Amendment to Eliminate Graft & Corruption



Revision of Election Rules:

All elections for federal office will use the Borda Count method to tabulate election winners. Each voter ranks all of the candidates from top to bottom. If there are, say, five candidates, then a voter's top-ranked candidate gets 5 points, his second-ranked candidate gets 4, and so on. Finally, the points from all the voters are added up to determine the winner. This method allows electors to come to a concensus in selection of the best cannidate for office.

Campaign Finance:

In order to qualify for any federal election, a canidate must submit a nonimination petition to the Treasury Secretary with the signatures of at least ten percent of the citizens to be represented by the petitioner if elected. Petitioners, signatories, must be citizens of the United States and a citizen can only sign one petition for a specific canidate per office per election.

All elections for Federal Office will be fully financed by the Federal government. Each election, congress shall fund each canidate for the Senate and House of Representataives at rate of ten dollars per person represented by the position. Congress shall fund each presidential canidate 20 million dollars per election. These amounts may be inflation adusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index with a majority vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate. Any unused campaign funds will be returned to the treasury after conclusion of the election.

Network News Organizations are required to provide at least 10 hours of free debate/exposure time to all registered canidates for office each federal election cycle. Debate questions must be selected from citizen input and represent the issues at hand. Questions must be kept secret from the canidates prior to debates, and canidates nor their representatives will have no hand in determining the debate formats or the questions to be asked of them.

Sixty days prior to each election, the federal government will distribute campaign packages to the electors. These packages will consist of information about each canidate, provided by each canidate for public office. Each canidate for public office will be given two pages to represent their positions and credidentials to the electors.




Swift Boat Provision/Fear Mongering/Dirty Tricks Provision:

Any funds spent to degrade a canidate for public office with false or misleading information will be taxed at fifty percent to the party making such donations.. Any such organizations or individuals receiving such funds will need to fully disclose their funding sources 360 days prior to running any mass communications. It is important to fully disclosed sources and amounts of these funds before and each time these communications are presented to voters, funding sources, names and amounts, must also be disclosed to the voters and included in each communication to the voters. And the voters must have reasonable time to read and understand the disclosure. In addition, organizations or individuals collecting funds for this purpose must pay a tax on donated funds received equilivant to seventy five percent of the amount donated. Laundering these donations through other parties or organization is expressly forbidden and is punishable by imprisoment of not less than 100 years.

An agency or individual will be found to degrade a canidate for public office with false or misleading information when the advertisments paid for or sponsored by the individual or organization invoke fear of a candiate or an issue as measured by a statistically valid random sampling of voters and by failing to disclose all relevant facts or by including facts in their arguments which are not true and can be proven as untrue or cannot be proven to be truthful in a trial by jury of 11 unbiased citizens.

Examples of Dirty Tricks Advertising:
• Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
• Medicare Prescription Drug Program



Exceutive Privilage:

Congress shall have all rights to investigate the executive and judical branches of government. No branch of government shall have the right of privilage, including executive privilage, that shall prevent or block such branch or agency from disclosing material requested by the Congress or a committee theirof.

Pardons:
The president cannot pardon a member of his/her staff or administration. Neither can a president commute a legally imposed sentence for a member of his staff or administration. Pardons for offencences arising out of service in the executive branch of government can only be pardoned with a 2/3 affirmative vote of the House of Representatives and a 2/3 afirmative vote of the Senate.

Gifts:

No member of congress, president, or member of the judicial system may accept anything of value from any special interest group under any circumstance. Under no circumstances will any federal employee be permitted to accept compensation for travel, education, or any funding or anything of value from a party advocating for legislation. Neither can a member of congress, president, Judge of the Supreme Court accept travel on private conveyances and pay commercial rates. If private coveyances are used, elected officials must pay full cost of their for their travel and for the travel of any family members. If a private conveyance is used the government employee or canidate for office must pay the prorated cost of the conveyance…that part of the expense that can be reasonably attributed to the usage by the federal employee or canidate.

Further, family members (spouses, brothers, sisters, children and parents) and members of congress, president or members of the Supreme Court and there direct staffs are NOT allowed to work and receive compensation as an advocate (Lobbist) for special interests having business before the congress for a period of ten years following the last day said member served as a member of Congress, president, or Supreme Court Judge.

There you go... you started a new thread and put it where it belongs.

I have severa ammendments I've written. I'll post them here when I sober up.

~String

"Except during times of war or national emergency, the United States and the Several States shall keep and maintain a balanced a debt free budget.

"All bills concerning the levying of tarifs or taxes and distribution of funds shall originate in the House of Representatives and shall not be approved but upon two thirds of both houses and shall be passed on to the President for his approval. Should the President sign the bill, it shall become law. Should the president veto the bill, it shall become null and voide. Congress may override the President's veto upon the approval of 90% of both houses

"No tax levied or funds distributed shall be for a period greater than four years, after which time they shall become null and void.

"All bills for the levying of taxes and distrubtion of funds shall be independent of all other bills and may concern only one specific tax, levy or distribution. Neither shall any other attachment be added to these bills concerning any other matter under the law."

I think all of these specific amendments could be replaced by a single, more general amendment:

The People and their Institutions are obliged to conduct themselves in all civic and public matters in Good Faith.

We can tinker with the wording a bit, but a lack of good faith is the basic problem inspiring the proposed amendments I see in posts above.

I agree Tiassa-- but that's too vague and difficult to enforce. I still want my ammendments added.

