I'm back...
It's been along time since I've written anything but the bug has struck me again... It's the political season and, as always, I'm curious. The moderate in me is pretty impressed by the field... You've got:
Hillary: Democrat who voted for the war and stuck around to defend it for a lot longer then her colleagues...
Obama: Seems to be fairly rational and is an outsider...
Edwards: Ditto
McCain: Always been a bit of a maverick...
Romney: Republican from Massachusetts...
Guiliani: Liberal social values meets fiscal Conservative values
On the downside, I don't actually like any of the candidates...
Let's leave politics aside for the moment, however, and talk about something that I've been pondering. It's little more than a thought exercise at this point but I think its interesting nonetheless.
If you could redraft the constitution, what would you change?
Here's my suggestions:
1) Add a parliamentary body to Congress: I hate, hate, hate this idea... but there's a reason it's number one on the list. I believe very strongly that a representative democracy is a heck of a lot better than a parliamentary body (where you don't vote for people but rather for parties). That being said, I think the unfortunate side affect of the representative democracy is an inevitable drift to a two party system... Additionally, a representative body is, by its nature, beholden to the states and often ignores national interest... My suggestion would be to add a 3rd congressional body of 100 members. They would be voted in by parliamentary procedure ( i.e. the populace would vote for parties and they would then put their representative in). Parliament would then have the duties that are the most "national" in function... Off the top of my head, this would include: Approving executive appointments, reconciling bills signed by the House and Senate, Budget authority, oversight authority. Budget and oversight would also stay with the house and the senate but a reduced emphasis.
2) Privacy rights: Whether you love it or hate it, Roe vs Wade was a poorly decided mish-mash of garbage... I'm not saying I'm pro-choice or pro-life... just that the Supreme Court relied upon an inferred right (privacy in this case) and then extrapolated it out to an absurd degree... I believe that privacy is particularly important and that the founders would have addressed it had they realized what the world was going to eventually be like... I think that this needs to be addressed at a fundamental level
3) The line item veto: I think this is probably a good idea with regards to the budget process... Never has the phrase, "Addition by subtraction" been so apt... Heck, Republicans were even willing to give this power to Clinton...
Those are the big three off the top of my head... Maybe I'll take a crack at rewriting some sections...
7 Comments:
If I could redraft the Constitution, I would incorporate a judicial review process for each bill passed after the President signs it. It should not require a challenge by the public for Constitutionality to be questioned, which is what we have now. If the substance of a bill is not contradictory to the Constitution, the review court can simply say the bill does not violate the Constitution so the law stands as written. If it is in violation of the Constitution, it becomes voided at that time. It can be reworded only by Congress. There can be no Judiciary or Executive restructuring or rewording to make it Constitutional. It either is or it is not and Congress is charged with making sure it is if they want it to become law. This is not to give additional power to the Judiciary. It is to protect the People's Constitution and thus the rights of the People. It will also save tremendous time and effort if Congress actually has to read the Constitution each time they draft legislation. They certainly don't want the embarrassment of being rebuked. And, they might be less likely to even bother making new laws. And, if this caveat were included in the Constitution to begin with, the Supreme Court or Review Court would not have devolved into making laws themselves any time a new issue came up that was not addressed by the Founders in their Constitution, such as Roe v Wade. The 9th and 10th Amendments grant the rights not outlined in the document to the People or States. This was a great idea by the Founders to limit the role of the federal government, because as Jefferson wrote, "That government which governs least, governs best." The right to an abortion would either belong to the people, or state laws would address it. If some states allow it and others do not, so be it. As you correctly stated, privacy is not addressed by the Constitution. Neither is life, by the way. The Declaration of Independence addresses the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but it is not a binding governing document.
I would also include language to guarantee that no taxes be imposed on the income of Americans. Limited and defined methods of taxation would also limit the role of the federal government simply by reducing their financial might.
If I thought it would pass the Constitutional Convention I would try to include language also limiting the State governments ability to tax their citizens directly. Taxation is the mother of all power.
I would also change the wording of the Second Amendment so that militia is clearly defined as the People outside of the military, and could not be falsely interpreted to mean National Guard, which is a bastardization of true militia. Taking way people's ability to defend themselves is a common theme of governments throughout history. Ask the Jews in Nazi Germany. They were not legally allowed to own firearms. And, if the Va Tech students were accustomed to carrying their own weapons all the time far fewer than 32 would have died at the hands of a mad man. We have become accustomed to not being armed. If we were used to it, it would just be "the way," not thought of as some frightful scenario of people running rampant in the streets shooting at each other just because they can. Wild West shooutouts were actually rare aside from the occasional duel to settle disputes, because everyone carried a side arm and knew how to use it. That right protected their other rights such as life and property.
