CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Foxfyre]

This highlights what you accurately identified earlier as the biggest problem in rewriting the Constitution. We simply have no consensus on the purpose of government. Clearly, you believe in government that runs society; that we should use majority rule democracy to decide what kind of society we want and then force the minority to conform to that vision.

Others of us believe government's primary purpose is to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want through voluntary interaction. We want a government that respects real tolerance and diversity, not one that seeks to force conformity to a singular vision of the "right way to live".

Yeah, because through "voluntary interaction" you create the infrastructure that would sustain a 21st century society. I want no government that "runs society", I want one that safeguards a society and provides the necessary structure so that it remains on a sustainable, humane path so that this generations and future ones can live a life as they please within the laws.

That which you describe, and which is very much the situation the U.S. is in, means that this generation will leave the next one a decrepit, way-behind infrastructure from education to bridges to crumbling school buildings because a selfish, short-termist generation of I, Me, Mine has decided that what's there for the taking should be taken and kept, and, excuse my French, Après moi, le déluge. That's no way to run a corporation, much less a way to run a country.

Well, I think I've been clear: the last thing I want government to do is "run" the country like a corporation. Government should protect each individual's right to run our own lives as we see fit.

That's Utopian thinking ^^^; impractical, as well as far from anything a responsible adult would do in raising a child.

It's not though. Freedom is messy. And inevitably pragmatic. Because it acknowledges the way people really are. People aren't ants. We're surly, stubborn and diverse. Letting people think for themselves guarantees that some of us will fail, but in that failure, we'll learn.

Deluding ourselves with the belief that there is one right way to live, and setting government on the task of marching everyone down that road, IS utopian and, if history has taught us anything, ends badly.

The simple answer is simple, if one feels paying for health insurance is an egregious assault on their freedom, then the alternative used by millions of other people world wide who lacked freedom is to go to another country.

There are plenty of people who have come to our shores from oppressive countries where in fact freedom was just another word. Asserting as you do that being required to pay for health insurance is an assault on your liberty is absurd. By relying on the community in which you reside to take care of you when you get hit by a bus or fall off a cliff is the antithesis of someone who is personally responsible.

It is not acceptable to me to have to give up my country in order to have the liberty to live my life as I choose so long as I do not infringe on the rights of others.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yeah, because through "voluntary interaction" you create the infrastructure that would sustain a 21st century society. I want no government that "runs society", I want one that safeguards a society and provides the necessary structure so that it remains on a sustainable, humane path so that this generations and future ones can live a life as they please within the laws.

That which you describe, and which is very much the situation the U.S. is in, means that this generation will leave the next one a decrepit, way-behind infrastructure from education to bridges to crumbling school buildings because a selfish, short-termist generation of I, Me, Mine has decided that what's there for the taking should be taken and kept, and, excuse my French, Après moi, le déluge. That's no way to run a corporation, much less a way to run a country.

Well, I think I've been clear: the last thing I want government to do is "run" the country like a corporation. Government should protect each individual's right to run our own lives as we see fit.

That's Utopian thinking ^^^; impractical, as well as far from anything a responsible adult would do in raising a child.

It's not though. Freedom is messy. And inevitably pragmatic. Because it acknowledges the way people really are. People aren't ants. We're surly, stubborn and diverse. Letting people think for themselves guarantees that some of us will fail, but in that failure, we'll learn.

Deluding ourselves with the belief that there is one right way to live, and setting government on the task of marching everyone down that road, IS utopian and, if history has taught us anything, ends badly.

The simple answer is simple, if one feels paying for health insurance is an egregious assault on their freedom, then the alternative used by millions of other people world wide who lacked freedom is to go to another country.

There are plenty of people who have come to our shores from oppressive countries where in fact freedom was just another word. Asserting as you do that being required to pay for health insurance is an assault on your liberty is absurd. By relying on the community in which you reside to take care of you when you get hit by a bus or fall off a cliff is the antithesis of someone who is personally responsible.

It is not acceptable to me to have to give up my country in order to have the liberty to live my life as I choose so long as I do not infringe on the rights of others.

Of course not. But thinking through through the issue the uninsured will be infringing on others by using their tax dollars to pick them up when they hit the ground. A tax supported ambulance will take them to the nearest ER which will treat them, and dump them on the nearest public hospital, where we, the taxpaying public, will continue to provide them the care they need.

