CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[percysunshine]

a

.

Having Senators limited to serve two 6 year terms is the only thing I would change if I had a say in the matter.

.

How do you see it being a significant benefit to put such limits on Senators and nothing or nobody else?

.

The two term president is already a limit, and the short 2 year Congress critter election cycle is its' own limit.

The point would be to discourage the establishment of an entrenched political class among the staff members. When Feinstein or McCain go alzheimer, weird stuff happens.
.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

a

.

Having Senators limited to serve two 6 year terms is the only thing I would change if I had a say in the matter.

.

How do you see it being a significant benefit to put such limits on Senators and nothing or nobody else?

.

The two term president is already a limit, and the short 2 year Congress critter election cycle is its' own limit.

The point would be to discourage the establishment of an entrenched political class among the staff members. When Feinstein or McCain go alzheimer, weird stuff happens.
.

.

I agree with that, but I believe it has to be applied to members of the House too. Those folks are just as susceptible to becoming part of the permanent political class as are the senators. The idea for me here is to return the government to the people and not allow everything to be controlled by that permanent political class.

 

[percysunshine]

a

.

Having Senators limited to serve two 6 year terms is the only thing I would change if I had a say in the matter.

.

How do you see it being a significant benefit to put such limits on Senators and nothing or nobody else?

.

The two term president is already a limit, and the short 2 year Congress critter election cycle is its' own limit.

The point would be to discourage the establishment of an entrenched political class among the staff members. When Feinstein or McCain go alzheimer, weird stuff happens.
.

.

I agree with that, but I believe it has to be applied to members of the House too. Those folks are just as susceptible to becoming part of the permanent political class as are the senators. The idea for me here is to return the government to the people and not allow everything to be controlled by that permanent political class.

Yup. I tend to think the 2 year Representative cycle churns the entrenched staff a bit .But I have never run for Congress either.

.

 

[dcraelin]

Have elections every 2 years has effectively created the Campaign-Industrial-Complex (CIC).

We would all be better off if elections were only held every 4 years (as someone else has already proposed.) And yes 100% of all seats should be up for election at that time.

If we are going to impose term limits on the POTUS then they should apply to all elected positions in the House and Senate too. I have no problem with setting that at either 2 or 3 terms.

The Electoral College is an anachronism that needs to be scrapped. Every vote should have equal weight. The whole concept of "battle ground states" was invented by the CIC because of the EC.

All House Districts must have one tenth of one percent of the population irrespective of state boundaries. There will be a total of 1000 House members and they must be directly accountable to their electorate.

Funding for elections must come from the Federal government for Federal elections and every candidate who obtains the requisite number of names on a petition is entitled to that funding. No other funding of any kind can be spent on the campaign. No 3rd party can campaign on any issue or for any candidate. Instead they must nominate their own candidate and run them if they want to participate in the election.

Election Campaigns can only last a maximum of 6 weeks from start to finish. Primaries prior to Campaigns can last up to 8 weeks but they must be completed at least 2 weeks prior to the start of the Election Campaigns. Start to finish the entire election process should take just 16 weeks.

That can all be done via a single Amendment to the existing Constitution. Needless to say the CIC won't be happy campers and will obstruct it.

at the time of the revolution, there was a saying which went something like this "where yearly elections end tyranny begins"
a proportional election of representatives every year, by state, region or nationwide, would be the direction I would want to go in. This could be a party list vote only and changes made in membership only if enough change were had in party vote.

I would not scrap the electoral college, without it nationwide recounts could be a problem, and it does give perhaps give some influence to what would otherwise be fly-over country.

Interesting concept and certainly worthy of some consideration and discussion. But if we go with the more European system of party membership/strength determining the representation in government, what do we do with the independents?

Well what I like about the more European system is access by smaller parties. I suppose you could treat independents as a party of one. Or have them establish a party before granting ballot access.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Have elections every 2 years has effectively created the Campaign-Industrial-Complex (CIC).

We would all be better off if elections were only held every 4 years (as someone else has already proposed.) And yes 100% of all seats should be up for election at that time.

If we are going to impose term limits on the POTUS then they should apply to all elected positions in the House and Senate too. I have no problem with setting that at either 2 or 3 terms.

The Electoral College is an anachronism that needs to be scrapped. Every vote should have equal weight. The whole concept of "battle ground states" was invented by the CIC because of the EC.

All House Districts must have one tenth of one percent of the population irrespective of state boundaries. There will be a total of 1000 House members and they must be directly accountable to their electorate.

Funding for elections must come from the Federal government for Federal elections and every candidate who obtains the requisite number of names on a petition is entitled to that funding. No other funding of any kind can be spent on the campaign. No 3rd party can campaign on any issue or for any candidate. Instead they must nominate their own candidate and run them if they want to participate in the election.

Election Campaigns can only last a maximum of 6 weeks from start to finish. Primaries prior to Campaigns can last up to 8 weeks but they must be completed at least 2 weeks prior to the start of the Election Campaigns. Start to finish the entire election process should take just 16 weeks.

