How to fix it.

[peach174]

Government recognizes them, but getting on the ballots is an uphill battle if not a down right prohibiting ordeal.
The system and laws are set up for the 2 parties.
That is why it is almost impossible for any other type of party to come into power.
We have more independents than Repubs or Dems, the laws at local and national levels are set up so that any other party that is running is almost impossible to get on the ballots.
Add the media with that and we the voters have to dig really hard to find who else is running.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Did we lose a number of posts?
I have several missing.

 

[jwoodie]

Interesting essay, but a little short on practicality. First off, any significant Amendment to the Constitution has no chance of getting a 2/3 vote in both Houses of Congress, so a Constitutional Convention called by 2/3 of the State Legislatures is the only way to go.

Secondly, there are only a few structural changes that are important enough to amend the Constitution:

-Prohibit per capita increases (COLAs) in federal expenditures in any year in which the federal budget is not balanced;

-Give the President line item veto authority; and

-Require equal representation of CITIZENS (rather than "persons") in Congressional reapportionment.

 

[flacaltenn]

Interesting essay, but a little short on practicality. First off, any significant Amendment to the Constitution has no chance of getting a 2/3 vote in both Houses of Congress, so a Constitutional Convention called by 2/3 of the State Legislatures is the only way to go.

Secondly, there are only a few structural changes that are important enough to amend the Constitution:

-Prohibit per capita increases (COLAs) in federal expenditures in any year in which the federal budget is not balanced;

-Give the President line item veto authority; and

-Require equal representation of CITIZENS (rather than "persons") in Congressional reapportionment.

I'd go for those... The Line Item Veto is one that just MIGHT fly thru ratification.

Welcome to the board.

 

[antagon]

Interesting essay, but a little short on practicality. First off, any significant Amendment to the Constitution has no chance of getting a 2/3 vote in both Houses of Congress, so a Constitutional Convention called by 2/3 of the State Legislatures is the only way to go.

Secondly, there are only a few structural changes that are important enough to amend the Constitution:

-Prohibit per capita increases (COLAs) in federal expenditures in any year in which the federal budget is not balanced;

-Give the President line item veto authority; and

-Require equal representation of CITIZENS (rather than "persons") in Congressional reapportionment.

Can you expand on your BBA? That sounds interesting.

I think the citizens one is the most likely amendment, as it does not adversely effect lawmakers' power.

 

[FA_Q2]

Honestly, I believe that much of what you posted can be fixed in a much simpler manner (though much harder to pass) by simply abolishing the party system that we have in this country. I do agree that congressional districts are asinine. I believe that simply requiring them to be drawn as simple geometric shapes rather than the crazy lines that are drawn currently. That is simpler than a ‘lottery’ or parsing them out by zip codes where population densities could be a massive problem in making the districts even. Simply requiring them to be simple shapes can fix most of the gerrymandering.

I do like the idea about requiring legislation passed by one house to actually see a vote in the other. The blocking that is going on now is asinine. The reality is that has nothing to do with the constitution though. That is a rather easy fix. It surprises me that this is a problem anyway. Those bills that are blocked by the 2 ‘leaders’ (I use that term very loosely) have no chance of passing the their respective houses anyway so why not get the damn things out of the way? Again though, getting rid of parties would eliminate that problem anyway as it would eliminate the uncontested problem as well.

Most of our other problems could be fixed by actually following the constitution in the first place as well. I truly do believe in the separation of powers and that does not only mean the 3 branches of government. The states have been basically reduced to managerial aspects of the federal government rather than sovereign entities in themselves and I find that unacceptable. The federal government should not have the ability to block grant funds to states after collecting the money for whatever pet project they want them to follow along with or refuse funds if the states do not capitulate to their demands. That system has corrupted one of the balances that we have and diminished the system as a whole. The federal government has a place as do the state governments. That is not to say that state law should override federal law. It is to say that state law has a place and federal law has a place.

The other thing I would inject is that one area that is not covered is tax law. I do believe that an amendment needs to be put in place that prevents tax breaks favoring any company or industry. Corporate welfare is corrupting the entire system and the only way to address it IMHO is to deal with the source; the ability for politicians to pander to companies for special tax considerations.

 

[editec]

It really does not matter if the laws are perfect.

What DOES matter is how the leaders interpret and DISCHARGE those laws.

That ought to be obvious to all of us regardless of our personal poltical leanings.

 

[antagon]

Honestly, I believe that much of what you posted can be fixed in a much simpler manner (though much harder to pass) by simply abolishing the party system that we have in this country. I do agree that congressional districts are asinine. I believe that simply requiring them to be drawn as simple geometric shapes rather than the crazy lines that are drawn currently. That is simpler than a ‘lottery’ or parsing them out by zip codes where population densities could be a massive problem in making the districts even. Simply requiring them to be simple shapes can fix most of the gerrymandering.

I do like the idea about requiring legislation passed by one house to actually see a vote in the other. The blocking that is going on now is asinine. The reality is that has nothing to do with the constitution though. That is a rather easy fix. It surprises me that this is a problem anyway. Those bills that are blocked by the 2 ‘leaders’ (I use that term very loosely) have no chance of passing the their respective houses anyway so why not get the damn things out of the way? Again though, getting rid of parties would eliminate that problem anyway as it would eliminate the uncontested problem as well.

Most of our other problems could be fixed by actually following the constitution in the first place as well. I truly do believe in the separation of powers and that does not only mean the 3 branches of government. The states have been basically reduced to managerial aspects of the federal government rather than sovereign entities in themselves and I find that unacceptable. The federal government should not have the ability to block grant funds to states after collecting the money for whatever pet project they want them to follow along with or refuse funds if the states do not capitulate to their demands. That system has corrupted one of the balances that we have and diminished the system as a whole. The federal government has a place as do the state governments. That is not to say that state law should override federal law. It is to say that state law has a place and federal law has a place.

