CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[Derideo_Te]

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?

That is what I am proposing as an amendment to Constitution to eliminate the corrupt campaign financing we have today. Lobbyists have a right to petition Congress but there can be no funding attached to those petitions.

As far as voters "forgetting" that doesn't happen for presidential, sentorial and gubernatorial elections so I don't see why it will suddenly be a problem if we put everyone on a 4 year term and restrict them to only 2 or 3 terms max.

 

[dcraelin]

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?

That is what I am proposing as an amendment to Constitution to eliminate the corrupt campaign financing we have today. Lobbyists have a right to petition Congress but there can be no funding attached to those petitions.

As far as voters "forgetting" that doesn't happen for presidential, sentorial and gubernatorial elections so I don't see why it will suddenly be a problem if we put everyone on a 4 year term and restrict them to only 2 or 3 terms max.

I think forgetting ...or just plain not knowing what reps, sens, govs are up to is a problem...not totally solved by my proposal...nor solvable totally at all....I see you dont want campaigns..as they lead to fundraising needs?... I like that,....but worried about accountability

 

[dblack]

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?

That is what I am proposing as an amendment to Constitution to eliminate the corrupt campaign financing we have today. Lobbyists have a right to petition Congress but there can be no funding attached to those petitions.

As far as voters "forgetting" that doesn't happen for presidential, sentorial and gubernatorial elections so I don't see why it will suddenly be a problem if we put everyone on a 4 year term and restrict them to only 2 or 3 terms max.

I think forgetting ...or just plain not knowing what reps, sens, govs are up to is a problem...not totally solved by my proposal...nor solvable totally at all....I see you dont want campaigns..as they lead to fundraising needs?... I like that,....but worried about accountability

It would be a full time job to keep track of what they're up to, because they're up to way too much.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

That is what I am proposing as an amendment to Constitution to eliminate the corrupt campaign financing we have today. Lobbyists have a right to petition Congress but there can be no funding attached to those petitions.

As far as voters "forgetting" that doesn't happen for presidential, sentorial and gubernatorial elections so I don't see why it will suddenly be a problem if we put everyone on a 4 year term and restrict them to only 2 or 3 terms max.

I think forgetting ...or just plain not knowing what reps, sens, govs are up to is a problem...not totally solved by my proposal...nor solvable totally at all....I see you dont want campaigns..as they lead to fundraising needs?... I like that,....but worried about accountability

As far as accountability goes I am proposing making it illegal for lobbyists, corporations, etc to offer any "incentives" of any nature whatsoever to elected representatives or any of their relatives and friends or any "pet projects" that they may have. Mandatory jail terms will apply to anyone making such an offer and to anyone accepting them. All meetings between representatives and lobbyists, corporations, etc must be both public and recorded. Ditto with phone calls. Violations of those rules mean automatic expulsion from office and million dollar fines for lobbyists, corporations, etc.

And just an FYI. The accountability terms I am proposing already exist under financial regulations when dealing with foreign entities. This isn't something new. It is just not applied to Congress but it would go a really long way if it was in my opinion.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

That is what I am proposing as an amendment to Constitution to eliminate the corrupt campaign financing we have today. Lobbyists have a right to petition Congress but there can be no funding attached to those petitions.

As far as voters "forgetting" that doesn't happen for presidential, sentorial and gubernatorial elections so I don't see why it will suddenly be a problem if we put everyone on a 4 year term and restrict them to only 2 or 3 terms max.

I think forgetting ...or just plain not knowing what reps, sens, govs are up to is a problem...not totally solved by my proposal...nor solvable totally at all....I see you dont want campaigns..as they lead to fundraising needs?... I like that,....but worried about accountability

It would be a full time job to keep track of what they're up to, because they're up to way too much.

Which is why everything must be "on the record" and open to public scrutiny. All meetings with lobbyists, corporations, special interests, etc must be open to the public and recorded. Failure to do so means expulsion from office and massive fines.

 

[dblack]

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?

