Gates of Vienna readers frequently email us to ask what they can do, or what is likely to happen if things continue downward at their current speed. Zenster hasn’t answered those questions directly, but he does propose a way by which change might begin.
These ideas are broad and sweeping, deliberately so. Further ideas from our readers are welcome in the comments section of this post. However, criticism without a substantive suggestion for action will simply impede the flow of ideas this post is meant to generate. With that in mind, be guided in your responses, please.
I don’t know if Zenster has read Scott Rasmussen’s In Search of Self Governance. It’s a very slim book and would make an excellent accompaniment to his ideas. The book only takes an hour or two to read.
Feel free to repost this at your own blog. Just be sure to give Zenster credit for the ideas he has written here.
A Modest Proposal
by Zenster
One of the last hopes to save America may lie in instituting a National Referendum Process. Given enough signatures on enough petitions from enough states − said quota to be determined − the public could place on the federal ballot a law to be voted upon.
In order to achieve this, any politician wishing to receive even a single vote in any Federal election or primary would be required by that district's voters to sign a legal and binding voluntary contract obliging them to:
"Sponsor and support at every opportunity the National Referendum Process without qualification or excuse or face a penalty of $100,000 and prosecution on Felony Charges that carry, upon conviction, at least three years in Federal Penitentiary without time off for good behavior and irreversible loss of all pension and retirement benefits from service in the Federal Government.”
Any politician running for Federal office who did not voluntarily sign this contract would be deprived of all votes in that primary or election. Once enough politicians have been elected to enact the National Referendum Process, here are the first several laws that need to be passed:
| 1. | Federal term limits on all Congressional and Senatorial offices. Furthermore, an elected official must serve both terms of office in order to qualify for even minimum pension and benefits. |
| 2. | All elected officials must retire on regular Social Security the same as that received by the general public. No separate form of health or financial benefits are to be allowed. |
| 3. | Increase the pay for each elected official to at least $1.5 million dollars per year with total elimination of the Lobbying Process such that any conviction upon charges of graft, influence peddling, bribery or corruption results in felony hard time and complete loss of all pension and retirement benefits. Elected officials cannot receive so much as a ball point pen or cup of coffee from the special interests sector. Any pay increases must conform to Social Security cost-of-living increases or be subject to vote by the general public. |
| 4. | Make the entire Federal election process taxpayer funded, with an upper limit for each candidate. No personal wealth or outside contributions could be used. Nor could “groups” be formed to raise monies for campaigns. |
| 5. | Eliminate the lifetime term of service for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States of America. |
| 6. | Oblige all elected officials, excepting the top five in line of succession for the Presidency, to use regular civilian air carriers for all travel related to Government business including election and re-election activities. Officials are allowed to fly first class and can bump regular passengers at any time. The Federal Government will compensate airlines for any restitution they may be obliged to award travelers. |
| 7. | All Federal employees and elected officials cannot enter into employment for domestic or foreign agencies that seek to influence National Foreign Policy, Military Contracts, Budget Appropriations or passage of any laws in the Congress or Senate of the United States of America for a period of no less than five years subsequent to leaving office. Nor may they accept employment in media or academia for the same period of time. |
| 8. | Institute an immediate end to all foreign immigration subject to complete review and revision of the immigration process with an end to all further citizenship for infants born on American soil to parents, neither of whom are legal American citizens. All existing immigration laws relating to enforcement and deportation must be carried out in full by appropriate law enforcement agencies until the aforementioned changes are made. |
| 9. | A fine of $10,000 per day for all senatorial and congressional members who neglect to or fail to pass the national budget in a timely manner. This is the primary reason for their service in office and passing the budget must be given priority by all involved at the risk of financial penalty. |
All readers are requested to submit suggestions as to modifications or additions to the proposed laws shown above. This is just a rough outline of what could possibly appear but time is running out and Career Politicians are killing us. They are not just killing America in general, they are killing US by permitting China to sell us poisoned foodstuffs and contaminated products. They are killing our young men and women in the armed forces by continuing to fight Islamic terrorism without making any attempt to end Islamic terrorism. They are killing our jobs, our communities and our nation’s industrial might. These Killing Fields must be closed down.
We, the voting public, must rise up and take back America before it is too late and our great nation descends into civil war or simply bankruptcy. Neither can be allowed to happen and it is incumbent upon all patriotic Americans to take action.
Time is running out and it will be one of the most heinous crimes in the annals of human existence if the greatest nation in the history of mankind is allowed to fail at the hands of its corrupt politicians.
This must not be allowed to pass.
Please circulate links to this essay and feel free to post it at your individual blogs. The only request is that proper attribution be made with respect to the author.
30 comments:
This is a ridiculous proposal.
The USA has a Constitution and suggesting weird, made-it-up-last-night "solutions" is just wasting everyone's time.
Change, if it is to be had at all, will be had through the exercise of our rights under the existing model, not Zenster's bizarro one.
There is no "national referendum" process. There is no process to create a "national referendum".
The USA is designed as a Republic of Republics. We the People are in control at both the State and National level, via elections of Representatives.
2010 saw a monumental shift in our politics using these existing entities. The story of the GOP takeover of the US House and Senate is properly eclipsed by the take over of many state leglislatures by the GOP. The people of America pulled off a mini-revolution in Novermber.
