TX Gov. Perry and What He Would Change in the Constitution

[TheStatutoryApe]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html

Apparently in a book he wrote (Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington) Rick Perry named a number of things he would like to see changed in the constitution or added to it. The article appears fair, and quotes the book, though I can not say I have read the book and know whether or not these may have been taken out of context.

I will list only the gist of each for reference, the article contains a couple short paragraphs further describing each point.

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

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

3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.

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

5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.

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

7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.

What do you think of such amendments? What do you think of these ideas coming from Perry as a candidate for President?

Personally I agree with none. #5 is the only one that I find at all reasonable, as the government should strive to keep a balanced budget, but I find the idea of making it mandatory each year to be naive. I have not yet looked into the candidates much unfortunately, and not that I would have likely voted for him anyway, but this article gives me a particularly bad impression of the man.edit: Just for clarification I am not indicating by the title that Perry could or would have the power to actually change the constitution.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

My two-cents

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

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

Both of these sound very dodgy, essentially transferring legal power towards politicians. If the supreme court ruled Intelligent design to not be a science I'd hate to see an override.

3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.

Thus causing a massive loss of revenue for the government and ultimately increasing the rich/poor divide.

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

No idea what this means but it doesn't sound good.

5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.

Nations are in a constant state of debt and borrowing, this sounds like an ideal but it's laughably naive and absurd to suggest it as a mandatory rule.

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

Absurd.

7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.

Again absurd.

None of these sound like the reasonable proposals of a politician, they sound like the mental armchair ideas of someone who has no real understanding of how a country works.

 

[Vanadium 50]

First, I think it's only fair that one should read the book before criticizing it.

Second, ryan, for most of the US' existence, this is how the Senate was elected. The intent was that the House would be represent the interests of the people and the Senate would represent the interests of the states (remember, this is a federal system).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Both of these sound very dodgy, essentially transferring legal power towards politicians. If the supreme court ruled Intelligent design to not be a science I'd hate to see an override.

These things were set up the way they are for this exact reason. Checks and balances of power. The idea of allowing congress to nullify a Supreme Court ruling is just ridiculous. As it stands Congress does have the ability to change the law and propose constitutional amendments which can invalidate a SC ruling. This would just allow them to ignore it without the responsibility of dealing with the legal issues being pointed out by the SC.

No idea what this means but it doesn't sound good.

The Senate was originally appointed, not elected.

None of these sound like the reasonable proposals of a politician, they sound like the mental armchair ideas of someone who has no real understanding of how a country works.

To be fair they are just ideas he wrote in a book though he has apparently campaigned on some of these. And he can't actually change the constitution himself though I would be concerned with the direction of his policy setting and memoranda particularly with regard to same sex marriage and abortion.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

First, I think it's only fair that one should read the book before criticizing it.

Its not the book so much as certain ideas that are apparently in it which Perry has, according to the article, also campaigned on and mentioned in interview. If the article does not appear to you to be a fair representation of facts then I will of course respect a recommendation that the thread be locked.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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

This one is rather strange. The Constitution already allows Congress to override the Supreme Court by changing the Constitution. However, it is much harder than a two-thirds vote. This lends a conservative bent to our system of government and you would think that Perry would not want to weaken it.

 

[Evo]

I read this article this morning on Perry. TSA, if you don't think it belongs, I will move it.

Rick Perry Clueless On Use Of Executive Presidential Powers To Kill Obamacare

"If I’m so fortunate to be elected the president of the United States, on Day One, when I walk into the Oval Office, there will be an executive order on that desk that eliminates as much of ObamaCare that I can have done with an executive order."

What should disturb you about this vision of the future is not so much that a President Perry would try to bring Obamacare to an end as that is to be expected from any GOP contender.What should give you pause is that, in a Perry White House, our 45th president would begin his term by signing an executive order that would be, for all real purposes, a blank page.

Talk about an inauspicious beginning as representative of what I fear we might continue to expect from a President Perry.

Like it or not, there is virtually nothing a president can do by executive order to overturn this legislation passed by the Congress and signed into law by the current President.

continued...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...ve-presidential-powers-to-wipe-out-obamacare/

 

[Physics-Learner]

i like 1, 3, 5, and 7.

unsure about 2.

4 seems to take the power away from the people, and give it to the govt, so i don't think i would want this.

i don't like 6, because i don't want the fed to have any laws regarding marriage.

