Constitution Challenge - how to keep the powers better separated?

[Bryan]

I was on Kurt Wallace's show on BTM today and tossed out a challenge on how to "fix" the Constitution. My argument is that, while the Constitution has provisions to separate powers and limit to size and scope of the government to secure the rights of the people we can see that after 200+ years the checks and balances have been subverted (including redress). Basically, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today if there wasn't a flaw somewhere.

So the question is, how can it be fixed? It's not an easy question to answer and there is no perfect solution. Kurt did allude to something that is fundamentally true, that without a free press the people will be ill-informed which will lead to a subversion of any system-- this is true. I still contend however, that some form of added checks and balances could be established to stand up to stronger assaults.

In my imperfect solution, the system can not reply upon money or political connections to gain access to the new checks and balances-- an example of how this could be done is to have a specifically defined 4th branch of government, that is composed of random citizens (who wish to partake) that have the power to repeal unconstitutional law, and remove people from office in some cases. Maybe have a peoples congress of 50 or so citizens from each congressional district.

Again- this has flaw (you'd need to keep random truly random), but what could work better? Let's hear the ideas- else, after this revolution we'll doom our inheritors to a system that would be sure to fail again. Why else would we expect different results?

[Tangoland]

One interesting idea about this is that we were warned against a central bank. We have had 3 central banks since the birth of our nation. An amendment abolishing the use of central banks and complete transparancy with the regulation of money would be something I would like to hear others thought on within the amendment would have the ability of only gold back currency and possibly competing currency. Any thoughts?

Looking forward to having Bryan on the Wake Up America Show Tuesday July 22nd 9am Eastern to discuss this thread and ideas that folks come up with.

Kurt Wallace
www.breakthematrix.com

[Truth Warrior]

Jefferson said the one amendment he wished the Constitution had was, "Government may not borrow money EVER". It sure makes a lot of sense to me. Think about it!

[sratiug]

Jefferson said the one amendment he wished the Constitution had was, "Government may not borrow money EVER". It sure makes a lot of sense to me. Think about it!

That works for me, and gold and silver only is already in there if anybody reads it.

I think all heads of cabinet departments should be autonomous from the president and congress once appointed and approved. And all budget money should just be allocated to these department heads with no strings and no plans for the money written into the appropriations bills. That would save a lot of bull$#@! about nothing on all these damned spending bills.

[LibertyEagle]

In my imperfect solution, the system can not reply upon money or political connections to gain access to the new checks and balances-- an example of how this could be done is to have a specifically defined 4th branch of government, that is composed of random citizens (who wish to partake) that have the power to repeal unconstitutional law, and remove people from office in some cases. Maybe have a peoples congress of 50 or so citizens from each congressional district.

The repealing part, at least for Senators, used to be handled by the state governments. As Senators at one time, were not directly elected by the people, but chosen by the state representatives. Senators were sent to DC to represent the states from which they came and they could easily be repealed if they did not do what the state reps sent them to do. It was a big mistake to make them directly elected by the people, IMO.

The House of Representatives was the branch that was intended to reflect the direct voice of the people and it was intentionally done that way, because the House was to hold all the purse strings on government spending. If they didn't appropriate the money for a program, it wouldn't be funded. It was no coincidence that House reps serve 2 year terms, so we could quickly replace them if they were not doing what we wanted them to do.

[hypnagogue]

I've been wondering lately why the President is charged with appointing judges. I'm beginning to think that practice is severely diminishing the impartiality of the judiciary. It might be better if we elected our local judges and gave them each a vote in the case that a court vacancy should occur. They could then nominate and vote on the replacement from amongst themselves.

I think Congress and the Presidency are well enough separated. It's just that Congress has self-emasculated their own powers.

A bigger issue, I think, is the separation of powers between the Federal Government and the States. Central to this is the Federal Government's power to tax at will in whatever form they choose, and then to distribute the revenues however they see fit. The States are literally held for ransom by the prospect of the Federal Government taking their money and not giving it back. I have a couple ideas to address this.