The other thing I would inject is that one area that is not covered is tax law. I do believe that an amendment needs to be put in place that prevents tax breaks favoring any company or industry. Corporate welfare is corrupting the entire system and the only way to address it IMHO is to deal with the source; the ability for politicians to pander to companies for special tax considerations.

States only ever take money from the federal government. The role of corps is going to be big this century. Our thinking will have to match. We cant afford to be the only country in the world without tax lobbying

 

[flacaltenn]

Honestly, I believe that much of what you posted can be fixed in a much simpler manner (though much harder to pass) by simply abolishing the party system that we have in this country. I do agree that congressional districts are asinine. I believe that simply requiring them to be drawn as simple geometric shapes rather than the crazy lines that are drawn currently. That is simpler than a ‘lottery’ or parsing them out by zip codes where population densities could be a massive problem in making the districts even. Simply requiring them to be simple shapes can fix most of the gerrymandering.

I do like the idea about requiring legislation passed by one house to actually see a vote in the other. The blocking that is going on now is asinine. The reality is that has nothing to do with the constitution though. That is a rather easy fix. It surprises me that this is a problem anyway. Those bills that are blocked by the 2 ‘leaders’ (I use that term very loosely) have no chance of passing the their respective houses anyway so why not get the damn things out of the way? Again though, getting rid of parties would eliminate that problem anyway as it would eliminate the uncontested problem as well.

Most of our other problems could be fixed by actually following the constitution in the first place as well. I truly do believe in the separation of powers and that does not only mean the 3 branches of government. The states have been basically reduced to managerial aspects of the federal government rather than sovereign entities in themselves and I find that unacceptable. The federal government should not have the ability to block grant funds to states after collecting the money for whatever pet project they want them to follow along with or refuse funds if the states do not capitulate to their demands. That system has corrupted one of the balances that we have and diminished the system as a whole. The federal government has a place as do the state governments. That is not to say that state law should override federal law. It is to say that state law has a place and federal law has a place.

The other thing I would inject is that one area that is not covered is tax law. I do believe that an amendment needs to be put in place that prevents tax breaks favoring any company or industry. Corporate welfare is corrupting the entire system and the only way to address it IMHO is to deal with the source; the ability for politicians to pander to companies for special tax considerations.

Exactly..

Except for the point of requiring a vote on the other house's work.. There is no point wasting Deliberative debate IF there's not a chance of passage or reconcilation.
And the politicians would still have excuses for voting both ways on an issue because of interim votes on a particular bill.

 

[candycorn]

Honestly, I believe that much of what you posted can be fixed in a much simpler manner (though much harder to pass) by simply abolishing the party system that we have in this country. I do agree that congressional districts are asinine. I believe that simply requiring them to be drawn as simple geometric shapes rather than the crazy lines that are drawn currently. That is simpler than a ‘lottery’ or parsing them out by zip codes where population densities could be a massive problem in making the districts even. Simply requiring them to be simple shapes can fix most of the gerrymandering.

Well, propotional representation becomes a problem. I'm not tied to the zip code method. We could use any sort of methodology (Area Codes, counties usually have precincts for law enforecement purposes, even counties but the most populous counties will throw it out of whack all together).

I do like the idea about requiring legislation passed by one house to actually see a vote in the other. The blocking that is going on now is asinine. The reality is that has nothing to do with the constitution though. That is a rather easy fix. It surprises me that this is a problem anyway. Those bills that are blocked by the 2 ‘leaders’ (I use that term very loosely) have no chance of passing the their respective houses anyway so why not get the damn things out of the way? Again though, getting rid of parties would eliminate that problem anyway as it would eliminate the uncontested problem as well.

I have given up trying to get rid of group-think among our legislators; it's here to stay I'm afraid. The greatest thing to happen to the modern US would be to abolish political parties. I agree. However, save for that incredibly unlikely event....you need rules to keep the parties in check.

If you think about the BCS in college football, it closely resembles the political landscape; everything done under the BCS was to benefit the conferences (parties--if you will) and the greater good of college football was often poorly served by that.

Most of our other problems could be fixed by actually following the constitution in the first place as well. I truly do believe in the separation of powers and that does not only mean the 3 branches of government. The states have been basically reduced to managerial aspects of the federal government rather than sovereign entities in themselves and I find that unacceptable. The federal government should not have the ability to block grant funds to states after collecting the money for whatever pet project they want them to follow along with or refuse funds if the states do not capitulate to their demands. That system has corrupted one of the balances that we have and diminished the system as a whole. The federal government has a place as do the state governments. That is not to say that state law should override federal law. It is to say that state law has a place and federal law has a place.

The other thing I would inject is that one area that is not covered is tax law. I do believe that an amendment needs to be put in place that prevents tax breaks favoring any company or industry. Corporate welfare is corrupting the entire system and the only way to address it IMHO is to deal with the source; the ability for politicians to pander to companies for special tax considerations.

I can't agree with that. New technologies need a hand and the only one that can risk lending a hand in some cases is the federal government. There should be incrediby tight rules as to the payment of these funds however.

 

[candycorn]

Interesting essay, but a little short on practicality. First off, any significant Amendment to the Constitution has no chance of getting a 2/3 vote in both Houses of Congress, so a Constitutional Convention called by 2/3 of the State Legislatures is the only way to go.

Yes. You are rigth.

Secondly, there are only a few structural changes that are important enough to amend the Constitution:

-Prohibit per capita increases (COLAs) in federal expenditures in any year in which the federal budget is not balanced;

-Give the President line item veto authority; and

-Require equal representation of CITIZENS (rather than "persons") in Congressional reapportionment.

I like the line item veto and think it is a good idea. How you ignore the actions of Harry Reid (Mitch McConnell would be doing the same thing if the situation were reversed) and think there doesn't need to be a remedy is beyond me.

