quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Yes, you've gotta have skin in the game to vote!
The Founders originally wanted property owners, but that was before the income tax. Now, I think taxpayer would be the equivalent.

I can't think of anything better than this. Imagine a government wishing to create an environment that promoted policies that created tax payers.

Not addressed so far is the elephant in the room, which is the administrative state.
It has the greatest effect on individual citizens, is the least accountable part of government, and is not mentioned or foreseen by the Founding Fathers.

It wasn’t until Wilson, imitating Bismarck, promoted rule by “technical experts” as being superior to the decisions of the electorate and their representatives that the bureaucracy achieved its current form; then expanded further by FDR, and has fed on itself ever since.

President Trump is the first president as far as I know to address this issue directly (as opposed, e.g. to the games Clinton and Gore played during the Clinton administration).

See Philip Hamburger, Is Administrative Law Unlawful?

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
Not addressed so far is the elephant in the room, which is the administrative state.
It has the greatest effect on individual citizens, is the least accountable part of government, and is not mentioned or foreseen by the Founding Fathers.

It wasn’t until Wilson, imitating Bismarck, promoted rule by “technical experts” as being superior to the decisions of the electorate and their representatives that the bureaucracy achieved its current form; then expanded further by FDR, and has fed on itself ever since.

President Trump is the first president as far as I know to address this issue directly (as opposed, e.g. to the games Clinton and Gore played during the Clinton administration).

See Philip Hamburger, Is Administrative Law Unlawful?

Agreed, and I've considered this problem as well. I haven't come up with a Constitutional provision to address this issue...except to note that it is a failure by the House and Senate to execute their Constitutionaly mandated responsibilities, and instead delegate their responsibility and power to the bureaucracy of the administrative state.

I'd like to think that IF there were such a mechanism in place that forced Congress to actually execute their responsibility that they would take a bit more care in the focus and scope of their bills, and actually deliberate with the intent of solving a problem rather than posturing to garner political points.

1. Should have banned redistribution payments (welfare, social security, etc)

2. Should have set absolute limits on tax burden. And banned progressive taxation.

3. Should have banned executive branch making of law (regulations) and executive branch courts.

4. Should have banned leftists.

Slavery and the right to vote for minorities should have been equal. Felons should have been specifically denied the right to vote, run for office, or hold public federal, state jobs.

1. Term limts
2. For every new law/ regulation added, one must be removed.
3. Citizenship requirement. No more permanent green cards, visa. If you do not become a citizen within X years your deported.
4. Bills/legislation shall be voted on individually not as a package.

They could have written the 2A clearer to not confuse some "scholars" and idiots with the militia part. Something like, "The right to keep and bear firearms shall not be infringed."

Term limits for President, Senator, and Congressman. (22nd amendment passed 160 years too late and being a Congressman or Senator should be looked at being a short-term act of service not a career)

No President, senator, or congressman shall be eligible for re-election should a balanced not be passed annually.

The President shall have line item veto of all bills/legislation (cut the pork spending).

To be eligible to vote in local, state, and federal elections a person shall be both a citizen and taxpayer.

Treason, sedition, and election tampering shall be punished by death.

Physical consequences for any politician that votes to attenuate constitutional rights.

The biggest mistake the founders made was entrusting the country to us (i.e. the current generation). But this is not a new occurrence.

I weep for the liberty of my country when I see at this early day of its successful experiment that corruption has been imputed to many members of the House of Representatives, and the rights of the people have been bartered for promises of office. --- Andrew Jackson

Many good thoughts posted here.
Although they probably could not have predicted it, my offering to this discussion is: Line Item Veto!

Not really. They should have just never put in the preamble to the Second Amendment. Without that, it's very clear and direct. With it, confusion is created where the courts can interpret the amendment away from conferring an individual right.

quote:

Originally posted by dry-fly:
Instead of "Shall not be infringed", they could have written "never, ever, under any circumstances be infringed". You know, just for extra clarification.

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Not really. They should have just never put in the preamble to the Second Amendment. Without that, it's very clear and direct. With it, confusion is created where the courts can interpret the amendment away from conferring an individual right.

quote:

Originally posted by dry-fly:
Instead of "Shall not be infringed", they could have written "never, ever, under any circumstances be infringed". You know, just for extra clarification.

I disagree. The current courts are corrupt beyond measure and could/would interpret "up as down", "hot as cold", or "day as night" if it served their purposes. Case in point. When a court/judge can rule an Obama EO for DACA is lawful, yet a Trump EO repealing the previous EO as unlawful (i.e. clearly within the president's scope of powers), the courts/judges no longer have 'any' credibility, and in my book, should be looked upon with utter disdain and contempt.

Any violation of a citizen's civil liberties specified in the Bill of Rights is to be punished by immediate removal from office and permanent ineligibility to hold any public office in the United States.

Think that would get a lot of douchebags to pay attention to the consequences of their actions.

They should have mandated that, like Presidential elections, all state gubernatorial elections also use an electoral college system.

If the courts can do whatever they want to do, the language in the Constitution is rendered irrelevant. If that's the issue, then there needs to be an easier way for the combination of the congress and president to override the courts. However, that would throw the existing scheme for separation of powers completely out of whack.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
Not really. They should have just never put in the preamble to the Second Amendment. Without that, it's very clear and direct. With it, confusion is created where the courts can interpret the amendment away from conferring an individual right.

quote:

Originally posted by dry-fly:
Instead of "Shall not be infringed", they could have written "never, ever, under any circumstances be infringed". You know, just for extra clarification.

I disagree. The current courts are corrupt beyond measure and could/would interpret "up as down", "hot as cold", or "day as night" if it served their purposes. Case in point. When a court/judge can rule an Obama EO for DACA is lawful, yet a Trump EO repealing the previous EO as unlawful (i.e. clearly within the president's scope of powers), the courts/judges no longer have 'any' credibility, and in my book, should be looked upon with utter disdain and contempt.

1. A lifetime term limit for Senate and House.

2. A much clearer 2nd Amendment, leaving out “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”

quote:

Originally posted by BBMW:
If the courts can do whatever they want to do,

Don't they pretty much do just that now?

quote:

...the language in the Constitution is rendered irrelevant.

Yep, which in many cases is exactly where we're at right now.

quote:

If that's the issue, then there needs to be an easier way for the combination of the congress and president to override the courts. However, that would throw the existing scheme for separation of powers completely out of whack.

Which again is where we're at now and why chaos and lawless behavior seem to be the norm for the courts and judges. Over the past 20 years Congress has continually refused to do their job, presidents have run the country via EO and executive fiat, and the courts and SCOTUS have gained more and more power to dictate public policy.

We're already way down the slope of the rule of law meaning little to nothing. I think the founders would be disgusted, but many of them would not be surprised by what is happening.