We Need to Amend the Constitution

[r3volution 3.0]

Getting a libertarian majority government is the immediate goal, but it's not enough. There are problems in the Constitution (some in the original document, others added later) which need to be resolved, or we're likely to drift back to the status quo, even if once we manage to get some reforms. Of course we could pass amendments directly prohibiting central banking, welfare, economic regulation, etc, etc. But here I've focused on structural issues relating to the form of government. These changes should create incentives for smaller government no matter who's in office or what their ideology.

1. Senate: abolish the 17th amendment and return to a system where Senators are appointed (and can be dismissed at will) by state legislatures

2. House: lengthen the term of Representatives to 6 years and impose a single-term limit

3. Presidency: lengthen the President's term to 6 years and impose a single-term limit

4. Passing Bills: spending and tax bills shall require a 2/3rs majority of both houses to pass, and only a simple majority to repeal

5. Taxation: abolish the 16th amendment and require all federal taxes to be apportioned amongst and collected by the states, rather than directly by the federal government

....comments, questions, other ideas?

[otherone]

Getting a libertarian majority government is the immediate goal, but it's not enough. There are problems in the Constitution (some in the original document, others added later) which need to be resolved, or we're likely to drift back to the status quo, even if once we manage to get some reforms. Of course we could pass amendments directly prohibiting central banking, welfare, economic regulation, etc, etc. But here I've focused on structural issues relating to the form of government. These changes should create incentives for smaller government no matter who's in office or what their ideology.

1. Senate: abolish the 17th amendment and return to a system where Senators are appointed (and can be dismissed at will) by state legislatures

2. House: lengthen the term of Representatives to 6 years and impose a single-term limit

3. Presidency: lengthen the President's term to 6 years and impose a single-term limit

4. Passing Bills: spending and tax bills shall require a 2/3rs majority of both houses to pass, and only a simple majority to repeal

5. Taxation: abolish the 16th amendment and require all federal taxes to be apportioned amongst and collected by the states, rather than directly by the federal government

....comments, questions, other ideas?

I like all of your ideas. I'd prefer the president to be selected by the state assemblies.

[Zippyjuan]

2. House: lengthen the term of Representatives to 6 years and impose a single-term limit

Ron Paul would have been forced out of office ten years earlier if that was in effect.

[Zippyjuan]

double post glitch

[r3volution 3.0]

I like all of your ideas. I'd prefer the president to be selected by the state assemblies.

Me too actually, but I think that may be a bridge too far politically ("anti-democratic" and whatnot).

And I was trying to limit my thoughts to the (relatively) politically feasible.

If I had my druthers, I'd also drastically shrink the franchise, but that's also a political non-starter.

Hell, really, I'd like a monarchy, but I might as well propose a puppy genocide for all the traction that idea'd get.

Ron Paul would have been forced out of office ten years earlier if that was in effect.

True, but so would all of his deranged colleagues, who are in the majority.

The benefit of term limits is to eliminate the incentive for politicians to pass bills that they know to be harmful, but which win them votes or campaign contributions (which is responsible for much of the bad bills IMO). No re-election, no need for those schemes.

[William Tell]

Term limits are a joke. Limit a politician in one office, and he will run for a different one when he is term limited out. The establishment currently has the resources to successfully run candidates in every district every cycle, we do not. I don't thing term limits would help, therefor I oppose them. Of course, I could be wrong.

[Zippyjuan]

True, but so would all of his deranged colleagues, who are in the majority.

Those numbers are almost limitless. How many Ron Paul's do you see in a lifetime?

The benefit of term limits is to eliminate the incentive for politicians to pass bills that they know to be harmful, but which win them votes or campaign contributions (which is responsible for much of the bad bills IMO). No re-election, no need for those schemes.

It makes it easier and more likely that they pass bills which benefit themselves or their friends- not the general populous. They care less about the general welfare if they are not held responsible by the general public. Note how many candidates are millionaires when they leave office.

Don't like interest groups power and influence today? It would be worse with term limits.

[r3volution 3.0]

Those numbers are almost limitless. How many Ron Paul's do you see in a lifetime?

Which is my point. Term limits are needed because most politicians are corruptible. If they were all Ron Pauls, we wouldn't need term limits.

It makes it easier and more likely that they pass bills which benefit themselves- not the general populous. They care less about the general welfare if they are not held responsible by the general public.

The vast majority of harmful bills passed by Congress do not directly benefit the Congressmen - it's not like the trillions of dollars in horse$#@! they vote for goes into their pockets. They vote for these monstrosities in order to buy votes and solicit support from wealthy donors, i.e. to get re-elected.

Term limits are a joke. Limit a politician in one office, and he will run for a different one when he is term limited out.

Couldn't the amendment prohibit the person from holding not only the same office but any office?

[Zippyjuan]

So you kick out Ron Paul and increase corruption.

[William Tell]

Couldn't the amendment prohibit the person from holding not only the same office but any office?

I suppose if you only want the option of voting for Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, and Donald Trump this cycle, go for it. I guess Herman Cain would have been the main guy in 2012, no Ron Paul for sure.

I don't think its right for the U.S Constitution to limit who can hold office on the state level either.

[r3volution 3.0]

So you kick out Ron Paul and increase corruption.

No, you kick out Ron Paul and reduce corruption on balance (as now everyone else in the Congress is less corrupt, having lost the major incentive to be corrupt).

[r3volution 3.0]

I suppose if you only want the option of voting for Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, and Donald Trump this cycle, go for it. I guess Herman Cain would have been the main guy in 2012, no Ron Paul for sure.

I think that's a short-sighted view Will.