That can all be done via a single Amendment to the existing Constitution. Needless to say the CIC won't be happy campers and will obstruct it.

at the time of the revolution, there was a saying which went something like this "where yearly elections end tyranny begins"
a proportional election of representatives every year, by state, region or nationwide, would be the direction I would want to go in. This could be a party list vote only and changes made in membership only if enough change were had in party vote.

I would not scrap the electoral college, without it nationwide recounts could be a problem, and it does give perhaps give some influence to what would otherwise be fly-over country.

Interesting concept and certainly worthy of some consideration and discussion. But if we go with the more European system of party membership/strength determining the representation in government, what do we do with the independents?

Well what I like about the more European system is access by smaller parties. I suppose you could treat independents as a party of one. Or have them establish a party before granting ballot access.

Those smaller parties largely exist because they have short 6-8 week elections once every 4 to 5 years and their campaigns are funded via the government. They play a very useful role in the balance of power because they often have to be included in a coalition for the "ruling party" to have a majority. Since many of these small parties are centrist that gives them power over the extremists. They can effectively determine the direction of the ruling party to a more centrist agenda.

 

[Foxfyre]

We believe in the spirit of our Founding Fathers

Thus begins, with an egregious lie, the prayer named "The Conservative Declaration", as we see the founders reduced to promoters of a government of night-watchmen guarding property, and "free enterprise" and religious sects dominating the scene.

1. It then moves to declare life and pursuit of happiness solely a function of liberty, when the latter is, at best, one of the preconditions to the former. The Founders knew that. They'd immediately recognise the emptiness and disingenuousness of verbiage like "fundamentally equal", as it means nothing but sounds good.

2. Next we see what we "earn" declared the fruit of hard labor, when in the current-day U.S. of A. very little can be farther from the truth. The first I see entering a jungle, all on his own coming back a year later a multi-millionaire, I will concede actually "earned" what he has. All others derive most of what they "earn" from the work of those working, or having worked, for him and the common good, and that pertains most to the moneyed aristocracy that sucks the country dry. Moreover, it stands in stark contradiction to the Founders' insight that the power of taxation vested in Congress necessarily be infinite.

3. Enterprise is to be guarded against, as it is set to undermine democratic rule. The Founders were fully aware of that, and they would never have assented to enterprises acquiring personhood status. The primary duty of the federal government in this realm ought to be promoting the common welfare, not to unleash the greedy on the population.

4. That's probably the most ridiculous part, as we see "Common Defense" reduced to anti-immigrant dog-whistle. The nativist screed being older than the Republic, it isn't that big a surprise that it would show up somewhere, but rhetorically reducing a $600 or so billion juggernaut to a $25 billion a year purpose, so as to deceive the gullible as to the purpose of these enormous expenses, that's priceless.

5. Oh yes, the federal government is, of course, known for violent reprisals against worshippers and the faithful, and the casualty count of the "War on Christmas" is staggering. In terms of hilarity this one's just second to 4).

6. This is the second section of worship to "free enterprise", this time with the added appeal to return to the Articles of Confederation, as the powers of the federal government ought to be performed through their subordinate entities. Don't these guys know that they've lost this argument 250 years ago, that the Confederation was a pathetic failure, and resurrecting the Confederation's cadaver makes them look rather odd? Of course, "free enterprise" would love nothing more than to pollute and exploit with abandon, unencumbered by the dreaded "regulatory state", and to play the several states off against each other for their bottom line.

And then the prayer ends with the declaration that the "progressive" hordes are anti-American, as they are set to "dismantle our nation's foundations", all of which brought to our attention by the main promoter of non-partisan debate.

________________________________________

And I can imagine that the divides were almost as wide between some factions at that original constitutional convention; neverthless, after MUCH dificulty, they did achieve a consensus that all could live with.

A consensus all could live with... Particularly well lived the poor and women, both confined to a status of chattel, and then there were the blacks, who lived particularly well with that "consensus". You know, in terms of obliviousness that one trumps it all.

Okay you went to a good deal of trouble to respond to this, and I don't think your response deserves to be ignored.

Let's start out by changing the title to so there won't be so much temptation to dismiss it or impune it on ideology alone and we can set aside your concerns re that at least for the moment:

THE DECLARATION
​

We believe in the spirit of our Founding Fathers and come together from across the nation to sign the following Declaration, reaffirming our belief in the principles on which our nation was founded.

Now if you don't believe the Founding Fathers are relevent in any way to the Constitution now, the preamble can also be set aside for now. I have no problem with the preamble as as I choose to be informed by history at least so far as what worked and what didn't. I believe the principle the Founding Father based the original constitution on worked more brilliantly and effectively than even they had hoped.

We believe this nation is uniquely dedicated to the universal principles of human liberty: that all are fundamentally equal and equally endowed with unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The U.S. government is intended to be limited so that we have the liberty and opportunity to live our lives, control our fates, and pursue our own happiness.

To this OE said:

1. It then moves to declare life and pursuit of happiness solely a function of liberty, when the latter is, at best, one of the preconditions to the former. The Founders knew that. They'd immediately recognise the emptiness and disingenuousness of verbiage like "fundamentally equal", as it means nothing but sounds good.