My first suggestion would be to remove Congresses ability to choose the form of taxation. No longer would they be able to manipulate the whole of society simply by taxing the things they disapprove of and granting tax relief to the things they do. Instead they would have the power to exact specific amounts from each state based upon population. The Federal Government could, for example ask for $1000 per head, nationally. Montana thus would owe $944,632,000 for it's 944,632 citizens, whereas California would owe $36,457,549,000 for it's 36,457,549 citizens. It would be entirely up to the states to choose the form in which they collect that tax. Enforcement of such requests could be a little trickier. One option would be to suspend or limit the voting powers of significantly defaulted states. You might also consider giving the Federal Government the power to impose specific taxes only in the case that the state had regularly fallen significantly short.

My second suggestion would be to bar the Federal Government from returning any of the money to the States. It must all be spent on Federal duties such as defense, diplomacy, and the basic operation of government. Thus the Federal Government would no longer be able to overtax and then return the money to the states with strings attached.

You see, there may be branches of the federal government to oppose each other, but there is no effective agency in place to oppose the federal government.

[forsmant]

The repealing part, at least for Senators, used to be handled by the state governments. As Senators at one time, were not directly elected by the people, but chosen by the state representatives. Senators were sent to DC to represent the states from which they came and they could easily be repealed if they did not do what the state reps sent them to do. It was a big mistake to make them directly elected by the people, IMO. The House of Representatives was the branch that was intended to reflect the direct voice of the people and it was intentionally done that way, because the House was to hold all the purse strings on government spending.

I agree that the senators should be elected by the state legislatures. People would have to get more involved in the system of their own governance. The primary system has lead to less involvement in governance as well. The two parties have put up so many road blocks to discourage involvement in government. They only want your vote, they don't care what you think. Obama is a great example of vote pandering and indifference towards real change.

[forsmant]

Thomas Jefferson advocated a permanent revolution. He wanted the people to abandon and create anew the laws of society every 19 or so years. The dead should not rule over the living. Each generation would choose its own way of social organization and the structure of government could remain the same.

[LibertyEagle]

... for those who are interested.

The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution
by W. Cleon Skousen (Author)

http://www.amazon.com/Making-America...5733875&sr=8-2

Ron Paul has said that he refers to this book, often. It's a seriously intense book on the Constitution, FWIW.

[Mini-Me]

I believe that there are many ways to improve the current Constitution, many of them involving making it more enforceable upon the federal government.

First, I'll address the issue of enforcing the Constitution. I kind of like Bryan's idea that there should be a fourth branch of government that has the power to strike down laws as unconstitutional (though it should not have the power to create laws), but I wonder if the following approach might be even more effective:

First, let's define an implicitly unconstitutional law as one that grants the government power not explicitly enumerated by the Constitution. Let's define an explicitly unconstitutional law as one that grants the government power that is explicitly denied (via the Bill of Rights, for instance). Now, what if it was a federal crime for a Congressperson or Senator to vote for, or for the President to sign, unconstitutional laws? It could also be a crime for Supreme Court justices to rule in favor of such laws (rather than striking them down) after hearing a case related to them.

Before explaining the actual mechanism of enforcement...voting in favor of, signing, or ruling in favor of any unconstitutional law should carry the penalty of immediately losing public office and never being eligible again for any federal position. This penalty should be invoked immediately upon the law being found unconstitutional, and no trial of individual perpetrators would be necessary. Also, perpetrators would be subject to standing full criminal trial for perjury (for violating their oaths of office). Furthermore, voting for, signing, or ruling in favor of an explicitly unconstitutional law should be regarded as waging war on the American people, and any perpetrators would be subject to a full criminal trial for treason.

Now, that's all well and good, but...how are we going to make sure unconstitutional laws are ruled unconstitutional? I thought of this immediately after Bryan mentioned a fourth branch of government...
What if individual citizens could file civil suit against specific federal laws? The trial would have to be a majority-based jury trial, where the burden of proof is "preponderance of evidence." The government would not have the option of trial by judge, as the judge could be corrupt. Furthermore, restrictions against double jeopardy would not apply in this case, so laws may be tried over and over again until they're eventually repealed. Finally, if the jury convicts the law of violating the Constitution, the law is immediately struck from the books, and all involved in its legislation or enforcement will immediately and permanently leave government payroll. Afterwards, they will be subject to criminal trials on charges of perjury or treason, depending on the nature of their crime. (These trials would be full, fair jury trials following due process, obviously)

Enforcing the Constitution in this manner would truly put the fear of God into our government servants, and they would once again become servants, afraid of the people.

