balance of powers. That is the nature of the beats and is part of the design...flaw or not...it is a wonderful exercise in democracy and government to behold.

Starting with Washington there has always been a potential..large or small, for an executive to become dictatorial. Alarmists have decried this as happening since day one...and what has happened when we have seen an executive abuse powers in a dictatorial way in times of crisis? Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, skip a few Lincoln, skip a few FDR, skip a few G.W. Bush...it all ended up for what I consider, the better.

We have come through things that would have crushed most nations and have. All in all, partisanship aside, G.W. Bush kept us safe...sure he brought us Iraq .. but open up the context to a larger picture and you will see The Republic Survives

Of course Washington had the biggest opportunity to become dictatorial and there have been many who have pushed the envelope ... the one thing that remained consistent in every case except one was the two term limit.

So, as you say, it has been working well. It is sometimes messy but that is what we signed up for anyway. And eventually it has always come out in the wash ... with that two term limit in place. (Whether by tradition or by law.)

the term limit had nothing to do with things...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A Congressman is able to insert a rider giving a tax break to a special interest into any bill which happens to be in the pipeline.

In return, that Congressman gets a hefty bag of campaign money from that special interest group.

This scheme tilts the electoral field heavily in the incumbent's favor, and goes a long way toward explaining the 98 percent re-election rate of Congressmen. We have an American Politburo.

Ban tax expenditures, and the special interests will no longer have an incentive to give cash to the incumbent in exchange for tax breaks.

The government can ban tax expenditures without a Constitutional amendment.

However, since banning tax expenditures would go against the self-interest of the incumbents, then we might need the state legislatures to pass a Constitutional amendment banning them.

But then again, state legislators have their own state tax expenditure scheme going on...

Democracy is messy...always has been and always will be,...in spite of or maybe because of...the dogooders

We have a $16 trillion debt, which the Pentagon has called a serious threat to our national security.

Tax expenditures cost us over a trillion dollars a year.

We are way past "messy".

A serious threat if....there is always an if. It is manageable We are managing it now,. Alarmist rhetoric does nothing to address it.

Deficit Will Slip to Five-Year Low Under $1 Trillion, CBO says
Brian Faler, ©2013 Bloomberg News
Published 9:37 pm, Tuesday, February 5, 2013


Feb. 6 (Bloomberg) -- The federal budget deficit will total $845 billion this year, the first time in five that the gap between taxes and spending will be less than $1 trillion, according to a government report.

Read more: Deficit Will Slip to Five-Year Low Under $1 Trillion, CBO says - SFGate

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Presto! You have a constitutional convention.

What amendments do you want made?

First and foremost, no elected official may receive a remuneration or allowance beyond their term in office. If you eliminate retirement benefits and other perks, the professional politician will mostly become a thing of the past.

Second would be to require the federal government to relinquish all lands not held in accordance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. There is no reason for the federal government to own nearly 1/3 of our nations land.

I could go on but those would be a really good start.

So you want to do away with national parks?

Texas is not OK

 

[OKTexas]

Presto! You have a constitutional convention.

What amendments do you want made?

First and foremost, no elected official may receive a remuneration or allowance beyond their term in office. If you eliminate retirement benefits and other perks, the professional politician will mostly become a thing of the past.

Second would be to require the federal government to relinquish all lands not held in accordance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. There is no reason for the federal government to own nearly 1/3 of our nations land.

I could go on but those would be a really good start.

So you want to do away with national parks?

Show me the Constitutional authority for them. Have you got any idea how much tax revenue they deprive the states of? Honestly I would have no problem amending the Constitution to allow for the National Parks, but there is no reason to have all the national forest, wilderness areas, grass lands and other areas that serve no compelling national interest. Are you aware that the federal government own or controls almost 60% of the state of Utah?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Since the first Presidency of George Washington, we as a nation have debated and struggled with the balance of powers. That is the nature of the beats and is part of the design...flaw or not...it is a wonderful exercise in democracy and government to behold.

Starting with Washington there has always been a potential..large or small, for an executive to become dictatorial. Alarmists have decried this as happening since day one...and what has happened when we have seen an executive abuse powers in a dictatorial way in times of crisis? Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, skip a few Lincoln, skip a few FDR, skip a few G.W. Bush...it all ended up for what I consider, the better.