I disagree that they would have objected to that clause since it was the funadmental principle the whole of the original constitution.

We believe in the right to the rewards of our own labor—the promise that we Americans can keep what we earn and that this makes possible a society in which every member can work hard, pursue opportunity, and advance in life based on individual talent and ability. In this America, success comes from hard work and personal merit rather than from entitlement or aristocracy.

To this OE said:

2. Next we see what we "earn" declared the fruit of hard labor, when in the current-day U.S. of A. very little can be farther from the truth. The first I see entering a jungle, all on his own coming back a year later a multi-millionaire, I will concede actually "earned" what he has. All others derive most of what they "earn" from the work of those working, or having worked, for him and the common good, and that pertains most to the moneyed aristocracy that sucks the country dry. Moreover, it stands in stark contradiction to the Founders' insight that the power of taxation vested in Congress necessarily be infinite.

Here was have a profound divide between each of our beliefs and perceptions. When I work for the other guy, I am selling him my labor, my creativity, my experience, my abilities, my know how, my education, my work ethic for an agreed price. I am not being exploited in the least, at least no more than I am exploiting the employer to earn some of what he has. Certainly he will prosper because he hired me because I am damn good at what I do. But without him or some other employer, I would not prosper at all. Likewise when I am running my own business I hire people who will prosper me or else there is no reason to hire them. And those who work for me are entitled to every penny and benefit they agreed to work for.

I have absolutely no illusions that their motive for going to work for me is to prosper me--they are working primarily for their own benefit as well they should. But in the process of my intention to make a profit from my business, and their motives to prosper themselves, we mutually benefit each other.

I would not have written No. 2 as it is worded, but the basic concept I can embrace.

We believe that the primary duties of the federal government in regard to the economy are to guarantee the equal rights of the individual, destroy barriers to opportunity, and uphold the rule of law. Because economic opportunity will be available to everyone, the people will have great incentive to earn more, save more, and invest in more opportunities for the future. This means more enterprise and more economic activity.

Rather than acting to guarantee economic outcomes, government should provide the sturdy framework for opportunity, economic growth, and human flourishing.

To this OE wrote:

3. Enterprise is to be guarded against, as it is set to undermine democratic rule. The Founders were fully aware of that, and they would never have assented to enterprises acquiring personhood status. The primary duty of the federal government in this realm ought to be promoting the common welfare, not to unleash the greedy on the population.

I strongly disagree with your argument on this one. At the same time, while I think I know where the author of the declaration is coming from here, I think this one is argued badly. I would want to rework it.

We believe it is the constitutional duty of the federal government to secure the country’s international borders in order to strengthen and preserve its constitutional government.

But liberty does not belong only to this country. The United States must also continue to recognize its special responsibility to support the cause of liberty in the world.

To this OE wrote:

4. That's probably the most ridiculous part, as we see "Common Defense" reduced to anti-immigrant dog-whistle. The nativist screed being older than the Republic, it isn't that big a surprise that it would show up somewhere, but rhetorically reducing a $600 or so billion juggernaut to a $25 billion a year purpose, so as to deceive the gullible as to the purpose of these enormous expenses, that's priceless.

I disagree with your statement in response. I would strongly object to the second paragraph in this section of the declaration as I think it would be too easily interpreted as license to meddle in the affairs of others in inappropriate ways.

We believe the ability to freely worship and to act in accordance with a particular faith without fear of government reprisal is essential to civil society. Together we stand in defiance of any edict that compels our people, our businesses, or our institutions to participate in any act that impedes our ability to freely worship or to act in accordance with our faith.

However, over-reaching government and a growing disregard for the role of faith in public life have led to increasing erosions of religious liberty. Together we stand in defiance of any edict that compels our institutions to participate in any act that impedes our ability to freely worship or to act in accordance with a particular faith without fear of government reprisal.

To this OE wrote:

5. Oh yes, the federal government is, of course, known for violent reprisals against worshippers and the faithful, and the casualty count of the "War on Christmas" is staggering. In terms of hilarity this one's just second to 4).

Because of the straw man plus non sequitur response here, I can only conclude you had no competent argument for this one. I don't have a problem with this one and think it goes to the very core of restoring our liberties from an overreaching government.

We emphatically reject today’s welfare and regulatory state. “We the people” demand less of our federal government rather than more. We demand that all branches of government recognize the clear constitutional limits to its powers.

Government must perform its proper responsibilities effectively through the three distinct branches of federal government, through all 50 states and through thousands of counties and local municipalities. We demand that the government recognize the clear constitutional limits to its powers.

To this OE wrote:

6. This is the second section of worship to "free enterprise", this time with the added appeal to return to the Articles of Confederation, as the powers of the federal government ought to be performed through their subordinate entities. Don't these guys know that they've lost this argument 250 years ago, that the Confederation was a pathetic failure, and resurrecting the Confederation's cadaver makes them look rather odd? Of course, "free enterprise" would love nothing more than to pollute and exploit with abandon, unencumbered by the dreaded "regulatory state", and to play the several states off against each other for their bottom line.