~String

It's not that I think your four-year period on taxation is a bad idea in and of itself, but rather that I don't think it will change much. Reinstituting the a prior tax structure would become a matter of formality, and the people might actually lose track of changes if the tax device keeps changing every few years. To hear the critics tell it, the income tax code is confusing enough as it is; imagine the schemes our legislators might come up with. Supermajorities can be dangerous, and could create an electoral demand that renders the minority party completely irrelevant. (Imagine what either party could do with a sitting supermajority.) The tax-specific bills is an interesting proposition, and I haven't been able to figure out whether a balanced-budget amendment really is bad for the economy as so many critics claim. However, under a balanced-budget amendment, the people at large are screwed. We might not be able to afford health care for children, or welfare to keep families eating, but we'll damn well be able to afford corporate welfare and other graft bought off by lobbyists. To the other, by your amendment, could a state of emergency be declared in order to finance our crumbling physical infrastructure? ("Whoops! Sorry, I know the bridges are collapsing and the interstates a mess, but it would be bad for the economy to dedicate those funds to infrastructure at this time." Counterpoint: when will it be good for the economy, from politicians' perspective, to tell the corporations to go screw and fend for themselves?)

As to the others, listed in Joepistole's topic post, I'll get to them another time. The messy paragraph above is the quick response, and I really should give the whole thing a little more time.

It's not that I think your four-year period on taxation is a bad idea in and of itself, but rather that I don't think it will change much. Reinstituting the a prior tax structure would become a matter of formality, and the people might actually lose track of changes if the tax device keeps changing every few years. To hear the critics tell it, the income tax code is confusing enough as it is; imagine the schemes our legislators might come up with. Supermajorities can be dangerous, and could create an electoral demand that renders the minority party completely irrelevant. (Imagine what either party could do with a sitting supermajority.) The tax-specific bills is an interesting proposition, and I haven't been able to figure out whether a balanced-budget amendment really is bad for the economy as so many critics claim. However, under a balanced-budget amendment, the people at large are screwed. We might not be able to afford health care for children, or welfare to keep families eating, but we'll damn well be able to afford corporate welfare and other graft bought off by lobbyists. To the other, by your amendment, could a state of emergency be declared in order to finance our crumbling physical infrastructure? ("Whoops! Sorry, I know the bridges are collapsing and the interstates a mess, but it would be bad for the economy to dedicate those funds to infrastructure at this time." Counterpoint: when will it be good for the economy, from politicians' perspective, to tell the corporations to go screw and fend for themselves?)


You make some good points. And as for the issues with re-instituting the taxes ever four years, there are several reasons that it WOULD force a re-evaluation of the taxes each time:

1) Congressional changes between them are sure to instill new blood and ideas.
2) Since each tax bill must be proposed independently of all others it would FORCE a re-evaluation.
3) Since each appropriation of funds would also be done independently every four years, the Congress would be forced to re-evaluate who gets what money and how much. Each appropriations bill for each individual issue would consume an individual law. Imagine the difficulty of having to re-issue the entire tax law every four years and then gain a supermajority each time.
4) Forcing a "supermajority" in order to renew a tax EASILY makes it enormously difficult to levy a tax and appropriate said funds unless it's for a very good cause.
5) Giving the president a veto on that majority and forcing it to receive a MEGA majority makes it even more difficult still.

Also, the balanced budget amendment is just good common sense. To even posit the idea that we should be funding things without a means to pay for them except by putting them on a national equivalent of a credit card is total insanity.

ALSO-- I can add another paragraph to that list that make declaring a "national emergency" not a passive and meaningless thing: Require a 2/3 majority + presidential signature and or a mega-majority of 90% to declare one.

~String

Good points String!

Actually, I want this ammendment.

Any Representative or Senator who serves more than 12 years shall be immediately be executed the moment they leave office.

I think all of these specific amendments could be replaced by a single, more general amendment:

The People and their Institutions are obliged to conduct themselves in all civic and public matters in Good Faith.

We can tinker with the wording a bit, but a lack of good faith is the basic problem inspiring the proposed amendments I see in posts above.
Not. The basic problem is the definition of the authority to compel an oblige.

You can't do it. So much for "could".

Yes, the obligation to the people is problematic.

Got a solution, or are you one who believes good faith has no place in civil society?

Amend the Constitution to say:

No part of this document may be construed to be binding in the case of political inconvenience, national emergency, political emergency, electoral apathy, or in the face of any other sweet-sounding reason.

May as well codify what is already true.

Yes, the obligation to the people is problematic.

Got a solution, or are you one who believes good faith has no place in civil society?

It does belong there... it's just so goddamned hard to define in a court of law, which is where it needs to be used.

~String

What if we just upheld the Constitution we already have?

It would be a different world.

What if we just upheld the Constitution we already have?

It would be a different world.

We do uphold it. It just doesn't contain all the needed verbiage to curtail some of the activities that I see as harmful.

Like a balance budget ammendment and making it difficult to declair a state of emergency and making it equally difficult to levy & raise taxes.

~String

string:"We do uphold [the Constitution]."

Separation of equal powers? Separation of church and state? Right to privacy? Informed consent of the governed? Accountability of the government?

I don't think so. More purty werds will mean nothing unless we are willing to see to it that the Constitution we inherited is respected.

string:"We do uphold [the Constitution]."

Separation of equal powers? Separation of church and state? Right to privacy? Informed consent of the governed? Accountability of the government?

I don't think so.

How are the powers NOT separate?

Where are there sections of "Informed Consent" and "Accountability of the Government"?

~String

"How are the powers NOT separate?"

Separation of Powers means that one Branch may not Constitutionally usurp the authority of another. Respect for the Constitution includes an understanding of this concept, and an unwillingness to accede to such a breach.