Of course the ER, if not a public hospital, will charge its responsible patients a fee higher, do to the need to treat the scofflaws. And those who have health insurance and are personally responsible will need to buy tires, shocks and struts after hitting all the pot holes not fixed for lack of local resources, wait longer when calling 911 do to a lack of public resources, and of course see fees raised to buy our dogs' tags, get a permit for home repairs, and wait days for the county to sign off costing the contractor time which is money.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The relatively small number of uninsured

48 million people is a "relatively small number of uninsured"?

That was 16% of the population that Republicans were doing absolutely nothing whatsoever for until Obama took up the issue.

The irony being that Republicans would have objected if he had attempted to set up an "assigned risk pool" and screamed about having to "pay higher taxes" while ignoring the ever escalating costs of healthcare.

The reality of life today is that the Welfare of the People includes healthcare. It is in the best interests of the nation to have a healthy workforce. It is cost effective to provide preventative treatment. The recent Ebola crisis demonstrated that the government does provide an effective service in the form of the CDC.

If we had been living in a Libertarian Utopia the Ebola virus would have been running rampant by now because your guns can't protect you from a virus.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well, I think I've been clear: the last thing I want government to do is "run" the country like a corporation. Government should protect each individual's right to run our own lives as we see fit.

That's Utopian thinking ^^^; impractical, as well as far from anything a responsible adult would do in raising a child.

It's not though. Freedom is messy. And inevitably pragmatic. Because it acknowledges the way people really are. People aren't ants. We're surly, stubborn and diverse. Letting people think for themselves guarantees that some of us will fail, but in that failure, we'll learn.

Deluding ourselves with the belief that there is one right way to live, and setting government on the task of marching everyone down that road, IS utopian and, if history has taught us anything, ends badly.

The simple answer is simple, if one feels paying for health insurance is an egregious assault on their freedom, then the alternative used by millions of other people world wide who lacked freedom is to go to another country.

There are plenty of people who have come to our shores from oppressive countries where in fact freedom was just another word. Asserting as you do that being required to pay for health insurance is an assault on your liberty is absurd. By relying on the community in which you reside to take care of you when you get hit by a bus or fall off a cliff is the antithesis of someone who is personally responsible.

It is not acceptable to me to have to give up my country in order to have the liberty to live my life as I choose so long as I do not infringe on the rights of others.

Of course not. But thinking through through the issue the uninsured will be infringing on others by using their tax dollars to pick them up when they hit the ground. A tax supported ambulance will take them to the nearest ER which will treat them, and dump them on the nearest public hospital, where we, the taxpaying public, will continue to provide them the care they need.

Of course the ER, if not a public hospital, will charge its responsible patients a fee higher, do to the need to treat the scofflaws. And those who have health insurance and are personally responsible will need to buy tires, shocks and struts after hitting all the pot holes not fixed for lack of local resources, wait longer when calling 911 do to a lack of public resources, and of course see fees raised to buy our dogs' tags, get a permit for home repairs, and wait days for the county to sign off costing the contractor time which is money.

You are mixing federal government with local government. Federal government was not intended to do what the people, via social contract, choose to do with local government. All the federal government needs to do is NOT interfere with what people choose to do at the local level in order to restore all the concept of liberty that the Founders intended with the original constitution.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This entire, "if it ain't in the Constitution" argument is ridiculous. The founders/signers had no idea of the world we live in today. Art. I, Sec. 8 has no mention of airplanes, so is it prudent, pragmatic and possible for the safety of millions of passengers to have the states or the people direct air traffic?

This ^^^ is one example of the absurdity of the ideology so common among the kooks today. There would be no EPA, thus the head waters of our great rivers would replace sewer systems; no FDA, so super bugs would be rampant as charlatans passed out antibiotics for everyone with the sniffles.

I'd bet if the framers had any knowledge about the arms of today the Second Amendment would be written differently, and the Tenth too. Those who understand why the Articles of Confederation were so ineffective and weak understand this, why don't the kooks of today?

 

[Wry Catcher]

That's Utopian thinking ^^^; impractical, as well as far from anything a responsible adult would do in raising a child.

It's not though. Freedom is messy. And inevitably pragmatic. Because it acknowledges the way people really are. People aren't ants. We're surly, stubborn and diverse. Letting people think for themselves guarantees that some of us will fail, but in that failure, we'll learn.

Deluding ourselves with the belief that there is one right way to live, and setting government on the task of marching everyone down that road, IS utopian and, if history has taught us anything, ends badly.

The simple answer is simple, if one feels paying for health insurance is an egregious assault on their freedom, then the alternative used by millions of other people world wide who lacked freedom is to go to another country.