Which is also non sequitur to that clause of the declaration. I agree with the first paragraph of this clause of the declaration. The think the second paragraph is bad, however, as the federal government should not have any but the most limited authority over the states or local communities and I believe the way they worded that, it would be interpeted as the local folks having to abide by federal rules and that would negate the whole concept of restoring liberty to the people.

 

[dblack]

So.... at this point, I'm wondering, do we have any consensus on what the point of a constitution is in the first place? Why bother?

 

[Foxfyre]

So.... at this point, I'm wondering, do we have any consensus on what the point of a constitution is in the first place? Why bother?

No. I think we probably don't have a consensus, but I hope we are doing some education or perhaps are causing some people reading in to think. Why bother? Because this country is in serious trouble and we the people are in serious jeopardy of losing all or most of the liberties the country was built on. I believe we are in this situation because good people were too busy living their lives to take the time to object to the slow insidious creep of totalitarianism that is gradually replacing the nation the Founders conceived.

I honestly do believe that any hope we have of turning that around will have to be accomplished by this generation. It may already be too late.

If we can't make a good argument for what good government is and what liberty is here, we can't make that argument anywhere.

 

[Olde Europe]

Okay you went to a good deal of trouble to respond to this, and I don't think your response deserves to be ignored.

I thought so, too, and thanks for your reply. I also thought you might want to retract this one, "And I bet you can't articulate a rationale for your opinion about that", but hey, what the heck. There was one very interesting item on which I would like to focus:

I agree with the first paragraph of this clause of the declaration.

... which read:

We emphatically reject today’s welfare and regulatory state. “We the people” demand less of our federal government rather than more. We demand that all branches of government recognize the clear constitutional limits to its powers.

Of course, as is standard in propaganda texts, the text provides no link detailing that, in fact, "We the people" demand less. I suspect that is just the ultra-right-wing view, and it has nothing to do with what "We the people" actually demand.

As to your emphatic rejection of the so-called "welfare and regulatory state", let's put some meat on these bones.

# Which of the following partly or wholly federally funded "welfare programs" (along with the bodies administering them) would you abolish?

• Community Development Block Grant
• EITC
• Headstart
• LIHEAP
• Maternal & Child Health
• Medicaid
• Public Housing
• Refundable Child Credit
• SCHIP
• School Lunch Program
• Section 8 Housing
• SNAP
• SSI/Old Age Assistance
• Women, Infant and Children Food Program

# Which federal regulations, standards, or oversight would you rather see go away: Concerning...

• ... air pollution
• ... air traffic (FAA etc.)
• ... bridges (construction, inspections, and evaluations)
• ... car safety (construction / inspections)
  
• ... chemical plants / storage
• ... drinking water
• ... educational standards
• ... employment fairness
• ... finance & fraud
  
• ... housing construction
• ... interstate commerce
• ... kitchen appliances
• ... minimum wage
• ... nuclear plants / storage
• ... tunnels (construction, inspections, and evaluations)
• ... workplace safety

I know it's a hassle, but perhaps if you just colored the items you'd abolish in red, we might get a sense of what you are proposing. Thanks in advance.

 

[dblack]

So.... at this point, I'm wondering, do we have any consensus on what the point of a constitution is in the first place? Why bother?

No. I think we probably don't have a consensus, but I hope we are doing some education or perhaps are causing some people reading in to think. Why bother? Because this country is in serious trouble and we the people are in serious jeopardy of losing all or most of the liberties the country was built on. I believe we are in this situation because good people were too busy living their lives to take the time to object to the slow insidious creep of totalitarianism that is gradually replacing the nation the Founders conceived.

I honestly do believe that any hope we have of turning that around will have to be accomplished by this generation. It may already be too late.

If we can't make a good argument for what good government is and what liberty is here, we can't make that argument anywhere.

Agreed. My "Why bother?" was in reference to the point of a constitution. What's it for? Why do we need one?

My view, and I believe yours, is that the point of such a document is to clearly define and limit the scope of government. It's a grant of sovereignty and authority from "we the people" - wherein we define the relatively narrow set of circumstances where we consent to the rule of law.

I'm pretty sure this is not how everyone here views the purpose of a constitution. They seem to see it more as procedural rules and a structural framework. But I'd like to hear it from them.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay you went to a good deal of trouble to respond to this, and I don't think your response deserves to be ignored.

I thought so, too, and thanks for your reply. I also thought you might want to retract this one, "And I bet you can't articulate a rationale for your opinion about that", but hey, what the heck. There was one very interesting item on which I would like to focus:

I agree with the first paragraph of this clause of the declaration.

... which read:

We emphatically reject today’s welfare and regulatory state. “We the people” demand less of our federal government rather than more. We demand that all branches of government recognize the clear constitutional limits to its powers.

Of course, as is standard in propaganda texts, the text provides no link detailing that, in fact, "We the people" demand less. I suspect that is just the ultra-right-wing view, and it has nothing to do with what "We the people" actually demand.