"Where are there sections of "Informed Consent" and "Accountability of the Government"?"

The purpose of the Constitution is to make government accountable to the governed. I was under the impression you are a US Citizen. How did you miss out on a basic civics education?

I don't mean to pick on you, string. I suspect our Constitutional crises arise largely because most Americans are not raised in an understanding of our own political heritage. One can rise to the top without respect for the Constitution; it may have even become a political advantage in this environment to erode what the Founders dared to dream.

It does belong there... it's just so goddamned hard to define in a court of law, which is where it needs to be used.

Part of the problem is that people don't treat the Preamble as if it's part of the Constitution. I, personally, think that the statement of purpose (e.g. the Preamble) is very important to interpreting Constitutional application.

Unfortunately, consent of the governed is part of the Declaration of Independence, which, while it might have some moral appeal for many of us, is not considered binding. It may have been our reason for walking away from the Empire, but it does not seem these days to be much more than a nifty slogan.

"How are the powers NOT separate?"

Separation of Powers means that one Branch may not Constitutionally usurp the authority of another. Respect for the Constitution includes an understanding of this concept, and an unwillingness to accede to such a breach.

Hyperwaders-- I know you don't know me. So let me explain-- I know the constitution. I have a copy of the Constitution that was given to me ten years ago by a lady who's a member of "The Patriots" (really REALLY extremist group). I have a fantastic PDF copy of the Constitution that I always refer to in these discussions. I read it constantly. There are few people I know who can name which section and article of the Constitution that pertains to a specific subject. Furthermore, there is no one on this website who is apt to post specific quotes, sections, paragraphs from the Constitution quicker than me.

Again, don't TELL me what separation of powers are... I know very well what it means. I'm asking for examples.

"Where are there sections of "Informed Consent" and "Accountability of the Government"?"

The purpose of the Constitution is to make government accountable to the governed. I was under the impression you are a US Citizen. How did you miss out on a basic civics education?

Ugh. You're making it personal. I am a well educated and well informed American? Would it be appropriate, in retort, for me to ask you how you missed out on basic reading and comprehension? (no... it wouldn't, because THAT would be insulting even in its inference).

I asked you for the sections that pertained to "Informed Consent" and "Accountability of the Government". I KNOW WELL that they are inferred by the wording of the Constitution, but never stated exactly. Please, again, tell me what sections cover those two issues... if you can.

I don't mean to pick on you, string. I suspect our Constitutional crises arise largely because most Americans are not raised in an understanding of our own political heritage. One can rise to the top without respect for the Constitution; it may have even become a political advantage in this environment to erode what the Founders dared to dream.

I'm not insulted... I just think that you, tactically, avoided the questions I asked. I can tell you which Supreme Court decisions created which interpretation of various (and important) rights and immunities.

Now as to your last point: You are totally correct. I never ONCE received a thorough education on the nature of our Constitution while in highschool... which is pathetic since I went to a very solid private school. Nope... even the good schools raise Americans to by mindless robots.

Part of the problem is that people don't treat the Preamble as if it's part of the Constitution. I, personally, think that the statement of purpose (e.g. the Preamble) is very important to interpreting Constitutional application.

Unfortunately, consent of the governed is part of the Declaration of Independence, which, while it might have some moral appeal for many of us, is not considered binding. It may have been our reason for walking away from the Empire, but it does not seem these days to be much more than a nifty slogan.

I would love the preamble to be considered part of the actual Supreme Law of the Land... but it isn't. I also feel that the Declaration of Independence should have LONG AGO been enshrined as part of the Supreme Law of the Land by Constitutional amendment (even better if it had been done by the Founders).

~String

string: "don't TELL me what separation of powers are... I know very well what it means. I'm asking for examples."

Then chew on United States vs. Nixon (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=418&invol=683). That case effectively ended a Constitutionally-errant Presidency.

"I asked you for the sections that pertained to "Informed Consent" and "Accountability of the Government". I KNOW WELL that they are inferred by the wording of the Constitution, but never stated exactly. Please, again, tell me what sections cover those two issues... if you can."

As I already stated, the purpose of our Constitution is to formalize the relationship between government and the governed. Your false dilemma is asking "Show me the specific law that establishes law as law. Same answer: This is the purpose of the entire Constitution. If you are seriously trying to say that this over-arching purpose requires a specific Article, Section, or phrase in order to be operative, you are just pissing up a semantic rope. It's like asking "who's God's Daddy?" Similarly, to say that the Preamble, which clearly states the source of authority and Purpose of the Constitution, is divorced from that Constitution, is to miss the entire point of the document by more than formal words can describe.

"Furthermore, there is no one on this website who is apt to post specific quotes, sections, paragraphs from the Constitution quicker than me."