I have a few additional ideas for strengthening the Constitution, but I'll post them immediately after this post...I feel this idea deserves to be on its own for clarity.

[Mini-Me]

It's very clear to me that we have way too many laws, and once laws are passed, they're very difficult to get rid of. Therefore, I would suggest that an improved Constitution would incorporate the following changes:

• Any new bills, especially spending bills, should only pass into law with a three quarters supermajority vote in each house of Congress.
• Any law may be repealed with a mere one third vote in either house.

Also, it's plainly obvious (as others have pointed out) that the federal government uses taxation to blackmail states. I therefore agree with hypnagogue that the federal government should not be allowed to directly tax citizens. Its sole power of taxation should be limited to taxing all member states in proportion to their population, and all of this money must be spent on federal services (which are limited to enumerated powers).

I'd modify the language of Article I, Section 8 in the following additional ways:

• I'd change the language of the "general welfare" clause. It was written to collectively refer to the enumerated powers and Congress's power to tax for those purposes. However, it's been twisted into a permission slip for unlimited government.
• I would change the existing "elastic clause" or "necessary and proper" clause to instead read, "To make only those Laws which shall be strictly and absolutely necessary for carrying into Execution the foregoing enumerated Powers, and all other enumerated Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

In addition:

• I'd make it clear that Congress cannot delegate its responsibilities to any other agency or branch of government.
• Courtesy of BJ Lawson, I would add an article which states that all laws must stick to "one issue at a time." Any bill which addresses multiple separable issues must be split into those separable parts. That way, we don't have a bunch of pork tied into major legislation.
• I would add an Article which states that troops may not be deployed in any other country without a Congressional Declaration of War, and that they may not be used for nation-building or any other purpose other than defending the United States. (EDIT: Oops, I forgot to mention...maybe some extra leeway should be given if a Letter of Marque and Reprisal has been issued...)
• I would add an Article which states that all provisions of the Constitution absolutely must be interpreted in the strictest possible sense, which grants the government the minimum possible authority. If there is ever any doubt as to whether the government can do something, it cannot.
• I would add an Amendment to the Bill of Rights explicitly affirming the right of juries to nullify the law in favor of acquittal.
• I would add an Amendment to the Bill of Rights explicitly stating that not only do the People have the right to petition for redress of grievances, they also have the right to have their petitions answered. Instead, the judicial branch must give full and transparent public consideration to such petitions.
• EDIT: I forgot to mention that I would add a provision explicitly guaranteeing states the right to secede from the union for any reason.

[hypnagogue]

It's very clear to me that we have way too many laws, and once laws are passed, they're very difficult to get rid of. Therefore, I would suggest that an improved Constitution would incorporate the following changes:

• Any new bills, especially spending bills, should only pass into law with a three quarters supermajority vote in each house of Congress.
• Any law may be repealed with a mere one third vote in either house.

I agree with the sentiment but I think these suggestions would make the functioning of Congress too difficult. A minority party would be able to prevent anything and everything from passing. May I suggest instead a mandatory expiration of all laws of no more than 5 years. This way things would be less easily forgotten and the members of Congress would be regularly put on the spot to see where they stand. No longer could they declare, "I didn't vote for it," with the regularity that they now do.

[Mini-Me]

I agree with the sentiment but I think these suggestions would make the functioning of Congress too difficult. A minority party would be able to prevent anything and everything from passing. May I suggest instead a mandatory expiration of all laws of no more than 5 years. This way things would be less easily forgotten and the members of Congress would be regularly put on the spot to see where they stand. No longer could they declare, "I didn't vote for it," with the regularity that they now do.

That would be an idea, too - it would certainly cut down on the number of laws (since you can only pass so much in five years). Plus, it would allow representatives to act like they're "doing something," like they always want to, without resorting to increasingly restrictive laws that violate our basic rights.