That is what I am proposing as an amendment to Constitution to eliminate the corrupt campaign financing we have today. Lobbyists have a right to petition Congress but there can be no funding attached to those petitions.

As far as voters "forgetting" that doesn't happen for presidential, sentorial and gubernatorial elections so I don't see why it will suddenly be a problem if we put everyone on a 4 year term and restrict them to only 2 or 3 terms max.

I think forgetting ...or just plain not knowing what reps, sens, govs are up to is a problem...not totally solved by my proposal...nor solvable totally at all....I see you dont want campaigns..as they lead to fundraising needs?... I like that,....but worried about accountability

It would be a full time job to keep track of what they're up to, because they're up to way too much.

Which is why everything must be "on the record" and open to public scrutiny. All meetings with lobbyists, corporations, special interests, etc must be open to the public and recorded. Failure to do so means expulsion from office and massive fines.

Indeed. And it's why as much of the decision making as possible should happen locally, where we have some hope of keeping track of what our leaders are doing. Even if we had perfect transparency, centralizing so much of our government at the federal level makes it virtually impossible to keep track of, and creates a focal point for those who want to manipulate government.

On the flip side, dcraelin makes a valid point that smaller, local governments are more likely to indulge provincial quirks and bigotry, as that's why we need real federal oversight, but it's foolish to send so much of our tax money to DC with so little control over how it is spent.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

That is what I am proposing as an amendment to Constitution to eliminate the corrupt campaign financing we have today. Lobbyists have a right to petition Congress but there can be no funding attached to those petitions.

As far as voters "forgetting" that doesn't happen for presidential, sentorial and gubernatorial elections so I don't see why it will suddenly be a problem if we put everyone on a 4 year term and restrict them to only 2 or 3 terms max.

I think forgetting ...or just plain not knowing what reps, sens, govs are up to is a problem...not totally solved by my proposal...nor solvable totally at all....I see you dont want campaigns..as they lead to fundraising needs?... I like that,....but worried about accountability

It would be a full time job to keep track of what they're up to, because they're up to way too much.

Which is why everything must be "on the record" and open to public scrutiny. All meetings with lobbyists, corporations, special interests, etc must be open to the public and recorded. Failure to do so means expulsion from office and massive fines.

Indeed. And it's why as much of the decision making as possible should happen locally, where we have some hope of keeping track of what our leaders are doing. Even if we had perfect transparency, centralizing so much of our government at the federal level makes it virtually impossible to keep track of, and creates a focal point for those who want to manipulate government.

On the flip side, dcraelin makes a valid point that smaller, local governments are more likely to indulge provincial quirks and bigotry, as that's why we need real federal oversight, but it's foolish to send so much of our tax money to DC with so little control over how it is spent.

If you want to control spending you need to control the spenders AKA "our" elected representatives. In essence control over the spenders is what Citizens United was all about. It handed control of the spenders over to the corporate special interests and the Koch bros. That needs to be made illegal and everyone who is involved needs to be placed under the threat of serious prison sentences if We the People want to regain control over the spenders again.

 

[dblack]

That is what I am proposing as an amendment to Constitution to eliminate the corrupt campaign financing we have today. Lobbyists have a right to petition Congress but there can be no funding attached to those petitions.

As far as voters "forgetting" that doesn't happen for presidential, sentorial and gubernatorial elections so I don't see why it will suddenly be a problem if we put everyone on a 4 year term and restrict them to only 2 or 3 terms max.

I think forgetting ...or just plain not knowing what reps, sens, govs are up to is a problem...not totally solved by my proposal...nor solvable totally at all....I see you dont want campaigns..as they lead to fundraising needs?... I like that,....but worried about accountability

It would be a full time job to keep track of what they're up to, because they're up to way too much.

Which is why everything must be "on the record" and open to public scrutiny. All meetings with lobbyists, corporations, special interests, etc must be open to the public and recorded. Failure to do so means expulsion from office and massive fines.