 

[WhoWee]

[b]1. Abolish lifetime tenure fo...ion) need to be uniform across all 50 states.

 

[WhoWee]

I read this article this morning on Perry. TSA, if you don't think it belongs, I will move it.

continued...

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...ve-presidential-powers-to-wipe-out-obamacare/

Personally, I'm in favor of eliminating executive orders other than for short term emergency situations. President Obama (IMO) has become far too comfortable with executive orders that further his agenda in the face of Congressional defeat. I'll gladly post (specific details) regarding last weekend's immigration initiatives and EPA regulation to support this comment if necessary.

 

[lisab]

The sudden interest in Gov. Perry reminds me of Fred Thompson's saga when he declared he was running for President in 2007. There's a sudden peak in popularity, I think mostly because the candidate's newness.

When the field is weak, as I feel the current GOP field is, anyone who is fresh sees a rapid boost in popularity. It's more because of who they are not, than who they are.

We'll see if Perry's arc continues on its current path, or if he crashes and burns, a la Fred Thompson.

 

[daveb]

Personally, I'm in favor of eliminating executive orders other than for short term emergency situations. President Obama (IMO) has become far too comfortable with executive orders that further his agenda in the face of Congressional defeat. I'll gladly post (specific details) regarding last weekend's immigration initiatives and EPA regulation to support this comment if necessary.

The EO you mentioned isn't in http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama.html" yet, so could you post a link about that EO? What other specific EOs issued do you have a problem with? I saw none in 2011 that seemed to attempt a furthering of his agenda inthe face of Congressional defeat (though I admit I only looked at the titles for 2010 and 2009).

 

[WhoWee]

The EO you mentioned isn't in http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama.html" yet, so could you post a link about that EO? What other specific EOs issued do you have a problem with? I saw none in 2011 that seemed to attempt a furthering of his agenda inthe face of Congressional defeat (though I admit I only looked at the titles for 2010 and 2009).

Actually, you are correct - it wasn't an EO - just a policy change on Friday.
http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2011/08/immigration/xVwK5kIcuveuzkoAFlilFJ/index.html

"The Obama administration took one of its boldest steps yet toward addressing illegal immigration today by announcing it would halt potentially thousands of cases in federal immigration court if they do not involve criminals or people with flagrant immigration violations.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said today that the agency will launch a case-by-case review of 300,000 cases pending in immigration courts across the nation to focus on the federal government’s top priority, detaining and deporting criminals and serious violators of immigration law."

This might be worse than an EO - it's less transparent.

 

[skippy1729]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html

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

Congress already has the power to increase the number of supreme court justices. If the president (who appoints them) and the senate (who confirms them) have sufficient cause they can change the balance of power in the court. Historically there are two instances of the threat of such an action probably influenced the courts: Reconstruction and the New Deal.

The only new feature of Perry's proposal would be to cut the president "out of the loop". I think that we already have sufficient protection from a runaway court through congressional and presidential political pressure. Our constitution is a DELICATE balance of powers and should not be toyed with lightly. It has lasted over 200 years.

Skippy

 

[daveb]

Actually, you are correct - it wasn't an EO - just a policy change on Friday.
http://www.boston.com/Boston/metrodesk/2011/08/immigration/xVwK5kIcuveuzkoAFlilFJ/index.html

"The Obama administration took one of its boldest steps yet toward addressing illegal immigration today by announcing it would halt potentially thousands of cases in federal immigration court if they do not involve criminals or people with flagrant immigration violations.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said today that the agency will launch a case-by-case review of 300,000 cases pending in immigration courts across the nation to focus on the federal government’s top priority, detaining and deporting criminals and serious violators of immigration law."

This might be worse than an EO - it's less transparent.

This to me seems a matter of just prioritizing an already overburdened court system by going after the convicted criminals and flagrant violaters. If there were plenty of resoures to do both, I could understand the problem with the policy change, but since resources are limited, I'd rather see the Justice Department go after the criminals rather than the average Joe (or Jose, since when we talk about illegal immigration inthis country, it's invariably about Central and South Americans).

 

[Physics-Learner]

i don't follow politicians, so i knew nothing of him. just commenting on the 7 suggestions.

personally, i don't vote - my way of effecting change.

