The Seven changes to the Constitution that Ricky Perry wants.

[code1211]

1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.

Lifetime appointments make the process as free from partisan politics as possible. There is no way a judge can rule in good faith knowing he could be removed per a decision he might make. Most of the re-establishment of our basic freedoms resulted from jurists’ courage to make decisions based on the rule of law, not the fear, ignorance, and hate of the people.

[...]

While I agree with most of what you've said I have a problem with that reasoning.

I believe a judge's ruling should be predicated on innate awareness of the will of the People rather than on his/her personal sense of right and wrong. If two thirds of the People believe there should be a death penalty a good judge will have the acuity to know that and will rule accordingly. The judge who opposes that will is better suited for journalism or theology than judiciary.

I am less interested in a judge's personal courage than in his/her willingness to serve the will of the People. The Law, the courts and the judiciary are a mechanism, not a divinity.

And if the "will of the people" includes the need to lynch anybody of a different race who looks at a woman of my race? A father who kills his daughter because she dated a young man of a different faith?

A nation of laws is a better place to live than a nation of mob rule.

 

[code1211]

Lifetime appointments make the process as free from partisan politics as possible. There is no way a judge can rule in good faith knowing he could be removed per a decision he might make. Most of the re-establishment of our basic freedoms resulted from jurists’ courage to make decisions based on the rule of law, not the fear, ignorance, and hate of the people.

[...]

While I agree with most of what you've said I have a problem with that reasoning.

I believe a judge's ruling should be predicated on innate awareness of the will of the People rather than on his/her personal sense of right and wrong. If two thirds of the People believe there should be a death penalty a good judge will have the acuity to know that and will rule accordingly. The judge who opposes that will is better suited for journalism or theology than judiciary.

I am less interested in a judge's personal courage than in his/her willingness to serve the will of the People. The Law, the courts and the judiciary are a mechanism, not a divinity.

So if the will of the people is "gays are felons" or "blacks should be slaves", then "right/wrong" goes out the window? Hmmm, interesting view of "justice".

I find myself in agreement with you. I'll have to check my ID.

 

[code1211]

While I agree with most of what you've said I have a problem with that reasoning.

I believe a judge's ruling should be predicated on innate awareness of the will of the People rather than on his/her personal sense of right and wrong. If two thirds of the People believe there should be a death penalty a good judge will have the acuity to know that and will rule accordingly. The judge who opposes that will is better suited for journalism or theology than judiciary.

I am less interested in a judge's personal courage than in his/her willingness to serve the will of the People. The Law, the courts and the judiciary are a mechanism, not a divinity.

So if the will of the people is "gays are felons" or "blacks should be slaves", then "right/wrong" goes out the window? Hmmm, interesting view of "justice".

Whether you or I like it or not gays were felons and Blacks were slaves throughout most of American history. Those rules were changed only because the justices involved in changing them realized the will of the majority of Americans had become receptive to it.


<snip>

.

Your understanding of the sequence of events is wrong. The Constitution clearly stated that the ideas of slavery and repression of gay rights were wrong. HOWEVER, bowing to the prevailing social and community standards restrained the judges and justices from enforcing law or rendering rulings that would upset the appplecart of public opinion.

So when Dred Scot revealed that slavery was okay or Plessy showed that Separate could be Equal or Brown struck down the preceeding, all were reflective of the community standards and the first two were in violation of American law while being in compliance with precedent and, more importantly to the rulings, your treasured "will of the majority of the American people".

In general, activist judges are bowing to biases that have little to do with law and more to do with their own internal goals and agendas. This is true of judges who are Klansmen who maintain the laws of segregation, Progressives who strike down the property rights of individuals or Environmentalists who eliminate jobs of industry destroying communities.

Justice rarely exists in mobs and mob rule rarely produces justice.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

Perry has to be scaring the cr@p out of the lads prancing away down in the NYT's all male conga line, while their Socialist "Wet Dream" languishes away in the polls, looking very much like a One Termer.
But I'm sure should Perry get elected they'll go to work on undermining him and his every actions just like they undermined his predecessor, GWB. Mssrs Lichtblau and Riesen will see to that.
All the news that fit for you to know down at the NYT.

 

[bitterlyclingin]

From Conservative:
"Imagine the reaction from the left if Bush had said...
“We had reversed the recession, avoided a depression, got the economy moving again. .&#8201;.&#8201;. But over the last six months, we’ve had a run of bad luck.” "


American farmers would never have to buy a bag of fertilizer again. The excrement subsequently hurled would cover everything within blocks of any newspaper, university, city hall, union hall, or any other institution that Liberals are known to congregate around.