Indeed. And it's why as much of the decision making as possible should happen locally, where we have some hope of keeping track of what our leaders are doing. Even if we had perfect transparency, centralizing so much of our government at the federal level makes it virtually impossible to keep track of, and creates a focal point for those who want to manipulate government.

On the flip side, dcraelin makes a valid point that smaller, local governments are more likely to indulge provincial quirks and bigotry, as that's why we need real federal oversight, but it's foolish to send so much of our tax money to DC with so little control over how it is spent.

If you want to control spending you need to control the spenders AKA "our" elected representatives. In essence control over the spenders is what Citizens United was all about. It handed control of the spenders over to the corporate special interests and the Koch bros. That needs to be made illegal and everyone who is involved needs to be placed under the threat of serious prison sentences if We the People want to regain control over the spenders again.

How would that give us "control over the spenders"?

 

[Derideo_Te]

I think forgetting ...or just plain not knowing what reps, sens, govs are up to is a problem...not totally solved by my proposal...nor solvable totally at all....I see you dont want campaigns..as they lead to fundraising needs?... I like that,....but worried about accountability

It would be a full time job to keep track of what they're up to, because they're up to way too much.

Which is why everything must be "on the record" and open to public scrutiny. All meetings with lobbyists, corporations, special interests, etc must be open to the public and recorded. Failure to do so means expulsion from office and massive fines.

Indeed. And it's why as much of the decision making as possible should happen locally, where we have some hope of keeping track of what our leaders are doing. Even if we had perfect transparency, centralizing so much of our government at the federal level makes it virtually impossible to keep track of, and creates a focal point for those who want to manipulate government.

On the flip side, dcraelin makes a valid point that smaller, local governments are more likely to indulge provincial quirks and bigotry, as that's why we need real federal oversight, but it's foolish to send so much of our tax money to DC with so little control over how it is spent.

If you want to control spending you need to control the spenders AKA "our" elected representatives. In essence control over the spenders is what Citizens United was all about. It handed control of the spenders over to the corporate special interests and the Koch bros. That needs to be made illegal and everyone who is involved needs to be placed under the threat of serious prison sentences if We the People want to regain control over the spenders again.

How would that give us "control over the spenders"?

Who are the spenders currently beholden to?

Who should they be representing?

Why are they doing the bidding of the former instead of the latter?

 

[Olde Europe]

If you want to control spending you need to control the spenders AKA "our" elected representatives. In essence control over the spenders is what Citizens United was all about. It handed control of the spenders over to the corporate special interests and the Koch bros. That needs to be made illegal and everyone who is involved needs to be placed under the threat of serious prison sentences if We the People want to regain control over the spenders again.

Well, that one I found puzzling because there's some truth in all of the above, but...

Citizens United wasn't primarily about "control over the spenders", it was about population control and manipulation, as you know, since the soft money doesn't go to candidates (spenders) but to independent "advertising". Secondly, it is patently impossible to control the spenders. Once elected, they have a free hand to act on whatever they are acting on, their best judgment or whatever particular interests they favor. All you can do is to throw them out when their term is up.

The latter, I find, is how term limits are, and should be, implemented, so that We the People decide who is to remain, and who doesn't warrant any trust. Legally imposed term limits, while not without charm, have severe downsides in that they throw out the capable and dedicated with the miscreants. Moreover, the narrower the limits, the quicker Representatives need to cash in to feather their nest once their career ends, the faster will they sell out to whatever interest pays the most. I, for one, cannot find that prospect appealing.

In sum, I'd say, the utmost achievable is to deny those with the big pockets influence on Representatives, and the two ways to do it is by restricting the flows of money (knowing that to close the spigot will probably be impossible), and by imposing transparency on influence peddling.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Citizens United wasn't primarily about "control over the spenders", it was about population control and manipulation, as you know, since the soft money doesn't go to candidates (spenders) but to independent "advertising".

The end result is all that matters. If a politician knows that a special interest will spend unlimited (and untraceable) millions to ensure his election he owes them and they will collect on that debt. Citizens United is what enabled that corruption.

Secondly, it is patently impossible to control the spenders.