As to your emphatic rejection of the so-called "welfare and regulatory state", let's put some meat on these bones.

# Which of the following partly or wholly federally funded "welfare programs" (along with the bodies administering them) would you abolish?

• Community Development Block Grant
• EITC
• Headstart
• LIHEAP
• Maternal & Child Health
• Medicaid
• Public Housing
• Refundable Child Credit
• SCHIP
• School Lunch Program
• Section 8 Housing
• SNAP
• SSI/Old Age Assistance
• Women, Infant and Children Food Program

# Which federal regulations, standards, or oversight would you rather see go away: Concerning...

• ... air pollution
• ... air traffic (FAA etc.)
• ... bridges (construction, inspections, and evaluations)
• ... car safety (construction / inspections)
  
• ... chemical plants / storage
• ... drinking water
• ... educational standards
• ... employment fairness
• ... finance & fraud
  
• ... housing construction
• ... interstate commerce
• ... kitchen appliances
• ... minimum wage
• ... nuclear plants / storage
• ... tunnels (construction, inspections, and evaluations)
• ... workplace safety

I know it's a hassle, but perhaps if you just colored the items you'd abolish in red, we might get a sense of what you are proposing. Thanks in advance.

Re the welfare programs on your first list, I would prohibit the federal government from getting involved in each and every one. Every one should be relegated to the states and local communities.

And on this list my comments are bolded:


•... air pollution - Yes, this should be federally regulated as air cannot be confined to a single state or community.
•... air traffic (FAA etc.) -Ditto
•... bridges (construction, inspections, and evaluations) - the federal government should be concerned with federal bridges only.
•... car safety (construction / inspections) - the federal government should be involved only to require reasonable safety that the local consumer could not determine for himself/herself and as is necessary to not provide hazards to others on federal highways.
•... chemical plants / storage - the federal government should be involved only to the extent that these present hazards or issues across state lines.
•... drinking water - the federal government should be involved only to the extent that issues cross state lines.
•... educational standards - Nope. The federal government should maintain a data base accessible to all and could legitimately issues warnings and recommendations,, but should otherwise have absolutely nothing to do with public education,
•... employment fairness - this should not be a responsibility of the federal government
•... finance & fraud - this should be a responsibility of the federal government only as it crosses state lines or national boundaries.
•... housing construction - no to federal involvement
•... interstate commerce - yes because it crosses state lines
•... kitchen appliances - only to the extent of advising the public of issues they could not determine for themselves
•... minimum wage - there should be no federal minimum wage
•... nuclear plants / storage - yes to the extent these can create issues across state lines
•... tunnels (construction, inspections, and evaluations) - yes if these are on federal highways or cross state lines.
•... workplace safety - this should be determined by the states and local communities. As with education, in the interest of promoting the general welfare, the federal government could establish data bases, do useful research, and issue advice and information to the states, but it should have no authority to require states to comply with any guidelines it might issue.

 

[dcraelin]

Have elections every 2 years has effectively created the Campaign-Industrial-Complex (CIC).

We would all be better off if elections were only held every 4 years (as someone else has already proposed.) And yes 100% of all seats should be up for election at that time.

If we are going to impose term limits on the POTUS then they should apply to all elected positions in the House and Senate too. I have no problem with setting that at either 2 or 3 terms.

The Electoral College is an anachronism that needs to be scrapped. Every vote should have equal weight. The whole concept of "battle ground states" was invented by the CIC because of the EC.

All House Districts must have one tenth of one percent of the population irrespective of state boundaries. There will be a total of 1000 House members and they must be directly accountable to their electorate.

Funding for elections must come from the Federal government for Federal elections and every candidate who obtains the requisite number of names on a petition is entitled to that funding. No other funding of any kind can be spent on the campaign. No 3rd party can campaign on any issue or for any candidate. Instead they must nominate their own candidate and run them if they want to participate in the election.

Election Campaigns can only last a maximum of 6 weeks from start to finish. Primaries prior to Campaigns can last up to 8 weeks but they must be completed at least 2 weeks prior to the start of the Election Campaigns. Start to finish the entire election process should take just 16 weeks.

That can all be done via a single Amendment to the existing Constitution. Needless to say the CIC won't be happy campers and will obstruct it.

at the time of the revolution, there was a saying which went something like this "where yearly elections end tyranny begins"
a proportional election of representatives every year, by state, region or nationwide, would be the direction I would want to go in. This could be a party list vote only and changes made in membership only if enough change were had in party vote.

I would not scrap the electoral college, without it nationwide recounts could be a problem, and it does give perhaps give some influence to what would otherwise be fly-over country.

Interesting concept and certainly worthy of some consideration and discussion. But if we go with the more European system of party membership/strength determining the representation in government, what do we do with the independents?

Well what I like about the more European system is access by smaller parties. I suppose you could treat independents as a party of one. Or have them establish a party before granting ballot access.