I don't like the idea of a flat out refusal of income tax because its so clearly the lesser of two evils for the federal government... If you take away income tax you force excise taxes which are just terrible for the economy...
The Review Court is an interesting idea, so long as the Supreme Court gets to review again if a case is brought and they accept... I'd hate to get stuck with a bad law simply because the Review Court didn't envision the potential abusive situation that it could lead to...
Finally, on the subject of the militia... I think if your national guards are clearly distinct from the federal military then you have a much better way for the people to protect themselves... what's my other choice? Every subdivision has a community Abrams Tank and F-16 Fighter Jet?
The militia was always intended to be a people defending themselves from tyrranical government front. By limiting and licensing gun ownership, or more to the point, making it unusual for every day folks to carry weapons as they go about their business, you have the occasional nut job running rampant, increased crime by criminals who know we're not armed, and a defenseless populace. If everyone just carried a 9mm, the instances of attacks would be greatly reduced. This from someone who does not own a gun, but would if it were reasonable for me to use it in a dire situation. Now, I'd have to worry whether or not I gave my attacker a chance to stop. That's ridiculous.
The Supreme Court should be the Review Court. They would be examining the constitutionality of laws BEFORE they go into affect, rather than afterwards when someone challenges. This is costly and time consuming, not to mention harmful to our rights when they are free to be ignored by a power hungry Congress and President (any of them, I'm not pointing fingers at any given politician) until someone with the means to challenge them decides to take it to court.
All taxes are harmful to the economy in some way. I just don't believe working for a living should be taxed. Originally, the U.S. operated soundly on tariffs and taxes on foreigners' business. It was effective in limiting the power of the federal government because with less money they have less power, and those taxes were not exhorbitant. It was not a great detraction for a foreign company to do business with the U.S. because the gains outweighed the tax. Strong economies can ipose reasonable taxes on foreigners and not lose much investment. The key words are limited and reasonble.
I think you said it clearly in your first sentence... "The militia was always meant to be a people defending themselves from tyrannical government". It was not meant to create a class of citizen vigilante. I'm all for your ability to defend yourself in your house... I just don't believe that its your god given right to do so with the deadliest weapon you can find... it is a proper role of government to determine what weapons are permissible for self-defense and what are not... I would fight against a law that allowed no firearms to any civilian... However, my argument would be that it is bad public policy... not that it violates some phantom "right"...
You'll note that i agreed with you on the idea of the review court... I just think that it should be a lesser court and that cases could still be brought up to the Supreme Court (for laws that become outdated or implemented in unimagined ways)
Its a gross oversimplification to say that taxes are "all bad"... taxes on "public goods" actually return balance to the supply vs. demand equation... This is why toll-roads are a good idea... they discourage over use of a resource (roads in this case)... I think that a progressive income tax is the "least bad" (i.e. least inefficient) choice of the popular choices (Excise taxes = terrible, Sales taxes = regressive, property taxes = bureauctratic and arbitrary)
You also make a pretty ridiculous assumption that if they can't tax income they'll keep taxes and spending under control... I'd think that it would be much more likely that excise taxes would rise to incredibly high levels and we'd see interstate commerce taxes levied (certainly within the bounds of their power as originally conceived)... I'd rather give them one, quasi-efficient bullet and then hamstring them with a variety of things intended to keep spending down (i.e. no earmarks, an additional legislative body to approve, line item veto from the executive, etc.)
Finally, I'd like to see a specific clause in the constitution clarifying that either a) "Money isn't Speech" or b) Money from INDIVIDUALS is speech but Money from other entities is NOT...
I never said their should be a citizen class vigilante system. I don't think that would happen if everyone were armed. I'm saying the criminals will always be armed because they obviously don't care about the law as most of us do. We see the law as something to protect us, but it is used against us. We abode by gun laws but criminals do not. If we were generally armed on our person, criminals would know it and be less likely to commit violent crimes against a person. Studies repeatedly show that a house with an alarm sticker is far less likely to be broken into because the criminal would rather face the path of least resistence. My position is that we should not be limited in that inherent safety of the expected when it comes to travelling on the subway or walking down a street at night. This is where criminals act against unexpecting people to steal from them or rape or otherwise assault them. Protection of the citizenry should not be exclusively left to the police. They rarely prevent crime. They always show up after the fact.
