TheAgitator.com
Amend to That
Wednesday, February 25th, 2004Neal Boortz is suggesting new amendments to the Constitution.
The popular libertarian response to the “what amendments would you add” question is that we really only need to add one more, which would say, “and we mean it.”
I agree with Boortz on repealing the 17th Amendment. I’d also repeal the 16th. I’d probably add something in the language of the repeal of the 16th that would forbid government on any level from income withholding. There’s really no reason for government to know how much money we make. And it’s outright theft that government should be able to earn interest on our income by collecting our taxes early.
I like the Bricker Amendment, and the eminent domain and forfeiture amendments, too.
I have two others:
1) An amendment forbidding the delegation doctrine. That is, Congress can’t delegate its lawmaking power to federal agencies. Make Congress vote on every federal regulation which carries the force of law. Maybe then we can begin to cut down on those 10,000+ pages in the Federal Register.
2) An amendment that would sunset every law on the books five years after it’s passed, unless Congress voluntarily sunsets the law in a shorter period of time. Make every federal agency, program, handout, regulation and law come up for review — if not, it expires. There’s no way Congress could keep up the laws already on the books and still pass more laws at the same time. Thus, only the most important laws would get reviewed and repassed. The others go away. Fewer laws. More freedom.
By the way, the first part of Boortz’ post is a keeper:
First of all, let’s get this straight. All marriage is same sex marriage…the same sex, over and over and over again. It’s a long tedious meal with dessert at the beginning.
I’m not married. But that made me laugh.
It’s a long tedious meal with dessert at the beginning.
Glad to know Boortz is still gettin some.
Yech!
How about “For every law passed, two shall be repealed”
eric
What do we need to do to get the ball rolling on your first suggestion? Politicians would have a difficult time explaining their opposition to it.
Obviously I am sympathetic to the institution of automatic sunset provisions, but this recent article in Legal Affairs seems to indicate that the evidence on them is at best mixed: http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January-February-2004/story_mooney_janfeb04.html
In any case, Milton Friedman has said that term limits may be the only effective institutional measure to limit growth fo government — I may throw what little weight I may have behind that amendment, in this interesting fantasy game.
Eric, the “for every law passed, two shall be repealed” doctrine sounds fun, but is in fact a terrible idea. It puts libertarianism (a philosophy held by a small minority of Americans) into the Constitution. Plus, this means no laws will be passed, since no one could agree on which laws to repeal. I realize in your dream world this is a good thing, but in the real world it would throw a wrench into the cogs of government and leave us with a government that no longer functions and is incapable of progress (including progress toward libertarian ends). I, for one, am not ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Plus, even if it worked, what happens when all of the “bad” laws are gone? Do we repeal that amendment? Would two laws have to be repealed in order to pass the amendment repealing your amendment?
The idea of sunset provisions also seems like it would never fly in mainstream America. It sounds good when it goes around the libertarian blogosphere, but once the light of mainstream American political thought hits it, it would shrivel and die. Plus, again, any strategy whose stated goal is to make Congress unable to continue its tasks seems rather hard to stomach.
Also, I haven’t read Friedman, but I hope Saxman wasn’t talking about term limits on legislators, which is just an all-around terrible idea. Nothing is less democratic than to tell voters that even though their candidate is fully qualified and the best person for the job, he/she can no longer be elected, just because you think so. I know its easy to sit back and say all politicians are corrupt and forcing turnover limits corruption, but that simply isn’t true. There are good politicians, but these are harder to find. Bad politicians are a dime a dozen. You can vote a bad politician out, but once your good politician is gone, you run the (high) risk of your new voting option being between bad and worse.
On a more positive note, I like Radley’s first idea about making Congress take responsibility for its actions.
I’ve got one: no facility or program receiving federal funding shall bear the name of a sitting Congressperson.
No more Leahy Science Centers. No more Schuster Highways. No more Robert Byrd Everythings. If our elected officials want to build monuments to themselves, they can do it with their own money.
Another good one would clarify the definition of “war”, in order to determine what requires a formal Congressional declaration and what doesn’t.
The 1861 Confederate Constitution had a provision that Congress could not make any appropriation without a 2/3 vote, unless the money was directly requested by a cabinet department through the president or for congressional expenses. This idea might be worth looking into, despite its questionable origin.
As someone who studies the FTC for a living, I support Radley’s ban on delegation. The real problem with regulatory agencies, however, is not just those agencies that make rules–but those agencies that make rules and act as the judge of violations. This is a major problem with the FTC, where the Commission can essentially ban any act of commerce they dislike without having to worry about judicial review.
How about a “single subject” amendment, which says that every bill or act passed by congress shall pertain only to one subject.
So, no RAVE act getting tacked onto a we love the children act; no cash for fixing swimming pools tacked onto [whatever it was tacked onto].
If the bill fails the single subject clause, it is per se unconstitutional and void of effect.
Illinois has one of these clauses in their constitution; I bet other states do too.