 

[candycorn]

Candy:

STRONGLY suggest you read this short article about gerrymandering and proportional representation. It could be that you're just a fan of proportional represention and don't know about it. But it's NOT a new concept..

Taking power like that AWAY from party politics ain't painless or easy.. But a reform like PR would be ONE WAY to solve the problem.

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/polit/damy/articles/redistricting.htm


In safe districts, candidates of the minority party are often little more than sacrificial
lambs being led to the slaughter. But it gets worse. These safe districts are often so
one-sided that the disadvantaged party does not even bother to put up a candidate. There is no
contest at all. The number of uncontested U.S. House seats varies considerably from state to
state. Florida and Texas are two of the worst. In the 2000 U.S. House elections in Florida, 43
percent of the races were uncontested. That year in Texas, 30 percent of their House races were
uncontested. The existence of some many uncontested races is a political disgrace, but it is
also a perfectly understandable result in a winner-take-all system. Why should the smaller
party bother to compete in districts dominated by the larger party? It would be a waste of
valuable political resources. As the former head of the Republican campaign effort in the
House, Rep. John Linder of Georgia, explained: "The GOP did not recruit candidates in districts
where Democrats are shoo-ins for re-election." And according to his counter-part on the
Democratic side, Rep. Martin Frost of Texas: "Both parties, I believe, had made a decision to
concentrate on really competitive districts." So in an SMP system, it is a rational political
strategy for a party to no contest seats in many districts.

On the level of state legislative contests, the problem of unopposed candidates has reached
epidemic levels. In races for state legislatures in 2000, either the Democrats or the
Republicans refused to nominate a candidate in 40.6 percent of the districts. In 1998 that
figure as 41.1 percent. Thus in a large number of cases, the creation of safe seats for
incumbents means that voters literally have no choice on election day. These are not so much
races as prolonged victory laps by the preordained winners.

These safe districts created by gerrymandering not only deny voters a meaningful choice, they
contribute to other political problems as well. For one thing, safe districts clearly encourage
political apathy and low voter participation. Why bother to participate if the outcome has been
predetermined by how the district lines have been drawn. As one San Francisco resident
complained: "Vote? Why vote? I know who’s going to win, everybody knows who’s going to win.

Pelosi always wins, with 80 percent of the vote. Nobody else has a chance." Those who support
the party that always loses are not the only ones discouraged from voting in safe districts.
Even those who support the dominant party have little reason to vote because they know that
their candidate will win anyway.

The only sure way to eliminate gerrymandering – both intentional and unintentional – from
American elections is to abandon single-member plurality arrangements and adopt proportional
representation. Indeed, the whole purpose of PR is to minimize wasted votes and ensure that the
parties are represented in proportion to the votes they receive. This eliminates the
possibilities of unfair representation produced by gerrymandering. The key to eliminating
partisan gerrymandering is the large multimember districts used in PR systems. As numerous
studies have shown, as long as a PR system has at least five seats in every district, it is
effectively immune from gerrymandering. These districts largely eliminate the wasted votes that
make gerrymandering possible. In such districts, even small political minorities do not waste
their votes and are able to elect their fair share of representatives. Thus, under PR
arrangements, where voters live or how district lines are drawn makes no difference – fair
representation will result.

Imagine, for example, that we have a region in a state that is 60 percent Republican and 40
percent Democratic and that it must be divided into two ten-member PR election districts. No
matter how the district lines are drawn and no matter how party voters are distributed between
the districts, each party will be able to elect its fair share of representatives. If all the
Democrats are packed into one district, they will constitute 80 percent of the voters there and
elect eight of the ten representatives in that district and none in the other – 40 percent of
the total seats. If the Democratic voters are fragmented and make up 40 percent minorities in
the each of the two districts, they will be able to elect four representatives in each – and
still receive 40 percent of the total seats.

That gerrymandering and unfair representation can be truly eliminated only under PR
arrangements is so indisputable that even political scientists who continue to support our
single-member plurality system are forced to acknowledge it. Nelson Polsby of the University of
California at Berkeley is no supporter of proportional representation. Yet he testified in a
court case on gerrymandering that "proportionality cannot be guaranteed in a system of voting
in which the winner of the most votes wins the election regardless of how many candidates run
in each race. To ensure proportionality it is necessary to have a proportional representation
system of elections.''

Gerrymandering does not apply to the Senate -- but in the HOUSE -- Prop. Representation COULD be modified to elect a STATEWIDE slate of Representatives.

And the article doesn't mention it -- but all those UNOPPOSED district races COULD be solved with more open ballot access. Just because the DEMS or REPS don't want to waste time and money running against a sure winner -- doesn't mean a 3rd party or Independent wouldn't try..

The quoted text lost me. Can you give an example?

 

[candycorn]

Not sure if you mean ‘making better’ or ‘bent better toward your ideological slant’.

Perfecting is making it better on logical terms free of ideological slant

Your suggestions seem to lean towards the latter – though, unlike some, not outrageously so.

There will be some ideological reference made whomever writes the rules. The only greater injustice is that the rules be unwritten so the whim of which ever temporary power structure happens to be prevalent at any one time is served.

So? The process is there; it was intentionally made difficult so it would only be done when the issue was important enough to gain consensus across the population as to how to address it.
Thus: Working as intended.

Yes, which is why we need to overhaul it; not tack on a few amendments. Unless you like trillions of dollars in debt and a Congress that is not compelled to even be in session to address it. When they come back, they will be in session for a few weeks then basically will be off until January.

The intention of the people that wrote the constitution in this regard is reasonably clear and not difficult to find. The previously mentioned nature of the government itself – the division into three equal branches – it part of this plan, devised so that no part had too much power that they could exercise too easily.