There are plenty of people who have come to our shores from oppressive countries where in fact freedom was just another word. Asserting as you do that being required to pay for health insurance is an assault on your liberty is absurd. By relying on the community in which you reside to take care of you when you get hit by a bus or fall off a cliff is the antithesis of someone who is personally responsible.

It is not acceptable to me to have to give up my country in order to have the liberty to live my life as I choose so long as I do not infringe on the rights of others.

Of course not. But thinking through through the issue the uninsured will be infringing on others by using their tax dollars to pick them up when they hit the ground. A tax supported ambulance will take them to the nearest ER which will treat them, and dump them on the nearest public hospital, where we, the taxpaying public, will continue to provide them the care they need.

Of course the ER, if not a public hospital, will charge its responsible patients a fee higher, do to the need to treat the scofflaws. And those who have health insurance and are personally responsible will need to buy tires, shocks and struts after hitting all the pot holes not fixed for lack of local resources, wait longer when calling 911 do to a lack of public resources, and of course see fees raised to buy our dogs' tags, get a permit for home repairs, and wait days for the county to sign off costing the contractor time which is money.

You are mixing federal government with local government. Federal government was not intended to do what the people, via social contract, choose to do with local government. All the federal government needs to do is NOT interfere with what people choose to do at the local level in order to restore all the concept of liberty that the Founders intended with the original constitution.

That's ^^^ ridiculous. I've told this story before, but it is worth repeating.

My first job in LE allowed me access to FBI rap sheets. I noticed that many of the dispositions coming from the deep south note "Floater". I asked my then supervisor what is a "Floater". He told me that, "whenever someone - usually a Negro - committed a minor crime, rather than spend the money to try them, jail them, feed them, etc. the criminal justice system simply put them on a bus to California."

It doesn't take a genius to extrapolate this into a broken system where each state and each local community made their own rules, many times to the disadvantage of other states or communities.

 

[Foxfyre]

This entire, "if it ain't in the Constitution" argument is ridiculous. The founders/signers had no idea of the world we live in today. Art. I, Sec. 8 has no mention of airplanes, so is it prudent, pragmatic and possible for the safety of millions of passengers to have the states or the people direct air traffic?

This ^^^ is one example of the absurdity of the ideology so common among the kooks today. There would be no EPA, thus the head waters of our great rivers would replace sewer systems; no FDA, so super bugs would be rampant as charlatans passed out antibiotics for everyone with the sniffles.

I'd bet if the framers had any knowledge about the arms of today the Second Amendment would be written differently, and the Tenth too. Those who understand why the Articles of Confederation were so ineffective and weak understand this, why don't the kooks of today?

The Founders gave us a Constitution that was intended to secure our liberties and then leave us alone to live our lives and form whatever sorts of societies we wished to have. That principle has not changed in all the years since that Constitution was ratified. That principle is not possible with a central government that dictates the sorts of societies we are required to have. There is no liberty when the central government can dictate the society we are required to have.

I want to restore the Constitution to its original intent in that regard with some iron clad wording to ensure that it cannot so easily be corrupted by opportunistic professional politicians and bureaucrats.

 

[Wry Catcher]

This entire, "if it ain't in the Constitution" argument is ridiculous. The founders/signers had no idea of the world we live in today. Art. I, Sec. 8 has no mention of airplanes, so is it prudent, pragmatic and possible for the safety of millions of passengers to have the states or the people direct air traffic?

This ^^^ is one example of the absurdity of the ideology so common among the kooks today. There would be no EPA, thus the head waters of our great rivers would replace sewer systems; no FDA, so super bugs would be rampant as charlatans passed out antibiotics for everyone with the sniffles.

I'd bet if the framers had any knowledge about the arms of today the Second Amendment would be written differently, and the Tenth too. Those who understand why the Articles of Confederation were so ineffective and weak understand this, why don't the kooks of today?

The Founders gave us a Constitution that was intended to secure our liberties and then leave us alone to live our lives and form whatever sorts of societies we wished to have. That principle has not changed in all the years since that Constitution was ratified. That principle is not possible with a central government that dictates the sorts of societies we are required to have. There is no liberty when the central government can dictate the society we are required to have.

I want to restore the Constitution to its original intent in that regard with some iron clad wording to ensure that it cannot so easily be corrupted by opportunistic professional politicians and bureaucrats.

And that goal is in my opinion ridiculous. But, I'll wait for you reply in how you believe and in what manner your goal (stated in the last paragraph) might be achieved?