We have come through things that would have crushed most nations and have. All in all, partisanship aside, G.W. Bush kept us safe...sure he brought us Iraq .. but open up the context to a larger picture and you will see The Republic Survives

Of course Washington had the biggest opportunity to become dictatorial and there have been many who have pushed the envelope ... the one thing that remained consistent in every case except one was the two term limit.

So, as you say, it has been working well. It is sometimes messy but that is what we signed up for anyway. And eventually it has always come out in the wash ... with that two term limit in place. (Whether by tradition or by law.)

the term limit had nothing to do with things...

that's your speculation.
I'm not so sure

 

[nodoginnafight]

First and foremost, no elected official may receive a remuneration or allowance beyond their term in office. If you eliminate retirement benefits and other perks, the professional politician will mostly become a thing of the past.

Second would be to require the federal government to relinquish all lands not held in accordance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. There is no reason for the federal government to own nearly 1/3 of our nations land.

I could go on but those would be a really good start.

So you want to do away with national parks?

Show me the Constitutional authority for them. Have you got any idea how much tax revenue they deprive the states of? Honestly I would have no problem amending the Constitution to allow for the National Parks, but there is no reason to have all the national forest, wilderness areas, grass lands and other areas that serve no compelling national interest. Are you aware that the federal government own or controls almost 60% of the state of Utah?

Do you have any idea how much revenue a national park generates for border communities?

 

[OKTexas]

So you want to do away with national parks?

Show me the Constitutional authority for them. Have you got any idea how much tax revenue they deprive the states of? Honestly I would have no problem amending the Constitution to allow for the National Parks, but there is no reason to have all the national forest, wilderness areas, grass lands and other areas that serve no compelling national interest. Are you aware that the federal government own or controls almost 60% of the state of Utah?

Do you have any idea how much revenue a national park generates for border communities?

You don't think that would continue if they were controlled by the states or private concerns. The ones that are economically viable would continue, the others that are just costing tax money would go away.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Of course Washington had the biggest opportunity to become dictatorial and there have been many who have pushed the envelope ... the one thing that remained consistent in every case except one was the two term limit.

So, as you say, it has been working well. It is sometimes messy but that is what we signed up for anyway. And eventually it has always come out in the wash ... with that two term limit in place. (Whether by tradition or by law.)

the term limit had nothing to do with things...

that's your speculation.
I'm not so sure

You have not and cannot make a case for saying term limits did what you are imply it has done

 

[Flopper]

On Presidential term limits, if we passed the Amendment for Congress I proposed, that becomes much less of an issue. Perhaps term limits for a President who has such far reaching powers as nominating Supreme Court Justices makes more sense than they do for Congress. But take away Congress and the President's ability to enrich themselves in their positions, and we will be blessed with people who want to be true public servants and are more likely to do what is best for the entire country rather than what enriches themselves.

IMHO, there are very few competent people who want to be true public servants. Politics is about power, money, and influence. People may decide to run for public office with good intentions but just doesn't last.

That is true today yes. You're absolutely right. And I believe the vast majority of those running for office now are lawyers who have strong motive to seek high office for the purpose of becoming influential, powerful, and rich. They don't tell you that of course. And they sure don't tell you that they are willing to run over everybody, including their own grandmother, to achieve their goal.

But it was not always that way. Before say Teddy Roosevelt--I think the worm started turning in his administration--we did have citizens who served for a time and then went hom to live under the laws they passed. They did not see elected government as a career position.

If we have the will, we could return our government to that concept.

Serving in a public office such as congress is not a part time job. Yes, that was the intent when the Constitution was written. However, today it is a full time job. The average congressman has a staff of 14. It's been said that it takes at least 2 years for a congressman to reach any degree of proficiency. Since most house members spent half their time campaigning, it takes two terms in the House to reach any degree of effectiveness.

One might think the answer is revolutionary changes but in reality, we all know that is not going to happen. It is far better to work toward minor changes such as campaign reform and reducing the effect of lobbies on congress.

 

[Flopper]

First and foremost, no elected official may receive a remuneration or allowance beyond their term in office. If you eliminate retirement benefits and other perks, the professional politician will mostly become a thing of the past.

