CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Foxfyre]

Nice place you got here. Hope it's fine if I jump in, though a bit late to this party.

I see where you are going with this, and cronyism certainly is something to curtail as much as possible. Yet your wording suggests that, if Congress awards one person or entity $10bn to build something, it has to award that same benefit to every other person or entity. That would be odd.

Obviously, you didn't mean to express that. However, if it doesn't mean that - and I don't see how - and Congress can still award one person or entity a single contract that benefits this person or entity at the exclusion of all others, the possibility to buy "favours" still exists, unhampered.

Yeah... it's going to be tricky to get this one ironed out. I'm pretty sure I know what Foxfyre is after here. The point isn't to hamstring government so they can't ever use contractors. There's plenty of corruption and graft in the area of government contracting, but that's not what this provision is aimed at. Here we're looking at the resulting service a given law is creating, and whether it benefits the 'general welfare', or simply serves a targeted interest group.

I don't think that wording would impact the procurement process. However, it would certainly impact our ability to pay benefits for disabled veterans. Is that what we want?

I don't think so. What I want is to curb the practice of using legislation and tax policy to reward or punish specific interest groups. Compensation and benefits offered to government employees is a different matter. We need wording that can capture that.

It won't be possible to create an ironclad rule here - it will always be possible for corrupt politicians to circumvent Constitutional limits - but we need to give the Court clear instructions on this matter. As it is, as Roberts made clear in the ACA ruling, using regulatory and tax policy to reward and punish people is accepted practice.

How about children with serious disabilities? Senior citizens with no other source of income? Do we wish to be a country which just lets the helpless starve?

Perhaps that is the first step in this process. Let's drop ideology for a time and focus on what kind of nation we want to be, and then we can look at what it is we need to do to become that nation.

I don't think so. I think a reasonable argument can be made that a safety net for all is a "general benefit". I can't speak for Foxfyre, but I'm not out to kill any semblance of state welfare. The far greater evil is the widespread corporatism that comes from extending the concept to a broad tool for handing out favors or manipulating our economic decisions.

My purpose here is to strictly limit the federal government to Its original intent. The states and local communities would be as free as birds to create and implement whatever social welfare systems they wished to have.

 

[dblack]

Yeah... it's going to be tricky to get this one ironed out. I'm pretty sure I know what Foxfyre is after here. The point isn't to hamstring government so they can't ever use contractors. There's plenty of corruption and graft in the area of government contracting, but that's not what this provision is aimed at. Here we're looking at the resulting service a given law is creating, and whether it benefits the 'general welfare', or simply serves a targeted interest group.

I don't think that wording would impact the procurement process. However, it would certainly impact our ability to pay benefits for disabled veterans. Is that what we want?

I don't think so. What I want is to curb the practice of using legislation and tax policy to reward or punish specific interest groups. Compensation and benefits offered to government employees is a different matter. We need wording that can capture that.

It won't be possible to create an ironclad rule here - it will always be possible for corrupt politicians to circumvent Constitutional limits - but we need to give the Court clear instructions on this matter. As it is, as Roberts made clear in the ACA ruling, using regulatory and tax policy to reward and punish people is accepted practice.

How about children with serious disabilities? Senior citizens with no other source of income? Do we wish to be a country which just lets the helpless starve?

Perhaps that is the first step in this process. Let's drop ideology for a time and focus on what kind of nation we want to be, and then we can look at what it is we need to do to become that nation.

I don't think so. I think a reasonable argument can be made that a safety net for all is a "general benefit". I can't speak for Foxfyre, but I'm not out to kill any semblance of state welfare. The far greater evil is the widespread corporatism that comes from extending the concept to a broad tool for handing out favors or manipulating our economic decisions.

Even there I think it is dangerous to tie the hands of the government. The last time we were faced with the serious potential of major banks failing and the government did nothing we found ourselves in a depression that only turned around with the advent of a world war. Should we have done again what was disastrous before?

I think it's more dangerous not to tie the hands of the government. Federal power to manipulate our economic fortunes is the driving force behind corporatism and I want to see separation of economy and state front and center in a new Constitution. It's every bit as important as keeping government out of religion, and for most of the same reasons.

 

[dblack]

Yeah... it's going to be tricky to get this one ironed out. I'm pretty sure I know what Foxfyre is after here. The point isn't to hamstring government so they can't ever use contractors. There's plenty of corruption and graft in the area of government contracting, but that's not what this provision is aimed at. Here we're looking at the resulting service a given law is creating, and whether it benefits the 'general welfare', or simply serves a targeted interest group.

I don't think that wording would impact the procurement process. However, it would certainly impact our ability to pay benefits for disabled veterans. Is that what we want?

I don't think so. What I want is to curb the practice of using legislation and tax policy to reward or punish specific interest groups. Compensation and benefits offered to government employees is a different matter. We need wording that can capture that.

It won't be possible to create an ironclad rule here - it will always be possible for corrupt politicians to circumvent Constitutional limits - but we need to give the Court clear instructions on this matter. As it is, as Roberts made clear in the ACA ruling, using regulatory and tax policy to reward and punish people is accepted practice.