Easy there, Cowboy. Anyone with internet access can access fast and conveniently-indexed servers like this. (http://www.law.emory.edu/index.php?id=3080)
: cracks knuckles :
Go ahead, reach for it, Pilgrum...
: hovers hand over mouse :

We pass without extended discussion the suggestion that the particular section of the statute of Massachusetts now in question ( 137, chap. 75) is in derogation of rights secured by the preamble of the Constitution of the United States. Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States, unless, apart from the preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied therefrom. ( Jacobson v. Com. of Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=197&invol=11#22))

A note from, of all places, USA Today:

Although the preamble is not a source of power for any department of the Federal Government, 1 the Supreme Court has often referred to it as evidence of the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution. 2 ''Its true office,'' wrote Joseph Story in his COMMENTARIES, ''is to expound the nature and extent and application of the powers actually conferred by the Constitution, and not substantively to create them. For example, the preamble declares one object to be, 'to provide for the common defense.' No one can doubt that this does not enlarge the powers of Congress to pass any measures which they deem useful for the common defence. But suppose the terms of a given power admit of two constructions, the one more restrictive, the other more liberal, and each of them is consistent with the words, but is, and ought to be, governed by the intent of the power; if one could promote and the other defeat the common defence, ought not the former, upon the soundest principles of interpretation, to be adopted?'' 3 (USA Today/FindLaw (http://conlaw.usatoday.findlaw.com/constitution/preamble/index.html))

Okay, okay ... it's presented by the rag, but FindLaw gets the credit for the annotation. I left the footnote numbers in there for a reason. Footnote 1 referred me to the above-cited Supreme Court case, and number 2 notes, "E.g., the Court has read the preamble as bearing witness to the fact that the Constitution emanated from the people and was not the act of sovereign and independent States," and lists several cases for reference.

It's a place to start. The Preamble is not entirely divorced from the Constitution, but the standing precedent, at least according to FindLaw, "Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its department ... no power can be exerted to that end by the United States, unless, apart from the preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied therefrom."

Which, of course, only raises more questions.

"I asked you for the sections that pertained to "Informed Consent" and "Accountability of the Government". I KNOW WELL that they are inferred by the wording of the Constitution, but never stated exactly. Please, again, tell me what sections cover those two issues... if you can."

As I already stated, the purpose of our Constitution is to formalize the relationship between government and the governed. Your false dilemma is asking "Show me the specific law that establishes law as law. Same answer: This is the purpose of the entire Constitution. If you are seriously trying to say that this over-arching purpose requires a specific Article, Section, or phrase in order to be operative, you are just pissing up a semantic rope. It's like asking "who's God's Daddy?" Similarly, to say that the Preamble, which clearly states the source of authority and Purpose of the Constitution, is divorced from that Constitution, is to miss the entire point of the document by more than formal words can describe.

Incorrect. The pint I was making is that, although Accountability of the Government is built into the wording of much of the Constitution, you will never find "Informed Consent" or any combination of words equaling the same. Yes, there are parts that amount to some of the spirit of "Informed Consent", but you'll find that most of what you are looking for was either enacted by Congress or found lurking within the various ambiguities by the Supreme Court.

"Furthermore, there is no one on this website who is apt to post specific quotes, sections, paragraphs from the Constitution quicker than me."

Easy there, Cowboy. Anyone with INTERNET access can access fast and conveniently-indexed servers like this. (http://www.law.emory.edu/index.php?id=3080)
: cracks knuckles :
Go ahead, reach for it, Pilgrum...
: hovers hand over mouse :

Yes... but it's the ability to locate specific parts and their relevancies that matters most.

So tell me punk... do ya' feel lucky? (to quote another cowboy) ;)

~String

Tiassa: "It's a place to start. The Preamble is not entirely divorced from the Constitution, but the standing precedent... Which, of course, only raises more questions."

It really shouldn't. The purpose of the Preamble is not to describe the letter of the law. The preamble reminds us who made the kickoff and why. If we are incapable of grasping the simplicity of that, there can be no point in reading the document any further.

Tiassa: "It's a place to start. The Preamble is not entirely divorced from the Constitution, but the standing precedent... Which, of course, only raises more questions."

It really shouldn't. The purpose of the Preamble is not to describe the letter of the law. The preamble reminds us who made the kickoff and why. If we are incapable of grasping the simplicity of that, there can be no point in reading the document any further.

I agree with that sentiment, but it would appear that those bastards who make all those decisions disagree with us.

~String

String: "although Accountability of the Government is built into the wording of much of the Constitution, you will never find "Informed Consent" or any combination of words equaling the same."

The entire combination of words known as the Constitution does indeed establish a government based upon the informed consent of the governed. That the Constitution isn't written in my words does not mean that my words do not convey an understanding. Parse the Constitution down to any single word or phrase, black out everything else from your mind, and you are sure to lose track of the purpose and meaning emodied by the entire document.

Let me put it more simply: You're recent posts do not contain the words "I'm more savvy than you regarding the Constitution". I can't find the word "savvy" anwhere therein, yet that meaning was still transmitted.

String:"I agree with that sentiment, but it would appear that those bastards who make all those decisions disagree with us."

We have met the bastards, and they are us. Great discussion, BTW.

Hype:

I have a sneaking suspicion that, at some level, we're arguing at least in part the same point from different perspectives.

To wit: We're watching a car drive by. Which way are the wheels turning? If we disagree, perhaps it's that we're standing on opposite sides of a car. You may see clockwise while I see counterclockwise. If we decide, however, that the wheels are turning "forward", we might figure out a few other things.

As you point out, "The preamble reminds us who made the kickoff and why." I agree with this entirely. But the question it raises for me is how we've come, as a society, to place certain demands on the Constitution that contravene the reasons why. I think the reasons why are part of the social contract we both benefit from and are obliged to.

I'm reluctant at this time to dive into issue-specific politics; I don't think it would be useful for me to accidentally start a riot about this or that Amendment and its application in life and law.

I will, however, assert that Constitutional interpretation ought to respect the reasons why the Constitution was drawn, e.g., ".... in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity ...."

Perhaps I'm just confusing myself.

Original Intent

The Constitution, all its ammendments, and all other laws mean what was intended by those who wrote them. They shall not be intrepreted to mean anything other than that. All judges shall use this as their guiding principle when interpreting law.