I take your use of the word "dictate" as hyperbole. The COTUS is a document premised on two things: It's vision statement as defined in the Preamble and the checks and balances which mostly protects us from dictated policy. "Mostly" because to check the Supreme Court requires a very high hurdle, a Constitutional Amendment.

Of course I outlined above, in some detail, the changes I would offer to the COTUS as requested in the OP, but few if any have responded either affirmatively or critically.

 

[Derideo_Te]

a central government that dictates the sorts of societies we are required to have. There is no liberty when the central government can dictate the society we are required to have.

Libertarians accuse We the People of "dictating" the society we live in today because Libertarians want to dictate their own unrealistic "utopian" society instead.

 

[Olde Europe]

The Founders gave us a Constitution that was intended to secure our liberties

To be precise, the Founders found a right to "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness", and aimed at "promoting the common welfare", and I doubt they just envisioned those so endowed to be those, exclusively, with fat bank accounts on the Grand Caymans.

The opportunists, by my reckoning, are rather those who, considering their lucky circumstances, find others should much rather pay for the Founders' fabulous enlightened Self-Government.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Let me repeat my earlier suggestions to modify some articles and to leave the Preamble alone as the guiding vision and mission statement:

1. The term of the POTUS be changed to one term of six years;
2. The POTUS be given the line-item veto (Congress to retain the override provision as written in Art. I, sec 7, Clause 2 for any item blue lined by the POTUS);
3. The Justices of the Supreme Court be commissioned for 10 years, and appear before the Senate or the designated committed without further nomination by the POTUS; if once more confirmed by the Senate, serve for an additional ten years, and no more.
4. That the American people be allowed to vote on a referendum, placed on the ballot only every other year, on passage by the Congress by 2/3 vote, on the ballot of general elections, to vote on public policy issues.
5. That the rules of the Congress in each chamber be approved or rejected by the people in a referendum, and each rule to be voted upon by the people [for example, "do you approve of the right of any member of the Senate to attach a "Rider" to any Bill or Act?"] or ["shall or shall bills be single issue matters; no Riders or other none related issues allowed"?]
6. That Art. III be modified and require the Chief Justice and each Justice to sign a code of ethics. as all other judges and justices in the inferior courts are required to do.

 

[Foxfyre]

This entire, "if it ain't in the Constitution" argument is ridiculous. The founders/signers had no idea of the world we live in today. Art. I, Sec. 8 has no mention of airplanes, so is it prudent, pragmatic and possible for the safety of millions of passengers to have the states or the people direct air traffic?

This ^^^ is one example of the absurdity of the ideology so common among the kooks today. There would be no EPA, thus the head waters of our great rivers would replace sewer systems; no FDA, so super bugs would be rampant as charlatans passed out antibiotics for everyone with the sniffles.

I'd bet if the framers had any knowledge about the arms of today the Second Amendment would be written differently, and the Tenth too. Those who understand why the Articles of Confederation were so ineffective and weak understand this, why don't the kooks of today?

The Founders gave us a Constitution that was intended to secure our liberties and then leave us alone to live our lives and form whatever sorts of societies we wished to have. That principle has not changed in all the years since that Constitution was ratified. That principle is not possible with a central government that dictates the sorts of societies we are required to have. There is no liberty when the central government can dictate the society we are required to have.

I want to restore the Constitution to its original intent in that regard with some iron clad wording to ensure that it cannot so easily be corrupted by opportunistic professional politicians and bureaucrats.

And that goal is in my opinion ridiculous. But, I'll wait for you reply in how you believe and in what manner your goal (stated in the last paragraph) might be achieved?

I take your use of the word "dictate" as hyperbole. The COTUS is a document premised on two things: It's vision statement as defined in the Preamble and the checks and balances which mostly protects us from dictated policy. "Mostly" because to check the Supreme Court requires a very high hurdle, a Constitutional Amendment.

Of course I outlined above, in some detail, the changes I would offer to the COTUS as requested in the OP, but few if any have responded either affirmatively or critically.

It is precisely because, as the Constitution is now interpreted, there are so few checks and balances to protect us from dictated policy that I believe the Constitution needs to be improved. The Courts need to be busted back to their original role of interpreting and arbitrating the existing law and not making their own law and policy. The President needs to be restrained from making executive orders that are in fact legislation which must be the prerogative of the Congress alone. The Congress needs to limit the laws and policy it passes to what the Constitution allows rather than what the Constitution doesn't expressly forbid.

And almost all of this could be achieved by making it constitutionally illegal for anyone in the federal government to use the people's money or pass any legislation that would benefit any individual, group, entity, or demographic that does not equally benefit all.

