The Seven changes to the Constitution that Ricky Perry wants.

[Quantum Windbag]

he doesnt like judges because Scotus ruled his "gays are bad law" was unconstitutional.

Sounds like he wants more power to me.

D'oh. He is running for the nomination to run for president. No one does that unless they want power.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Actually the 16th Amendment doesn’t grant Congress new ‘taxing authority,’ it modified Article I, Section 9, Clause 4. The Amendment was a response to the Supreme Court’s striking down as un-Constitutional the Federal Income Tax Act of 1894. Congress could still pass an income tax act, which might again be subject to a challenge.

You make a claim, and then prove you are wrong. That takes amazing ignorance, no wonder you think SCOTUS rulings become part of the Constitution.

The 16th Amendment specifically gave Congress the power to collect taxes and then reapportion them according to their whim, not according to the limits set down in Article 1 Section 9 which required that all money collected from one state be returned to that state at according to the money collected and the population.

How is that not a new power?

 

[Qball]

Besides #4, I'm more or less okay with those. I wouldn't agree with a federal definition of marriage, but I would like for the constitution to basically reflect DoMA. Where the federal government defines marriage as the union of a man and woman, but states are few to define it however they want, and incentivize those marriages however they see fit.

 

[MikeK]

I was just thinking we hadn't had a Rick Perry thread in about 5 minutes...

Kudos on your cut and paste, though...

YOu ever notice that there are all these Perry threads and almost no Romney threads?

So you have to wonder who the Usual Suspects are more afraid of.

I don't know if I'm considered a "usual suspect" or not but I understand the Perry mentality and I am definitely afraid of it.

 

[rdean]

I suspect Perry strongly agrees with the Texas State Republican Party Platform to make gay marriage a "felony" punishable with prison.

 

[MikeK]

You're delusional.

W was a big governement, free spending Liberal. The Big 0 is W on Steroids. What have you been watching/reading that passes for information? The Big 0 is doing everything that W did and more. If Perry's initial quotes are representative of his beliefs, he's the opposite of both.

Destroy the Middle Class? The Middle class was suffering under Bush, suffering under Carter, but came back to life under Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton.

Did you happen to miss that? It was in all the papers.

You need to throw away your party label glasses and try to see the world as it is, not as the media would have you see it.

Like it or not, when the president works with the opposition, as did Reagan and Clinton, the country works better and prospers. This approach rises from having a vision of what is good and the wisdom and ability to see the path that will work and walk it.

When the president works to splinter the poulation, lies about everything to promote his party's agenda and continuously works to undermine democracy through expansion of of Washington agencies ignoring passed laws as the current moron in chief is doing, things get bad.

Expansion of the government in Washington is the implicit declaration that the people are weak idiots who are to be led, fed, bled and dead if it serves the will of the President.

You consider George W. Bush a Liberal because he started two wars without budgeting either one and at the same time he lowered taxes on his "have and have-more" cronies? That's what you think a Liberal is? And you say I'm delusional?

You must have Rush Limbaugh plugged directly into your brain, so I won't waste any time trying to reason with you. I believe you are beyond repair.

 

[geauxtohell]

Good luck amending the Constitution 7 times in four years.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Good luck amending the Constitution 7 times in four years.

He won't amend it once. He can't and he won't have the support. This is simply a wish list.

 

[MikeK]

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.

 

[daveman]

He does appear to be about as ignorant as the average Texan. Does that qualify him as a Constitutional scholar?

He doesn't seem to be as ignorant as the leftists who think just because Perry wants things he can change the Constitution.

 

[rdean]

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.

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".

 

[MikeK]

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".

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.

In the way of example; Martin Luther King had the kind of acuity in sensing the broad public mood which I referred to earlier and he had a very shrewd sense of political timing. Think about it: how far do you suppose his famous 1963 March on Washington would have gotten if he'd tried it in 1953? Or 1933? Not very far I can assure you. And if Rosa Parks had staged her bus-seating demonstration ten or twently years sooner she would quietly have been sentenced to work on the local pea farm for six months and we would never have heard her name.

The reason why both King and Parks were relatively successful in their efforts is the American People had for the most part intellectually outgrown the notions of racial supremacy and inferiority that sustained the evils of slavery and Jim Crow segregation for so long and were ready to throw them off. And although White America was not ready to openly express their willingness to set the negro free people like King and Parks sensed it and acted on it.

And their judgment was sound.

 

[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

 

[JimH52]

Perry is farther right than even bat shit crazy Bachmann...and some of his ideas are downright insane. He supports a state takeover and letting states opt out of SS.

The more he spouts these far right stances, the more he is turning off Independent voters. Go for it Ricky!