It would be far better for everyone reading this to work on electing more real conservatives concerned with immigration, or working on citizen initatives in indivdual states, than to waste any time on Zenster's fantasy.
Sorry to pour cold water on this, but we can't afford the distraction of stuff like this just when we're getting some momentum.
One of the last hopes to save America may lie in instituting a National Referendum Process.
Be careful what you wish for Zenster. The 08' election clearly showed a majority of voters willing to vote on emotion rather than fact.
Zenster-
Okay, here you go.
#1 - They are called elections. Already in place.
#'s 2, 4 & 6 - Okay, but they can be enforced via laws made by Congress once they understand the stakes.
#3 - Just enforce existing ethics laws and enact new more stringent ones to achieve these ends.
#5 - Don't like this? Then change the Constitution. The present forms are in place for a reason and the SC is the long arm of the tripartite Federal Republic. The institution with the most institutional memory.
#7 - Make a law then. Get it passed.
#8 - Enforce existing laws. Period. Close the border.
#9 - Make it known through the TEA Parties that Job#1 is budget. Enforce the oaths via state laws and remove the violators via same. This is a states rights issue.
For too long the Progressives have striped the states of their prerogatives and it is time for that to end. Over at Belmont Club there have been good discussions about Interstate Compacts to enforce many of the issues that the modern world has produced. You know the laundry list.
A proposal for Europe.
Give up on the strategy of electing national governments that will stop Islamisation. They wont get elected. And even if anti-Islamisation parties were elected, they wouldn't have the guts to do what would be necessary to stop Islam in Europe. 65 years of brainwashing has effectively left 80% of Europeans with a very deep-rooted mindset that self interest / self preservation is evil. You wont change that by debate. Nothing short of total meltdown will change that mindset. What we need to do is speed up that melt down so that when it happens, the demographics are in our favour.
I suggest that a new map of western Europe be drawn up which splits the existing countries into regions. The regions should be drawn so as to separate those which are too far gone from those that can be saved. We should then publish the intention (by way of on-line petition) that we will respect the self-governance of the regions as and when they choose to secede.
Everyone will ignore map this for the time being, which is fine. But when the shit really hits the fan (rioting, bombing, cities on fire etc) people are going to look again to see where to move to.
Maybe an anti-Islamist area will succeed first. Or maybe a sharia state will succeed first. It doesn't matter which. The point is that once it starts then the phony war will be over.
I've seen articles on here calculating the numbers of fighting age males which suggest that at the moment Islamists would lose a civil war. I don't believe it. I think they'd win right now. The analysis I've seen ignores the fact that non-muslims can't really pass for muslims. However, muslims can easily pass for non-muslims. Think about it - if a civil war broke out we would have no idea who to trust. We'd kill each other. Every time an Islamist said "I'm on your side" we'd fly into a debate about whether to believe them or not. They wouldn't have that problem. The advantage would be, I think, decisive.
What we need to do is start the process of consolidation of resistance into defensible regions asap.
In hoc signo vinces
If democracy is the lesser evil then referendum is the road to hell.
Vlad Z.: This is a ridiculous proposal.
Notice the part that says, "All readers are requested to submit suggestions as to modifications or additions to the proposed laws shown above."?
That includes alternative strategies that might achieve the same goals.
Calling something "ridiculous" is not just counter-productive, it also demonstrates an inability to participate in a constructive manner.
The USA has a Constitution and suggesting weird, made-it-up-last-night "solutions" is just wasting everyone's time.
Your criticism is unfounded. The referendum process is not some "made-it-up-last-night" sort of solution. It is a functional legislative tool that is already being used in several states.
Change, if it is to be had at all, will be had through the exercise of our rights under the existing model, not Zenster's bizarro one.
And how is predicating receipt of votes from the electorate upon a candidate's promise of support for a specific measure either not an "exercise of our rights under the existing model" or a "bizarro one", considering that this is a standard procedure in any election?
Calling something names without fully examining or accounting for facts already in evidence doesn't count for much of an argument.
There is no "national referendum" process.
And your point is?
There is no process to create a "national referendum".
Yes there is, I have just spelled it out in the original post, in case you weren't paying attention or got distracted by some bright and shiny object.
For starters, why don't you suggest some other remotely plausible way of getting our elected officials to self-impose term limits?
Do you honestly think any elected politician will support such a measure or do you maintain that Career Politicians are not one of the most damaging features of our current Federal government?
Do you honestly think that any elected politician will support abandonment of their Platinum Parachute-style retirement benefits even as they rape out funding of our own Social Security benefits?
Do you honestly think that any elected politician will willingly subject themselves to the same risks of terrorist attack that they routinely impose upon us during regular civilian flights if they can possibly avoid it?
You've done your nay-saying. Now, how about posing some concrete alternatives that will achieve even a few of the objectives I have listed.
Either that or come back here and spell out your open support for Career Politicians with Platinum Parachute retirement plans that can vote themselves pay raises far above normal Cost of Living increases even as they insulate themselves from the risks their flaccid anti-terrorist legislation imposes upon us.
Is that what you support?
babs: Be careful what you wish for Zenster. The 08' election clearly showed a majority of voters willing to vote on emotion rather than fact.
I am fully aware of the legislative minefield that could arise from my proposal.
That said, wouldn't it be nice to pass iron clad proof-of-citizenship requirements that could prevent another supremely empty suit like Obama from attaining office?