Tiassa: "Perhaps I'm just confusing myself."

Not at all. You are clarifying a vital subject that we have been conditioned to defer to "higher authority" that doesn't Constitutionally exist. This thread started with a pipe-dream amendment-frenzy. It's my opinion that our problem is not a faulty Constitution. Our problems include popular ignorance of the Constitution, popular apathy regarding the obligations of citizenship, and popular desires for quick fixes that someone else does for us; political regression. The Founders lived in a world cursed with oppressive castes and even slavery, yet the Founders were somehow more politically advanced than we. They rose above their times, and blueprinted a more perfect nation that has yet to meet those standards. We don't need to fuck with the plans, we need to build this because it's worthy of happening.

Popular ignorance of the meaning of our Constitution is a dangerous apathy. The USA doesn't need Constitutional amendments nearly so badly as popular reformation. The problem is not our Constitution, but the debasement of citizens' relationship to it. It's like we're devolving into cavemen, and we'll wind up pounding walnuts with our iPhones, getting violently pissed when the curious gifts of our forebears fall apart because we just can't understand them.

Our founding fathers realized that there vision and their work on our government would need to evolve as society and technology evolved. Hence they included a process for change. That process is the amendment process. When a path is not working it needs to be changed. And change is not always easy. It is easier to cite an amorphous cause and tack it to ourselves. But it does not solve the problem. The problem is us, only if we fail to correct it. What are you going to do to correct your perception that the constitution is not respected? Saying that you are going to correct our problems by instilling respect for the original document is pretty ambiguous.
Bottom line, is that we have serious problems with our leadership and the distribution and use of power in our society, which in my opinion are about to come home to roost. And when those problems manifest themselves, their will be a certain sect or group that wants to stick there head in the ground and claim we need to be back to basics. They don’t understand society has changed…times have changed! For example, honor today does not exist as it did back in the days of our forefathers, and it is not coming back tomorrow, a month from now, or years from now no matter what we do. Today there is no honor among thieves. Our constitutional and governmental problems are bigger than any of us. Society has grown, it is larger, and technology has grown, and is more advanced. Therefore we must evolve and our government and constitution must evolve too…to address our needs and conditions. Our founding fathers recognized that which you have failed to in your arguments.
If you want to go back to the days of our ancestors, I will reserve a place for you when the first time machine comes on line. We must grow, we must adapt. Our founding fathers recognized that…with the provisions to amend our governing documents. It has been said that the very definition of insanity is to keep doing what you are currently doing and expect different results.

joepistole: "Our founding fathers realized that there vision and their work on our government would need to evolve as society and technology evolved. Hence they included a process for change. That process is the amendment process."

You are free to fix and upgrade your car. But if you stop to make major revisions at every bend in the road, you won't get very far.

"When a path is not working it needs to be changed."

Not if we are confused and off the path already.

"And change is not always easy."

That's why we're prone to changing anything but ourselves.

"It is easier to cite an amorphous cause and tack it to ourselves."

You lost me there.

"The problem is us, only if we fail to correct it."

No, the problem can especially be us, especially if we fail to correct it.

"What are you going to do to correct your perception that the constitution is not respected? "

My perspective is correct. The Consitution is not respected, and I can easily give you examples from current events.

"saying that you are going to correct our problems by instilling respect for the original document is pretty ambiguous. "

I am not presuming to correct our collective problems- but we Americans can correct them together. That's what this Constitution is for, and it is not ambiguous as to how that can happen. Read it.

"we have serious problems with our leadership and the distribution and use of power in our society, which in my opinion are about to come home to roost."

Agreed. Neglected problems usually do come home to roost.

"when those problems manifest themselves, their will be a certain sect or group that wants to stick there head in the ground and claim we need to be back to basics."

I don't understand why you think respecting the basics is evasive of the problem. When I have had inflight emergencies as an aviator, I have gotten down to basics. It always works for me. I believe that when internal political crisis erupts, we are wise to go to the existing Constitution for emergency procedures. That's what it's for.

"They don’t understand society has changed…times have changed!"

You don't seem to understand the meaning of "social contract".

"honor today does not exist as it did back in the days of our forefathers"

Of course it does. Our expressions of it may change, and our collective supply may rise and fall, but respect and esteem for others (and for ourselves) is ever the same precious and defining emotion, and the wellspring of civilization.

"[honor] is not coming back tomorrow, a month from now, or years from now no matter what we do."

You can bring it back instantly. Honor is a free choice.

"Today there is no honor among thieves."

Of course there is. Whenever humans respect one another there is honor.

"Our constitutional and governmental problems are bigger than any of us."

That's true, Your Honor.

"Society has grown, it is larger, and technology has grown, and is more advanced. Therefore we must evolve and our government and constitution must evolve too…"

Evolution takes a great deal of time. Rush it, and you mostly wind up with inviable freaks.

"Our founding fathers recognized that which you have failed to in your arguments."

Are you seriously trying to suggest that the founding fathers did not have respect, and did not wish for us to respect the Constitution?

"If you want to go back to the days of our ancestors"

Why? The Constitution hs always been about the future, not the past.

"It has been said that the very definition of insanity is to keep doing what you are currently doing and expect different results."

That's almost what Einstein says- but not in the context of laws of man or nature. The purpose of procedures and (to go back even further) instincts, is to respond to situations that do not allow time for deliberation. If we make amendments to the Constitution with our every challenge, without applying the Constitution we already have, then we are behaving without sanity, and our Republic will wind up like the mythical Tower of Babel.