How about children with serious disabilities? Senior citizens with no other source of income? Do we wish to be a country which just lets the helpless starve?

Perhaps that is the first step in this process. Let's drop ideology for a time and focus on what kind of nation we want to be, and then we can look at what it is we need to do to become that nation.

I don't think so. I think a reasonable argument can be made that a safety net for all is a "general benefit". I can't speak for Foxfyre, but I'm not out to kill any semblance of state welfare. The far greater evil is the widespread corporatism that comes from extending the concept to a broad tool for handing out favors or manipulating our economic decisions.

My purpose here is to strictly limit the federal government to Its original intent. The states and local communities would be as free as birds to create and implement whatever social welfare systems they wished to have.

While I agree with reinstating the tenth amendment, I do see a role for Federal government in ensuring that states honor civil liberties, particularly in regard to equal protection.

 

[Olde Europe]

This would have to be worked out but the simplest solution is to clearly define the specs needed and then put it out for bids with the lowest bidder being awarded the contract. And the bidding process will include the stipulation that there will be no payment if the product does not meet the specifications for quality and performance. And any necessary government facilities outside of Washington would be allocated on a per capita basis as evenly as possible across the country. And perhaps stipulate that any member of Congress convicted of dealing under the table or bribery or any other abuse of power will be required to vacate his/her seat immediately.

The world has always had dishonest, self-serving, and opportunistic people to deal with. The purpose of a new and improved Constitution would make that the exception rather than the usual--to make it much more difficult for self-serving people to use government for their own personal benefit. It would be to provide strong incentive for those in government whether elected or appointed or employed to do their jobs honestly and well.

Don't you think the Founding Fathers had self-serving, dishonest, opportunistic, and power-hungry people in mind when they wrote the Constitution? I guess they had, since they've written at length about that, and how did it work out? Reading, with your bitter complaints about the ever expanding Federal Government in mind, the Tenth Amendment, I don't see how you could muster the optimism to limit the wheeling and dealing in Washington, but I sure admire your ability to do so (muster the optimism).

Moreover, the centuries of struggle over what the Founders' "Original Intent" might have been suggests to me that no one really knows, and why write a new Constitution with the intent of implementing a 250-year old "original intent"? That doesn't make sense to me, for I would much rather look to the future and what "common welfare" might mean for those yet to be born.

 

[Derideo_Te]

My number one priority for a new constitution will be to place a blanket ban on all private funding of election campaigns.

If you want to run for office you need to collect a certain number of signatures on a petition (depending upon the office) and then you will be awarded a fixed amount of taxpayer funds for your campaign. You will be held accountable for the funds and if you spend over the amount provided you will automatically forfeit the office should you win or be held liable to repay the funds should you lose. No outside entity can campaign on your behalf. Doing so will be a crime punishable by imprisonment.

My next priority would be holding elected officials and lobbyists accountable to the people. All meetings must be done in public with video and audio recordings. If any violation of this rule is discovered all of the parties involved will serve jail time. That includes the son/daughter-in-law who was given a job.

In summary all forms of bribery and corruption are to be treated as crimes punishable by prison terms of at least 10 years without parole.

The federal funding better be in the tens of billions for all of the candidates since the majority of the money is spent on TV and Radio adds. I don't think the MSM would go for your plan for a minute.

The MSM doesn't get to dictate campaign financing.

Since 1867, there have been dozens of campaign finance laws passed and probably hundreds or even thousands of regulations put on the books governing how those laws would be implemented. The fact that more such laws are piled on top of or replace old ones should tell us that such laws do not correct the problem. The most sweeping and defining campaign reform, McCain/Feingold in 2002, had so many self-serving loopholes in it for McCain and Feingold et al that it was essentially worthless in curbing the abuses. More money than ever is changing hands in the electoral process as politicians and special interest groups always find new and innovative paths around the rules. And it becomes ever more difficult without taking away more and more rights of the people to express their support for the candidate of their choice and the right to use their property as they choose including giving it away.

So why not simply limit what they are able to buy with all that money, and limit how much the politicians and bureaucrats are able to profit from their public service? That is fairly simple to do as previously posted. Take the profit out of it and what money was donated would be to elect good people again. The professional politicians have no incentive to be there. We would likely elect true public servants again who would focus on the best interests of the people and the country.

You just made my point for me. Regulations will be flouted and Congress will constantly find "loopholes" to exploit. So even your proposed "limitations" won't survive the inevitable onslaught of politicians trying to exploit them.

Therefore the only viable solution is to criminalize all campaign financing that is intended to purchase power over the representatives of We the People.

That means there must be a separation between money and elections. If the pool of money for elections is drawn equally from all taxpayers and parceled out based purely on obtaining the requisite number of signatures there is no loophole to exploit. No other funding can be allowed for the campaigns. No one other than the candidates can spend the money allocated and no outside entity can be allowed to influence the outcome of an election. The penalties must be mandatory jail time without parole. By criminalizing all outside influences there is no way that Congress can corrupt the election process.

Then we can criminalize any attempt to influence a Representative with financial gain for themselves or any related people or entities in which they have an interest.

Unless we are willing to hold politicians criminally liable we will have politicians who will happily do the bidding of the highest bidders.

This isn't rocket science.