If anything, by demonstrating a sufficient degree of resolve, the public could begin to ensure that its will is carried out by those elected to office.
I can think of no greater stick to hold over the Senate and Congress than a National Referendum process.
Vlad Z.: 2010 saw a monumental shift in our politics using these existing entities. The story of the GOP takeover of the US House and Senate is properly eclipsed by the take over of many state leglislatures by the GOP. The people of America pulled off a mini-revolution in Novermber.
MEET THE NEW BOSS, SAME AS THE OLD BOSS.
While the Democratic Party probably was unable to ignore the public's message after losing centuries of political seniority, it is doubtful in the extreme that the Republican Party managed to get the same message.
Namely, the they can be swept out of office.
Anyone care to bet against how the newly stocked goverment will still dissolve into Pork barrel politics as usual?
I wouldn't bet a plugged nickel on anything but these self-serving bastards doing what they've always done and that is promoting themselves over their country's best interests.
It's been going on for so long that any change will need to be almost traumatic in nature.
Robohobo: #1 - They are called elections. Already in place.
Federal Term Limits: Previously, I would have agreed with you but voting patterns clearly demonstrate a huge advantage enjoyed by incumbent office holders. European re-election patterns provide a stark demonstration of a similar motif, now emerging here in America, whereby politicians who are constantly returned to office enact bills entirely inimical to the voting public. Look no farther than America’s immigration laws. A sterling example of which was the Z Visa fiasco which both parties supported and which should have seen them collectively swept from office. None of which happened.
#'s 2, 4 & 6 - Okay, but they can be enforced via laws made by Congress once they understand the stakes.
Retirement on Regular Social Security, Federally Financed Campaigns and Politicians Required to use Civilian Air Carriers: I don’t hold out any hope but this next legislative session will show whether or not our elected officials have purchased even a remote glimmer of a clue. From all previous evidence one thing is crystal clear, they don’t understand the “stakes”. What’s more, the stakes clearly are not high enough, otherwise these swine would already be toeing the line on immigration and truly fighting Islamic jihad, neither of which is happening.
#3 - Just enforce existing ethics laws and enact new more stringent ones to achieve these ends.
Corruption & Lobbying: How do you propose to incentivize these hogs-at-the-trough to self-impose more stringent anti-corruption laws? Especially so, when all evidence to date points to these swine clearly not getting the message as to “stakes”.
#5 - Don't like this? Then change the Constitution. The present forms are in place for a reason and the SC is the long arm of the tripartite Federal Republic. The institution with the most institutional memory.
Without wishing to evoke nebulous visions of The System™, it seems unlikely that politicians will actively support such a sea change in that selfsame system. This item is not very high on the list specifically because of personal questions regarding its necessity. However, in discussion of this idea, Supreme Court term limits have arisen often enough whereby I felt obliged to introduce the idea for general discussion.
#7 - Make a law then. Get it passed.
Accepting Paid Consultancies Upon Leaving Office: Again, how do propose to separate the hogs from their trough of caviar? Saudia Arabia, one of our nation’s most dire enemies, already exerts undue influence upon the Executive, Legislative and Military organs of our government by offering lucrative consultant positions to those who do not disparage the Magic Kingdom™ while serving America in various capacities. That is just one country and does not even address China, another elephant in the room that is being staunchly ignored by all who are supposed to be standing watch.
#8 - Enforce existing laws. Period. Close the border.
Overwhelming bipartisan support for the Z Visa showed the average American citizen exactly what to expect from our politicians regarding immigration.
#9 - Make it known through the TEA Parties that Job#1 is budget. Enforce the oaths via state laws and remove the violators via same. This is a states rights issue.
Again, aside from those states with internal referendum processes, how will you encourage legislators to penalize themselves? It takes a Big Stick™ and I’ve yet to see any with the clout of that which I am proposing.
More than anything, Robohobo, thank you for participating in good faith. I really appreciate your input and look forward to any replies you might make.
4Symbols: If democracy is the lesser evil then referendum is the road to hell.
You can do better than that.
Or can you?
Isnt Iceland creating a new Constitution, these days?
This is worth a look and is in play in several states as mentioned by the author.
This is what may become one of our best options. Note that I said one, not the only one.
Those of you who act like Zenster
is some crazed loon offer hardly
anything worth mentioning. I happen
to know the author and this person
does nothing without thinking it
through or doing homework. No one
or plan is perfect. Any of you who follow Zenster via his commentary
should know this.
What I do know is that what we have
right now, in the WH is the most
corrupt, islam and muslim friendly
administration ever. The tilt towards socialism and a nanny
state are alarming and extremely
dangerous to national security.
Extreme times call for extreme measures and sorry, perhaps these
will mean more as time and the same old, new politicians do little
but blow smoke and show us mirror
images as new. I hope 2011 is better and 2010 better yet.
In the meantime, our enemies march on against us.
Article 5 covers change...
2/3 States (34), by popular demand can open the whole constitutional can of worms...
That is the way..
Van Grungy: 2/3 States (34), by popular demand can open the whole constitutional can of worms...
Thank you for the input, Van Grungy. Much as it grieves me to admit it, I am not fully conversant in Constitutional law.
With regard to your supplied figures and according to the Initiative & Referendum Institute of USC (University of Southern California), we are less than a dozen states short of whatever quorum is necessary for amending the constitution through a state-by-state initiative or referendum process.