Yes Branches.
Not within a branch however. The absence of a formal process of rules, rules of order, procedures, whatever you wish to call it has allowed the Congress to become dysfunctional by any standard of measurement. Rules need to be instilled

The point is that the manner in which to best address a very important issues bring consensus among the people. If the manner in which to deal with an very important issue does not bring consensus, then it must not be the “best” way.

You’re arguing that because disagreement hols up the political process, something must be done to get around that disagreement; you fail to recognize that disagreement is the nature of democracy.

Nothing in what I have proposed will have the net effect of automatically speeding up the process or removing the holds. What I have proposed is that one house of Congress respect the work of the other house.

Someone here recommended the line-item-veto for the President. I think the Congressional house that has the work of the other chamber in front of it should have the same basic power. Have the up or down vote to stake out the ground; then take the "veto" pen and remove what was not favored. Then have conferees discuss it.

If an impass is detected, the bill dies but at least it was voted on.
If the conferees come to a consensus, the whole body votes on it again. If it dies it dies. But it's been voted on.
If the Senate filibusters the voting of the bill, so be it. At least it was voted on.

Additionally, the Senate has the responsibility of approving appointments by the President. Those must get the same up or down vote.

Party bosses do not draw lines – legislators do, according to the laws of the states, and under all of the checks and balances found in our system of government. Your “party boss” argument, if sound, applies to All legislation passed into law by a state, not just redistricting.

Party considerations are at the forefront of the decisions to draw the lines.

So much so that some states have taken the pen away from their own representatives and appointed commissions to draw lines.

So much so that the disenfranchised have sued the State (in Texas) to have the lines re-drawn.

So much so that minotry party members have fled the states to deprive a quorum.

You’re addressing a need that does not exist.

Thankfully; not yet. Lifetime appointments are ridiculous regardless of who gets them. Thirty years removes any political calculation from the equation.

Not sure what you mean,
The Constitution was written so that the federal government had power to deal with a number of issues, and the states then retained the power to deal with everything else – as such the Constitution leaves nothing unaddressed.

Can a state militia have an aircraft carrier? What about a space program--if the citizens of Washington wanted to fund it for example, could they berth a Carrier and launch space vehicles?

You apparently assume that for troops to go into ‘harms way’, they can only do so under the auspices of a declared war. Nothing in the constitution, or the history of its creates, supports this position. The Constitution gives the CinC broad power to defend the country because of the fact that doing so may require action more swiftly than Congress can declare war, and it may require action that does not rise to the level of a declared war.

So now you have to define "war".

No, I don’t. Nothing I said rests on the definition of war.[/QUOTE]

Okay, it's hard to imagine that Korea and Vietnam did not rise to the level of war. If they were not wars, what defines why they were not?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Yes, which is why we need to overhaul it; not tack on a few amendments.

Nothing you have suggested thus far requires anything more than an amendment.

Yes Branches. Not within a branch however.

Incorrect. The Senate and house are, constitutionaly, co-equal.
As such, the house cannot force the senate to do anything, and vice-versa.

Additionally, the Senate has the responsibility of approving appointments by the President.

The Senate may choose to not do so, by whatever means it may decide.

Party considerations are at the forefront of the decisions to draw the lines.

The lines are drawn through the legislative/political process, and so, as much as any other legislation, reflects the will of the people.

Can a state militia have an aircraft carrier? What about a space program--if the citizens of Washington wanted to fund it for example, could they berth a Carrier and launch space vehicles?

Not sure how any of this follows from or addresses the validity of what I said.

Okay, it's hard to imagine that Korea and Vietnam did not rise to the level of war. If they were not wars, what defines why they were not?

Again, not sure how any of this follows from or addresses the validity of what I said.
The constitution – intentionally- gives the CinC broad powers to use the military to defend the country, and nothing in the constitution demands that he waits until Congress declares war in order to do so.

 

[asaratis]

How to fix it:

As many, if not most, of you know I am a big proponent of further perfecting the Constitution.

...such a narcissist you are. I hardly ever read your novels.

It was written by men so, therefore, it is imperfect. Furthermore, it was written during a period in our nation’s history when the threads that were weaving the American fabric were not yet tested for strength; much less how they would fit together to form the parent cloth. It is even true that the framers of the Constitution recognized that their first gambit in the birth of the American nation was not working a mere eleven years into the experiment. The Articles of Confederation were judged to be unsuitable by the cadre of leaders so they sought to forge a new document that would correct the mistakes of the past. Why is it then that we, 225 years later, are too timid to make such an observation? Certainly the eleven year span between 1776 to 1787 witnessed miniscule changes when compared to the massive transformations our country has seen in the last 225. So why not seek to further perfect the document from our advantageous position that comes along with being a witness to history; from learning from one’s mistakes and making the simple realization that the men of those first formative years of the American experiment could not possibly have forecasted the metamorphosis that has transpired over the last two and a quarter centuries?

Unfortunately, liberals (progressives...or whatever they call themselves these days) have NOT learned from history. They still espouse that "socialism will work...this time"! We must protect the Constitution from being weakened by the liberal drive to circumvent it.

At the top of the list is the admission that politics is a prevalent force in our nation’s governance. Once political considerations are put on the table and are addressed, the methodologies of mitigating what Washington called the “baneful effects of party” can be addressed. Put another way, the first step in solving a problem is to admit that there is one. We have a problem; its name is politics and it will not go away.

The first step in the liberal's mind to generate more control over the people is to define a problem....then to regulate whatever it is they think contributes to that "problem". Example: retirement funding...the government can do a better job of managing retirement funds than individuals can do for themselves. This is a falacy. The government cannot do ANYTHING better than private enterprise...simply because the government is THE most inefficient gathering of paid non-workers and would be decision makers (controllers of others) in the world.

What steps do we take to mitigate the effects of politics?

Simple...reduce the size of government. Government then gets less done in the way of regulating people's activities and the people enjoy more freedoms.