Those smaller parties largely exist because they have short 6-8 week elections once every 4 to 5 years and their campaigns are funded via the government. They play a very useful role in the balance of power because they often have to be included in a coalition for the "ruling party" to have a majority. Since many of these small parties are centrist that gives them power over the extremists. They can effectively determine the direction of the ruling party to a more centrist agenda.

I dont think its because of a short election that the small parties exist....tho I too like idea of shorter election. I dont like the idea of elections only every 4 to 5 years....that gives the lobbyists more power in my view. I maybe can go with the government funding smaller parties but once parties get to a certain size I think they should not get funding

 

[Foxfyre]

Have elections every 2 years has effectively created the Campaign-Industrial-Complex (CIC).

We would all be better off if elections were only held every 4 years (as someone else has already proposed.) And yes 100% of all seats should be up for election at that time.

If we are going to impose term limits on the POTUS then they should apply to all elected positions in the House and Senate too. I have no problem with setting that at either 2 or 3 terms.

The Electoral College is an anachronism that needs to be scrapped. Every vote should have equal weight. The whole concept of "battle ground states" was invented by the CIC because of the EC.

All House Districts must have one tenth of one percent of the population irrespective of state boundaries. There will be a total of 1000 House members and they must be directly accountable to their electorate.

Funding for elections must come from the Federal government for Federal elections and every candidate who obtains the requisite number of names on a petition is entitled to that funding. No other funding of any kind can be spent on the campaign. No 3rd party can campaign on any issue or for any candidate. Instead they must nominate their own candidate and run them if they want to participate in the election.

Election Campaigns can only last a maximum of 6 weeks from start to finish. Primaries prior to Campaigns can last up to 8 weeks but they must be completed at least 2 weeks prior to the start of the Election Campaigns. Start to finish the entire election process should take just 16 weeks.

That can all be done via a single Amendment to the existing Constitution. Needless to say the CIC won't be happy campers and will obstruct it.

at the time of the revolution, there was a saying which went something like this "where yearly elections end tyranny begins"
a proportional election of representatives every year, by state, region or nationwide, would be the direction I would want to go in. This could be a party list vote only and changes made in membership only if enough change were had in party vote.

I would not scrap the electoral college, without it nationwide recounts could be a problem, and it does give perhaps give some influence to what would otherwise be fly-over country.

Interesting concept and certainly worthy of some consideration and discussion. But if we go with the more European system of party membership/strength determining the representation in government, what do we do with the independents?

Well what I like about the more European system is access by smaller parties. I suppose you could treat independents as a party of one. Or have them establish a party before granting ballot access.

Those smaller parties largely exist because they have short 6-8 week elections once every 4 to 5 years and their campaigns are funded via the government. They play a very useful role in the balance of power because they often have to be included in a coalition for the "ruling party" to have a majority. Since many of these small parties are centrist that gives them power over the extremists. They can effectively determine the direction of the ruling party to a more centrist agenda.

I dont think its because of a short election that the small parties exist....tho I too like idea of shorter election. I dont like the idea of elections only every 4 to 5 years....that gives the lobbyists more power in my view. I maybe can go with the government funding smaller parties but once parties get to a certain size I think they should not get funding

I can't agree to that. The problem now is that the federal government has power to pick winners and losers, favored and unfavored groups. If we believe in equality under the law, then nobody should ever be punished for success nor should anybody be favored because they have been less successful.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Have elections every 2 years has effectively created the Campaign-Industrial-Complex (CIC).

We would all be better off if elections were only held every 4 years (as someone else has already proposed.) And yes 100% of all seats should be up for election at that time.

If we are going to impose term limits on the POTUS then they should apply to all elected positions in the House and Senate too. I have no problem with setting that at either 2 or 3 terms.

The Electoral College is an anachronism that needs to be scrapped. Every vote should have equal weight. The whole concept of "battle ground states" was invented by the CIC because of the EC.

All House Districts must have one tenth of one percent of the population irrespective of state boundaries. There will be a total of 1000 House members and they must be directly accountable to their electorate.

Funding for elections must come from the Federal government for Federal elections and every candidate who obtains the requisite number of names on a petition is entitled to that funding. No other funding of any kind can be spent on the campaign. No 3rd party can campaign on any issue or for any candidate. Instead they must nominate their own candidate and run them if they want to participate in the election.

Election Campaigns can only last a maximum of 6 weeks from start to finish. Primaries prior to Campaigns can last up to 8 weeks but they must be completed at least 2 weeks prior to the start of the Election Campaigns. Start to finish the entire election process should take just 16 weeks.

That can all be done via a single Amendment to the existing Constitution. Needless to say the CIC won't be happy campers and will obstruct it.

at the time of the revolution, there was a saying which went something like this "where yearly elections end tyranny begins"
a proportional election of representatives every year, by state, region or nationwide, would be the direction I would want to go in. This could be a party list vote only and changes made in membership only if enough change were had in party vote.

I would not scrap the electoral college, without it nationwide recounts could be a problem, and it does give perhaps give some influence to what would otherwise be fly-over country.