I would hope that this is something the Tea Party might latch onto. Barely more than another handful, or so, of states are needed.
Here is a handy comparison chart which shows how many "Red" states have yet to adopt such a process and, therefore, in combination with existing initiative or referendum processes in other states could quickly establish the Constitutional quorum needed to begin installing amendments that reconfigure the thoroughly broken political landscape of America.
Each and every Tea Party member reading this thread should please consider bringing this to the attention of their lead organizers so that a national movement can be set in motion whereby America regains control over its political destiny.
WE ARE NO LONGER IN A TWO-PARTY SYSTEM. AMERICA IS BEING DESTROYED BY A ONE-PARTY SYSTEM OF THE ALMIGHTY DOLLAR AND THAT MUST STOP. WE HAVE THE POWER TO DO SO AND MUST ENSURE THAT LIBERTY AND FREEDOM REMAIN FOR OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS.
I could be on board with a referendum ONLY if the topic of a referendum is strictly required to be negative. By that I mean that no new legislation could be proposed, but only the nullification of a specific law, or a specific part of a law, already on the books.
I am also firmly in favor of recall elections at ALL levels - and not only for officials who were elected to office in the first place. Anybody getting a government paycheck should be fair game. Judges, bureaucrats, diplomats, Pentagon officials, state governors, mayors, school boards members, you name it - anybody at any level of government, from POTUS to dogcatcher - should be at risk of ejection from office at any time if the public in their own jurisdiction wants them gone for any reason whatsoever.
The scope of the recall election would depend on the jurisdiction of the person or entity being recalled. For instance, an incompetent or disliked US congressman or senator should be recallable by their own constituents. Federal judges should be recallable by the voters in their district or circuit, which in the case of the SCOTUS is the entire US.
Obviously, impeachment isn't working to get rid of officials who flout their own oaths to uphold the Constitution. While I want to leave impeachment on the table as well, this option could work a lot better.
Thanks Zenster for your reform ideas and the little fires you like to place under our butts. I'll have to think about all the things that you proposed. The other's ideas are good too.
As I read the opinions above I noticed my muddy mind resisting thinking in a solution-oriented way.
I'd like to see a lot more "What the heck do we do now?" columns. Even if we sound foolish, we need to start somewhere.
Let's not attack each other for our ideas. Let's hash em out. Good ideas look bad and bad ideas look good, especially at the beginning.
Some of my own thoughts.
Well, the left likes to argue that America needs to change. In a way, I have to agree. If those of us who can comprehend our cultural value and goodness can also be innovative, maybe we can turn off the crappy "change" with our useful change.
If the USA followed it's own Constitution, now that would be "change" too. Let's take back the CHANGE monkier so we don't turn off our innovation.
We are more innovative than the anti-culturalists and Democrats running for office who claim to be creative. But we let them run propaganda circles around us.
If we don't create our own version of "change" then we won't be able to counteract the funky "change" that is an erosion of ethics,all led by the erosion cheerleaders like.
Culturalists (libertarians/conservatives) need to show that WE are the innovators, that WE alone stand for actual progress and that stealing and working the system isn't "fair".
And for this to happen there will need to be wise men and women who are able to inspire to the people. I mean, in addition to the tea party style of mass uprising, there needs to be new charismatic leaders, or a leader.
I don't know enough about the Constitution or the political process to take a position on whether a national referendum would help, but I want to add an idea. I don't want foreigners to be able to own real estate, invest in public utilities, and similar things.
For instance, that Saudi prince, forget his name, but a major terrorist supporter, is now a major shareholder in Fox News. This should be illegal. Likewise, lots of foreigners invest in our water and power systems. Has anyone thought this one through?
In Tonga and Israel, only Tongans and Jews can buy real estate. Obviously, if anyone could buy real estate in those countries, Tonga would be owned by white American retirees, and Israel would be owned by Prince whatsisname from Saudi Arabia.
Zenster: A modern United States Constitutional Convention is the most ABJECTLY DANGEROUS political situation that could ever occur for the citizens of the United States of America. Once the stipulated number of states call a Constitutional Convention, the Constitutional Convention may change any and all parts of the constitution without limitation - that includes the Bill of Rights.
The original Constitution was written and adopted by highly educated leaders with a recent memory of both government oppression and religious persecution that the leaders actively sought to limit for future generations.
In my opinion, today's leaders are much less educated and also fully indoctrinated in government ideas opposite from the Founding Fathers. Indeed, our modern Democratic Party now seems ready to fully embrace atheism, Islam, socialism, fascism, communism, and other ideas that would have been anathema to the Founding Fathers.
Once one modern United States Constitutional Convention is called, I believe that we will start an extremely destructive political trend where, each time that a political party obtains power, that political party will call another Constitutional Convention. Eventually, one political party will simply change the Constitution so that party can maintain political power in perpetuity.
1389: Until the United States radically improves its fraudulent and corrupt elections' processes, I am against holding any more elections than necessary because each election provides a manifest opportunity for voter fraud and corruption.