 

[JohnA]

Besides #4, I'm more or less okay with those. I wouldn't agree with a federal definition of marriage, but I would like for the constitution to basically reflect DoMA. Where the federal government defines marriage as the union of a man and woman, but states are few to define it however they want, and incentivize those marriages however they see fit.

the constitution is no place for moral definition .

 

[code1211]

Besides #4, I'm more or less okay with those. I wouldn't agree with a federal definition of marriage, but I would like for the constitution to basically reflect DoMA. Where the federal government defines marriage as the union of a man and woman, but states are few to define it however they want, and incentivize those marriages however they see fit.

As with Roe v Wade, I was under the impression that if the Feds pronounced a law on something, it became the boss over the similar statements from the states. Supremacy?

As soon as the feds start delving into something, whatever that something is changes. The change is rarely subtle.

It's like doing brain surgery with a jackhammer.

 

[code1211]

I was just thinking we hadn't had a Rick Perry thread in about 5 minutes...

Kudos on your cut and paste, though...

YOu ever notice that there are all these Perry threads and almost no Romney threads?

So you have to wonder who the Usual Suspects are more afraid of.

I don't know if I'm considered a "usual suspect" or not but I understand the Perry mentality and I am definitely afraid of it.

What is that mentality?

 

[code1211]

I suspect Perry strongly agrees with the Texas State Republican Party Platform to make gay marriage a "felony" punishable with prison.

Will he use the Big 0's approach and if he like the thought of something, just have the EPA enforce laws that don't exist?

 

[code1211]

You're delusional.

W was a big governement, free spending Liberal. The Big 0 is W on Steroids. What have you been watching/reading that passes for information? The Big 0 is doing everything that W did and more. If Perry's initial quotes are representative of his beliefs, he's the opposite of both.

Destroy the Middle Class? The Middle class was suffering under Bush, suffering under Carter, but came back to life under Reagan, Bush 41 and Clinton.

Did you happen to miss that? It was in all the papers.

You need to throw away your party label glasses and try to see the world as it is, not as the media would have you see it.

Like it or not, when the president works with the opposition, as did Reagan and Clinton, the country works better and prospers. This approach rises from having a vision of what is good and the wisdom and ability to see the path that will work and walk it.

When the president works to splinter the poulation, lies about everything to promote his party's agenda and continuously works to undermine democracy through expansion of of Washington agencies ignoring passed laws as the current moron in chief is doing, things get bad.

Expansion of the government in Washington is the implicit declaration that the people are weak idiots who are to be led, fed, bled and dead if it serves the will of the President.

You consider George W. Bush a Liberal because he started two wars without budgeting either one and at the same time he lowered taxes on his "have and have-more" cronies? That's what you think a Liberal is? And you say I'm delusional?

You must have Rush Limbaugh plugged directly into your brain, so I won't waste any time trying to reason with you. I believe you are beyond repair.

Politically, to me, any official who strives to centralize power away from the citizenry, who strives to spend more money to consolidate government or societal functions to a central government directed point, who strives to redistribute wealth especially without the treasure to do so or prefers to avoid the due process of law to accomplish his own ends through the exercise of government power is a Liberal.

What is your definition of a Liberal?

George Bush 43 did all of those things and the country is worse off as a result. The Big 0 is currently doing all of those things in a much bigger way and the country is teetering on the brink of dissolution.

On the other hand, a Consevative is one who follows due process, spends within the limits of the revenues, devolves power to the least centralized point that will still accomplish the task and allows those who earn wealth to spend it insofar as that is possible within a society based on laws.

Before you fly off on whatever tangent you have in mind with no tether to reality, please offer definitions as I did so we have a point of departure for the discussion. As of now, you strike me as a Party label slave.

If you cannot divorce your view of the world from you allegiance to your party, you. and we, are in trouble.

 

[code1211]

Good luck amending the Constitution 7 times in four years.

This is actually a pretty politically savvy move. It can't be done and yet demonstrates his support for the undoable.

"Yeah, yeah, yeah... I'm for that. I'll sign the thingy. Whatever. Now, let's balance the budget."

The social issues and the Amedments things are BS. Limit the spending. Create the environment that attracts the job producers and expand the tax base. Reinvigorate the manufacturing base and create or sign the trade agreements that will ignite the engine of the economy.

This isn't rocket science. Find out what attracts the job creators, then provide it.

If Brad Pitt and I both approach a nubile young lass declaring our intentions to get laid, which of us gets lucky?

Change the situation. Brad Pitt and I both do the same thing, but this time I offer a billion dollars to the young lass as an incentive.

Right now, when it comes to attracting business, the USA has to throw in a billion dollars. We need to transform ourselves into being Brad Pitt.