The Constitution gives us a great system of checks and balances where one branch of the government can check the intentions and actions of another branch. It is genius. The rivalries that are born out of the document are, perhaps, the greatest thing about the Constitution. The founding fathers—through the adoption of the document—clearly did not want Congress to trust the President or the Courts to trust the rule of Congress or that the President to be totally restrained in effecting either—thus giving the Chief Executive the veto power and the power to appoint judges. Yes; the founder put in place a system of checks and balances. But while they wanted distrust; they didn’t want—from all indications of the Constitution—is the disrespect between the bodies and, in the case of Congress, within the bodies themselves. The Constitution needs to be further perfected to ensure that one house of Congress should be required to hear the full work of the other house in a timely fashion; a straight up or down vote on the work submitted by the other house.

Mistrust is NOT likely what they had in mind. They wanted to preclude one branch running roughshod over the others. Asking for co-signing on checks is not a sign of mistrust.

Currently, the party leadership makes the determination of what bills are considered and the result has been unparalleled gridlock and the people’s business languishes as a result. A straight up or down vote may merely result in more bills being voted down than ever before. This is fine. That is what representatives do in a republic such as ours. However, when doing the peoples’ business, the record of the representative’s votes will be more detailed and there will be no more hiding behind party leadership to shield a member of the body from having to take a stand. A vote of “present” should be done away with. The member is elected to serve the people of his or her state or district. Surely it isn’t too much to ask that they read the bill and make an informed decision as to whether or not they support the bill. Where the matter isn’t brought up by the other chamber of the Congress, the Congress should be forced to hold floor votes to conduct the nations’ business.

You don't need to change the Constitution to change the rules of either the House or the Senate. Each one has a Rules Committee. Talk to your congressmen and encourage changes such as this.

When the President nominates federal judges, the Congress should have to consider those appointments in a timely fashion. It is a sign of disrespect to the jurists and to the people that nominations languish for months while the Senate refuses to hold nomination hearings.

Agree. I think the time allowed for hearings and votes is NOT controlled by the Constitution.

What is of equal disrespect to the nations’ citizenry is that Congress quite often is in session for less than one half of the calendar year. While this isn’t always the blight that it can be made out to be—members should be home in their communities as often as possible—most Americans are given ten federal holidays from work where businesses are closed. There are generally 104 weekend days in a year so 114 days out of 365 are non-session days. Comparatively few Americans work on weekends and while Congressional representation is a privilege that should only be bestowed on the best qualified; we shouldn’t expect the members to not have a life outside of their service to us. So 114 days are off the books without consideration. However, of the remaining 251 days in the year, Congress should be required to be in session no less than 167 of those days or 2/3 of the time. Another quarter of the remaining time—21 days—should be devoted to time spent in the community working to uncover the issues in their states and districts; holding hearings in the local chambers of commerce, meeting with community groups, etc… Members of the Senate may use the 21 days to visit foreign embassies, meet with other world leaders or do work that is otherwise in accordance with their more generalized office if they wish. The point is that for most of the time; 300-302 days, Congress should be doing the job they were elected to do; be it in Washington or in their communities.

Congressmen have part time jobs and full time pay. This should be remedied, but not by changing the Constitution. Since the Congressmen write all the laws, rules and regulations it will be difficult to take anything away from them....such as vacation time.

State’s rights are not spelled out by the Constitution except to say that rights not defined should be given to the states. What is “defined” or not has put many people through law school in this nation. The States have been, at times, poor stewards of their responsibilities. Never more so has this been true when drawing Congressional boundaries or Gerrymandering as it is called. The word processor on which I am typing this recognized the word “gerrymandering” so it is a thing that has become part of our lexicon. For those who do not know, the word comes from the root “gerrymander” which was a mythical creature. Someone once used the term to describe the shape of a congressional district that was drawn to either favor one group or injure another. The Constitution needs to be further perfected to stop this practice. It’s hard to imagine a system that is less respectful to the nation as a whole than to have these districts drawn to ensure a seat in the House of Representatives remains in the hands of one party or the other. District lines should be abolished all together. In their place, a non-contiguous grouping of persons by population needs to be implemented. I recommend it be done by zip codes via a lottery system. Call the more populous zip codes category A, moderately populated, category B, rural as category C. Then you take all of the A’s, B’s, and C’s and assign a district numbers via a lottery system as to where each district has roughly the same number of people. Then assign a legislator to a district every 10 years based on the census. He or she may have a district that has both Miami and Jacksonville neighborhoods but what we have now isn’t equitable and is seemingly totally at the whim of whichever party happens to hold the pen that draws congressional boundaries.
“Safe” seats will be a thing of the past in most cases. And seats that have historically belonged to one ethnicity or another will vanish over time as well. If this can be combined with campaign finance reform; there will be significant process into amplifying the voices of the voters over those of special interest.

Constitutional perfections need to be added to the Court system as well. I do not feel that 30 year terms for Supreme Court Justices is out of the question.

I would urge the Constitution to be further perfected to abolish Presidential pardons and bestow that power to the Supreme Court so that legal experts can consider the cases that are truly in need of review without the election cycle being a consideration. In an election year, those who are being considered for a pardon are often at the whim of the Electoral College since a President who gets a second term is more conscious of political fallout than one that doesn’t have a second term coming their way. These extraordinary circumstances that are by definition matters of law should be decided by the high court. A simple 5-4 majority would be needed to overturn part of a conviction or commute a sentence.

Where the Constitution is currently silent, voice needs to be added. Where the Constitution speaks, silence should be advised in some cases. In the last seventy years, Presidents have moved troops in and out of harm’s way totally without Constitutional authority outside of the stipulation that he is Commander in Chief. Congress shall have the power to declare war. It says so in the Constitution. The document needs to be perfected to mean just that; we don’t move troops into harm’s way without Congressional approval. This can be done with proxies given to party leaders as to expedite the decision or if the members do not wish to give proxies, they have to be notified for a vote on whether or not to commit troops. Wars fought for convenience or with murky goals in mind should be abolished all together.