The fact that good liberty movement politicians like Ron, Rand, Amash, or Massie would be made ineligible for future election by this amendment doesn't mean that other good libertarian candidates (who have never held federal office) wouldn't arise. And it seems you're not considering the fact that all of the establishment's old warhorses (who are much more numerous) would also be termed out.

In the long run, the beneficial change in incentives would more than compensate for a temporary setback - but I don't even think we'd have a temporary setback.

I don't think its right for the U.S Constitution to limit who can hold office on the state level either.

I had federal offices in mind. I don't see many former federal politicians pandering in Washington in order to secure a spot in some Podunk legislature.

But, in principle, you could via C. amendment place restrictions on state offices as well - I have no particular objection to that.

I'd like to see to see the States implement similar term limits on their own anyway.

[Ronin Truth]

Then you get to try to get them approved in 3/4 of the state legislatures. Yippee!

[CPUd]

Hmmm, I don't think this will work if free speech is abridged...

[Zippyjuan]

No, you kick out Ron Paul and reduce corruption on balance (as now everyone else in the Congress is less corrupt, having lost the major incentive to be corrupt).

Why do you feel there would be less corruption when the threat of being voted out of office is removed? They don't have to worry about scandals costing them their jobs.

It also takes time to "learn the ropes" of how Washington really operates and gets things done. If the representatives are not there very long, they must rely even more on the professional bureaucrats and lobbyists because they are the ones with the experience and would actually have the power.

Problems would get ignored in favor of personal gains.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'd like to see more about nullification and secession in there.

[r3volution 3.0]

Why do you feel there would be less corruption when the threat of being voted out of office is removed?

I say again, the threat of being voted out of office is the source of most of the corruption.

Why do you think politicians are constantly proposing more welfare spending? To buy votes so they can get re-elected.

Why do you think politicians are constantly granting favors to Big Business? To win over wealthy donors so they can get re-elected.

Not many of them actually believe in that garbage, IMO. They do it to get re-elected. You remove the possibility of re-election, most of them change their tune.

And, on the other side of the coin, how often does the public vote out bad politicians (and, crucially, replace them with better ones)? I'm not at all impressed with the ability of the public to distinguish between good and bad politicians, and so I don't think we lose much of anything at all by eliminating the politicians' "accountability to the voters." As I've been saying, that accountability mostly causes the politicians to behave even worse than they otherwise would, since what the people want (what politicians have to offer to get elected) is not good.

It also takes time to "learn the ropes" of how Washington really operates and gets things done. If the representatives are not there very long, they must rely even more on the professional bureaucrats and lobbyists because they are the ones with the experience and would actually have the power.

That's very true, which is why I suggested lengthening the term at the same time as we limit them to one term.

One term, as long as possible (at the extreme, this leads to monarchy, which as I noted is the ideal IMO).

Problems would get ignored in favor of personal gains.

Most of the bills that Congress passes do not personally benefit members of Congress except insofar as they help them get re-elected.

[TheTexan]

I like all of your ideas. I'd prefer the president to be selected by the state assemblies.

Or it could be chosen by something like a board of directors that would be cool too

[navy-vet]

Soros and the obamanation wins if there's a con-con that's pretty certain.

[heavenlyboy34]

Soros and the obamanation wins if there's a con-con that's pretty certain.

Yeah, that^^

[r3volution 3.0]

Soros and the obamanation wins if there's a con-con that's pretty certain.

I'm wary of a con-con myself.

My thinking is more along these lines - get a libertarian government elected, make our desired reforms, and then pass the needed amendments to lock them in.

Step #1 would be the key. Monkeying around with the Constitution before we're strong enough to be sure of the outcome is dangerous.

[William Tell]

I'm wary of a con-con myself.

My thinking is more along these lines - get a libertarian government elected, make our desired reforms, and then pass the needed amendments to lock them in.

Step #1 would be the key. Monkeying around with the Constitution before we're strong enough to be sure of the outcome is dangerous.

I pretty much agree with you here. Once liberty lovers in the key positions its a different situation. I certainly don't think the current Constitution is perfect, although I blame elected officials not following it for most of the current troubles. We can debate how our dream system would be, whether constitutional, anarcho-capitalistic or other. But anything that moves us more towards liberty and away from tyranny is cool.

[navy-vet]

I agree with that guys.

[TheTexan]

I always thought the proper way to amend the constitution was through Supreme Court rulings

[Danke]

Run off elections.

[otherone]

Or it could be chosen by something like a board of directors that would be cool too

LOL.
That works too. Anything to get people more involved locally instead of believing that voting for a poster-child every 4 years is "freedom".
Scratch that...just remove the entire executive branch.

[Origanalist]

LOL.
That works too. Anything to get people more involved locally instead of believing that voting for a poster-child every 4 years is "freedom".
Scratch that...just remove the entire executive branch.

Secret service knocking on your door in 10, 9, .....

[r3volution 3.0]

Run off elections.

Would you explain the benefit of that, Danke?

[presence]

There should be a free market for consenting adults to buy, sell, produce, or consume any food or drug.

We should ban legal tender laws.

We should ban state issued licences and permits.

We should ban state mandated insurance of any kind.

We should dissolve state sanctioned copywrite and patent law.

[Feelgood]

We have term limits, they are called elections. Like it or not, that is just a fact. If people keep voting in the scum of the earth, then they get what they deserve.

As for the 16th amendment, since it was never ratified it, is not even an active amendment. When then President Wilson announced the 16th amendment had been ratified by the states, the people just accepted his lie as fact. Had that been done in todays day and age of technology we would have known better and called the President out on his lie. So basically we just need to tell the IRS to go screw themselves and demand they show us where there is a law the mandates we pay an income tax. No such law exists.