 

[WhoWee]

This to me seems a matter of just prioritizing an already overburdened court system by going after the convicted criminals and flagrant violaters. If there were plenty of resoures to do both, I could understand the problem with the policy change, but since resources are limited, I'd rather see the Justice Department go after the criminals rather than the average Joe (or Jose, since when we talk about illegal immigration inthis country, it's invariably about Central and South Americans).

Isn't it still a crime to enter the country illegally?

 

[Evo]

I'd rather see the Justice Department go after the criminals rather than the average Joe (or Jose, since when we talk about illegal immigration inthis country, it's invariably about Central and South Americans).

No, the great majority of illegal immigrants are from mexcio, not Central and South America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_immigrant_population_of_the_United_States#Origins

 

[BobG]

Second, ryan, for most of the US' existence, this is how the Senate was elected. The intent was that the House would be represent the interests of the people and the Senate would represent the interests of the states (remember, this is a federal system).

It is true that for most of the US' existence, Senators were appointed by the state legislatures - 125 years of state legislature appointment, 98 years of direct election, plus 12 years under the Articles of Confederation. However, appointment of Senators being a state issue, many states required the state legislature to appoint whoever won the popular election as Senator even before the 17th Amendment was passed - in fact, it was almost impossible to get the amendment out of committee, let alone passed, until there enough 'popularly elected' Senators to make the amendment an issue. So there was actually a kind of fuzzy boundary with the last few years of state legislature appointment being a mix between actual appointment and a de facto endorsement of whatever the popular elections decided.

It's ironic that one of the prime motivations for direct elections were bribery and other scandals (plus deadlocked state legislatures leaving Senate seats vacant for months to years). Having the entire state vote for Senators instead of having them chosen by a few would theoretically make it more difficult to 'buy' a Senator position. One of the prime motivations for returning Senator selection to the state legislatures is to remove the influence of 'special interest groups' in swaying elections via large influxes of money into campaigns. Some problems never go away - they just adapt to whatever environment they exist in.

It's also a little ironic that repealing the 17th Amendment would be a Tea Party issue. Returning Senatorial appointment would seem to be returning control to the 'establishment' regardless of which party was in control of the state legislature. It would almost eliminate any chance of Tea Party candidates becoming Senators since they'd have to win many elections in the state instead of just one (but the Tea Party doesn't do all that well in statewide elections, anyway, so they really wouldn't be losing all that much). I think it's mostly a safe dig at those in office than a serious movement.

While I would lean towards states being able to choose Senators any way that they please, I don't think it's something worth spending any time on. I'd be more motivated to support popular election of the President than to support repealing the 17th Amendment.

 

[BobG]

This to me seems a matter of just prioritizing an already overburdened court system by going after the convicted criminals and flagrant violaters. If there were plenty of resoures to do both, I could understand the problem with the policy change, but since resources are limited, I'd rather see the Justice Department go after the criminals rather than the average Joe (or Jose, since when we talk about illegal immigration inthis country, it's invariably about Central and South Americans).

Isn't it still a crime to enter the country illegally?

Yes, but there are still priorities involved, just the same as solving 'real' crimes are more important than catching every person that breaks the speed limit.

How much of an increase in taxes would you be willing to accept in order to expand the police/justice system large enough to catch the millions of illegal aliens in this country?

 

[Physics-Learner]

dont put more cooks in the kitchen - simply sour the soup.

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, but there are still priorities involved, just the same as solving 'real' crimes are more important than catching every person that breaks the speed limit.

How much of an increase in taxes would you be willing to accept in order to expand the police/justice system large enough to catch the millions of illegal aliens in this country?

How much will we need to pay in taxes to provide food, housing, healthcare, education, etc. to these people - and/or who will need to lose benefits to support these people if taxes aren't increased.

 

[daveb]

Isn't it still a crime to enter the country illegally?

I never said it wasn't. But you have to prioritize the crimes you go after when you have limited resources. Do you go after the violent criminals, or do you go after the nonviolent ones?

 

[BobG]

As for the itemized list - I'd need to see more details on items 1 - 3, 4 is worth discussing IF the discussion includes term limits in the House, 5 is a priority, 6 and 7 (regardless of the final decision) need to be uniform across all 50 states.

I don't see any reason abortion laws need to be uniform between the states since it's a single act occurring in a single state.