 

[dblack]

If I was going by the debates that happen here, I might conclude - as some of you have suggested - that any expectation of consensus on a new Constitution would be utterly impossible. It seems there is precious little middle ground between freedom advocates those who desire strong central government. But in reality I haven't found most liberals and conservatives to be so authoritarian. We might argue that many of them are 'living in the past', hanging on to a vision of a their respective parties that had honest respect for civil liberties, but they ARE out there. Folks like Glenn Greenwald give me hope.

 

[Foxfyre]

Let me repeat my earlier suggestions to modify some articles and to leave the Preamble alone as the guiding vision and mission statement:

1. The term of the POTUS be changed to one term of six years;
2. The POTUS be given the line-item veto (Congress to retain the override provision as written in Art. I, sec 7, Clause 2 for any item blue lined by the POTUS);
3. The Justices of the Supreme Court be commissioned for 10 years, and appear before the Senate or the designated committed without further nomination by the POTUS; if once more confirmed by the Senate, serve for an additional ten years, and no more.
4. That the American people be allowed to vote on a referendum, placed on the ballot only every other year, on passage by the Congress by 2/3 vote, on the ballot of general elections, to vote on public policy issues.
5. That the rules of the Congress in each chamber be approved or rejected by the people in a referendum, and each rule to be voted upon by the people [for example, "do you approve of the right of any member of the Senate to attach a "Rider" to any Bill or Act?"] or ["shall or bills be single issue matters; no Riders or other none related issues allowed"?]
6. That Art. III be modified and require the Chief Justice and each Justice to sign a code of ethics. as all other judges and justices in the inferior courts are required to do.

I don't know if I would ultimately agree to each component of this, but I think every suggestion merits consideration and discussion. The problem with legislating via referendum, however, is that there is no provision to prevent Congress from rigging the system to benefit just enough people to curry their favor, acquiescence, and vote.

I want a system in which everybody benefits from the good and everybody suffers the consequences of the bad so that everybody has incentive to want good government and not just government that benefits them personally.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Let me repeat my earlier suggestions to modify some articles and to leave the Preamble alone as the guiding vision and mission statement:

1. The term of the POTUS be changed to one term of six years;
2. The POTUS be given the line-item veto (Congress to retain the override provision as written in Art. I, sec 7, Clause 2 for any item blue lined by the POTUS);
3. The Justices of the Supreme Court be commissioned for 10 years, and appear before the Senate or the designated committed without further nomination by the POTUS; if once more confirmed by the Senate, serve for an additional ten years, and no more.
4. That the American people be allowed to vote on a referendum, placed on the ballot only every other year, on passage by the Congress by 2/3 vote, on the ballot of general elections, to vote on public policy issues.
5. That the rules of the Congress in each chamber be approved or rejected by the people in a referendum, and each rule to be voted upon by the people [for example, "do you approve of the right of any member of the Senate to attach a "Rider" to any Bill or Act?"] or ["shall or bills be single issue matters; no Riders or other none related issues allowed"?]
6. That Art. III be modified and require the Chief Justice and each Justice to sign a code of ethics. as all other judges and justices in the inferior courts are required to do.

I don't know if I would ultimately agree to each component of this, but I think every suggestion merits consideration and discussion. The problem with legislating via referendum, however, is that there is no provision to prevent Congress from rigging the system to benefit just enough people to curry their favor, acquiescence, and vote.

I want a system in which everybody benefits from the good and everybody suffers the consequences of the bad so that everybody has incentive to want good government and not just government that benefits them personally.

Maybe there is some confusion on what a referendum can do. A referendum is an expression of the will of the people, and doesn't change anything substantially. An Initiative which many states have can fundamentally change policy since it amends the State Constitution.

For example, a Referendum might ask the people, "should the Federal Government continue to fund the war on drugs" or "Should the regulation by the DOJ to keep Marijuana as a Schedule I drug be lifted?".

 

[Olde Europe]

Let me repeat my earlier suggestions to modify some articles and to leave the Preamble alone as the guiding vision and mission statement:

1. The term of the POTUS be changed to one term of six years;
2. The POTUS be given the line-item veto (Congress to retain the override provision as written in Art. I, sec 7, Clause 2 for any item blue lined by the POTUS);
3. The Justices of the Supreme Court be commissioned for 10 years, and appear before the Senate or the designated committed without further nomination by the POTUS; if once more confirmed by the Senate, serve for an additional ten years, and no more.
4. That the American people be allowed to vote on a referendum, placed on the ballot only every other year, on passage by the Congress by 2/3 vote, on the ballot of general elections, to vote on public policy issues.
5. That the rules of the Congress in each chamber be approved or rejected by the people in a referendum, and each rule to be voted upon by the people [for example, "do you approve of the right of any member of the Senate to attach a "Rider" to any Bill or Act?"] or ["shall or shall bills be single issue matters; no Riders or other none related issues allowed"?]
6. That Art. III be modified and require the Chief Justice and each Justice to sign a code of ethics. as all other judges and justices in the inferior courts are required to do.

