Sunday, August 18, 2013

Constitutional Amendments

Mark Levin has a book out proposing some 11 constitutional amendments presumably "to insure a more perfect union" or some such. Most of these ideas are good ones, but there are a few problems that I can see from my perspective as a constitutional scholar*. The link is an interview and overview discussion of the suggested amendments. Pretty good read.

Visit the link and read through the interview. The amendments are not spelled out in detail, as that would impact his book sales, but are described in general.

1. Term limits for everybody. Senators, Representatives, and Supreme court judges.
    Observation: This would probably do a lot of good, but getting the rats to vote on their own poison isn't going to happen.

2. Repeal the 17th amendment.
    Observation: Great idea. Senators would go back to being selected by their state legislators. Of course this would mean that only 10 or 15 out of 100 would ever lose their jobs over a six-year period, but the threat would be just like that of amendment 1.

3. To allow a super majority of the Congress to override the Supreme Court.
  Observation: If a law is genuinely unconstitutional, it should be struck down. Period. If the congress doesn't like that, then they can write another one and word it differently.

4. Spending and taxation limits.
  Observation: TABOR for the feds. This is possibly the best idea of the lot. Spending limited to 17.5% of GDP and the highest tax rate to be 15% of income. If this is couples with a 15% limit on business and other revenue sources as well, it would really get the economy going. Just remember: The effective tax rate on businesses is zero. All expenses, including taxation are passed on to the customers.

5. Moves tax day to the last business day prior to the national elections.
  Observation: Would give the rats some incentive to cut spending rather than produce pork. Problem is that the national budget needs to be written based on revenues received. Paying taxes on 2010 income, for example, in November of 2011, for use in 2012 seems a bit disconnected. It would probably make budgeting more predictable though.

6. Requiring reauthorization of everything called "Department of..." every 3 years.
  Observation: Yes, it's possible that the Department of Defense could be completely defunded, but probably unlikely. More likely would be a continuing resolution to keep everything just as it is. This would be a voice vote following much posturing before the cameras, thus providing campaign footage and a complete lack of traceability for the pols.

7. Redefinition of the Commerce Clause.
  Observation: Long overdue. The problem is that it limits the Fed Govs ability to micromanage everything. This is why you want it. This is why the Fed Gov isn't about to give it up.

8. Adds regulatory takings to the takings clause.
  Observation: Great idea. Right now the Feds can declare your property to be a wetland or habitat for an endangered slime mold and prevent you from ever doing anything with it without having to compensate you for the loss.

9. Allows the states to propose Constitutional amendments.
  Observation: The proposals would come from the legislatures rather than from popular votes of the citizens. Requires 2/3 of the states to enact rather than the current 3/4. Given amendment 2, this would be pretty much the same as a proposal from the Senate.

10. States would over ride Federal law with a 3/5 vote.
  Observation: Being no fan of the Feds, I'd even go for a simple majority.

11. Requires photo ID be obtained before allowing anyone to vote.
  Observation: This would extend to state and local elections. It wouldn't eliminate vote fraud, but it might slow it down.

* The standards for being a constitutional scholar have been drastically devalued. I've read most of it and lived under it for about 1/4 of its total lifetime. I've also read scholarly writings from people who actually went to school for this. As such, I feel I'm at least as entitled to the title as say the President.

6 comments:

Brad K. said...

I think California might have some relevant experience with term limits.

As I recall reading, what happened was that the state legislators came for a term or three, and went home. Instead of legislators building generations-long organizations and amassing entrenched power bases -- their bureaucrat support structures became the power brokers. The bureaucrats began establishing the power bases, and determining which legislators got to do what, including deciding what legislation could be considered. Bureaucrat power base and union concerns became sacrosanct -- and the voters were cut out of any real ability to influence their legislators.

Seems like a scary choice to me.

About number 11 -- I don't like the universal registration this implies. I don't like the Feds involved in any election -- the states are supposed to be doing the elections (electoral college, anyone?), so the Feds having any say at all is anathema to rule of law, and the limits of the US Constitution.

Billll said...

It's always a concern when you treat a problem that has generated its own support structure. In this case if the hereditary pols disappear, the hereditary bureau chief becomes the de facto mandarin.

This is where #6 comes in. I don't know how it's written, but if each agency had to be voted on individually it's likely we'd see some debate and possibly some significant budget realignments.

As to the voter ID, I believe the states would be required to issue it just like they do now.

Cincinnatus said...

And just how would "3" work with "4", "7" and "8".

I find the suggestions silly more than I'd hoped from Levin.

Billll said...

I didn't think #3 actually worked with anything. It is almost as though an editor slipped it in at the last second and didn't tell Mr. Levin, much like we write legislation today.

The 11 proposed amendments are more of a laundry list than a serious suggestion. I imagine that 90% of the benefits could likely be had from 1 or two carefully crafted amendments.

Anonymous said...

Tie the right to vote to productive taxpaying individuals. If you're on the welfare rolls - no vote.

ignore amos

Right-Wing Troll said...

Since corporations are legally persons with rights, and pay taxes, corporations should be allowed to vote. Otherwise, it's taxation without representation.

Watch liberal heads explode...


PS - and let "undocumented" foreign corporations vote, too.