Page 1 of 1

#1 Seven ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 7:36 pm
by frigidmagi
Yahoo
Rick Perry has many ideas about how to change the American government's founding document. From ending lifetime tenure for federal judges to completely scrapping two whole amendments, the Constitution would see a major overhaul if the Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate had his druthers.

Perry laid out these proposed innovations to the founding document in his book, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington. He has occasionally mentioned them on the campaign trail. Several of his ideas fall within the realm of mainstream conservative thinking today, but, as you will see, there are also a few surprises.

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

The nation's framers established a federal court system whereby judges with "good behavior" would be secure in their job for life. Perry believes that provision is ready for an overhaul.

"The Judges," reads Article III, "both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

Perry makes it no secret that he believes the judges on the bench over the past century have acted beyond their constitutional bounds. The problem, Perry reasons, is that members of the judiciary are "unaccountable" to the people, and their lifetime tenure gives them free license to act however they want. In his book, the governor speaks highly of plans to limit their tenure and offers proposals about how to accomplish it.

"'[W]e should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability," he writes in Fed Up! "There are a number of ideas about how to do this . . . . One such reform would be to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power. One proposal, for example, would have judges roll off every two years based on seniority."

2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.

Ending lifetime tenure for federal justices isn't the only way Perry has proposed suppressing the power of the courts. His book excoriates at length what he sees as overreach from the judicial branch. (The title of Chapter Six is "Nine Unelected Judges Tell Us How to Live.")
Giving Congress the ability to veto their decisions would be another way to take the Court down a notch, Perry says.

"[A]llow Congress to override the Supreme Court with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which risks increased politicization of judicial decisions, but also has the benefit of letting the people stop the Court from unilaterally deciding policy," he writes.

3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.
The Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." It should be abolished immediately, Perry says.

Calling the Sixteenth Amendment "the great milestone on the road to serfdom," Perry's writes that it provides a virtually blank check to the federal government to use for projects with little or no consultation from the states.

4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.

Overturning this amendment would restore the original language of the Constitution, which gave state legislators the power to appoint the members of the Senate.

Ratified during the Progressive Era in 1913 , the same year as the Sixteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment gives citizens the ability to elect senators on their own. Perry writes that supporters of the amendment at the time were "mistakenly" propelled by "a fit of populist rage."

"The American people mistakenly empowered the federal government during a fit of populist rage in the early twentieth century by giving it an unlimited source of income (the Sixteenth Amendment) and by changing the way senators are elected (the Seventeenth Amendment)," he writes.

5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.
Of all his proposed ideas, Perry calls this one "the most important," and of all the plans, a balanced budget amendment likely has the best chance of passage.

"The most important thing we could do is amend the Constitution--now--to restrict federal spending," Perry writes in his book. "There are generally thought to be two options: the traditional 'balanced budget amendment' or a straightforward 'spending limit amendment,' either of which would be a significant improvement. I prefer the latter . . . . Let's use the people's document--the Constitution--to put an actual spending limit in place to control the beast in Washington."

A campaign to pass a balanced budget amendment through Congress fell short by just one vote in the Senate in the 1990s.

Last year, House Republicans proposed a spending-limit amendment that would limit federal spending to 20 percent of the economy. According to the amendment's language, the restriction could be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress or by a declaration of war.

6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.

Despite saying last month that he was "fine with" states like New York allowing gay marriage, Perry has now said he supports a constitutional amendment that would permanently ban gay marriage throughout the country and overturn any state laws that define marriage beyond a relationship between one man and one woman.

"I do respect a state's right to have a different opinion and take a different tack if you will, California did that," Perry told the Christian Broadcasting Network in August. "I respect that right, but our founding fathers also said, 'Listen, if you all in the future think things are so important that you need to change the Constitution here's the way you do it'.

In an interview with The Ticket earlier this month, Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said that even though it would overturn laws in several states, the amendment still fits into Perry's broader philosophy because amendments require the ratification of three-fourths of the states to be added to the Constitution.

7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.
Like the gay marriage issue, Perry at one time believed that abortion policy should be left to the states, as was the case before the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. But in the same Christian Broadcasting Network interview, Perry said that he would support a federal amendment outlawing abortion because it was "so important...to the soul of this country and to the traditional values [of] our founding fathers."
... You know, I will come back in a few hours and write a full blown rebuttal to this... this... Madness. But right now all I can say is. No. Fuck You. No.

#2

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:51 pm
by SirNitram
Ah, the continuing of the quest against tax. I swear to god, America has an autoimmune disorder. Taxes are a vital, if often disagreeable, part of keeping a country functional. But Americans attack it constantly. That's like wanting to cut chunks from your ass because you're sick and tired off your body extruding physical waste.

#3

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2011 10:01 am
by The Minx
These ideas look crazy. Congress overriding the Supreme Court? So the Congress now interprets the Constitution above the Courts? That's just... I don't know where to begin with it. :shock:

As for the balanced budget amendment and the social issues (marriage and abortion), that's totally aggravating, but unfortunately not surprising at all. :roll:

#4

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 4:50 am
by frigidmagi
Okay I promised a step by step rebuttal and here we go.
1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.
Okay I get the deal here. The federal courts do alot of things that are unpopular and it's frustrating. Here's the thing though... That's the damn court's job. The courts in our system are a barrier against mob rule. Their job is to make unpopular calls and serve as the final authority on the law and constitution.