1. I see no reason to change the current arrangement for POTUS. Moreover, you'd have one third of Senators running in POTUS-election years, and two thirds in off years. I'd rather change things so that all of Congress and POTUS be voted on every four years. Six year terms are too long, two year terms too short for my liking, since half of a two year term is campaign time. The more pressing issue, in my view, would be to get money out of politics.

2. I would much rather restrict the veto, as it contradicts the legislative powers vested in Congress, to be allowed only in cases of suspected un-Constitutional legislation, and entailing an automatic Supreme Court review of the (sections of) the bill.

3. I'd change the nomination of Supreme Court Justices entirely, and let, say, the Bar Association, in a criteria-based, transparent finding, propose the three most qualified nominees for every open seat to the Supreme Court, and the remaining Justices vote on which of the proposed will be accepted. If none gets a majority, the next set of three is to be proposed. Get the politics out of Supreme Court nominations.

4. I'm fine with voting on referenda, but don't understand your "on passage by the Congress by 2/3 vote". Care to clarify?

5. Congress, I find, should be a self-regulating body. In case they cannot even regulate their own affairs, why should they be entrusted with regulating those of the citizens? If Americans would vote children, imbeciles, bigots and other non-entities in, rather than adults, they have themselves to blame if stalemate or worse ensues. And yes, bills should be single issue matters.

6. Agree. Wholeheartedly.

 

[PratchettFan]

Let me repeat my earlier suggestions to modify some articles and to leave the Preamble alone as the guiding vision and mission statement:

1. The term of the POTUS be changed to one term of six years;
2. The POTUS be given the line-item veto (Congress to retain the override provision as written in Art. I, sec 7, Clause 2 for any item blue lined by the POTUS);
3. The Justices of the Supreme Court be commissioned for 10 years, and appear before the Senate or the designated committed without further nomination by the POTUS; if once more confirmed by the Senate, serve for an additional ten years, and no more.
4. That the American people be allowed to vote on a referendum, placed on the ballot only every other year, on passage by the Congress by 2/3 vote, on the ballot of general elections, to vote on public policy issues.
5. That the rules of the Congress in each chamber be approved or rejected by the people in a referendum, and each rule to be voted upon by the people [for example, "do you approve of the right of any member of the Senate to attach a "Rider" to any Bill or Act?"] or ["shall or shall bills be single issue matters; no Riders or other none related issues allowed"?]
6. That Art. III be modified and require the Chief Justice and each Justice to sign a code of ethics. as all other judges and justices in the inferior courts are required to do.

I'm good with 1 & 2.
I'm not convinced on 3. One of the strengths of the SC is they are not subject to the whims of politics once in office. If they need to stand for re-confirmation to keep their job, it might impact how they rule. Especially when they start getting closer to the date.
4.Who determines what constitutes public policy issues?
5.Not convinced on this either. If all we want to do is ban riders or amendments, then we should probably deal with that separately. But do we really want to get into the minutiae of how congress works?
6. What code of ethics and how do you propose it be enforced?

 

[Foxfyre]

Let me repeat my earlier suggestions to modify some articles and to leave the Preamble alone as the guiding vision and mission statement:

1. The term of the POTUS be changed to one term of six years;
2. The POTUS be given the line-item veto (Congress to retain the override provision as written in Art. I, sec 7, Clause 2 for any item blue lined by the POTUS);
3. The Justices of the Supreme Court be commissioned for 10 years, and appear before the Senate or the designated committed without further nomination by the POTUS; if once more confirmed by the Senate, serve for an additional ten years, and no more.
4. That the American people be allowed to vote on a referendum, placed on the ballot only every other year, on passage by the Congress by 2/3 vote, on the ballot of general elections, to vote on public policy issues.
5. That the rules of the Congress in each chamber be approved or rejected by the people in a referendum, and each rule to be voted upon by the people [for example, "do you approve of the right of any member of the Senate to attach a "Rider" to any Bill or Act?"] or ["shall or bills be single issue matters; no Riders or other none related issues allowed"?]
6. That Art. III be modified and require the Chief Justice and each Justice to sign a code of ethics. as all other judges and justices in the inferior courts are required to do.