The commerce clause really has to go. It should be replaced with some sort of “free trade between the states” amendment. That commerce clause, more than anything, has been responsible for the growth of federal government power. nearly everything they do is somehow legitimized as a power to control that which “substantially affects interstate commerce” the current Supreme Court standard.
I have been a long-time proponent of your second amendment sugestion. And I really like your first one as well. How ’bout one that says that:
“No congressperson may benefit from an increase in the level of Congressional compensation unless that person agrees to step down for at least a one term interim period.”
Interestingly, Eric, the Confederate Constitution also had a single-subject for legislation provision.
Somebody is thinking again? I would most definitely repeal the 16th in favor of a national sales tax. That way you only pay when you buy. Would it be enough to run the country? It would if,if,if.
I’ve never concurred that the government should enjoy 1st claim on my earnings.
I might consider repealing the 24th also. Only half the people (in good turnout years)turn out to vote anyway it could be considered an entertainment tax.
I heartedly concur with Boortz’s proposed amendment to have a final one stating “We really mean it”
I like the one bill one law idea.
Yeah, a “No Riders” law, to keep Congress from hiding bullshit in a necessary piece of legislation.
How about one limiting Congressional pay raises to the national average (or median, whichever is lower).
you guys have some pretty good suggestions. why don’t some of you run for congress? it’s folks like you that we need to be writing/making the policy for the country to be a better place. michelle
National average of what, John H? Personally, I’ve never been all that incensed by congressional salary. Given the duties and expenses inherent to their positions, I don’t consider members of Congress overpaid. The real problem is that Congress is overstaffed. Cut the number of committess and staff budgets by at least half, and you’d see a fairly dramatic change.
Michelle!
I would except I couldn’t get elected. Voters don’t want the truth, they want to be romanced.
Skilled workers don’t want to change jobs even though their skill is not needed anymore. Boiler Makers Union had to convince their members to build storage tanks rather than boilers. Many couldn’t see it and were starved into other occupations or loafed.
The Teamsters Union have more members in various police forces, teachers, brewery workers, than truck drivers.
I try not to lie too much and that is a trait that I would have to improve on in order to run for congress.
There are 290,340 billion people in this country (roughly). Let’s say a third of those people pay income taxes and let’s imagine on average each person pays 5k per year (that is a very conservative figure) to the fed for income tax only (not including ss and medcare).
If those figures are anywhere in the ball park, then the fed receives approx 48 trillion dollars annually. And they’re complaining about a budget short-fall?! Someone needs to be taken out and shot.
Or as we like to say in Texas, “get a rope”
oh boys! i am so disappointed. where is the faith and desire to do good things? think back to the founding fathers, the men who framed and wrote the constitution. jefferson, madison, adams, these were great men. there were hurdles for them too. agree on the must be a labor of love and strong feelings of civic duty though…do not agree on the lying part. i think integrity is critical for an elected official. standing up for what you believe in is what makes one a great leader. but…i wouldn’t do it either. i wouldn’t do well with the scrutiny. michelle
The problem isn’t so much that voters don’t want to acknowledge the truth (although that’s part of the problem), but rather that people don’t integrate the various government policies into a cohesive whole. Put one way, this means people can oppose “big government” programs that don’t benefit them directly, but insist on those that do.
The other problem is simply fear. The past several generations have been conditioned (thanks largely to government-run schools and colleges) to fear any radical concept or change to the status quo. Most people would rather suffer under the known level of oppression than take a substantial risk for their freedom. That was even true in the Revolution, where a large segment of the population (perhaps a majority) preferred to remain under Britain’s rule than risk the great unknown of revolution.
Ms. Dani, sounds like fuzzy math to me. Given your population estimate, estimate of how many pay taxes, and estimate of that amount, you should’ve come up with 483 trillion, not 48 trillion (if I did all that right, which I think I did). But wait, 290 billion people in this country? A wee bit high. You were thinking million. 290-340 million. (I dont have exact figures in front of me, but I know it’s around there). That would give us $483 billion under your numbers. Taking that number, you start subtracting $87 bil here for the War on Terror, $5 bil there for crappy programs that no one likes, and you begin to see why it adds up so high. Seriously, did $48 tril sound right? The national debt is only $7 tril.
Sorry to do this, but I’m a math guy, I couldn’t let it go.
About as useful as an amendment saying only Congrss can decalre war. Or an amendment protecting the righ to kep and bear arms.
I’d also repeal the 16th. I’d probably add something in the language of the repeal of the 16th that would forbid government on any level from income withholding. There’s really no reason for government to know how much money we make.
How else are we supposed to soak the rich? Most people enjoy soaking the rich so your proposal will not be popular.
John: Yes, but the rich also buy more than the rest of us, so if we switched to a national sales tax–the most popular substitute for an income tax–they’d pay more anyway.
