By Douglas V. Gibbs
Rick Perry is being touted as "the conservative guy" as he enters the race for President of the United States.
He is not as conservative as he comes off, and he is not a Constitutional wizard, either.
I came across this Yahoo News article that explores the ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution, and it is written to scare off conservatives. "How dare he," the liberal writer figures the rightwingers will cry out, "want to change America's blessed Constitution!"
The hope, I suppose, is to scare people away from Rick Perry.
I thought it would be fun to go over those ways the writer says Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution.
So here we go:
1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.
This goes along with the idea of term limits that is so popular among conservatives. In many cases, I believe terms should be limited. But not in all cases. Besides, true term limits is not a law, but a vote. If we were willing to vote these cockroaches out on a regular occasion, we would serve as term limits ourselves. Anyway, when it comes to these judges, I believe this is an example of when terms should not be limited. The problem isn't lifetime appointments. The problem is that Congress isn't doing its job, and the people are not saying anything about the court's unconstitutional behavior.
The House of Representatives, which is the voice of the people, has the power to impeach. Unconstitutional rulings or opinions are obviously bad behavior. So the problem is not lifetime terms. The problem is that Congress is not doing its job.
2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.
Congress already has a hand in limiting the courts. It is called legislation, and the amendment process. A great example is the 11th Amendment. The 11th Amendment put greater limits on the courts. Congress proposed it, the States ratified it, and the courts reins were tightened. The Congress can override Supreme Court decisions with legislation, as well. After all, the job of the courts is to apply the law. The Congress' job is to make law. So, make a law that overrides the Supreme Court's decision. It is that easy, or at least it would be, if our elected cockroaches understood the Constitution.
3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.
I agree. The income tax is a progressive tax, which by the way is also one of the ten planks of communism. The Founding Fathers never intended for the people to be directly taxed. In fact, a direct tax (stamp act) was one of the things that pushed the Americans over the edge and sent them into Revolution over two hundred and thirty years ago.
But how would we fund our government? the liberal will ask.
The same way we did prior to 1913. Besides, if the federal government was to spend in accordance to the authorities granted by the Constitution, our total federal government spending would be about 5% of GDP.
4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.
This is a big one for me. Perry is right on this one as well. Prior to the Seventeenth Amendment the State Legislatures appointed the Senators. The U.S. Senate served as the States' representation in Congress. This is why the Senate is tasked with ratifying treaties, approving appointments, and holding the hearings for impeachment. It was a way to ensure the States were involved in ensuring the federal government remained limited as originally intended. The States granted the powers the federal government was allowed to have, and it was to be up to the States to ensure the federal government behaved. The 17th Amendment removed the States' voice from the federal government, thereby removing a very important check and balance. As a result, the entire dynamics of our government changed, and the inevitability of the rise of a tyranny increased.
5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.
Not necessary. The federal government is already supposed to balance its budget. If the spending was reduced to constitutional allowances, there would be a surplus every year. As stated earlier, if federal spending was reduced to only constitutional spending, they would be spending no more than about 5% of the GDP.
6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.
Wrong. I agree that marriage should be between a man and a woman, but it is not a federal authority. In fact, government of any kind should not be involved in marriage. It should only be a church matter. A State government could be involved in civil unions, however, and require a civil union registration before a couple goes to a church to marry for the purpose of record keeping, medical history, etc. The federal government, regardless of how the States should be handling this, has no authority to determine anything about marriage, whatsoever. The liberal left was actually right about their argument that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional. . . but they were right for the wrong reasons.
7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.
Directly, no. Abortion is a State issue. However, if life was judged to begin at conception, that would make unborn babies citizens, and then the protection of the 14th Amendment would apply (equal protection under the law), and their murder would be unlawful nationwide.
There are more than one way to skin a cat, as the old saying goes.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Seven Ways Rick Perry Wants To Change The Constitution - Yahoo News
No comments:
Post a Comment