 

[Foxfyre]

This would have to be worked out but the simplest solution is to clearly define the specs needed and then put it out for bids with the lowest bidder being awarded the contract. And the bidding process will include the stipulation that there will be no payment if the product does not meet the specifications for quality and performance. And any necessary government facilities outside of Washington would be allocated on a per capita basis as evenly as possible across the country. And perhaps stipulate that any member of Congress convicted of dealing under the table or bribery or any other abuse of power will be required to vacate his/her seat immediately.

The world has always had dishonest, self-serving, and opportunistic people to deal with. The purpose of a new and improved Constitution would make that the exception rather than the usual--to make it much more difficult for self-serving people to use government for their own personal benefit. It would be to provide strong incentive for those in government whether elected or appointed or employed to do their jobs honestly and well.

Don't you think the Founding Fathers had self-serving, dishonest, opportunistic, and power-hungry people in mind when they wrote the Constitution? I guess they had, since they've written at length about that, and how did it work out? Reading, with your bitter complaints about the ever expanding Federal Government in mind, the Tenth Amendment, I don't see how you could muster the optimism to limit the wheeling and dealing in Washington, but I sure admire your ability to do so (muster the optimism).

Moreover, the centuries of struggle of what the Founders' "Original Intent" might have been suggests to me that no one really knows, and why write a new Constitution with the intent of implementing a 250-year old "original intent"? That doesn't make sense to me, for I would much rather look to the future and what "common welfare" might mean for those yet to be born.

The Founders knew that there is no liberty if some are given power to dictate the rights that others will have. Those in government understood that very well and had no problem with understanding that they were limited to what the government stated they could do. That is why the original Constitution was intended to strictly restrict the power of the federal government and give all power to the people to form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have and to discipline and govern themselves. No despot, dictatorship, monarchy, papacy, or other totalitarian form of government would be allowed to develop.

And up until the turn of the 20th Century when the people failed to object to increasing power grabs by the federal government, every President and congress interpreted the constitutional restrictions on federal government the same:

“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves ; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.” ― Thomas Jefferson, Letters of Thomas Jefferson

“Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.” ― Abraham Lincoln

“The Bill of Rights wasn’t enacted to give us any rights. It was enacted so the Government could not take away from us any rights that we already had.” ― Kenneth G. Eade, A Patriot's Act

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."--James Madison

"We can not overestimate the fervent love of liberty, the intelligent courage, and the sum of common sense with which our fathers made the great experiment of self-government."--James Garfield

"Next to the right of liberty, the right of property is the most important individual right guaranteed by the Constitution . ." --William Taft

"...“Mr. Speaker–I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. . . ."--Rep. Davy Crockett on the floor of the house,

 

[Foxfyre]

My number one priority for a new constitution will be to place a blanket ban on all private funding of election campaigns.

If you want to run for office you need to collect a certain number of signatures on a petition (depending upon the office) and then you will be awarded a fixed amount of taxpayer funds for your campaign. You will be held accountable for the funds and if you spend over the amount provided you will automatically forfeit the office should you win or be held liable to repay the funds should you lose. No outside entity can campaign on your behalf. Doing so will be a crime punishable by imprisonment.

My next priority would be holding elected officials and lobbyists accountable to the people. All meetings must be done in public with video and audio recordings. If any violation of this rule is discovered all of the parties involved will serve jail time. That includes the son/daughter-in-law who was given a job.

In summary all forms of bribery and corruption are to be treated as crimes punishable by prison terms of at least 10 years without parole.

The federal funding better be in the tens of billions for all of the candidates since the majority of the money is spent on TV and Radio adds. I don't think the MSM would go for your plan for a minute.

The MSM doesn't get to dictate campaign financing.

Since 1867, there have been dozens of campaign finance laws passed and probably hundreds or even thousands of regulations put on the books governing how those laws would be implemented. The fact that more such laws are piled on top of or replace old ones should tell us that such laws do not correct the problem. The most sweeping and defining campaign reform, McCain/Feingold in 2002, had so many self-serving loopholes in it for McCain and Feingold et al that it was essentially worthless in curbing the abuses. More money than ever is changing hands in the electoral process as politicians and special interest groups always find new and innovative paths around the rules. And it becomes ever more difficult without taking away more and more rights of the people to express their support for the candidate of their choice and the right to use their property as they choose including giving it away.

So why not simply limit what they are able to buy with all that money, and limit how much the politicians and bureaucrats are able to profit from their public service? That is fairly simple to do as previously posted. Take the profit out of it and what money was donated would be to elect good people again. The professional politicians have no incentive to be there. We would likely elect true public servants again who would focus on the best interests of the people and the country.

You just made my point for me. Regulations will be flouted and Congress will constantly find "loopholes" to exploit. So even your proposed "limitations" won't survive the inevitable onslaught of politicians trying to exploit them.

Therefore the only viable solution is to criminalize all campaign financing that is intended to purchase power over the representatives of We the People.

That means there must be a separation between money and elections. If the pool of money for elections is drawn equally from all taxpayers and parceled out based purely on obtaining the requisite number of signatures there is no loophole to exploit. No other funding can be allowed for the campaigns. No one other than the candidates can spend the money allocated and no outside entity can be allowed to influence the outcome of an election. The penalties must be mandatory jail time without parole. By criminalizing all outside influences there is no way that Congress can corrupt the election process.