Of course, we could just go back to the system under the Articles of Confederation, which required the federal government to go to each state and ask for money in proportion to the value of land and improvements thereto within the state. Each state could then collect that money from its citizens in whatever manner it chose. Federalism at its best.
Repeal 12th, 14th, 16th, 17th, 20th, and 24th Amendments.
Repeal Article II. Replace with head of state used to negotiate treaties and receive foreign ministers and consuls on behalf of the Senate. Directly elected for life.
Repeal Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 and replace it with a provision forbidding the states to put up barriers to interstate trade.
Repeal Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8, Clause 18.
Add Amendment requiring one Representative for every 60,000 people again. 5000 Representatives should cause Congress to gum up nicely.
Add Amendment forbidding the consideration of race, sex, religion, colour, sexual orientation, creed, or national origin in any government action at all at any level.
Add Amendment restoring the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment that had been repealed.
Add Amendment expressly declaring the right of states to secede upon affirmative vote of 66% of citizens of that state and 66% of the representatives in the state legislature.
Oh, I’m sure there are more. :)
- Josh
I like the idea of expanding Congress, though 5,000 is a bit much. I could live with around 1,000.
As for replacing the president with a ceremonial head of state: How about rotating the position among state governors, like they do with the presidency of the EU and the U.N. Security Council? It would be just like giving every state its own quarter!
I would repeal the following:
13th: unnecessary, because every state already makes slavery a crime. Low priority, though.
14th: quite destructive, on many levels.
15th: as with the 13th, but more nefarious, because it is used for things like “majority-minority” districts.
16th: a new tax scheme (or none) is needed.
17th: restore states’ power.
19th: again, unnecessary, but a low priority.
22nd: explained below.
23rd: the residential areas of DC should be returned to Maryland.
24th: voting is often too easy, but I would especially like fair literacy tests, and perhaps longer residency requirements.
I would create a term-limits amendment: one term only for House, Senate, and the Presidency, with the possibility of only holding one such office during one’s lifetime. I might also like eight- or ten-year terms for the Federal judiciary.
The Balanced Budget Amendment is also a good idea.
(Perhaps) I would like the 10th Amendment modified thusly: The powers not EXPRESSLY delegated to the United States by the Constitution…are reserved to the states…. A similar clause existed in the Articles of Confederation, and it would help prevent Congress from getting too many new ideas.
Skip Oliva writes: “National average of what, John H? Personally, I’ve never been all that incensed by congressional salary. Given the duties and expenses inherent to their positions, I don’t consider members of Congress overpaid.”
Average pay raise. If the population’s wages rise by .5%, Congress shouldn’t get a 5% increase, or whatever.
Considering that Senators’ portfolios beat the market by 12%, compared to executive portfolios beating the market by 5%, and the average household underperforms the market by 1.44%, I think Congress is doing just fine in the money department.
Anyway, it’d help keep them in touch with the economic position of the average citizen.
Skip Oliva:
As for replacing the president with a ceremonial head of state: How about rotating the position among state governors, like they do with the presidency of the EU and the U.N. Security Council? It would be just like giving every state its own quarter!
The EU isn’t headed by the various national heads of state, but by their national representatives. It would be similar to having the 17th Amendment repealed and having the Prime Ministership change among the various Senators.
Personally, I don’t like the idea of a real executive holding the position, even if it only is ceremonial, and I really don’t like the idea of a state governor beholden to the power of the United States, even if only for a ceremonial position. That smacks of commandeering.
- Josh
Josh, I was kidding about the rotating presidency idea. But unlike you, I don’t have a fundamental objection to having a president, though I’d happily entertain the idea of reducing the office’s powers.
Jon H, judging the “population’s” wage increases is a horribly inexact science at best. What about people who work off the books and whose incomes are never reported to the government’s statisticians? Wage numbers are way too easy to mess with. Members of Congress are not CEOs working for stock options. If you’re looking for an alternative to the present pay system, you might consider a per diem, where members are compensated a nominal amount for each day Congress is in session. Some state legislatures still do this and the early Congresses employed a variant. And as I said before, we need to take a chainsaw to the congressional staff.
Radley: Pair a non-delegation amendment with one dismantling the administrative law court system and you’ve really got something.
You need an amendment that repeals the entire existing constitution and requires that any additional amendments be binding only on individuals who have voluntarily signed it.
I’ve always thought a good constitutional amendment would be “Congress shall pass no laws which would protect a consenting adult from himself.”
Get rid of the nanny-staters in one swell foop.
Ms. Dani,
Ropes should be reserved for people who use bad information and worse math to convince people of their arguments.
It came from Beath the Journalist…
… the DailySpam!&trade, natch. ;] Serenity is hitting a rough stretch of road. Send some good comments and good thoughts her way, eh? Might not be a bad time to hit her tip jar, also… For all of you Oscar…
Take your time to check out the pages on games …
In your free time, visit the pages about game – Tons of interesdting stuff!!!
You are invited to take a look at some relevant pages on game .