As Josef Stalin articulated, "Those who cast the votes, they decide nothing. Those who count the votes, they decide everything."
http://www.votefraud.org/
<< Once the stipulated number of states call a Constitutional Convention, the Constitutional Convention may change any and all parts of the constitution without limitation - that includes the Bill of Rights. >>
That's not quite accurate, Egghead. Amendments are only proposed by the Constitutional Convention and must be ratified by Conventions in three-fourths of the states. I don't know offhand how Conventions are called in the states but it's clear that more is involved than merely the federal Convention's proposing amendments. It is not the final word and requiring three-fourths of the state Conventions to agree to an amendment is not a meaningless safeguard.
The Supreme Court has felt free to amend or ignore the Constitution causing immense damage in the process. If exalted and super-educated justices and seditious Congressmen can fool with the Constitution ad lib., what would be so dangerous having
(a) 34 state conventions (100 delegates in each state, majority vote) apply to Congress for a Convention,
(b) 50 states send delegates (5 per state) and vote on amendments (majority vote), and
(c) 38 state Conventions (100 delegates in each state, majority vote) ratify each amendment?
That would be 1734 people to vote for the application to Congress for the Convention, 126 to vote for each amendment to send back to the states, and 1938 people to ratify.
The idea seems to be that the People are just rabble who will demand free flat screen tvs and daily trash pickup as a constitutional right. I don't see why that should be the controlling assumption.
At the moment, federalism is dead, the federal government exercises vast powers never delegated to it by the States or the people, the national government exemplifies fiscal and strategic imbecility, and I have as much chance of influencing or removing a federal legislator or federal judge as I do of sending Mr. Obama back to his real place of birth by telekinesis. And I should be worried about a "runaway" constitutional convention?
Besides, Congress would do its best to coopt the Convention method by stealing the most popular ideas percolating across the land.
Granted there's the chance of buffoons being made delegates but we've managed to weather buffoons before. Probably the biggest challenge would be to wrest the conventions from the grip of the state party apparatuses (apperati?).
Let's break a little furniture and put the fear of God into the grifters, time servers, and stuffed shirts.
The . . . present . . . deal . . . isn't . . . working.
PS -- First amendment: "Islam is hereby declared to be a political doctrine hostile to the United States and its people. The practice of Islam, possession of the Koran, and advocacy or use of sharia law are prohibited in the States, District of Columbia, and the territories and possessions of the United States. All Muslims have two years from the ratification of this Amendment within which to arrange for departure to a Muslim land with all of their property. No Muslim may own property in the United States, etc., except as permitted by law. Two years from ratification, all Muslims shall lose the protection of all laws save the protection of criminal laws."
In hoc signo vinces
@Zenster,
An a apology to you Zenster, the comment was a quick fire blurt at referendum applicable to and with UK politics in mind, without giving the due respect and consideration to you and the article.
4Symbols: An a apology to you Zenster, the comment was a quick fire blurt at referendum applicable to and with UK politics in mind, without giving the due respect and consideration to you and the article.
No harm, no foul, mate. I don't envy you the governmental cesspit you've got to deal with. Hell, ours is bad enough, I'd hate to imagine what it'll take to reclaim your nation from the monster raving loons that are running it.
1389: I could be on board with a referendum ONLY if the topic of a referendum is strictly required to be negative. By that I mean that no new legislation could be proposed, but only the nullification of a specific law, or a specific part of a law, already on the books.
Yours is an interesting and appealing qualification to place upon this idea. Big Government™ clearly is the enemy and a subtractive requirement for all referenda motions would almost automatically meet that criteria.
How then to modify the pension provisions for elected officials? What about Federal term limits? Aren’t these additive measures that do not qualify under your constraints?
I am also firmly in favor of recall elections at ALL levels - and not only for officials who were elected to office in the first place. Anybody getting a government paycheck should be fair game. Judges, bureaucrats, diplomats, Pentagon officials, state governors, mayors, school boards members, you name it - anybody at any level of government, from POTUS to dogcatcher - should be at risk of ejection from office at any time if the public in their own jurisdiction wants them gone for any reason whatsoever.
Le Bingo! I could not agree more.
The scope of the recall election would depend on the jurisdiction of the person or entity being recalled. For instance, an incompetent or disliked US congressman or senator should be recallable by their own constituents. Federal judges should be recallable by the voters in their district or circuit, which in the case of the SCOTUS is the entire US.
Obviously, impeachment isn't working to get rid of officials who flout their own oaths to uphold the Constitution. While I want to leave impeachment on the table as well, this option could work a lot better.
In light of the tremendous damage being done by activist judges “interpreting”, instead of “applying” Constitutional law, your proposition to enact recall measures down to the ground floor level has a lot of appeal. Once again, how to insert this as a subtractive measure?
You New: Thanks Zenster for your reform ideas and the little fires you like to place under our butts. I'll have to think about all the things that you proposed. The other's ideas are good too.
You are most welcome. I do not claim to have the perfect solution but I also refuse to sit idly by the wayside and watch America swirl down the porcelain apparatus.
If the USA followed it's own Constitution, now that would be "change" too. Let's take back the CHANGE moniker so we don't turn off our innovation.
Agreed. There are a lot of pseudo-progressive labels that need to be yanked out of the hands of anti-Americans.
We are more innovative than the anti-culturalists and Democrats running for office who claim to be creative. But we let them run propaganda circles around us.
Again, agreed. The inability of genuine Conservatives to successfully operate propaganda machines is as damning of their campaigning abilities as it is to their ostensible credit for not being overly reliant upon cosmetics. However, we are now in an era of political beauty contests masquerading as Federal elections and some degree of mastery over propaganda is now required.