Then we can criminalize any attempt to influence a Representative with financial gain for themselves or any related people or entities in which they have an interest.

Unless we are willing to hold politicians criminally liable we will have politicians who will happily do the bidding of the highest bidders.

This isn't rocket science.

I didn't make your point for you. I made an argument that was pretty much 180 opposite of yours. I want to restrict government. You seem to want to give government unlimited powers to restrict the people any way it wants to do. Don't expect any kind of support from me in your efforts there because reversal of that concept is what this thread is all about.

 

[PratchettFan]

I don't think that wording would impact the procurement process. However, it would certainly impact our ability to pay benefits for disabled veterans. Is that what we want?

I don't think so. What I want is to curb the practice of using legislation and tax policy to reward or punish specific interest groups. Compensation and benefits offered to government employees is a different matter. We need wording that can capture that.

It won't be possible to create an ironclad rule here - it will always be possible for corrupt politicians to circumvent Constitutional limits - but we need to give the Court clear instructions on this matter. As it is, as Roberts made clear in the ACA ruling, using regulatory and tax policy to reward and punish people is accepted practice.

How about children with serious disabilities? Senior citizens with no other source of income? Do we wish to be a country which just lets the helpless starve?

Perhaps that is the first step in this process. Let's drop ideology for a time and focus on what kind of nation we want to be, and then we can look at what it is we need to do to become that nation.

I don't think so. I think a reasonable argument can be made that a safety net for all is a "general benefit". I can't speak for Foxfyre, but I'm not out to kill any semblance of state welfare. The far greater evil is the widespread corporatism that comes from extending the concept to a broad tool for handing out favors or manipulating our economic decisions.

Even there I think it is dangerous to tie the hands of the government. The last time we were faced with the serious potential of major banks failing and the government did nothing we found ourselves in a depression that only turned around with the advent of a world war. Should we have done again what was disastrous before?

The federal government should establish a national currency yes, and that of necessity means it has to have some regulatory power over the banks. But a brutally honest look at history strongly suggests that a lot of government meddling with the economy deepened and prolonged the "great depression' and allowing the free market to work would have been much more effective. We are seeing the same phenomenon at work now with too much government meddling likely the reason that the current recovery has been so stagnant and so many people remain out of work.

The free market is what caused the problem in the first place. One could argue whether this process or that on the part of the government would have been more effective for the recovery, hindsight is always easier than foresight. But what you are suggesting is the cure for cancer is more cancer.

 

[PratchettFan]

Yeah... it's going to be tricky to get this one ironed out. I'm pretty sure I know what Foxfyre is after here. The point isn't to hamstring government so they can't ever use contractors. There's plenty of corruption and graft in the area of government contracting, but that's not what this provision is aimed at. Here we're looking at the resulting service a given law is creating, and whether it benefits the 'general welfare', or simply serves a targeted interest group.

I don't think that wording would impact the procurement process. However, it would certainly impact our ability to pay benefits for disabled veterans. Is that what we want?

I don't think so. What I want is to curb the practice of using legislation and tax policy to reward or punish specific interest groups. Compensation and benefits offered to government employees is a different matter. We need wording that can capture that.

It won't be possible to create an ironclad rule here - it will always be possible for corrupt politicians to circumvent Constitutional limits - but we need to give the Court clear instructions on this matter. As it is, as Roberts made clear in the ACA ruling, using regulatory and tax policy to reward and punish people is accepted practice.

How about children with serious disabilities? Senior citizens with no other source of income? Do we wish to be a country which just lets the helpless starve?

Perhaps that is the first step in this process. Let's drop ideology for a time and focus on what kind of nation we want to be, and then we can look at what it is we need to do to become that nation.

I don't think so. I think a reasonable argument can be made that a safety net for all is a "general benefit". I can't speak for Foxfyre, but I'm not out to kill any semblance of state welfare. The far greater evil is the widespread corporatism that comes from extending the concept to a broad tool for handing out favors or manipulating our economic decisions.

My purpose here is to strictly limit the federal government to Its original intent. The states and local communities would be as free as birds to create and implement whatever social welfare systems they wished to have.

Given the nature of our economy, the states can't do so. What a bank does in Oregon affects manufacturing in Georgia. We no longer live in the 18th century.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think that wording would impact the procurement process. However, it would certainly impact our ability to pay benefits for disabled veterans. Is that what we want?

I don't think so. What I want is to curb the practice of using legislation and tax policy to reward or punish specific interest groups. Compensation and benefits offered to government employees is a different matter. We need wording that can capture that.

It won't be possible to create an ironclad rule here - it will always be possible for corrupt politicians to circumvent Constitutional limits - but we need to give the Court clear instructions on this matter. As it is, as Roberts made clear in the ACA ruling, using regulatory and tax policy to reward and punish people is accepted practice.

How about children with serious disabilities? Senior citizens with no other source of income? Do we wish to be a country which just lets the helpless starve?