Interesting concept and certainly worthy of some consideration and discussion. But if we go with the more European system of party membership/strength determining the representation in government, what do we do with the independents?

Well what I like about the more European system is access by smaller parties. I suppose you could treat independents as a party of one. Or have them establish a party before granting ballot access.

Those smaller parties largely exist because they have short 6-8 week elections once every 4 to 5 years and their campaigns are funded via the government. They play a very useful role in the balance of power because they often have to be included in a coalition for the "ruling party" to have a majority. Since many of these small parties are centrist that gives them power over the extremists. They can effectively determine the direction of the ruling party to a more centrist agenda.

I dont think its because of a short election that the small parties exist....tho I too like idea of shorter election. I dont like the idea of elections only every 4 to 5 years....that gives the lobbyists more power in my view. I maybe can go with the government funding smaller parties but once parties get to a certain size I think they should not get funding

Not sure how you perceive that fewer elections further apart aids lobbyists. Can you please clarify?

Funding goes to the candidates, not the parties, and the candidates need to qualify with signatures for the funding. All other funding is prohibited by law.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Don't agree with a new Constitution. Nothing wrong with the one we currently have except that too many members of our Congress and President don't care to follow it as they should be doing.

 

[Foxfyre]

Don't agree with a new Constitution. Nothing wrong with the one we currently have except that too many members of our Congress and President don't care to follow it as they should be doing.

I think most of us are of that opinion BBD. What this exercise is all about is to clear up or tighten up wording so that the self-serving cannot interpret it as they want it to be rather than as it was originally intended.

 

[Olde Europe]

Re the welfare programs on your first list, I would prohibit the federal government from getting involved in each and every one. Every one should be relegated to the states and local communities.

And on this list my comments are bolded:


•... air pollution - Yes, this should be federally regulated as air cannot be confined to a single state or community.
•... air traffic (FAA etc.) -Ditto
•... bridges (construction, inspections, and evaluations) - the federal government should be concerned with federal bridges only.
•... car safety (construction / inspections) - the federal government should be involved only to require reasonable safety that the local consumer could not determine for himself/herself and as is necessary to not provide hazards to others on federal highways.
•... chemical plants / storage - the federal government should be involved only to the extent that these present hazards or issues across state lines.
•... drinking water - the federal government should be involved only to the extent that issues cross state lines.
•... educational standards - Nope. The federal government should maintain a data base accessible to all and could legitimately issues warnings and recommendations,, but should otherwise have absolutely nothing to do with public education,
•... employment fairness - this should not be a responsibility of the federal government
•... finance & fraud - this should be a responsibility of the federal government only as it crosses state lines or national boundaries.
•... housing construction - no to federal involvement
•... interstate commerce - yes because it crosses state lines
•... kitchen appliances - only to the extent of advising the public of issues they could not determine for themselves
•... minimum wage - there should be no federal minimum wage
•... nuclear plants / storage - yes to the extent these can create issues across state lines
•... tunnels (construction, inspections, and evaluations) - yes if these are on federal highways or cross state lines.
•... workplace safety - this should be determined by the states and local communities. As with education, in the interest of promoting the general welfare, the federal government could establish data bases, do useful research, and issue advice and information to the states, but it should have no authority to require states to comply with any guidelines it might issue.

Thanks. That clarifies things considerably.

BTW, where in the Constitution do you find an authorization for the federal government to regulate air pollution? By no means can that be interpreted as "Commerce [...] among the several States", BTW, as that would represent a sleazy misreading of the plain meaning of the word "Commerce" in order to arrogate power to the federal government, and, since the Founders most assuredly never thought to regulate pollution by, say, sulfur dioxide affecting downwind states, it cannot be said that that use of the Commerce Clause would find support in the original intent.

Secondly, given the pertinent paragraph you quoted from the "Declaration" states that "We the people" demand less, do you assume, and if so, on what grounds, that your much reduced list of federal obligations, tasks, and powers describes how much less "We the people" demand from the federal government?

 

[Foxfyre]

Re the welfare programs on your first list, I would prohibit the federal government from getting involved in each and every one. Every one should be relegated to the states and local communities.

And on this list my comments are bolded:


•... air pollution - Yes, this should be federally regulated as air cannot be confined to a single state or community.
•... air traffic (FAA etc.) -Ditto
•... bridges (construction, inspections, and evaluations) - the federal government should be concerned with federal bridges only.
•... car safety (construction / inspections) - the federal government should be involved only to require reasonable safety that the local consumer could not determine for himself/herself and as is necessary to not provide hazards to others on federal highways.
•... chemical plants / storage - the federal government should be involved only to the extent that these present hazards or issues across state lines.
•... drinking water - the federal government should be involved only to the extent that issues cross state lines.
•... educational standards - Nope. The federal government should maintain a data base accessible to all and could legitimately issues warnings and recommendations,, but should otherwise have absolutely nothing to do with public education,
•... employment fairness - this should not be a responsibility of the federal government
•... finance & fraud - this should be a responsibility of the federal government only as it crosses state lines or national boundaries.
•... housing construction - no to federal involvement
•... interstate commerce - yes because it crosses state lines
•... kitchen appliances - only to the extent of advising the public of issues they could not determine for themselves
•... minimum wage - there should be no federal minimum wage
•... nuclear plants / storage - yes to the extent these can create issues across state lines
•... tunnels (construction, inspections, and evaluations) - yes if these are on federal highways or cross state lines.
•... workplace safety - this should be determined by the states and local communities. As with education, in the interest of promoting the general welfare, the federal government could establish data bases, do useful research, and issue advice and information to the states, but it should have no authority to require states to comply with any guidelines it might issue.