One look at how the penultimate empty suit, Obama, ran circles around a seasoned political veteran like McCain tells that entire story.
As a lifelong resident of California, which has had a similar referendum process since the 1930s, I can attest that it's a singularly bad idea. You may start with a slate of well-meaning measures that draw public support. what you end up with is special-interest balloting, proposals with deceptive titles, and no resources to fund the enacted programs. In California, we call it "ballot box budgeting" and you can all see the results.
Stick with our current representative democracy. to paraphrase a famous person, it's the worst system of governance, except for all the others.
Hi Col. B. Bunny: Thanks for your (very civil) input.
I intended to argue that the entire completed process of a Constitutional Convention is a "free-for-all" that MAY change any and all parts of the Constitution without limitation - that includes the Bill of Rights.
The main point that my college professors impressed upon me was that a Constitutional Convention MAY enable a wholesale radical change to our republican form of government by "representatives" who are unaware of or who disagree with specific checks and balances against government tyranny - or, phrased colloquially, MAY open a gigantic nasty can of worms that is best left very tightly sealed. Specifically, my college professors feared that citizens might call for a Constitutional Convention without realizing that the entire Constitution is fair game to be changed. :)
Regarding any proposed Constitutional Convention or national, state, and local referendums: At this point in time, with what I presume to be highly manipulable and manipulated computerized (pseudo)voting, I cannot personally lobby for any method of significant governmental change via unverifiable popular vote by computerized machines.
The first job of the people should be to insist that 1) voting is run by LOCAL citizens - instead of state or national government bodies or government-supported entities, and 2) voting machines have easily verifiable checks and balances to include computer code checks in addition to printed receipts a) maintained by LOCAL elections officials in locked boxers, and b) received by voters upon voting.
My father has been known to say that it is amazing how little money it takes to bribe an elected (or non-elected) government representative. How would anyone here propose to protect the state delegates of a new Constitutional Convention from the impact of bribes - and, worse yet, serious Islamic death threats?!
Millions of jihadis (many of whom are already in the USA legally or illegally - and some of whom would actually attend the Constitutional Convention as duly-elected Muslim representatives/informants) could easily threaten the lives of a few thousand state delegates and their families. These state delegates and their families would NOT have the same amount of intense police "protection" as current government officials who already support and submit to facets of Sharia Law and Islam in fear of their and their families safety - and in receipt of Saudi oil money bribes which are merely honey that sweetens the rotten stench of total submission.
Thank you.
It's true that exalted and crazy ideas could end up being considered and who knows what would percolate to the top of the heap in any convention. The problem could be obviated by the Application to Congress being for a convention limited to certain limited amending provisions. The Application could request calling a convention to consider three amendments ending so-called birthright citizenship, repeal of the 17th Amendment, and outlawing Islam. if all the states requesting a convention condition their applications thus, it seems unlikely that the convention would stray from the agenda. It could but the applying states would be unamused.
It's true that the people applying and ratifying, and the Convention delegates themselves, aren't going to look like those who attended the Philadelphia Convention but living in fear of lesser mortals acting crazy keeps the initiative forever in the court of the Congress. I'm not happy with Congress and whatever has passed for sober, enlightened practice until now.
We're so FAR removed from federal government legitimacy that I'm willing to take huge chances, or at least chances that your profs would consider huge. I'm not so sure. The hour is late and the mess substantial so now is not a time to take counsel of our fears. My speculation on the numbers was meant to suggest that there is some safety in numbers and that a Lone Fruitcake in some of the delegations or the convention isn't something to worry about. Certainly there will be a risk of fraud in voting for delegates but the issues may not be such as appeal to the underclass. Again, the scale of the effort to get and conduct a convention and get the result ratified will, I think, probably make occasional vote fraud irrelevant.
Amending the Constitution is a bit like impeachment, recall, and stripper legislation limiting Supreme Court jurisdiction. (Not sure how far that can go. I've run across sources that suggest it's not as powerful a tool as I thought. Dunno.) We'd be well served by making more frequent and liberal use of them. The Supreme Court slashes and blows smoke with abandon. Let's get used to doing to them what voters in Iowa did to three of their Supreme Court justices. Hah!
Bribes and death threats could be attempted. But so can these be used at any point in our political activities. Death threats especially seem to be relatively rare. I don't know how people act when they're threatened but I think most people would act strangely.
Yes, the way we bow down to the voting machines is wrong. I get real nervous about how these machines are programmed and the results tabulated and preserved.
As they say in Massachusetts, let's drive off those bridges when we get to them.
Mr. Pollyanna.
Many of Zenster's bullet items may well be sound. However, as I am not competent to adjudge many of them; as I tend to be a one-issue guy (Islam); and as to me that one issue rears in importance higher than the other issues in terms of danger and exigency -- much of this proposal strikes me as a list of repairs to do with respect to a house that is now filling up with smoke, if not on fire.
Many or all of the repairs Zenster proposes may well be fine (though, as with a couple of others here, I am unsure of the necessity of an amendment to the Constitution to get them done -- perhaps with the exception of #3), but they are either tangential to the problem of Islam or can wait until after we begin to deal with that problem, which perforce requires first an awareness project and then a series of policies.