Perhaps that is the first step in this process. Let's drop ideology for a time and focus on what kind of nation we want to be, and then we can look at what it is we need to do to become that nation.

I don't think so. I think a reasonable argument can be made that a safety net for all is a "general benefit". I can't speak for Foxfyre, but I'm not out to kill any semblance of state welfare. The far greater evil is the widespread corporatism that comes from extending the concept to a broad tool for handing out favors or manipulating our economic decisions.

My purpose here is to strictly limit the federal government to Its original intent. The states and local communities would be as free as birds to create and implement whatever social welfare systems they wished to have.

While I agree with reinstating the tenth amendment, I do see a role for Federal government in ensuring that states honor civil liberties, particularly in regard to equal protection.

Why? What equal protection?

I can see a federal ruling that no state can discriminate based on skin color, religion, sexual orientation, etc. in delivery of state services. But how do you impose that on the private citizen without denying that citizen his/her unalienable right of association, self determination, how he/she uses his own property, etc.? Leave that up to the states and local communities to legislate and not the federal government.

 

[PratchettFan]

I don't think that wording would impact the procurement process. However, it would certainly impact our ability to pay benefits for disabled veterans. Is that what we want?

I don't think so. What I want is to curb the practice of using legislation and tax policy to reward or punish specific interest groups. Compensation and benefits offered to government employees is a different matter. We need wording that can capture that.

It won't be possible to create an ironclad rule here - it will always be possible for corrupt politicians to circumvent Constitutional limits - but we need to give the Court clear instructions on this matter. As it is, as Roberts made clear in the ACA ruling, using regulatory and tax policy to reward and punish people is accepted practice.

How about children with serious disabilities? Senior citizens with no other source of income? Do we wish to be a country which just lets the helpless starve?

Perhaps that is the first step in this process. Let's drop ideology for a time and focus on what kind of nation we want to be, and then we can look at what it is we need to do to become that nation.

I don't think so. I think a reasonable argument can be made that a safety net for all is a "general benefit". I can't speak for Foxfyre, but I'm not out to kill any semblance of state welfare. The far greater evil is the widespread corporatism that comes from extending the concept to a broad tool for handing out favors or manipulating our economic decisions.

Even there I think it is dangerous to tie the hands of the government. The last time we were faced with the serious potential of major banks failing and the government did nothing we found ourselves in a depression that only turned around with the advent of a world war. Should we have done again what was disastrous before?

I think it's more dangerous not to tie the hands of the government. Federal power to manipulate our economic fortunes is the driving force behind corporatism and I want to see separation of economy and state front and center in a new Constitution. It's every bit as important as keeping government out of religion, and for most of the same reasons.

No, it isn't. The driving force behind corporatism is the same as it always has been - greed. Take away government from the economy and you have a collapsed economy within a couple of decades.

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think that wording would impact the procurement process. However, it would certainly impact our ability to pay benefits for disabled veterans. Is that what we want?

I don't think so. What I want is to curb the practice of using legislation and tax policy to reward or punish specific interest groups. Compensation and benefits offered to government employees is a different matter. We need wording that can capture that.

It won't be possible to create an ironclad rule here - it will always be possible for corrupt politicians to circumvent Constitutional limits - but we need to give the Court clear instructions on this matter. As it is, as Roberts made clear in the ACA ruling, using regulatory and tax policy to reward and punish people is accepted practice.

How about children with serious disabilities? Senior citizens with no other source of income? Do we wish to be a country which just lets the helpless starve?

Perhaps that is the first step in this process. Let's drop ideology for a time and focus on what kind of nation we want to be, and then we can look at what it is we need to do to become that nation.

I don't think so. I think a reasonable argument can be made that a safety net for all is a "general benefit". I can't speak for Foxfyre, but I'm not out to kill any semblance of state welfare. The far greater evil is the widespread corporatism that comes from extending the concept to a broad tool for handing out favors or manipulating our economic decisions.

My purpose here is to strictly limit the federal government to Its original intent. The states and local communities would be as free as birds to create and implement whatever social welfare systems they wished to have.

Given the nature of our economy, the states can't do so. What a bank does in Oregon affects manufacturing in Georgia. We no longer live in the 18th century.

What the banks can and can't do is irrelevant to whatever social welfare system a state or local community wishes to have.

 

[PratchettFan]

I don't think so. What I want is to curb the practice of using legislation and tax policy to reward or punish specific interest groups. Compensation and benefits offered to government employees is a different matter. We need wording that can capture that.

It won't be possible to create an ironclad rule here - it will always be possible for corrupt politicians to circumvent Constitutional limits - but we need to give the Court clear instructions on this matter. As it is, as Roberts made clear in the ACA ruling, using regulatory and tax policy to reward and punish people is accepted practice.

How about children with serious disabilities? Senior citizens with no other source of income? Do we wish to be a country which just lets the helpless starve?

Perhaps that is the first step in this process. Let's drop ideology for a time and focus on what kind of nation we want to be, and then we can look at what it is we need to do to become that nation.

I don't think so. I think a reasonable argument can be made that a safety net for all is a "general benefit". I can't speak for Foxfyre, but I'm not out to kill any semblance of state welfare. The far greater evil is the widespread corporatism that comes from extending the concept to a broad tool for handing out favors or manipulating our economic decisions.