Thanks. That clarifies things considerably.

BTW, where in the Constitution do you find an authorization for the federal government to regulate air pollution? By no means can that be interpreted as "Commerce [...] among the several States", BTW, as that would represent a sleazy misreading of the plain meaning of the word "Commerce" in order to arrogate power to the federal government, and, since the Founders most assuredly never thought to regulate pollution by, say, sulfur dioxide affecting downwind states, it cannot be said that that use of the Commerce Clause would find support in the original intent.

Secondly, given the pertinent paragraph you quoted from the "Declaration" states that "We the people" demand less, do you assume, and if so, on what grounds, that your much reduced list of federal obligations, tasks, and powers describes how much less "We the people" demand from the federal government?

The purpose of the Constitution was to protect and defend the unalienable rights of the people. In order for the states to function effectively as one nation, one state must not be allowed to violate the unalienable rights of people in another state. So if the smoke from Pennsylvania's factories is polluting Ohio's air and deteriorating quality of life for Ohio people, the federal government does have jurisdiction to mediate and deal with that problem so that Pennsylvania and Ohio will not need to go to war with each other. I believe this and similar things that each state cannot logistically do for itself is what was intended by the general welfare clause.

The federal government should do nothing that people can reasonably do for themselves whether the people choose to do for themselves or not.

 

[Olde Europe]

The purpose of the Constitution was to protect and defend the unalienable rights of the people. In order for the states to function effectively as one nation, one state must not be allowed to violate the unalienable rights of people in another state. So if the smoke from Pennsylvania's factories is polluting Ohio's air and deteriorating quality of life for Ohio people, the federal government does have jurisdiction to mediate and deal with that problem so that Pennsylvania and Ohio will not need to go to war with each other. I believe this and similar things that each state cannot logistically do for itself is what was intended by the general welfare clause.

The federal government should do nothing that people can reasonably do for themselves whether the people choose to do for themselves or not.

It would appear that you are now inventing an unalienable right to clean air and shove it into the Founders' mouths to arrive at a justification for the federal jurisdiction to regulate the the lives of Americans, which neither the plain reading of the Constitution nor the original intent would support. Moreover, in case a state refuses to act, and one county's pollution would affect another county in this state, your argument would require the federal government to step in to protect that so-called unalienable right, and the same applies between neighbors suffering from each others pollution. Before long, the federal government is in the driving seat again, curtailing liberties all over the country professing to protect inalienable rights.

You seem mistakenly to have answered a question not posed. So, here it is again: Secondly, given the pertinent paragraph you quoted from the "Declaration" states that "We the people" demand less, do you assume, and if so, on what grounds, that your much reduced list of federal obligations, tasks, and powers describes how much less "We the people" demand from the federal government?

 

[dcraelin]

at the time of the revolution, there was a saying which went something like this "where yearly elections end tyranny begins"
a proportional election of representatives every year, by state, region or nationwide, would be the direction I would want to go in. This could be a party list vote only and changes made in membership only if enough change were had in party vote.

I would not scrap the electoral college, without it nationwide recounts could be a problem, and it does give perhaps give some influence to what would otherwise be fly-over country.

Interesting concept and certainly worthy of some consideration and discussion. But if we go with the more European system of party membership/strength determining the representation in government, what do we do with the independents?

Well what I like about the more European system is access by smaller parties. I suppose you could treat independents as a party of one. Or have them establish a party before granting ballot access.

Those smaller parties largely exist because they have short 6-8 week elections once every 4 to 5 years and their campaigns are funded via the government. They play a very useful role in the balance of power because they often have to be included in a coalition for the "ruling party" to have a majority. Since many of these small parties are centrist that gives them power over the extremists. They can effectively determine the direction of the ruling party to a more centrist agenda.

I dont think its because of a short election that the small parties exist....tho I too like idea of shorter election. I dont like the idea of elections only every 4 to 5 years....that gives the lobbyists more power in my view. I maybe can go with the government funding smaller parties but once parties get to a certain size I think they should not get funding

Not sure how you perceive that fewer elections further apart aids lobbyists. Can you please clarify?

Funding goes to the candidates, not the parties, and the candidates need to qualify with signatures for the funding. All other funding is prohibited by law.

I think it aids lobbyists when their recommendations run against the will of the voters.. With a long gap politicians can rely on the forgetfulness of voters.

I pretty sure parts of europe run party list proportional representation...I guess that would work in some ways with direct candidate funding but seems like wouldnt fit real well ...are u sure on that last part?