Theoretically but in practice they are controlled by the corporations and the Koch bros. They are not going to stick it to them and lose their cushy jobs in Congress. Instead they will just shaft the taxpayers. Look at the last budget and tell me that never happened.

In sum, I'd say, the utmost achievable is to deny those with the big pockets influence on Representatives, and the two ways to do it is by restricting the flows of money (knowing that to close the spigot will probably be impossible), and by imposing transparency on influence peddling.

Closing off the spigot is doable by criminalizing all campaign financing outside of the fixed amount allocated to each individual candidate and by criminalizing all "influence peddling" that is done "off the record".

Will that end all of it? Probably not, but it will go a long way towards keeping the spenders beholden to We the People and not the special interest corporations and the Koch Bros.

 

[Olde Europe]

Closing off the spigot is doable by criminalizing all campaign financing outside of the fixed amount allocated to each individual candidate and by criminalizing all "influence peddling" that is done "off the record".

Whilst I agree with your aims, I doubt you would also want the means necessary to attain them. For to achieve this you have to control every social contact and phone call a Representative makes (there could be influence peddling going on), and you need to control for every cushy job a (former) Representative lands when their terms are up (possibly as a reward for their service). That requires a full-blown police state, along with severe restrictions on political speech in conjunction with criminalizing possibly long-standing friendships.

The end result you'd achieve is Representatives living a life even more separated from the people, even less aware of what is going on, since every contact might raise suspicions and possibly criminal penalties. Moreover, who would want to live a life like that? I am afraid it won't attract the kinds of candidates you'd hope for. All in all I'd say, criminal law is a very blunt instrument with a number of unintended, very detrimental side-effects.

 

[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.

But it does compromise the concept of unalienable rights and individual liberty to some degree if one must belong to a political party in order to have representation in government.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

I think you need to reread what I wrote because your assumptions of what I meant (i.e. 'what I was inventing') are completely non sequitur to my post.

It is not so much that 'we the people' demand less, but that 'we the people' are what gives the government its authority and we demand that the government not assume more authority than what it is given by the people.

 

[Foxfyre]

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?

That is what I am proposing as an amendment to Constitution to eliminate the corrupt campaign financing we have today. Lobbyists have a right to petition Congress but there can be no funding attached to those petitions.

As far as voters "forgetting" that doesn't happen for presidential, sentorial and gubernatorial elections so I don't see why it will suddenly be a problem if we put everyone on a 4 year term and restrict them to only 2 or 3 terms max.

I think forgetting ...or just plain not knowing what reps, sens, govs are up to is a problem...not totally solved by my proposal...nor solvable totally at all....I see you dont want campaigns..as they lead to fundraising needs?... I like that,....but worried about accountability

It would be a full time job to keep track of what they're up to, because they're up to way too much.

Which is why everything must be "on the record" and open to public scrutiny. All meetings with lobbyists, corporations, special interests, etc must be open to the public and recorded. Failure to do so means expulsion from office and massive fines.

Indeed. And it's why as much of the decision making as possible should happen locally, where we have some hope of keeping track of what our leaders are doing. Even if we had perfect transparency, centralizing so much of our government at the federal level makes it virtually impossible to keep track of, and creates a focal point for those who want to manipulate government.

On the flip side, dcraelin makes a valid point that smaller, local governments are more likely to indulge provincial quirks and bigotry, as that's why we need real federal oversight, but it's foolish to send so much of our tax money to DC with so little control over how it is spent.

Even more foolish when so much of the money that goes to DC is swallowed up to feed the ever more inefficient bloated bureaucracy that has grown to proportions that no government can provide adequate oversight of it. And once the federal government takes its cut, little of that same money is returned to the states to use. How much more efficient to keep and use as much tax money as possible at home?

And if a smaller government does engage in provincial quirks and bigotry in one place, what business is that of ours? Does not liberty allow people to be wrong as well as right? We the people should insist on exemplary government at all levels. If we do not, then turning that responsibility over to larger structures where we have far less influence and control just seems dumb.