My purpose here is to strictly limit the federal government to Its original intent. The states and local communities would be as free as birds to create and implement whatever social welfare systems they wished to have.

While I agree with reinstating the tenth amendment, I do see a role for Federal government in ensuring that states honor civil liberties, particularly in regard to equal protection.

Why? What equal protection?

I can see a federal ruling that no state can discriminate based on skin color, religion, sexual orientation, etc. in delivery of state services. But how do you impose that on the private citizen without denying that citizen his/her unalienable right of association, self determination, how he/she uses his own property, etc.? Leave that up to the states and local communities to legislate and not the federal government.

Why is it ok for the state and local communities to deny you your inalienable right but not the federal government?

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't think so. What I want is to curb the practice of using legislation and tax policy to reward or punish specific interest groups. Compensation and benefits offered to government employees is a different matter. We need wording that can capture that.

It won't be possible to create an ironclad rule here - it will always be possible for corrupt politicians to circumvent Constitutional limits - but we need to give the Court clear instructions on this matter. As it is, as Roberts made clear in the ACA ruling, using regulatory and tax policy to reward and punish people is accepted practice.

How about children with serious disabilities? Senior citizens with no other source of income? Do we wish to be a country which just lets the helpless starve?

Perhaps that is the first step in this process. Let's drop ideology for a time and focus on what kind of nation we want to be, and then we can look at what it is we need to do to become that nation.

I don't think so. I think a reasonable argument can be made that a safety net for all is a "general benefit". I can't speak for Foxfyre, but I'm not out to kill any semblance of state welfare. The far greater evil is the widespread corporatism that comes from extending the concept to a broad tool for handing out favors or manipulating our economic decisions.

Even there I think it is dangerous to tie the hands of the government. The last time we were faced with the serious potential of major banks failing and the government did nothing we found ourselves in a depression that only turned around with the advent of a world war. Should we have done again what was disastrous before?

The federal government should establish a national currency yes, and that of necessity means it has to have some regulatory power over the banks. But a brutally honest look at history strongly suggests that a lot of government meddling with the economy deepened and prolonged the "great depression' and allowing the free market to work would have been much more effective. We are seeing the same phenomenon at work now with too much government meddling likely the reason that the current recovery has been so stagnant and so many people remain out of work.

The free market is what caused the problem in the first place. One could argue whether this process or that on the part of the government would have been more effective for the recovery, hindsight is always easier than foresight. But what you are suggesting is the cure for cancer is more cancer.

You'll have a tough time convincing me that the free market caused the problem. Even a cursory review of the Great Depression shows that in every step of the way it was the federal government NOT doing its constitutionally mandated job plus poorly thought out and implemented actions of Congress that worsened a cyclical recession and brought about the economic collapse called the Great Depression. The free market had nothing to do with it.

 

[PratchettFan]

I don't think so. What I want is to curb the practice of using legislation and tax policy to reward or punish specific interest groups. Compensation and benefits offered to government employees is a different matter. We need wording that can capture that.

It won't be possible to create an ironclad rule here - it will always be possible for corrupt politicians to circumvent Constitutional limits - but we need to give the Court clear instructions on this matter. As it is, as Roberts made clear in the ACA ruling, using regulatory and tax policy to reward and punish people is accepted practice.

How about children with serious disabilities? Senior citizens with no other source of income? Do we wish to be a country which just lets the helpless starve?

Perhaps that is the first step in this process. Let's drop ideology for a time and focus on what kind of nation we want to be, and then we can look at what it is we need to do to become that nation.

I don't think so. I think a reasonable argument can be made that a safety net for all is a "general benefit". I can't speak for Foxfyre, but I'm not out to kill any semblance of state welfare. The far greater evil is the widespread corporatism that comes from extending the concept to a broad tool for handing out favors or manipulating our economic decisions.

My purpose here is to strictly limit the federal government to Its original intent. The states and local communities would be as free as birds to create and implement whatever social welfare systems they wished to have.

Given the nature of our economy, the states can't do so. What a bank does in Oregon affects manufacturing in Georgia. We no longer live in the 18th century.

What the banks can and can't do is irrelevant to whatever social welfare system a state or local community wishes to have.

So you prefer a system doomed to failure. You think we should be a third world country?

 

[Foxfyre]

How about children with serious disabilities? Senior citizens with no other source of income? Do we wish to be a country which just lets the helpless starve?

Perhaps that is the first step in this process. Let's drop ideology for a time and focus on what kind of nation we want to be, and then we can look at what it is we need to do to become that nation.

I don't think so. I think a reasonable argument can be made that a safety net for all is a "general benefit". I can't speak for Foxfyre, but I'm not out to kill any semblance of state welfare. The far greater evil is the widespread corporatism that comes from extending the concept to a broad tool for handing out favors or manipulating our economic decisions.

My purpose here is to strictly limit the federal government to Its original intent. The states and local communities would be as free as birds to create and implement whatever social welfare systems they wished to have.

While I agree with reinstating the tenth amendment, I do see a role for Federal government in ensuring that states honor civil liberties, particularly in regard to equal protection.

Why? What equal protection?