For that matter one can can look at states which have elected judges and see that courtroom sanity drops quite a bit. Elected judges or judges that have to please politicians to keep their job are neutered and unable to serve their function. This is bad!
2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.
And here we go. Look I understand the frustration. God knows I think that the Supreme Court has gotten it wrong more then once. Dread Scott, Kelos, Citizens United are all good examples. Here's the thing though, again it's a barrier to mob rule, it's suppose to be fucking hard to overrule the Supreme Court. If you want to overrule them, everyone has to fucking want it via an amendment.

The Supreme Court is the final barrier against Mob Rule, which is always a danger for a democracy. If 9 men vote to rape 2 women, it's still democracy or if 120 million whites vote to take everything that 20 million blacks own. That's the kind of stuff the Supreme Court is meant to stop, it's not suppose to be popular. If a Republic is to remain sane and stable you need those barriers intact.

It's not surprising that Perry would lead an assault on the independence and power of the judicial branch. The Tea Party is a populous moment out to take complete control of the federal government in order to dismantle it. One cannot take control of the judicial branch by winning elections however and that means it must be destroyed or brought under control. This is a political move to ensure the program of a single faction cannot be opposed. As such I am utterly against it.
3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.
And speaking of political programs... This is an outright attempt to cripple the federal government. From what I can dig up the income tax is almost half of government revenues. It's the single biggest source of money for the government, God knows it isn't the capital gains or estate tax. Perry has no real plan I can find to replace it.

Without the income tax America would never have been able to pay for WWII, the Cold War, or the Space Race, the federal government would be eternally starved of funds and nearly powerless. You know who wins in that situation? People who already have power and are restrained by the government.
4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.
So we need make judges accountable to public opinion and Senators not accountable... Smooth. I'm actually somewhat less hostile to this then the others but frankly sometimes I think the problem is we have to much democracy then the other way around. For one thing I had to vote on the Mine Safety Inspector last election. WTF? Why is that even on the ballot? Seriously!

That said, all this does is give a faction a chance to artificially pump up their Congressional presence. Now all you need to do is capture a bare majority of a state government (Wisconsin ring any bells) and you get more federal power...
5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.
Good God almighty! Lets also pass a law outlawing crises that cost money! That'll solve everything! How is the government suppose to response to things like major earthquakes, wars or so on? Sorry we can't spend money for emerengy aide, we'll end up over budget.
6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.
Federal Government should be small and powerless unless enforcing my personal views! Seriously you rail against the power of government and promise to cut it to ribbons and then turn around swear to enforce a massive control over our private lives! You Have No Right to Tell Me How To Live Asshole!
7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.
Arrrrrgggghhhhh!

I should note I've edited this, I removed about 5 paragraphs. 2 paragraphs were a side rant about the generation that has produced Perry, Bush and the Tea Party (note it's mostly over 40).

#5

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 2:10 pm
by Destructionator XV
"Without the income tax America would never have been able to pay for WWII, [...]"

I believe they could levy an income tax in times of war. During the Civil War, there was an income tax, and that was before the 16th amendment.

Now, in the later 1800's, the Supreme Court knocked down some kind of income tax as unconstitutional, but I don't recall why specifically they did...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v. ... 6_Trust_Co.

There's the case. Looks like they ruled taxes on wages are ok, but taxes on income from property is not. So, while the 16th amendment going away probably wouldn't be a good thing, it wouldn't cripple the country, even in today's environment.

#6

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 5:22 pm
by frigidmagi
What the 16th Amendment did was not give the government a new power but declare that the government always had the power to tax income. You'll note today we do tax income from property, usually under the capital gains tax. Also I fail to see how removing the tax that is over 45% of the government's revenue and not replacing it will not cripple it.

#7

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 5:30 pm
by Destructionator XV
What I'm saying is they could replace it, by raising the still allowed kinds of taxes... which probably means squeezing the smaller guys, so I'd just assume not, but there are legal options.

#8

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 5:50 pm
by frigidmagi
Expect Perry has offered no plan to do so and let us be honest, do you really think a tea party candidate will rise taxes? Especially taxes have an actual chance of making money?

#9

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 5:52 pm
by Destructionator XV
Indeed.

The refusal to be fiscally responsible on both sides of the balance sheet is what irks me about most the Republicans.

#10

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 10:29 pm
by Derek Thunder
I think it's based on the belief (now almost religious in nature) that we are always, ALWAYS to the right of the Laffer Curve's peak and that by lowering/eliminating taxes revenue will take care of itself.
5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.
In theory, this could simply mean someting like pay-go, but when combined with a requirement that 67% of the legislature sign off on revenue increases it's not serious at all. Plus the whole thing where the US can borrow at *INCREDIBLY* cheap rates right as investors flee to the safety of our government bonds.

With all that being said though, I can grok the first two on an emotional level at least. I don't feel like doing the legwork to research this, but whether it's just the result of media or not the Supreme Court feels very partisan right now and it makes me wonder if largely apolitical judges are a thing of the past. It seems like every important case starts with "in a 5-4 decision..." with a pretty easy guess as to who fits where. Perhaps they never existed though, and the current court is nothing new.

#11

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 10:34 pm
by Derek Thunder
Plus the whole thing where the US can borrow at *INCREDIBLY* cheap rates right as investors flee to the safety of our government bonds.
Not even kidding, we could finance another Apollo mission right now with lower interest rates than we paid in the 1960s, and that was when the US was a net creditor nation.