Hypewader, there is no magic wand that you or I can wave to make people respect the constitution. There is no way short of an absolute dictatorship that you can command people to respect the constitution in any reasonable period of time. And then we get into, what is respect. Additionally, the constitution has been endlessly interpreted by the Supremes and sometimes in ways that require a lot of stretching by almost any standard…witness the so called W. election in 2000. If we were to strictly interpret the constitution, there would be chaos, as a lot of law established by the Supremes would have to be reversed, including the 2000 election of W. Now how do you do that? Additionally, there is congressional law that would need to be reversed under a strict interpretation of the constitution. It simply is not practical. Any thing less than practical, is worthless.

"There is no way short of an absolute dictatorship that you can command people to respect the constitution in any reasonable period of time."

:D Good one, joepistole- Effective democracy requires a dictator! Just so long as we citizens don't have to involve ourselves, right?

"If we were to strictly interpret the constitution, there would be chaos, as a lot of law established by the Supremes would have to be reversed, including the 2000 election of W. Now how do you do that?"

Impeachment. This Presidential Cabinet should be impeached even if their tenure is over before it gets done.

"there is congressional law that would need to be reversed under a strict interpretation of the constitution."

I agree. Also "Signing Statements". We have a lot of work to do.

"It simply is not practical."

It is the most practical thing that a responsible Congress compelled by the People can do. The alternative is the tacit scrapping of the Constitution and our country.

I am not quite getting your response to the dictator thing. But I think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. I am a veteran of Vietnam and a dyed and true patriot. The consitution must me a living document. It must address the needs of our people. Changing people is much more difficult than changing a document. And with out people, the consitution is nothing but a piece of paper with ink marks on it. Bottom line is that we must have a government that works for the people.

The "dictator thing" was just a little silliness on my part.

I'll try to be a little clearer, because "Agree to disagree" is just a spineless cop-out in a topic this important.

Let's try and get to the heart of the matter. Let's take a look at what the goals of the Constitution were- the motivations for creating it, in order to objectively evaluate if it is performing as can be reasonably expected. Let's also consider whether some other factors are also involved.

Our Founders hated kings. They wanted to create something very different, and not just different from British kings. They detested the institutions of autocracy, and wanted to create something new, a government as autocracy-proof as humanly possible. You might say they were idealists. I think they were way ahead of their times; incredibly-astute political scientists and innovators.

These people formulated a framework for a democratic republic that would be as resistant as possible to a constantly-mutating virus, one that they were aware has been infecting all sorts of governments throughout history. To guard against this rampant infection, the Constitution was carefully drafted not only to separate the powers of government, but also to derive authority from the consent of the governed. Sure, lots of amendments came later, but that's the much-overlooked core of it. Without that, there's really nothing special about us.

Obviously, the Founders could not firmly institutionalize the consent of the governed. That's a little bit like the free-will argument in theology. Because a constitution is not a magic spell, it cannot materialize a government immune to the corruption that always accompanies power. It is instead a tool- a weapon if you will, that was bequeathed to us so that we would not hesitate to wield it against the inevitable infiltration of tyranny.

The Founders could not pretend a constitution would automatically and forever banish autocratic pitfalls without participatory democracy. Citizens can thump their chests and self-assuredly declare their Patriotism supreme. Taken to the next level, we can even thump our chests in unison with a tough-guy Commander-in-Chief. But at that moment (if we understand our Constitution) we are in severe breach of it as citizens.

The Constitution, for as long as we truly value it, declares that 1) we don't serve any king, and 2) if such a spectre rears its ugly head, we have precise Constitutional duties as American citizens to chop it off in response. Meeting that duty is quite a different form of patriotism than (for instance) obeying draft orders to mobilize for a wrongful war.

There is an important difference between martial patriotism and Constitutional duty.

But it's little understood, because many Americans get all patriotism muddled up with martial culture. You ironically evoked in this discussion a foreign war, Joe. One that (like our present one in Iraq) was entirely unecessary; that was based on lies. For this common reason, both the Vietnam and Iraq wars have done our country (and our democracy) considerable damage.

There are Constitutional remedies for that. They are still operative, but much neglected. You seem to strangely assume that a revised Constitution might generate a paradoxical auto-democracy. That's the flaw in leaving out the participatory role of the public in a system based upon consent.

There is no shortage of pessimists who consider government by consent, and our founding American ideals to be a pipe-dream, even a charade. It may have been Disraeli who said:

"Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."

The Constitution is all about breaking that cycle. The US Constitution is a repudiation of such deplorable cynicism. It provides a way to avoid all that. It' a repudiation of an arbitray dismissal of humanity as inherently ignorant, self-absorbed, and uncaring. I think we're becoming smart enough to stop going in circles, and that we can instead reach for our higher potentials.

I believe there is provided for us a powerful wisdom and remedy , made available to us through the power and foresight of the existing US Constitution. Accessing that power requires that we citizens get off our asses and participate like we understand and value it. Our necessary lessons in understanding and values may come hard, but let's hope together (if we are truly patriots) that they don't come too late.

Our founding fathers wanted personal freedoms, but the also did not want rule of the masse or mobs. At first not everyone was allowed to vote…only male landowners. They were concerned about the excesses of democracy, mob rule. They saw what happened to France after the king was over thrown…chaos. The founding fathers wanted restrictions on power from all sources. These restrictions on power have been severely eroded and will continue to be eroded unless action is taken…witness George Junior and his antics with personal freedom and congress..
The problem is the average Joe in this country is too busy with work and paying bills to participate fully in his government. All I am asking with this amendment is that our elected representatives be held to the same standards as your average Joe working for an average company. Ethics in government is important; it goes to the very credibility of the government itself. Now we have our president outing secret agents in pursuit of a political agenda. How great is that? We have high level people who are getting convicted and getting their sentences commuted and living on huge trust funds established by the president’s friends (http://www.scooterlibby.com/). That is not punishment in my book, that is covering each others backs. And Bush junior is not the first.
In order to rule government must first and foremost have credibility. And with corruption, there is no credibility. This proposed amendment is intended to preserve what credibility is left in our government.