I can see a federal ruling that no state can discriminate based on skin color, religion, sexual orientation, etc. in delivery of state services. But how do you impose that on the private citizen without denying that citizen his/her unalienable right of association, self determination, how he/she uses his own property, etc.? Leave that up to the states and local communities to legislate and not the federal government.

Why is it ok for the state and local communities to deny you your inalienable right but not the federal government?

It isn't okay at all, but if it is going to happen, the people at least can leave a local community or state to find the liberties lost under a more local government. When such happens at the federal level, however, we have nowhere to go other than to lose our entire country.

If enough people leave a local government it will have to change or cease to exist. Such a solution is impractical and counter productive at the federal level.

 

[PratchettFan]

How about children with serious disabilities? Senior citizens with no other source of income? Do we wish to be a country which just lets the helpless starve?

Perhaps that is the first step in this process. Let's drop ideology for a time and focus on what kind of nation we want to be, and then we can look at what it is we need to do to become that nation.

I don't think so. I think a reasonable argument can be made that a safety net for all is a "general benefit". I can't speak for Foxfyre, but I'm not out to kill any semblance of state welfare. The far greater evil is the widespread corporatism that comes from extending the concept to a broad tool for handing out favors or manipulating our economic decisions.

Even there I think it is dangerous to tie the hands of the government. The last time we were faced with the serious potential of major banks failing and the government did nothing we found ourselves in a depression that only turned around with the advent of a world war. Should we have done again what was disastrous before?

The federal government should establish a national currency yes, and that of necessity means it has to have some regulatory power over the banks. But a brutally honest look at history strongly suggests that a lot of government meddling with the economy deepened and prolonged the "great depression' and allowing the free market to work would have been much more effective. We are seeing the same phenomenon at work now with too much government meddling likely the reason that the current recovery has been so stagnant and so many people remain out of work.

The free market is what caused the problem in the first place. One could argue whether this process or that on the part of the government would have been more effective for the recovery, hindsight is always easier than foresight. But what you are suggesting is the cure for cancer is more cancer.

You'll have a tough time convincing me that the free market caused the problem.

I'm sure I would. However, I am of the mind repeating the same conditions which caused the problem, whether you are convinced or not, is not the best of moves. Greed is a very powerful force, but it needs to be controlled or it explodes in your face. We saw that in the 20's, we saw it most recently prior to the recession. We saw it with Enron. The states are not equipped to deal with organizations operating in multiple nations, let alone multiple states. They are incompetent. The federal government is at least not limited to the laws of a small locality, even it is not perfect.

 

[Derideo_Te]

My number one priority for a new constitution will be to place a blanket ban on all private funding of election campaigns.

If you want to run for office you need to collect a certain number of signatures on a petition (depending upon the office) and then you will be awarded a fixed amount of taxpayer funds for your campaign. You will be held accountable for the funds and if you spend over the amount provided you will automatically forfeit the office should you win or be held liable to repay the funds should you lose. No outside entity can campaign on your behalf. Doing so will be a crime punishable by imprisonment.

My next priority would be holding elected officials and lobbyists accountable to the people. All meetings must be done in public with video and audio recordings. If any violation of this rule is discovered all of the parties involved will serve jail time. That includes the son/daughter-in-law who was given a job.

In summary all forms of bribery and corruption are to be treated as crimes punishable by prison terms of at least 10 years without parole.

The federal funding better be in the tens of billions for all of the candidates since the majority of the money is spent on TV and Radio adds. I don't think the MSM would go for your plan for a minute.

The MSM doesn't get to dictate campaign financing.

Since 1867, there have been dozens of campaign finance laws passed and probably hundreds or even thousands of regulations put on the books governing how those laws would be implemented. The fact that more such laws are piled on top of or replace old ones should tell us that such laws do not correct the problem. The most sweeping and defining campaign reform, McCain/Feingold in 2002, had so many self-serving loopholes in it for McCain and Feingold et al that it was essentially worthless in curbing the abuses. More money than ever is changing hands in the electoral process as politicians and special interest groups always find new and innovative paths around the rules. And it becomes ever more difficult without taking away more and more rights of the people to express their support for the candidate of their choice and the right to use their property as they choose including giving it away.

So why not simply limit what they are able to buy with all that money, and limit how much the politicians and bureaucrats are able to profit from their public service? That is fairly simple to do as previously posted. Take the profit out of it and what money was donated would be to elect good people again. The professional politicians have no incentive to be there. We would likely elect true public servants again who would focus on the best interests of the people and the country.

You just made my point for me. Regulations will be flouted and Congress will constantly find "loopholes" to exploit. So even your proposed "limitations" won't survive the inevitable onslaught of politicians trying to exploit them.

Therefore the only viable solution is to criminalize all campaign financing that is intended to purchase power over the representatives of We the People.

That means there must be a separation between money and elections. If the pool of money for elections is drawn equally from all taxpayers and parceled out based purely on obtaining the requisite number of signatures there is no loophole to exploit. No other funding can be allowed for the campaigns. No one other than the candidates can spend the money allocated and no outside entity can be allowed to influence the outcome of an election. The penalties must be mandatory jail time without parole. By criminalizing all outside influences there is no way that Congress can corrupt the election process.

