Something to Think About
It appears that the laws we have aren't enough to keep our ever-lovin' government from doing very stupid things. A lot of very stupid things. Suggestions have been made that perhaps it is time for a Constitutional Amendment Convention. As it happens, I have a few suggestions for improvements. (Lawyers, please mentally insert all the necessary boilerplate that makes it a working Constitutional Amendment. I'm a physicist, okay? I just know Ohm's law and stuff like that.)
1) Congress may make no law wherein they exempt themselves from any rules, regulations, fines, or punishments set forth. (I am really sick and tired of them telling us they are "special" and don't need to follow the rules they create for us. Yes, this means no more fancy healthcare if they take MINE away. I don't want the red pill!)
2) Congress must have an actual, recorded vote on a bill to pass it. The bill must have the same name, ID number, AND CONTENT when passed in both House and Senate to be considered approved by Congress. Text concerning taxation or revenue allocation must retain its original, approved House form. (No more shell bills, or massive hack-n-slash reconciliations, or the degraded custom of "deeming")
3) Any increase in Congressional salary or funding, individual or for Congress as a whole, must be approved of by either the President and the Supreme Court, or by 60% approval in the next Federal election. (Their choice, and I think all the yelping about separation of powers would get very quiet if the only other option was to let the hoi polloi have a say in the matter. Me, I think people entrusted with the till who help themselves to the contents are called embezzlers.)
Any other suggestions?
1) Congress may make no law wherein they exempt themselves from any rules, regulations, fines, or punishments set forth. (I am really sick and tired of them telling us they are "special" and don't need to follow the rules they create for us. Yes, this means no more fancy healthcare if they take MINE away. I don't want the red pill!)
2) Congress must have an actual, recorded vote on a bill to pass it. The bill must have the same name, ID number, AND CONTENT when passed in both House and Senate to be considered approved by Congress. Text concerning taxation or revenue allocation must retain its original, approved House form. (No more shell bills, or massive hack-n-slash reconciliations, or the degraded custom of "deeming")
3) Any increase in Congressional salary or funding, individual or for Congress as a whole, must be approved of by either the President and the Supreme Court, or by 60% approval in the next Federal election. (Their choice, and I think all the yelping about separation of powers would get very quiet if the only other option was to let the hoi polloi have a say in the matter. Me, I think people entrusted with the till who help themselves to the contents are called embezzlers.)
Any other suggestions?
posted by Snarkatron at 8:21 PM
5 Comments:
How about 'we the people' approving their salaries and perks?
If it is good enough for them, it is good enough for us. Or vice versa.
Likewise, seen a lot of talk thereupon, but practically all of it on the wrong issue. Term limits would be great, but they wouldn't stop the march of statism (Obama's been in federal office less than the typically-endorsed 12 year limit; how's that working out?). Banning earmarks would be wonderful but not enough (Spendulous and Obamacare were monstrosities even before the earmarks). In fact, practically every measure being bandied about would only be slowing our demise, not stopping or reversing the process.
However, there is one amendment that would destroy the power driving statism. Almost a year ago, I wrote a piece on my blog about this issue, including the particular amendment for which a Constitutional Convention would be worth calling. My thoughts on the matter haven't changed during the interceding eleven months other than feeling the urgency of the matter greatly increased.
I won't take up a ton of BCR's space reiterating most of what I covered in that piece, but the power of, and motivation for, statism is the bloc of government-dependent people. A single amendment removing the voting power of that bloc would terminate the statists' greatest asset, undoing the cause in Alexis de Tocqueville's famous quote on the demise of the American Republic.
By no means would it turn everything around in an instant, nor would it even ensure no statists ever hold power in our government. However, as election cycles passed, it would thin their ranks and allow the heart and soul of America, its workers and innovators, to reassert control over a government newly accountable to the people instead of the leeches. Returning the country to its foundation could begin in earnest, and the statists would find themselves on the defensive in the process.
No one may be considered a candidate for federal office unless he can provide proof that he knows the difference between an island and a lily pad.
I found all of your suggestions to have merit, BCR. I would propose one other. Each member of congress should have to score a minimum of 55% on a quiz showing that they had READ the bloody legislation before being allowed to vote. A minimum percentage of each house would be required to have a quorum, of course; and the test scores should be made public to constituents.
Did you know, Ma'am, that for quite a while now, it has been a Federal crime to sock a Congresscritter? That is totally contrary to the spirit of the Constitution, which considers ordinary punchings and kickings to be in the domain of the several states.
Further: When Jack Kennedy was shot, no Federal crime was committed; he was just murdered in Texas. The Feds unconstitutionally took control of that situation, thereby adding to the distrust so many of us have for them.
Post a Comment
<< Home