I don't know if I would ultimately agree to each component of this, but I think every suggestion merits consideration and discussion. The problem with legislating via referendum, however, is that there is no provision to prevent Congress from rigging the system to benefit just enough people to curry their favor, acquiescence, and vote.

I want a system in which everybody benefits from the good and everybody suffers the consequences of the bad so that everybody has incentive to want good government and not just government that benefits them personally.

Maybe there is some confusion on what a referendum can do. A referendum is an expression of the will of the people, and doesn't change anything substantially. An Initiative which many states have can fundamentally change policy since it amends the State Constitution.

For example, a Referendum might ask the people, "should the Federal Government continue to fund the war on drugs" or "Should the regulation by the DOJ to keep Marijuana as a Schedule I drug be lifted?".

But why go to the time and expense of a formal referendum if it has no binding effect on what Congress does? Polling groups do just as good a job--probably better--to test the temperament of the people. Or a Congressman or Senator could poll his constituency via the internet. Voter turnout is pitiful enough when the vote matters.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Let me repeat my earlier suggestions to modify some articles and to leave the Preamble alone as the guiding vision and mission statement:

1. The term of the POTUS be changed to one term of six years;
2. The POTUS be given the line-item veto (Congress to retain the override provision as written in Art. I, sec 7, Clause 2 for any item blue lined by the POTUS);
3. The Justices of the Supreme Court be commissioned for 10 years, and appear before the Senate or the designated committed without further nomination by the POTUS; if once more confirmed by the Senate, serve for an additional ten years, and no more.
4. That the American people be allowed to vote on a referendum, placed on the ballot only every other year, on passage by the Congress by 2/3 vote, on the ballot of general elections, to vote on public policy issues.
5. That the rules of the Congress in each chamber be approved or rejected by the people in a referendum, and each rule to be voted upon by the people [for example, "do you approve of the right of any member of the Senate to attach a "Rider" to any Bill or Act?"] or ["shall or shall bills be single issue matters; no Riders or other none related issues allowed"?]
6. That Art. III be modified and require the Chief Justice and each Justice to sign a code of ethics. as all other judges and justices in the inferior courts are required to do.

1. I see no reason to change the current arrangement for POTUS. Moreover, you'd have one third of Senators running in POTUS-election years, and two thirds in off years. I'd rather change things so that all of Congress and POTUS be voted on every four years. Six year terms are too long, two year terms too short for my liking, since half of a two year term is campaign time. The more pressing issue, in my view, would be to get money out of politics.

2. I would much rather restrict the veto, as it contradicts the legislative powers vested in Congress, to be allowed only in cases of suspected un-Constitutional legislation, and entailing an automatic Supreme Court review of the (sections of) the bill.

3. I'd change the nomination of Supreme Court Justices entirely, and let, say, the Bar Association, in a criteria-based, transparent finding, propose the three most qualified nominees for every open seat to the Supreme Court, and the remaining Justices vote on which of the proposed will be accepted. If none gets a majority, the next set of three is to be proposed. Get the politics out of Supreme Court nominations.

4. I'm fine with voting on referenda, but don't understand your "on passage by the Congress by 2/3 vote". Care to clarify?

5. Congress, I find, should be a self-regulating body. In case they cannot even regulate their own affairs, why should they be entrusted with regulating those of the citizens? If Americans would vote children, imbeciles, bigots and other non-entities in, rather than adults, they have themselves to blame if stalemate or worse ensues. And yes, bills should be single issue matters.

6. Agree. Wholeheartedly.

1. A POTUS needing to not be concerned with any future election will be more likely to not play the game of politics and to function in the best interest of the nation, not only his or her base, and less likely to accommodate donors and thus more likely to listen to a wider range of opinions and not simply the deep pocket special interests.

2. I disagree. The Line-Item Veto works very well in the States, where governors have some greater control over the budget. We all know that logrolling, earmarks and other efforts to aid party members in the reelection to the legislature by bringing money to their constituency is common practice. A POTUS not running again can more easily strike out such unnecessary largess from the Federal Budget.

3. I disagree. The Bar Association is a special interest and a very politically asute one.

4. I do not want to see special interests (SI) have the ability to put a referendum on a national ballot. Every election in CA we see efforts by the SI with deep pockets putting men and women out front of major retail stores seeking signatures on a petition for an initiative in CA. Using the tools of demagogues they are able to earn .50 cents a signature from registered voters in a hurry to take care of their shopping and fall prey to efforts to benefit the few at the expense of the many.