Second would be to require the federal government to relinquish all lands not held in accordance with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17. There is no reason for the federal government to own nearly 1/3 of our nations land.

I could go on but those would be a really good start.

So you want to do away with national parks?

Show me the Constitutional authority for them. Have you got any idea how much tax revenue they deprive the states of? Honestly I would have no problem amending the Constitution to allow for the National Parks, but there is no reason to have all the national forest, wilderness areas, grass lands and other areas that serve no compelling national interest. Are you aware that the federal government own or controls almost 60% of the state of Utah?

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution declares that “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.” A national park system, which is part of the “provision” for the “general Welfare of the United States,” and therefore fits perfectly well within the constitutional authority of the Congress.

The courts have interpreted the general welfare to include a multitude of federal services including parks and monuments. One can not expect the founders to specify in detail all actions of the government hundreds of years in the future.

 

[OKTexas]

So you want to do away with national parks?

Show me the Constitutional authority for them. Have you got any idea how much tax revenue they deprive the states of? Honestly I would have no problem amending the Constitution to allow for the National Parks, but there is no reason to have all the national forest, wilderness areas, grass lands and other areas that serve no compelling national interest. Are you aware that the federal government own or controls almost 60% of the state of Utah?

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution declares that “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.” A national park system, which is part of the “provision” for the “general Welfare of the United States,” and therefore fits perfectly well within the constitutional authority of the Congress.

The courts have interpreted the general welfare to include a multitude of federal services including parks and monuments. One can not expect the founders to specify in detail all actions of the government hundreds of years in the future.

They were very specific what lands the congress could control in clause 17, was that clause just an exercise in futility. I think not, Clause one gave congress the power to raised revenue to be spent on two categories, those categories were further defined and limited by the remainder of the article. Using the courts interpretation there would have been no need for the rest of the article. Simply they got that one wrong.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Show me the Constitutional authority for them. Have you got any idea how much tax revenue they deprive the states of? Honestly I would have no problem amending the Constitution to allow for the National Parks, but there is no reason to have all the national forest, wilderness areas, grass lands and other areas that serve no compelling national interest. Are you aware that the federal government own or controls almost 60% of the state of Utah?

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution declares that “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.” A national park system, which is part of the “provision” for the “general Welfare of the United States,” and therefore fits perfectly well within the constitutional authority of the Congress.

The courts have interpreted the general welfare to include a multitude of federal services including parks and monuments. One can not expect the founders to specify in detail all actions of the government hundreds of years in the future.

They were very specific what lands the congress could control in clause 17, was that clause just an exercise in futility. I think not, Clause one gave congress the power to raised revenue to be spent on two categories, those categories were further defined and limited by the remainder of the article. Using the courts interpretation there would have been no need for the rest of the article. Simply they got that one wrong.

jesus christ, what an idiotic post

 

[Charles_Main]

the term limit had nothing to do with things...

that's your speculation.
I'm not so sure

You have not and cannot make a case for saying term limits did what you are imply it has done

Cute sig lol

 

[OKTexas]

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution declares that “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.” A national park system, which is part of the “provision” for the “general Welfare of the United States,” and therefore fits perfectly well within the constitutional authority of the Congress.

The courts have interpreted the general welfare to include a multitude of federal services including parks and monuments. One can not expect the founders to specify in detail all actions of the government hundreds of years in the future.

They were very specific what lands the congress could control in clause 17, was that clause just an exercise in futility. I think not, Clause one gave congress the power to raised revenue to be spent on two categories, those categories were further defined and limited by the remainder of the article. Using the courts interpretation there would have been no need for the rest of the article. Simply they got that one wrong.

jesus christ, what an idiotic post

Really, it jives with the man that wrote the article. Ever heard of Madison?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

They were very specific what lands the congress could control in clause 17, was that clause just an exercise in futility. I think not, Clause one gave congress the power to raised revenue to be spent on two categories, those categories were further defined and limited by the remainder of the article. Using the courts interpretation there would have been no need for the rest of the article. Simply they got that one wrong.

jesus christ, what an idiotic post

Really, it jives with the man that wrote the article. Ever heard of Madison?

you wouldn't know Madison if you tripped over him you Texas sized imbecile