There are endless avenues to travel down to further perfect the document. I think it should be regularly perfected. I wouldn’t be comfortable with anything more often than seventy years or so with the understanding that the amendment process will still be available in the meantime. We do not know what the founders didn’t write in the document. We can speculate on their intent but the document we have is ill-suited to the 22nd century realities.

There is no need for drastic changes to the Constitution.

What we need today is to force Barrack Obama to comply with his oath: (from the Constitution)

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

He took that oath...he's just not honoring it. Obama is a liar, an anti-American, an impostor and totally inadequate to be our President.

 

[candycorn]

How to fix it:

As many, if not most, of you know I am a big proponent of further perfecting the Constitution.

...such a narcissist you are. I hardly ever read your novels.

It was written by men so, therefore, it is imperfect. Furthermore, it was written during a period in our nation’s history when the threads that were weaving the American fabric were not yet tested for strength; much less how they would fit together to form the parent cloth. It is even true that the framers of the Constitution recognized that their first gambit in the birth of the American nation was not working a mere eleven years into the experiment. The Articles of Confederation were judged to be unsuitable by the cadre of leaders so they sought to forge a new document that would correct the mistakes of the past. Why is it then that we, 225 years later, are too timid to make such an observation? Certainly the eleven year span between 1776 to 1787 witnessed miniscule changes when compared to the massive transformations our country has seen in the last 225. So why not seek to further perfect the document from our advantageous position that comes along with being a witness to history; from learning from one’s mistakes and making the simple realization that the men of those first formative years of the American experiment could not possibly have forecasted the metamorphosis that has transpired over the last two and a quarter centuries?

Unfortunately, liberals (progressives...or whatever they call themselves these days) have NOT learned from history. They still espouse that "socialism will work...this time"! We must protect the Constitution from being weakened by the liberal drive to circumvent it.

The first step in the liberal's mind to generate more control over the people is to define a problem....then to regulate whatever it is they think contributes to that "problem". Example: retirement funding...the government can do a better job of managing retirement funds than individuals can do for themselves. This is a falacy. The government cannot do ANYTHING better than private enterprise...simply because the government is THE most inefficient gathering of paid non-workers and would be decision makers (controllers of others) in the world.

Simple...reduce the size of government. Government then gets less done in the way of regulating people's activities and the people enjoy more freedoms.

Mistrust is NOT likely what they had in mind. They wanted to preclude one branch running roughshod over the others. Asking for co-signing on checks is not a sign of mistrust.



You don't need to change the Constitution to change the rules of either the House or the Senate. Each one has a Rules Committee. Talk to your congressmen and encourage changes such as this.







Agree. I think the time allowed for hearings and votes is NOT controlled by the Constitution.

What is of equal disrespect to the nations’ citizenry is that Congress quite often is in session for less than one half of the calendar year. While this isn’t always the blight that it can be made out to be—members should be home in their communities as often as possible—most Americans are given ten federal holidays from work where businesses are closed. There are generally 104 weekend days in a year so 114 days out of 365 are non-session days. Comparatively few Americans work on weekends and while Congressional representation is a privilege that should only be bestowed on the best qualified; we shouldn’t expect the members to not have a life outside of their service to us. So 114 days are off the books without consideration. However, of the remaining 251 days in the year, Congress should be required to be in session no less than 167 of those days or 2/3 of the time. Another quarter of the remaining time—21 days—should be devoted to time spent in the community working to uncover the issues in their states and districts; holding hearings in the local chambers of commerce, meeting with community groups, etc… Members of the Senate may use the 21 days to visit foreign embassies, meet with other world leaders or do work that is otherwise in accordance with their more generalized office if they wish. The point is that for most of the time; 300-302 days, Congress should be doing the job they were elected to do; be it in Washington or in their communities.

Congressmen have part time jobs and full time pay. This should be remedied, but not by changing the Constitution. Since the Congressmen write all the laws, rules and regulations it will be difficult to take anything away from them....such as vacation time.

State’s rights are not spelled out by the Constitution except to say that rights not defined should be given to the states. What is “defined” or not has put many people through law school in this nation. The States have been, at times, poor stewards of their responsibilities. Never more so has this been true when drawing Congressional boundaries or Gerrymandering as it is called. The word processor on which I am typing this recognized the word “gerrymandering” so it is a thing that has become part of our lexicon. For those who do not know, the word comes from the root “gerrymander” which was a mythical creature. Someone once used the term to describe the shape of a congressional district that was drawn to either favor one group or injure another. The Constitution needs to be further perfected to stop this practice. It’s hard to imagine a system that is less respectful to the nation as a whole than to have these districts drawn to ensure a seat in the House of Representatives remains in the hands of one party or the other. District lines should be abolished all together. In their place, a non-contiguous grouping of persons by population needs to be implemented. I recommend it be done by zip codes via a lottery system. Call the more populous zip codes category A, moderately populated, category B, rural as category C. Then you take all of the A’s, B’s, and C’s and assign a district numbers via a lottery system as to where each district has roughly the same number of people. Then assign a legislator to a district every 10 years based on the census. He or she may have a district that has both Miami and Jacksonville neighborhoods but what we have now isn’t equitable and is seemingly totally at the whim of whichever party happens to hold the pen that draws congressional boundaries.
“Safe” seats will be a thing of the past in most cases. And seats that have historically belonged to one ethnicity or another will vanish over time as well. If this can be combined with campaign finance reform; there will be significant process into amplifying the voices of the voters over those of special interest.

Constitutional perfections need to be added to the Court system as well. I do not feel that 30 year terms for Supreme Court Justices is out of the question.