Actually i think our forefathers were hoping that the check and balances in government would keep it form doing a damn thing. They didn't expect a full time congress. Hell they were hoping to meet in fall after harvest and spring after planting and that's it. Imagine if our congressional season was so short and only marred by a few emergency sessions.

Good points, this would probably be an alien land, and dizzying pace of life now for the Founders if they were here to see us now. I still think they left us an excellent Constitution, that could serve us much better if we would insist that our representatives stick to it.

I just don't think our representatives are going to stick to anything other than their pocketbooks.

Tiassa: "Perhaps I'm just confusing myself."

Popular ignorance of the meaning of our Constitution is a dangerous apathy. The USA doesn't need Constitutional amendments nearly so badly as popular reformation. The problem is not our Constitution, but the debasement of citizens' relationship to it. It's like we're devolving into cavemen, and we'll wind up pounding walnuts with our iPhones, getting violently pissed when the curious gifts of our forebears fall apart because we just can't understand them.

I've thought that myself from time to time. Constitutional amendments must only occur if and when culture demands an absolute change -- either to strike a provision or add one that its writers could not have culturally allowed at the time. The slavery and voting amendments are the best example of the latter, while the post assassination amendments (pertaining to line of command) are the result of the former. We must remember that the Constitution's greatest achievement is in it's unique purpose to evolve with time; but this should not be abused simply because of a fad (e.g. prohibition).

People, I think, are naturally obsessed with new technology. Unfortunately, I think, the technological boom of the last 20 years has increased our mass reliance on new gadgets, focused our attention on them, and decreased our own personal self-reliance that we neglect the social and political knowledge, achievement, and wisdom that got us here in the first place.

Original Intent

The Constitution, all its ammendments, and all other laws mean what was intended by those who wrote them. They shall not be intrepreted to mean anything other than that. All judges shall use this as their guiding principle when interpreting law.

Hype:

I'm reluctant at this time to dive into issue-specific politics; I don't think it would be useful for me to accidentally start a riot about this or that Amendment and its application in life and law.

I will, however, assert that Constitutional interpretation ought to respect the reasons why the Constitution was drawn, e.g., ".... in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity ...."

Perhaps I'm just confusing myself.

Most constitutional issues of today's Supreme Court rely on precedent -- the logical equivalent of corollaries in geometry. After over 200 hundred years of precedent, rarely must the high court delve into the framer's intent at the time of adoption. To the extent it must, the preamble is significant in constitutional construction (interpretation), but is so broad in application it is rarely helpful in determining a very tight issue of constitutionality. What the court and the attorneys address most often in such situations are the debate notes of the original constitutional convention, as they are far more particular
on certain terms and provisions, and allow the Court to understand the reasons for the majority election to include such term or provision. However, as in nearly every constitutional issue these days, the original reason must be juxtaposed with current precedent and culture. If there is no such precedent (as in the first impeachment hearing under the constitution) the framer's intent controls, per the interpretation of the 9 Supreme Court justices. It then becomes the law of the land.

Constitutional amendment occurs only when (1) that interpretation is not agreed upon by a present majority of the Union, (2) when an issue cannot be legally reconciled under its law (very, very rare), and (3) when culture demands a change.

Most constitutional issues of today's Supreme Court rely on precedent -- the logical equivalent of corollaries in geometry. After over 200 hundred years of precedent, rarely must the high court delve into the framer's intent at the time of adoption.
Perhaps, but every so often some court will rule in such a way as to clearly contradict the intent of the framers. Such as the recent finding in Massachusetts that there is a constitutional right to gay marriage.

Clearly the framers of the Massachusetts constitution did not intend such an interpretation. Such major changes should be the result of legislation, not judges.

Agreed. There are several activist judges who see it as their place in the world to push forth change by radical interpretations and departure from precedent. Since I'm not up on the MA constitution and surrounding case law regarding substantive due process, I can't say for sure how radical their departure was. But since most state constitutions (excepting Hawaii and Louisiana) follow the US Constitutional architecture, I can surmise that it's another flea bagger riding on the coattails of a constitutional right to privacy. To me, that's one helluva long coattail to ride: from individual privacy to a public contract of marriage. But I'm just a Learned Hand.

Agreed. There are several activist judges who see it as their place in the world to push forth change by radical interpretations and departure from precedent.
Wow, we agreed on one!

In this case the framers of the consitution never intended that elected representatives would use their office as a personal get rich quick opportunity. Efforts of congress to reform itself have been less than sucessful especially under the last Republian Congress. Now it would seem like common sense that elected representatives should represent the interests for those that elected them, such is not the case, and this is critical for our government to function as the framers intended. Finally at the time the consitution was created, the framers were only familar with the plurality votng system. The Borda method outlined in the proposed admendment would select the best canididate for the office. It would do a lot to invigorate the electorate...make people feel their vote counts. And it gets us out of the, I have to vote for x because even if I think x is the best canidate, they don't have a chance of becoming president. Now I maybe a little weird, but I think we should be selecting the best canidate for the job, not one who has collected and spent the most on advertisng by selling favors when in office.