 

[code1211]

Perry has to be scaring the cr@p out of the lads prancing away down in the NYT's all male conga line, while their Socialist "Wet Dream" languishes away in the polls, looking very much like a One Termer.
But I'm sure should Perry get elected they'll go to work on undermining him and his every actions just like they undermined his predecessor, GWB. Mssrs Lichtblau and Riesen will see to that.
All the news that fit for you to know down at the NYT.

The problem with the understqanding of the MSM is that sooner or later, they simply can't wash the stink off. It does not require an incisive intellect to know that there's a problem if you've been out fo work for two years.

If the MSM is saying that the Big 0 is doing the very best job that could be done in this imperfect world, one might strive to determine if they are wrong or if there is some explanation for why they are spreading this lie.

Reagan came 0.18% of the vote in Minnesota from carrying 50 states in his re-election. This was done in the face of a MSM assault that charged him with being stupid, senile, corrupt, heartless, mean spitited and out of touch.

Turns out the public had a view not endorsed by MSNBC. Go figure.

By the by, you don't need to wait for the attacks on Perry to start. They in full swing right now. I had to turn off Meet the Depressed this morning as the "balanced" panel comprised of Liberals and Socialists all took a turn bashing him after the moderator did so.

Are they really disseminating information or are they pushing an agenda? It's a trick question.

 

[geauxtohell]

Good luck amending the Constitution 7 times in four years.

I'm sure the plan is for 8 years. That's less than 1 a year. Doable... in some minds.

Immie

Between 1789 and 2011, the constitution has only been amended 17 times. One of those was prohibition and the other was the repeal of prohibition.

So, unless some sort of amendment fervor sweeps the nation, I am not going to hold my breath that Perry is going to cram 8 amendments through in 4-8 years.

People should be weary of amending the constitution. It could have unforeseen consequences. Prohibition led to the rise or organized crime in this country.

It's a little ironic that people who claim to be strict constitutionalists want to whip out their red pen.

On a side note, do you really want to take the power of electing Senators out of the hands of the people and into the hands of the dumbass congress?

Yeah. Yet's empower our elected officials even more and really breed some cronyism.

 

[Immanuel]

Good luck amending the Constitution 7 times in four years.

I'm sure the plan is for 8 years. That's less than 1 a year. Doable... in some minds.

Immie

Between 1789 and 2011, the constitution has only been amended 17 times. One of those was prohibition and the other was the repeal of prohibition.

So, unless some sort of amendment fervor sweeps the nation, I am not going to hold my breath that Perry is going to cram 8 amendments through in 4-8 years.

People should be weary of amending the constitution. It could have unforeseen consequences. Prohibition led to the rise or organized crime in this country.

It's a little ironic that people who claim to be strict constitutionalists want to whip out their red pen.

On a side note, do you really want to take the power of electing Senators out of the hands of the people and into the hands of the dumbass congress?

Yeah. Yet's empower our elected officials even more and really breed some cronyism.

Before I respond to your response, let me make sure you understand I was being facetious.

Immie

 

[Big Fitz]

1st, Perry can 'want' anything he feels like wanting... it's a free country.
2nd, he can't 'get' the changes unless Congress, the Senate, and 37 states agree.
3rd, here's the list of what he 'wanted'...

1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.
I'm OK with this. A lifetime appointment is a ticket to do whatever you want without repercussion

2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.
I'm not OK with this. It removes an important check/balance.

3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.
I' might be OK with this, depending on how it is done, and how the federal government decides to get it's funding without it.

4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.
I'm not OK with this. I feel it's important to have a say in who represents you in the government.

5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.
I'm VERY OK with this. If I have to balance my budget, why shouldn't the federal government. Most states have some type of balanced budget provision in their state constitution.

6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.
I'm not OK with this. I have religious/personal reasons for not approving of homosexuality. However, I am neither judge, nor jury. Nor would I want to be. It is not up to me to decide that people of the same sex who love each other are not entitled to the same protections and benefits that opposite sex couples routinely enjoy. I don't think it's up to the federal government wither.

7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.
I'm undecided on this issue, and will not take a stance at this time.

1, 3, 4, and 5, no problem.

2. Change it to require a 2/3rds for any new law or regulation created by judicial fiat to balance legislating from the bench.

6 and 7 are states rights issues and should remain that way removing the federal role from it completely.

 

[geauxtohell]

I'm sure the plan is for 8 years. That's less than 1 a year. Doable... in some minds.