I would urge the Constitution to be further perfected to abolish Presidential pardons and bestow that power to the Supreme Court so that legal experts can consider the cases that are truly in need of review without the election cycle being a consideration. In an election year, those who are being considered for a pardon are often at the whim of the Electoral College since a President who gets a second term is more conscious of political fallout than one that doesn’t have a second term coming their way. These extraordinary circumstances that are by definition matters of law should be decided by the high court. A simple 5-4 majority would be needed to overturn part of a conviction or commute a sentence.

Where the Constitution is currently silent, voice needs to be added. Where the Constitution speaks, silence should be advised in some cases. In the last seventy years, Presidents have moved troops in and out of harm’s way totally without Constitutional authority outside of the stipulation that he is Commander in Chief. Congress shall have the power to declare war. It says so in the Constitution. The document needs to be perfected to mean just that; we don’t move troops into harm’s way without Congressional approval. This can be done with proxies given to party leaders as to expedite the decision or if the members do not wish to give proxies, they have to be notified for a vote on whether or not to commit troops. Wars fought for convenience or with murky goals in mind should be abolished all together.

There are endless avenues to travel down to further perfect the document. I think it should be regularly perfected. I wouldn’t be comfortable with anything more often than seventy years or so with the understanding that the amendment process will still be available in the meantime. We do not know what the founders didn’t write in the document. We can speculate on their intent but the document we have is ill-suited to the 22nd century realities.

There is no need for drastic changes to the Constitution.

What we need today is to force Barrack Obama to comply with his oath: (from the Constitution)

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

He took that oath...he's just not honoring it. Obama is a liar, an anti-American, an impostor and totally inadequate to be our President.

Not much worth responding to really.

We are trillions in debt. Congress allocated every penny. Like it or not, Congress is the only body on earth that can remedy the situation. Politically the choices are unappetizing so nothing gets done. Asking the Congress to change the rules...the idea reeks of a naivety that is usually reserved for neophytes.

Presidents of both parties have circumvented the Constitution when it pleased them. Since Obama is the president currently, he should get the most popular blame. To act as though he was the only one whose done it is a fascinating version of history.

 

[asaratis]

How to fix it:

As many, if not most, of you know I am a big proponent of further perfecting the Constitution.

...such a narcissist you are. I hardly ever read your novels.

Unfortunately, liberals (progressives...or whatever they call themselves these days) have NOT learned from history. They still espouse that "socialism will work...this time"! We must protect the Constitution from being weakened by the liberal drive to circumvent it.

The first step in the liberal's mind to generate more control over the people is to define a problem....then to regulate whatever it is they think contributes to that "problem". Example: retirement funding...the government can do a better job of managing retirement funds than individuals can do for themselves. This is a falacy. The government cannot do ANYTHING better than private enterprise...simply because the government is THE most inefficient gathering of paid non-workers and would be decision makers (controllers of others) in the world.

Simple...reduce the size of government. Government then gets less done in the way of regulating people's activities and the people enjoy more freedoms.

Mistrust is NOT likely what they had in mind. They wanted to preclude one branch running roughshod over the others. Asking for co-signing on checks is not a sign of mistrust.



You don't need to change the Constitution to change the rules of either the House or the Senate. Each one has a Rules Committee. Talk to your congressmen and encourage changes such as this.







Agree. I think the time allowed for hearings and votes is NOT controlled by the Constitution.

Congressmen have part time jobs and full time pay. This should be remedied, but not by changing the Constitution. Since the Congressmen write all the laws, rules and regulations it will be difficult to take anything away from them....such as vacation time.

State’s rights are not spelled out by the Constitution except to say that rights not defined should be given to the states. What is “defined” or not has put many people through law school in this nation. The States have been, at times, poor stewards of their responsibilities. Never more so has this been true when drawing Congressional boundaries or Gerrymandering as it is called. The word processor on which I am typing this recognized the word “gerrymandering” so it is a thing that has become part of our lexicon. For those who do not know, the word comes from the root “gerrymander” which was a mythical creature. Someone once used the term to describe the shape of a congressional district that was drawn to either favor one group or injure another. The Constitution needs to be further perfected to stop this practice. It’s hard to imagine a system that is less respectful to the nation as a whole than to have these districts drawn to ensure a seat in the House of Representatives remains in the hands of one party or the other. District lines should be abolished all together. In their place, a non-contiguous grouping of persons by population needs to be implemented. I recommend it be done by zip codes via a lottery system. Call the more populous zip codes category A, moderately populated, category B, rural as category C. Then you take all of the A’s, B’s, and C’s and assign a district numbers via a lottery system as to where each district has roughly the same number of people. Then assign a legislator to a district every 10 years based on the census. He or she may have a district that has both Miami and Jacksonville neighborhoods but what we have now isn’t equitable and is seemingly totally at the whim of whichever party happens to hold the pen that draws congressional boundaries.
“Safe” seats will be a thing of the past in most cases. And seats that have historically belonged to one ethnicity or another will vanish over time as well. If this can be combined with campaign finance reform; there will be significant process into amplifying the voices of the voters over those of special interest.

Constitutional perfections need to be added to the Court system as well. I do not feel that 30 year terms for Supreme Court Justices is out of the question.

I would urge the Constitution to be further perfected to abolish Presidential pardons and bestow that power to the Supreme Court so that legal experts can consider the cases that are truly in need of review without the election cycle being a consideration. In an election year, those who are being considered for a pardon are often at the whim of the Electoral College since a President who gets a second term is more conscious of political fallout than one that doesn’t have a second term coming their way. These extraordinary circumstances that are by definition matters of law should be decided by the high court. A simple 5-4 majority would be needed to overturn part of a conviction or commute a sentence.