In this case the framers of the consitution never intended that elected representatives would use their office as a personal get rich quick opportunity.
Actually, yes they did. That's why they set up a system of checks and balances. Each branch of government would keep an eye on the others.

As one of the Founding Fathers said, "If men were angels, no government would be needed."

Ok, let me be more clear. they did not think all branches could be bought by the the same folks at the same time which is what we have today. So there is no effective division of powers.

If we can stop our apathetic sell-out by insisting on the implementation of Constitutional remedies, we the People can still have our Republic back.

If we can stop our apathetic sell-out by insisting on the implementation of Constitutional remedies, we the People can still have our Republic back.

Indeed. If only our power of impeachment was not tempered by partisan politics, we too could use it more often as the British and their "vote of no confidence." This whole Iraq war could have been salvaged once we found out that Bush lied about WMD. See ya later George W. -- we appreciate the biggest lie the nation's ever heard for starting a war. . .

But to our chagrin, the Republican Congress itself went along with it. Since we're a representative democracy, the most frightening thing is -- what does that say about us as citizens!?!?!?

Americans are citizen-delinquents, and it scares me too. Spectacular terrorism, (already proven effective in unhinging us) causes uninspired citizenry to accede to the advance of authoritarianism. If in our present apathy we are afflicted with a reactionary leadership more sinisterly competent than was the Bush 43 Administration, we could precipitously lose everything that we often mouth in our most nationalistic and "patriotic" bluster.

Recently extremist right-wing rhetoric has been surfacing, proclaiming the "need" for another 9-11 that would enable the resumption of a "decisive" foreign policy; end our hesitation and debate; allow us to kick ass on the world; allow us to secure the most exalted place in the political and economic spheres. At the same time, there are other extremists pleased with the results of 9-11 (both with the momentous disturbance in the world order that resulted, and with the vector that has sharply reduced American clout) who are surely eager to repeat the prodding. For so long as we remain an open society, will remain vulnerable to terrorism. Given these antidemocratic opportunities, ostensibly opposing extemists may be expected to continue on a common vector, as they have since the darkly seminal events of 9-11-2001.

If extremists do again take the initiative, then Americans may never get another chance for debate, democratic activism, and the defense and exercise of our Constitution. Should economic crisis be added to the mix before there is a democratic awakening, there is even more cause for alarm.

If our collective sense of responsibilities as citizens is not improved before our present opportunity for understanding and Constitutional action vanishes, then all of our grand expenditures in national defense will be rendered moot and delusional. The greatest threat to the United States is not a foreign military threat, and not terrorism. We now face a much more insidious threat to our democracy: Forgetting what we're all about. Recently, the practical limits of the Executive power have been greatly expanded, and there has been scant popular, and hence zero Constitutional response. Our collective ignorance of, and disrespect for the Constitution is an ominous indicator of our growing susceptibility to a collapse of our democracy into authoritarianism.

In this historic test, the Constitution will mean everything. Giving up the Constitution is giving up entirely.

Extremely well put and decisively articulated. I would simply add that, as in any war, propaganda through the arms of the executive branch (FBI, CIA, Homeland Security) spreads like wildfire while true policy and political machinery advance like a slow churning wheel on a nearly dry river that rarely can act until well after an overbroad executive decision. Congress holds hearings after the fact, and the judiciary can be equally slow in having the final say on constitutional matters.

I don't know if they run it where you live, but I've seen a commercial recently imploring parents and children to have an "emergency response plan" in the event of a terrorist attack. Kind of like a "parents: do you know where your children are" implication of bad parenting and necessity for the solidarity and unity of the family unit. Who was it paid by? Our tax dollars through the Department of Homeland Security. Terrorist propaganda at its worst.

Hopefully there are enough people who recognize propaganda for what it is, not allow it to fester and change our perspective, so that we can regain some constitutional continuity in the balance of governmental power.

I personally fear our advertisement industry; they are very good at what they do. And the Republicans have learned that if they call a dog a horse often enough, through multiple sources, people will start believing a dog is a horse. It has been an amazing and fearful observation. And the Dems twiddle there thumbs. That is the reason we must limit the influence of money in our government.

THIS IS A REAL GOOD EXAMPLE AS TO WHY WE NEED TO AMEND THE CONSITUTION NOW!!!!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/29/60minutes/main2625305.shtml

Americans are citizen-delinquents,...
Not nearly as many as you seem to need to fulfill your self-actuating rhetorical necessities.
...it scares me too.
Ah. You prefer not to offer yourself as a 2nd Amendment test dummy.

Manhood delinquent.

Another ecological niche amply filled.

"Except during times of war or national emergency, the United States and the Several States shall keep and maintain a balanced a debt free budget.

"All bills concerning the levying of tarifs or taxes and distribution of funds shall originate in the House of Representatives and shall not be approved but upon two thirds of both houses and shall be passed on to the President for his approval. Should the President sign the bill, it shall become law. Should the president veto the bill, it shall become null and voide. Congress may override the President's veto upon the approval of 90% of both houses

"No tax levied or funds distributed shall be for a period greater than four years, after which time they shall become null and void.

"All bills for the levying of taxes and distrubtion of funds shall be independent of all other bills and may concern only one specific tax, levy or distribution. Neither shall any other attachment be added to these bills concerning any other matter under the law."

thats last one is smart ending the damn christmas treeing of bills

with to taxes i they don't need to be harder to raise they need to be turned into a system where the usage of the money is used better

This is the last chance to change the proposed admendment...any changes? I am going to start pushing it next year.