As for concrete policies with regard to protecting our society from Muslims, in my view there is no need to change one jot or tittle of the Constitution. What needs to be changed is the Unofficial Constitution of PC MC, which is not a document, but a mindset, a worldview.
Just one example of what I mean should suffice as an emblematic analogy:
During WW2, Roosevelt with Congress had little problem enacting the policy of rounding up American citizens (mostly Japanese Americans, also some German and Italian Americans) deemed -- by virtue of their subculture and/or ideology -- to be dangerous in the context of a deadly war against megalomaniac supremacists. After they were rounded up they were housed in benign camps (no violence or mistreatment, nice housing, just couldn't leave the premises) until the danger was over. Furthermore, the majority of the American public was behind this. Moreover, the U.S. Supreme Court at that time -- and to this day -- did not and has not ruled that policy un-Constitutional.
Fast-forward out of the 1940s into the heydays of PC MC (beginning in earnest in the 1970s and increasing with each passing decade, notwithstanding the respectable blip of the Reagan Era): while the U.S. Supreme Court continues to leave FDR's internment policy alone as having been perfectly fine Constitutionally, there has evolved a Higher Court of PC MC -- unofficial, without formal judges, but in some respects more influential. And the ruling of this Higher Court is that FDR's internment was a "shameful" chapter in America's past that we should move beyond and ensure we never ever revisit. This Higher Court is no "Elite": I dare say that the vast majority of Americans (and Westerners in general) would agree. This Higher Court needs no Judges or Police to back it up, when the People go willingly and sincerely along with it.
If internment of American citizens because their subculture is deemed dangerous is perfectly fine Constitutionally -- as long as an exigent danger reasonably mandates such an action -- then rounding up and deporting Muslims also would be fine, and no tinkering with the Constitution is necessary.
The point is our collective realization that Islam is an organization of dangerous paramilitary sedition, and all Muslims are potential agents of that sedition. Once our society realizes this, we don't need to change any existing laws to take care of the problem.
Egghead: A modern United States Constitutional Convention is the most ABJECTLY DANGEROUS political situation that could ever occur for the citizens of the United States of America.
Are you saying that the current situation of a greed driven one-party system is not?
Once the stipulated number of states call a Constitutional Convention, the Constitutional Convention may change any and all parts of the constitution without limitation - that includes the Bill of Rights.
Yours is a reasonable point and one that suggests the need for a clause stipulating that the Bill of Rights is sacrosanct and cannot be modified by the National Referendum process. I am the first to admit that there are numerous aspects to this proposal that require more consideration. One unavoidable fact is that the system is broken and must be fixed.
In my opinion, today's leaders are much less educated and also fully indoctrinated in government ideas opposite from the Founding Fathers. Indeed, our modern Democratic Party now seems ready to fully embrace atheism, Islam, socialism, fascism, communism, and other ideas that would have been anathema to the Founding Fathers.
I could not agree with you more and ask that you consider what other measures there are that might adequately steer us clear of such immense folly. America’s Republican Party is nearly equal to its bipartisan opposite as to how destructive the Democratic Party is and this is a strong indicator that something is not working.
Many people here, including my own self, have placed a lot of hope with the Tea Party. Permit me to suggest that we no longer look to politicians as our saviors. We The People must be our own rescuers. Some disturbing news in need of fact checking:
Tea party members of the House turn to lobbyists and fundraisers
WASHINGTON -- Capitol Hill will be abuzz today with the arrival of a new class of Republican lawmakers who charged into office with a promise to shun the ways of Washington.
But even as they publicly bash the capital's culture, many have quietly begun to embrace it.
Several freshmen have hired lobbyists -- pre-eminent Washington insiders -- to lead their congressional staffs. In the weeks leading up to today's swearing-in, dozens of the newcomers joined other lawmakers in turning to K Street for campaign cash. Congressional offices will be packed today with lawmakers' relatives, friends, constituents and lobbyists, all invited to celebrate the new Congress.
As to other concerns posted by Egghead in her original comment, I will leave much of that response to the gracious contribution by Col. B. Bunny. He has addressed a large number of the issues I intended to make.
Col. B. Bunny: First [new] amendment: "Islam is hereby declared to be a political doctrine hostile to the United States and its people. The practice of Islam, possession of the Koran, and advocacy or use of sharia law are prohibited in the States, District of Columbia, and the territories and possessions of the United States. All Muslims have two years from the ratification of this Amendment within which to arrange for departure to a Muslim land with all of their property. No Muslim may own property in the United States, etc., except as permitted by law. Two years from ratification, all Muslims shall lose the protection of all laws save the protection of criminal laws."
This is no small matter. I have maintained for more than a few years that America should insert into its Constitution language that irrevocably bans shari’a law in a manner that cannot be overturned by popular vote or other methods. It would effectively confer upon our government and military the legal aegis to forcibly intervene with respect to any instance of shari’a being practiced inside the borders of the United States of America.
Joe & Stephanie: As a lifelong resident of California, which has had a similar referendum process since the 1930s, I can attest that it's a singularly bad idea.
As a born native and lifelong Californian resident myself, I ask you to consider whether any abuses or misapplications of this state’s initiative process are a result of its own insane politics. It’s difficult to assemble the intricate jigsaw puzzle of highly disparate political goals upon a voter base that vibrates like some toy football game table.