Where the Constitution is currently silent, voice needs to be added. Where the Constitution speaks, silence should be advised in some cases. In the last seventy years, Presidents have moved troops in and out of harm’s way totally without Constitutional authority outside of the stipulation that he is Commander in Chief. Congress shall have the power to declare war. It says so in the Constitution. The document needs to be perfected to mean just that; we don’t move troops into harm’s way without Congressional approval. This can be done with proxies given to party leaders as to expedite the decision or if the members do not wish to give proxies, they have to be notified for a vote on whether or not to commit troops. Wars fought for convenience or with murky goals in mind should be abolished all together.

There are endless avenues to travel down to further perfect the document. I think it should be regularly perfected. I wouldn’t be comfortable with anything more often than seventy years or so with the understanding that the amendment process will still be available in the meantime. We do not know what the founders didn’t write in the document. We can speculate on their intent but the document we have is ill-suited to the 22nd century realities.

There is no need for drastic changes to the Constitution.

What we need today is to force Barrack Obama to comply with his oath: (from the Constitution)

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

He took that oath...he's just not honoring it. Obama is a liar, an anti-American, an impostor and totally inadequate to be our President.

Not much worth responding to really.

We are trillions in debt. Congress allocated every penny. Like it or not, Congress is the only body on earth that can remedy the situation. Politically the choices are unappetizing so nothing gets done. Asking the Congress to change the rules...the idea reeks of a naivety that is usually reserved for neophytes.

Presidents of both parties have circumvented the Constitution when it pleased them. Since Obama is the president currently, he should get the most popular blame. To act as though he was the only one whose done it is a fascinating version of history.

Don't be smug.

I haven't said that the Marxist is the only one to ignore the Constitution. I just can't can't think of any major occasions attributed to the three that preceded him.

Electing congressmen that might actually vote the will of the people they represent would be a good start. Changing the Constitution is more difficult than changing the rules of House and Senate.

Term limits would be nice, but who in Congress is willing to cut his own term short?

You are right about one thing. It will be hard to get Congress to make any changes. Members have a free ride for life after getting elected...they exempt themselves from whatever laws they want to (like Obamacare).

Who do you propose should write the changes to the Constitution? You?

 

[candycorn]

I haven't said that the Marxist is the only one to ignore the Constitution. I just can't can't think of any major occasions attributed to the three that preceded him.

Electing congressmen that might actually vote the will of the people they represent would be a good start. Changing the Constitution is more difficult than changing the rules of House and Senate.

Since you're now engaging, I'll return the favor:


If the Senate of 2012 can make the rules for the Senate of 2012, wouldn't it stand to reason that the Senate of 2014 can make the rules for the Senate of 2014? Legislation written in private, de-facto pocket vetoes, cloture is at 60 now; why not drop it to 45? Or 55? Or raise it to 70? Do away with the filibuster all togther? If there are no rules except the ones made by the players, there are no rules. Thats the point. There are traditions and customs but those are at the whim of the majority.

Term limits would be nice, but who in Congress is willing to cut his own term short?

Term limits are bad ideas because it defies the will of the electors. I am against term limits.

You are right about one thing. It will be hard to get Congress to make any changes. Members have a free ride for life after getting elected...they exempt themselves from whatever laws they want to (like Obamacare).

Who do you propose should write the changes to the Constitution? You?

I would want the Deans of law schools involved, some of the current elected officials, several governors from states of all sizes, some supreme court justices.

Above all else, I would have it go into effect 8-14 years after it is ratified by the states. So there is no real correlation between those officials and the rules that will take effect after many are out of office.

 

[there4eyeM]

"...having 2 parties causes a NATURAL roadblock to the function of Congress and allows each party to SWEAR it's gonna resolve the Congressional rules and open up the process. When they achieve power -- nothing happens. Even a token amount of 3rd party and Independent representatives would shed light on the issues. A disloyal party member right now has no where to go if they defy Party leadership. If they speak out or don't toe the line, they will be operating out of closet 5 blocks from Capitol Hill and facing a Party backed candidate in the next primary.. This party ALLEGIANCE would be broken down as soon as Americans understand there is no REQUIREMENT to vote either REP or DEM. You make easier for representatives to DEFY their party and run as INDEPENDENTS or 3rd party and a lot of your problems here simply go away... Better politicians, Better Voters, Better parties. Don't blame the Constitution."

This is more 'where it's at'.

 

[asaratis]

I haven't said that the Marxist is the only one to ignore the Constitution. I just can't can't think of any major occasions attributed to the three that preceded him.

Electing congressmen that might actually vote the will of the people they represent would be a good start. Changing the Constitution is more difficult than changing the rules of House and Senate.

Since you're now engaging, I'll return the favor:


If the Senate of 2012 can make the rules for the Senate of 2012, wouldn't it stand to reason that the Senate of 2014 can make the rules for the Senate of 2014? Legislation written in private, de-facto pocket vetoes, cloture is at 60 now; why not drop it to 45? Or 55? Or raise it to 70? Do away with the filibuster all togther? If there are no rules except the ones made by the players, there are no rules. Thats the point. There are traditions and customs but those are at the whim of the majority.

I think they do NOT start with a brand new set of rules for each congress. They amend, add to and delete from the rules they already have...and they have PLENTY of them.

Term limits would be nice, but who in Congress is willing to cut his own term short?

Term limits are bad ideas because it defies the will of the electors. I am against term limits.

Really? We have term limits on Presidents.

You are right about one thing. It will be hard to get Congress to make any changes. Members have a free ride for life after getting elected...they exempt themselves from whatever laws they want to (like Obamacare).

Who do you propose should write the changes to the Constitution? You?

I would want the Deans of law schools involved, some of the current elected officials, several governors from states of all sizes, some supreme court justices.

Above all else, I would have it go into effect 8-14 years after it is ratified by the states. So there is no real correlation between those officials and the rules that will take effect after many are out of office.

You place a lot of trust in titles, do you? ...and who would pick these people? ...maybe we could get Rod Blagojevich to help...he's a former governor?...or maybe someone like Al Franken? ...are you to require ratification by a number of state legislatures (like we do now for amendments)