Immie

Between 1789 and 2011, the constitution has only been amended 17 times. One of those was prohibition and the other was the repeal of prohibition.

So, unless some sort of amendment fervor sweeps the nation, I am not going to hold my breath that Perry is going to cram 8 amendments through in 4-8 years.

People should be weary of amending the constitution. It could have unforeseen consequences. Prohibition led to the rise or organized crime in this country.

It's a little ironic that people who claim to be strict constitutionalists want to whip out their red pen.

On a side note, do you really want to take the power of electing Senators out of the hands of the people and into the hands of the dumbass congress?

Yeah. Yet's empower our elected officials even more and really breed some cronyism.

Before I respond to your response, let me make sure you understand I was being facetious.

Immie

Ohhhhhhh..............................

 

[Immanuel]

Between 1789 and 2011, the constitution has only been amended 17 times. One of those was prohibition and the other was the repeal of prohibition.

So, unless some sort of amendment fervor sweeps the nation, I am not going to hold my breath that Perry is going to cram 8 amendments through in 4-8 years.

People should be weary of amending the constitution. It could have unforeseen consequences. Prohibition led to the rise or organized crime in this country.

It's a little ironic that people who claim to be strict constitutionalists want to whip out their red pen.

On a side note, do you really want to take the power of electing Senators out of the hands of the people and into the hands of the dumbass congress?

Yeah. Yet's empower our elected officials even more and really breed some cronyism.

Before I respond to your response, let me make sure you understand I was being facetious.

Immie

Ohhhhhhh..............................

It wasn't exactly evident, but come on 7 amendments in 8 years with our record thus far? And look at the ERA? Look how long it has been around and still hasn't passed.

Now, to further the discussion of the issues you brought up...

I am wary of just amending the Constitution in such a manner. Hell, it causes enough troubles as it is with everyone interpreting it in whatever many they see fit these days.

I would not call myself a "strict constitutionalist" but I do try to understand the Constitution as literally as possible and I did not suggest, whipping out the red pen either.

On a side note, do you really want to take the power of electing Senators out of the hands of the people and into the hands of the dumbass congress?

Into the hands of the U.S. Congress? No. I haven't followed this idea of repealing the 17th amendment too closely because I don't think it will go anywhere, but my understanding was that if the amendment was repealed we would return to how things were done before the 17th amendment was ratified and the State Legislature would choose the two Senators.

Not that I really like that idea much better than the "dumbass" Congress making that decision.

As for your last sentence there: let's not and say we did.

Immie

 

[code1211]

Good luck amending the Constitution 7 times in four years.

I'm sure the plan is for 8 years. That's less than 1 a year. Doable... in some minds.

Immie

Between 1789 and 2011, the constitution has only been amended 17 times. One of those was prohibition and the other was the repeal of prohibition.

So, unless some sort of amendment fervor sweeps the nation, I am not going to hold my breath that Perry is going to cram 8 amendments through in 4-8 years.

People should be weary of amending the constitution. It could have unforeseen consequences. Prohibition led to the rise or organized crime in this country.

It's a little ironic that people who claim to be strict constitutionalists want to whip out their red pen.

On a side note, do you really want to take the power of electing Senators out of the hands of the people and into the hands of the dumbass congress? Yeah. Yet's empower our elected officials even more and really breed some cronyism.

The selection of the Senators according to the cConstitution was in the hands of the State Governments. The people elect the Congressmen and the State Governments select their Senators. "Chosen by their legislatures" is pretty close to what it says.

By this method, the framers had the people electing one house while the states' governments elected the other: One house is democrat and the other is republican. Not party identifiers, government types. Since we are a represntative Repubublic, this pretty much serves to define the form of government by the method of selecting Representatives:

Congressmen represent the people.

Senators represent the states.

A return to this method of selecting Senators would return IMHO the country to a more "States Rights" attitude. I would not be opposed to it.

 

[Mustang]

Seven ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

Now we know why secession was such an acceptable idea to Perry. He hates America and the US Constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So, unless some sort of amendment fervor sweeps the nation, I am not going to hold my breath that Perry is going to cram 8 amendments through in 4-8 years.

No, Perry’s amendment fantasy would never come to reality.

But he would appoint judges and justices, whose decisions could have an adverse impact on the rights and liberties of individual Americans, particularly with regard to local jurisdictions.

 

[Liberty]

if he is for or against proposed amendments...what is the problem? The amendment process is there for a reason...you people need to read your constitutions.