I don't think marriage/divorce laws need to be uniform, either, but there does have to be enough agreement that states will respect what has been done in another state. While states have divorce laws that vary greatly from state to state, each state respects the decision of the state where the divorce was initiated. For example, you can't take the kids, move to a new state, and initiate a new child custody case just because the court in your old state awarded custody to your spouse. Likewise, it's ludicrous to allow gay marriage in one state, only to have the marriage invalidated by one (or both) of the persons simply moving to a new state (not to mention a violation of Article 4, Section 1 of the Constitution). The legitimacy (or non-legitimacy) of gay marriage has to be uniform, even if the marriage may not be able to take place in some states.

 

[Physics-Learner]

if abortion is not outlawed in all states, then people would just go to an ABORTION STATE, and then go back.

 

[Physics-Learner]

How much will we need to pay in taxes to provide food, housing, healthcare, education, etc. to these people - and/or who will need to lose benefits to support these people if taxes aren't increased.

as i stated, sour the soup.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

Both of these sound very dodgy, essentially transferring legal power towards politicians. If the supreme court ruled Intelligent design to not be a science I'd hate to see an override.

Correct me if I'm wrong ryan, but I believe decisions of the highest court of the UK can be appealed to the House of Commons. Not that I think that's the way it should be.

In terms of the larger question, the President is not involved at all in the amending process. Both houses of the Congress must pass the proposed amendment by a 2/3 majority. It then goes directly to the states where it becomes law when 3/4 of the state legislatures approve it (currently 38 states). The President has no veto power in this process. The President only has the power held by any citizen to make his/her feelings known to his/her representatives in the Congress or in the State Legislature of the state where he/she votes.

EDIT: It seems it was the House of Lords that served as the highest court (though rarely). It was only in 2009 that the Supreme Court of the UK became the court of "last resort".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_functions_of_the_House_of_Lords

 

[Evo]

if abortion is not outlawed in all states, then people would just go to an ABORTION STATE, and then go back.

Which is why abortion should be legal in all states.

 

[BobG]

gosh evo,

that argument does not do justice to your intelligence.

using your same argument, one could argue that murder should be legal in all states.

Or the death penalty?

I realize abortion raises some very strong feelings, but, objectively, it's an act isolated to the state it occurs in...

Just the same as drinking ages used to be. In Omaha, NE, where the drinking age was 21, 18-year-olds used to go to Council Bluffs, IA where the drinking age was 18, and then DRIVE back!

It's an imperfect system, but the idea of us being a union of independent states is still pretty strong. Granted, not as strong as it used to be. Given the mobility of people today, maybe the whole idea is becoming obsolete, since fewer and fewer people spend their whole life living in just one state. More and more people would like a little consistency when they move from one state to another - and maybe the diminishing importance of states' rights is the cost of that consistency.

 

[Physics-Learner]

i don't want to give the feds any more authority than is necessary.

but there are some situations that apply to people in general. these are what i would give the fed authority.

we have to have one language, one currency, etc.

 

[mheslep]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html

Apparently in a book he wrote (Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington) Rick Perry named a number of things he would like to see changed in the constitution or added to it. The article appears fair, and quotes the book, though I can not say I have read the book and know whether or not these may have been taken out of context.

Well in some cases this story quotes the book. #1 for instance is directly supported from quotes from the book. Several of the others however not so much. With #5, quotes from the book have Perry listing two options, a BB amendment or spending cap amendment where he 'prefers' the BB amendment. #6 has no book support and provides an ambiguous clipped quote from elsewhere.

 

[mheslep]

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

Absurd.

Here are the actual quotes from Perry for #6:

"I do respect a state's right to have a different opinion and take a different tack if you will, California did that,"

"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'.

I call BS on the story.

 

[Evo]

gosh evo,

that argument does not do justice to your intelligence.

using your same argument, one could argue that murder should be legal in all states.

You have a right to your personal opinion, you do not have a right to attck others for their opinions. This kind of personal attack will not be tolerated on this forum.

 

[Pengwuino]

None of these sound like the reasonable proposals of a politician, they sound like the mental armchair ideas of someone who has no real understanding of how a country works.

So... they DO sound like the proposals of a politician?

 

[mheslep]

It's also a little ironic that repealing the 17th Amendment would be a Tea Party issue.

Who say's it is? There's one and only one "Tea Party issue" to my mind: cutting federal spending.