 

[Olde Europe]

I think you need to reread what I wrote because your assumptions of what I meant (i.e. 'what I was inventing') are completely non sequitur to my post.

What, then, did you mean by that? Which unalienable right did you mention?

"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"

 

[Derideo_Te]

Closing off the spigot is doable by criminalizing all campaign financing outside of the fixed amount allocated to each individual candidate and by criminalizing all "influence peddling" that is done "off the record".

Whilst I agree with your aims, I doubt you would also want the means necessary to attain them. For to achieve this you have to control every social contact and phone call a Representative makes (there could be influence peddling going on), and you need to control for every cushy job a (former) Representative lands when their terms are up (possibly as a reward for their service). That requires a full-blown police state, along with severe restrictions on political speech in conjunction with criminalizing possibly long-standing friendships.

The end result you'd achieve is Representatives living a life even more separated from the people, even less aware of what is going on, since every contact might raise suspicions and possibly criminal penalties. Moreover, who would want to live a life like that? I am afraid it won't attract the kinds of candidates you'd hope for. All in all I'd say, criminal law is a very blunt instrument with a number of unintended, very detrimental side-effects.

Nope, you are taking the reductio ad absurdum approach. I am only talking about official meetings needing to be made public. The onus would be on the representative to separate business from their private life. That would not be problem for any normal person. Doctors manage to attend dinner parties without having to diagnose illnesses. Car mechanics can go to a rock concert without needing a set of spanners. Politicians can do the same.

However if they are caught transgressing then that is when the penalties kick in. We live in a world where virtually everything is known about everyone. If a representative makes a deal without it being found out then they are smarter than most. However current laws do require that their investment holdings and taxes are made public. There is already media scrutiny and am I sure that if a politician were to be seen in the company of a corporate mogul that would result in a journalist asking questions. The list of politicians who have been exposed by the media is a long and sordid one. Why would it be any different if they were looking for criminal activities under a new Amendment?

 

[Olde Europe]

Nope, you are taking the reductio ad absurdum approach.

Nope, I am just saying that a law that isn't being enforced is worse than no law, as the former creates a false sense of security where none exists. Whereas if you want to enforce the rules you outlined, you end up exactly in the situation I described. The law of unintended side-effects, as always, applies.

Politicians are making "deals" all the time, basically with every larger donation they accept, and most aren't exposed, or "found out". Pretty much all they have to do to avoid being in violation of the law is to avoid saying, "I'll vote for your project / interest in return for your money."

 

[Foxfyre]

I think you need to reread what I wrote because your assumptions of what I meant (i.e. 'what I was inventing') are completely non sequitur to my post.

What, then, did you mean by that? Which unalienable right did you mention?

"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"

Again unalienable rights are what and who we are, what we believe, what we think, what we want, and what we do with our own persons and property that requires no participation or contribution from any other person. Because it requires participation of my neighbor, I do not have an unalienable right to pollute the air that he must breathe. I have the unalienable right to breathe. I have no unalienable right to demand that somebody else provide me with unpolluted air, but as a citizen I have the same unalienable right as everybody else to form a society that values unpolluted air, water, soil etc. and support common laws that promote that.

 

[Olde Europe]

Again unalienable rights are what and who we are, what we believe, what we think, what we want, and what we do with our own persons and property that requires no participation or contribution from any other person. Because it requires participation of my neighbor, I do not have an unalienable right to pollute the air that he must breathe. I have the unalienable right to breathe. I have no unalienable right to demand that somebody else provide me with unpolluted air, but as a citizen I have the same unalienable right as everybody else to form a society that values unpolluted air, water, soil etc. and support common laws that promote that.

Yes, I am mostly fine with the above, and I am very much in favor of societies aiming for a form or organization that ensures the citizens' highest-possible quality of life, and clean air is certainly a valuable part thereof. Yet, you failed to explain how that establishes federal jurisdiction to intervene on the side of these aims, as this power doesn't seem to be included in the Federal government's enumerated powers.