… 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…

Ropes should be reserved for people who use bad information and worse math to convince people of their arguments.

Get rid of the nanny-staters in one swell foop.

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.

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 It would be similar to having the 17th Amendment repealed and having the Prime Ministership change among the various Senators.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

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.

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

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”