In fact, California is a good example of why the referendum process may well be vital to successful governance. Even a cursory examination of Governor Schwarzenegger’s multiple terms in office shows a committed centrist that was thwarted time and again by entrenched political interests who refused to view their elected leader as anything but an outsider.
These same incompetent politicians have − even after three straight years of recession − driven what remains as the world’s eighth largest economy straight into financial ruin and it is doubtful in the extreme that any significant portion of blame can be laid at the door of this state’s initiative process.
You may start with a slate of well-meaning measures that draw public support. what you end up with is special-interest balloting, proposals with deceptive titles, and no resources to fund the enacted programs. In California, we call it "ballot box budgeting" and you can all see the results.
And how, exactly, is this any different from the same garbage that is being passed off as good governance both here in this state and in Washington D.C. as well?
THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN AND MUST BE FIXED BEFORE IT IS DESTROYED.
Stick with our current representative democracy. to paraphrase a famous person, it's the worst system of governance, except for all the others.
I have oft times referred to Churchill’s famous quote in my own writings. However, as Egghead so saliently noted:
The original Constitution was written and adopted by highly educated leaders with a recent memory of both government oppression and religious persecution that the leaders actively sought to limit for future generations.
Not by any stretch of the imagination can our current crop of politicians be defined in the same manner. It is one of Democracy’s greatest failings; namely, that a very unintelligent electorate can vote into office some very unintelligent − if not greedy and utterly corrupt − bastards who are cheerfully steering our nation towards a reef of insoluble debt and Politically Correct idiocy.
Far better that our electorate be given the chance to self-educate − something almost entirely impossible if left to the devices of our politicians and their media cohort − and slowly reinstitute some sane Federal governance.
Once again − like others in the thread − you, Joe & Stephanie, have criticized without offering up any alternative solution. Maintaining that we should “stay the course” is folly in the extreme. Again, I do not claim that mine is the perfect solution but we had best set about identifying some other options because, left to their own devices, our current crop of politicians will slowly KILL US and America as well.
Col. B. Bunny: The idea seems to be that the People are just rabble who will demand free flat screen tvs and daily trash pickup as a constitutional right. I don't see why that should be the controlling assumption.
At the moment, federalism is dead, the federal government exercises vast powers never delegated to it by the States or the people, the national government exemplifies fiscal and strategic imbecility, and I have as much chance of influencing or removing a federal legislator or federal judge as I do of sending Mr. Obama back to his real place of birth by telekinesis. And I should be worried about a "runaway" constitutional convention?
Besides, Congress would do its best to coopt the Convention method by stealing the most popular ideas percolating across the land.
Granted there's the chance of buffoons being made delegates but we've managed to weather buffoons before. Probably the biggest challenge would be to wrest the conventions from the grip of the state party apparatuses (apperati?).
Let's break a little furniture and put the fear of God into the grifters, time servers, and stuffed shirts. [emphasis added]
Col. B. Bunny, sir, your comments were so spot on that they merited repeating. Thank you for bringing some much needed perspective into this discussion.
At the very least, putting the National Referendum contract in place for all politicians seeking office would, effectively, read them the Riot Act™ as to more faithfully implementing the Will of the People™. Moreover, our Federally elected officials could no longer ignore the looming threat of losing their Platinum Parachutes™ and all of the other perks that they take for granted in such an offensive manner.
The National Referendum process would put on the table every last bargaining chip that these chiselers and scapegraces once thought to be their by nothing less than divine right.
THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE AND CHANGE DAMN SOON.
You're very kind, Zenster. Thank you.
Egghead's right to ask whether all inputs to any convention(s) are necessarily salutary. In a country that served up Mr. Obama as the white-hating, crotch-grabbing, sheikh wannabe commander (God save us) in chief and has embraced fiscal and "strategic imbecility" (per Caroline Glick), only a moon calf would assume that the Convention path through the woods is without significant perils.
I agree that the present system just isn't working and the trick is to find the way, figuratively, to heave that brick through the living room window of that nice comfy dwelling that the political class has constructed for itself. I gather that the Republicans today just agreed to an increase in the debt ceiling. I haven't checked on what was said by way of justification for this but, going out on a limb here, I'm betting that it was something pretty lame. Was this ceiling problem not foreseeable on Nov. 3? Was it possible to have some kind of a coherent plan in place when this major symbolic milestone was reached? Why, yes, I believe it was.
Earth to Washington. Come in, please!
Populism has it limits but it also has its uses. I like the initiative and referendum ideas. Targeting specific laws and regs for oblivion is something delicious to contemplate. I'd love to see Congress and the Executive falling over themselves to deal with the sudden vaporization of treasured provisions.
I'd also like to see more aggressive use made of "stripper" legislation to deprive the Supreme Court of appellate jurisdiction in certain cases.
There will always be a blizzard of worthless suggestions and complaints but if the entire nation can vote for couples on Dancing with the Stars there is surely a way for gold to be separated from the dross.
If the Fourth Estate was able to turn itself into a branch of government (Propaganda Ministry) – something only made possible by the printing press – why not Branch IV(a) with web-based mechanisms that circumvent, supplement, or circumscribe traditional party methods? Some way has got to be found for normal (sic) citizens to put teeth into "I don't think so." The Palins, Bachmans, Wests, and Myricks are too much like aberrations and some other way has to be found to locate, vet, and nominate honest-to-gosh people, warts and all, as Mr. Cromwell required.
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.