5. Congress self regulates now, as each member acts in his or her own self interest. One Senator has more power than the POTUS, and one Committee Chairperson has the ability to table any item which may effect his or her future reelection.

6. http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf


EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2013
2
3
4 CALIFORNIA CODE OF JUDICIAL ETHICS
5
6 Amended by the Supreme Court of California effective January 1, 2013; previously
7 amended March 4, 1999, December 13, 2000, December 30, 2002, June 18, 2003,
8 December 22, 2003, January 1, 2005, June 1, 2005, July 1, 2006, January 1, 2007,
9 January 1, 2008, and April 29, 2009.
10
11 Preface
12
13 Preamble
14
15 Terminology
16
17 Canon 1. A judge shall uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary.
18
19 Canon 2. A judge shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in
20 all of the judge’s activities.
21
22 Canon 3. A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office impartially, competently,
23 and diligently.
24
25 Canon 4. A judge shall so conduct the judge’s quasi-judicial and extrajudicial
26 activities as to minimize the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.
27
28 Canon 5. A judge or candidate for judicial office shall not engage in political or
29 campaign activity that is inconsistent with the independence, integrity, or impartiality
30 of the judiciary.
31
32 Canon 6. Compliance with the code of judicial ethics.

 

[Olde Europe]

1. A POTUS needing to not be concerned with any future election will be more likely to not play the game of politics and to function in the best interest of the nation, not only his or her base, and less likely to accommodate donors and thus more likely to listen to a wider range of opinions and not simply the deep pocket special interests.

2. I disagree. The Line-Item Veto works very well in the States, where governors have some greater control over the budget. We all know that logrolling, earmarks and other efforts to aid party members in the reelection to the legislature by bringing money to their constituency is common practice. A POTUS not running again can more easily strike out such unnecessary largess from the Federal Budget.

3. I disagree. The Bar Association is a special interest and a very politically asute one.

4. I do not want to see special interests (SI) have the ability to put a referendum on a national ballot. Every election in CA we see efforts by the SI with deep pockets putting men and women out front of major retail stores seeking signatures on a petition for an initiative in CA. Using the tools of demagogues they are able to earn .50 cents a signature from registered voters in a hurry to take care of their shopping and fall prey to efforts to benefit the few at the expense of the many.

5. Congress self regulates now, as each member acts in his or her own self interest. One Senator has more power than the POTUS, and one Committee Chairperson has the ability to table any item which may effect his or her future reelection.

6. http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf

1. I find it naive to assume that any POTUS would no longer care about his party's success in case he need not worry about his own re-election.

2. That's for me a matter of principle, that is, separation of powers. The Executive should not have any control over legislation, other than to ensure that it's Constitutional, and even then only if the Judiciary agrees.

3. I am not wedded to the Bar Association, and am open to any other suggestion. Since they're rating nominees anyway, why not use their expertise? The fact that they're "politically astute" probably doesn't distinguish them from any other body you might care to mention.

4. If you distrust the people, and their ability to make reasonable choices, why care for a referendum at all? I might agree, however, that funding / taxes better remain the prerogative of Congress, as voting on extended government services in conjunction with a certain unwillingness to pay for same would bankrupt the nation. But then, listening to the "deficit hawks", that wouldn't be that different from what Congress is doing to the nation.

5. Such is the extent of legislative power as organised according to the supreme legislative body's self-imposed rules. If you don't trust the legislators, and don't really trust the people either, why bother with democracy at all? I find, the Founders had a clear picture of the self-serving nature of humankind, and I further find the surprise that legislators are no exception, that they are just like us, rather puzzling. Democracy must, and can, withstand that, as long as there are proper checks within and across governing bodies.

6. As I said, I agree that Justices should submit to the same rules as do Federal Judges.

Oh, and BTW, how about doing away with the FPTP system, as this is where the whole gerrymandering business originates with the sole aim to thwart the will of the people? How about allotting representatives according to the proportion of votes in each state? Oh, and I think the outdated Electoral College needs to go as well.

___________________________________________

But why go to the time and expense of a formal referendum if it has no binding effect on what Congress does? Polling groups do just as good a job--probably better--to test the temperament of the people. Or a Congressman or Senator could poll his constituency via the internet. Voter turnout is pitiful enough when the vote matters.

I have to agree with that. Except that I find whether pollsters would do a better job or not is an open question.