Then we can criminalize any attempt to influence a Representative with financial gain for themselves or any related people or entities in which they have an interest.

Unless we are willing to hold politicians criminally liable we will have politicians who will happily do the bidding of the highest bidders.

This isn't rocket science.

I didn't make your point for you. I made an argument that was pretty much 180 opposite of yours. I want to restrict government. You seem to want to give government unlimited powers to restrict the people any way it wants to do. Don't expect any kind of support from me in your efforts there because reversal of that concept is what this thread is all about.

Too bad you can't find a single post of mine supporting this canard of yours.

"You seem to want to give government unlimited powers to restrict the people any way it wants to do."

Needless to say you will just ignore being called out because you cannot support your canard, just as you ignored the content of what I actually posted because you cannot refute any of it.

 

[PratchettFan]

I don't think so. I think a reasonable argument can be made that a safety net for all is a "general benefit". I can't speak for Foxfyre, but I'm not out to kill any semblance of state welfare. The far greater evil is the widespread corporatism that comes from extending the concept to a broad tool for handing out favors or manipulating our economic decisions.

My purpose here is to strictly limit the federal government to Its original intent. The states and local communities would be as free as birds to create and implement whatever social welfare systems they wished to have.

While I agree with reinstating the tenth amendment, I do see a role for Federal government in ensuring that states honor civil liberties, particularly in regard to equal protection.

Why? What equal protection?

I can see a federal ruling that no state can discriminate based on skin color, religion, sexual orientation, etc. in delivery of state services. But how do you impose that on the private citizen without denying that citizen his/her unalienable right of association, self determination, how he/she uses his own property, etc.? Leave that up to the states and local communities to legislate and not the federal government.

Why is it ok for the state and local communities to deny you your inalienable right but not the federal government?

It isn't okay at all, but if it is going to happen, the people at least can leave a local community or state to find the liberties lost under a more local government. When such happens at the federal level, however, we have nowhere to go other than to lose our entire country.

If enough people leave a local government it will have to change or cease to exist. Such a solution is impractical and counter productive at the federal level.

No, they are far less likely. Unless, of course, you are in the majority and don't really care about what happens to the minorities. Historically, denial of personal liberties have been done primarily at the local level. I see no reason to think human beings have changed in the last couple of years.

 

[Foxfyre]

The federal funding better be in the tens of billions for all of the candidates since the majority of the money is spent on TV and Radio adds. I don't think the MSM would go for your plan for a minute.

The MSM doesn't get to dictate campaign financing.

Since 1867, there have been dozens of campaign finance laws passed and probably hundreds or even thousands of regulations put on the books governing how those laws would be implemented. The fact that more such laws are piled on top of or replace old ones should tell us that such laws do not correct the problem. The most sweeping and defining campaign reform, McCain/Feingold in 2002, had so many self-serving loopholes in it for McCain and Feingold et al that it was essentially worthless in curbing the abuses. More money than ever is changing hands in the electoral process as politicians and special interest groups always find new and innovative paths around the rules. And it becomes ever more difficult without taking away more and more rights of the people to express their support for the candidate of their choice and the right to use their property as they choose including giving it away.

So why not simply limit what they are able to buy with all that money, and limit how much the politicians and bureaucrats are able to profit from their public service? That is fairly simple to do as previously posted. Take the profit out of it and what money was donated would be to elect good people again. The professional politicians have no incentive to be there. We would likely elect true public servants again who would focus on the best interests of the people and the country.

You just made my point for me. Regulations will be flouted and Congress will constantly find "loopholes" to exploit. So even your proposed "limitations" won't survive the inevitable onslaught of politicians trying to exploit them.

Therefore the only viable solution is to criminalize all campaign financing that is intended to purchase power over the representatives of We the People.

That means there must be a separation between money and elections. If the pool of money for elections is drawn equally from all taxpayers and parceled out based purely on obtaining the requisite number of signatures there is no loophole to exploit. No other funding can be allowed for the campaigns. No one other than the candidates can spend the money allocated and no outside entity can be allowed to influence the outcome of an election. The penalties must be mandatory jail time without parole. By criminalizing all outside influences there is no way that Congress can corrupt the election process.

Then we can criminalize any attempt to influence a Representative with financial gain for themselves or any related people or entities in which they have an interest.

Unless we are willing to hold politicians criminally liable we will have politicians who will happily do the bidding of the highest bidders.

This isn't rocket science.

I didn't make your point for you. I made an argument that was pretty much 180 opposite of yours. I want to restrict government. You seem to want to give government unlimited powers to restrict the people any way it wants to do. Don't expect any kind of support from me in your efforts there because reversal of that concept is what this thread is all about.

Too bad you can't find a single post of mine supporting this canard of yours.

"You seem to want to give government unlimited powers to restrict the people any way it wants to do."

Needless to say you will just ignore being called out because you cannot support your canard, just as you ignored the content of what I actually posted because you cannot refute any of it.

I don't have to refute it. Anybody reading the thread can see it. If you wish to make this something personal I suggest you take it to the FZ. Otherwise if you would enjoy discussing the topic we'll be happy to have you. Do have a nice day.