As for the taxes, I am saying I don't think they should tax my work. I am not opposed to all forms of government generation of revenue. User fees like toll roads are great, when they pay for the roads. Small taxes on imported goods, although not ideal are far better than taxing Americans at work. Another problem with income tax is how it is collected. They make it seem like you never had it in the first place and then they give some of it back to you to make it seem like free money (since you didn't have it to begin with). And I never said eliminating income taxes would limit spending. I said only having a small tax on foreign goods coming in would because the government cannot control the amount of goods foreigners want to send here. If they raise the foreign tax too high it will limit trade and positive acceptance of our goods overseas and thus is undesirable. It limits itself in that regard. With Americans (you, me, our neighbors born in this country) that for all intents and purposes have to be here they truly can tax us at will because we HAVE NO CHOICE but to pay. Well, OK the choice is prison so it's not much of a decision, now is it? The other choice is to vacate the country. That actually does happen with a lot of money, resources, and work and is also bad. Tolls should be used to pay for the roads and bridges we need to move about. Taxation on imports and foreign workers will generate enough revenue to cover the necessary costs. Key word: necessary. No more frivolous spending.
what makes you think they wouldn't tax exports as well? Or straight interestate commerce?
Also, I'd point out that, irrespective of whatever fringe groups think about the passing of the 16th amendment, congress always had the power to levy excise taxes... excise taxes are "Event" taxes which is essentially what is happening everytime you receive a paycheck...
What you're proposing is a commerce tax which is far more debilitating to a country's economy then an income tax... it's BY FAR the lesser of all the evils... I think we have a largely fair taxation system... it could use a major overhaul in terms of simplification and the elimination of loopholes, but by and large, it's the best in the world (who else grows as fast as we do?)...
I guess what it boils down to is that I don't believe the way to limit government is to try to limit taxes... You won't be able to close enough loopholes unless you close so many that you limit the options for the future...
Instead, what I'd prefer to focus on is limiting spending... put specific language about what the federal government can do and what its goals should be... Make sure that laws are tightly focused and allow multiple ways for items to be pruned from spending bills rather than multiple ways for things to be added...
As for the guns... I agreed with you that I would fight against a law to restrict those... I just don't think it's a constitutional right so long as you provide some defense against tyrannical government (and I believe that well organized and funded state national guards will do that a hell of alot better than my neighborhood chipping in to buy an Abrams and an F-16
I will definitely agree limiting spending is the most important thing. Unfortunately, when you have politicians who are able to levy taxes at will against a population that is required to pay them, what will make them limit spending? They have a blank check.
I would say our growth is in spite of our restrictions and taxation rather than as a result of them. Our tremendous depth of resources and ingenuity are the reasons behind our growth. An import tax would limit itself in that we don't want to create animosity to foreigners who would otherwise spend money here, trade with us, etc. We wouldn't make it excessive for that reason. If we did we would pay in the short and long terms. I completely disagree that the ability to tax one's subjects at a large portion of their earnings is the best method. You said user fees are good and I agreed. Think about all the things that user fees cover: toll roads, licensing, tuition...all things that make someone earn money to pay for. There is an incentive to make money in order to pay for the fees for what one wants as opposed to the disincentive a property or income tax provides. Small sales taxes certainly aren't hurting our economy and they actually provide the bulk of public services such as police, fire, and road building.
(I am not an advocate for the FAIR tax because it is just an alternative to the income tax and does nothing to curtail spending.)
I don't expect politicians with a blank check to limit themselves so I would have appreciated a Constitutional limitation on how they tax people, goods, services, etc.
The National Guard does nothing to defend us against tyrannical government because it operates at the whim of governments, state and federal. It is a false militia, a militia in title only. An armed public defends itself against all criminals, government or otherwise. The right to bear arms is not a "phantom right." It is not a right to hold a weapon, it is a right to defend oneself against others bearing arms, which is necessary to protect one's other rights - freedom speech, religion, assembly, legal defense. I would not be so foolish as to rely on any government to protect my rights, my life, my liberty, or my property, especially one that has demonstrated a lack of willingness to do just that, despite their mandate.
Post a Comment
<< Home