Still, I think there's something to be said for a minority party being able to block and repeal legislation. I suggested this precisely because I think the functioning of Congress needs to be a lot more difficult. The government still contends that "ignorance of the law is no excuse," yet our lawbooks number in the thousands upon thousands of pages, and they're growing every year. The federal government really only has a few legitimate responsibilities, and very few laws are truly necessary for it to complete its basic duties. If any significant minority does not want to grant it some particular power, something tells me that the aforementioned minority is usually going to be in the right. Giving the minority more power to resist the potential tyranny of the majority would be another republican safeguard against the downsides of democracy.
Then again, if the advice in my first post was taken, I imagine the government would rarely dare to enact any law that was even remotely tyrannical.

[kill the banks]

... for those who are interested.

The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution
by W. Cleon Skousen (Author)

http://www.amazon.com/Making-America...5733875&sr=8-2

Ron Paul has said that he refers to this book, often. It's a seriously intense book on the Constitution, FWIW.

just ordered a copy ... thx!!!


kill the banks

[NaT805]

Ever thought that the constitution IS the problem? Abolish the Constitution and upgrade to a modern Articles of Confederation. No more democratically elected president, no more supreme court. Just a congress. Congress appoints the President. States to enter are required to maintain a well regulated militia...free to leave at anytime. The Confederate govt has no direct authority over the people it must go through the states to do anything. Up the house to 1,000 members. stuff like that.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/usa-conf.htm

[TheEvilDetector]

4th Federal Branch is needed called Oversight.

Powers as follows

1. Must Call National Vote of Confidence based on a petition of at least 1 State.

2. Remove Federal Officials that fail National Vote of Confidence from any branch including their own. Such officials may not hold positions in federal branches again.

3. Officials that refuse to leave their post after failing NVoC, are arrested by Oversight Police, charged with treason and are tried either by Supreme Court
or Congress (whichever is most impartial given the office of the official and established legal Rules for handling these cases eg. SC official tried in Congress, Congress official tried in SC etc).
If there is an armed standoff between security forces eg. Secret Service and Oversight such as in the case of a loyal SS to an unwilling President,
then Congress is obligated to introduce and vote on impeachment articles.

3b. Officials can appeal by asking for VoC recounts.

4. Those officials that are convicted of treason are executed by Oversight.

5. Oversight has absolutely no powers whatsoever over regular citizens or state officials (one exception applies*) .

6. Oversight cannot make laws or judge. They are an independent processing arm. Independent of all branches during operation.

7. Oversight leadership and various senior management is changed on an annual basis and is randomly picked from a pool of federal official volunteers where each branch is provided with a 33% entrants quota. If branches do not supply the required minimums to fill leadership positions, the gap becomes open to public and state official volunteers*.
The names of all volunteers and branches/states (where applicable) are published before the draw begins.

8. This random draw is overseen by congress, supreme court and the president. The official that lands the top job must be approved both by congress, supreme court
and the president else the top job is redrawn. If 3 failures by Congress, Supreme Court and the President to agree on the top guy occur in a row,
then the drawn Oversight senior management can freely pick the leader from amongst themselves, if they are unable to do so, then the senior management random draw is redone. The random draw process must be televised nationally and members of the public must be allowed to inspect the machinery and processes that ensure randomness.

8b. If at any time a VoC is issued against a current Oversight chief, the privilege of appointment of Oversight Head by consensus is revoked from Congress, Supreme Court and President Combo for the next 3 annual random draws. For these draws the top job is not drawn instead the top job is chosen by the randomly drawn senior management( just like the process that would normally take place of the 3 original branches failed to agree on a randomly drawn Oversight Head 3 times in a row).

9. Oversights existence and funding are protected by an explicit constitutional article, thus congress cannot legislatively dismantle them.

10. National Vote of Confidence means 3 Referendums staged over 12 months for a medium term sentiment.
Where the question put to the public is Should so and so be kept in their office?

If all Referendums return under 50% of Confidence with at least 26 states having at least 50% turnouts in at least 26 of them.
the person is removed and a new person is appointed by whatever means are already in place.

11. If the VoC concerns a member of Oversight, the requirements are loosened substantially ie. only 1 referendum is required.
In additional, pending VoC outcome Oversight member must go on administrative leave, failure to do so obligates congress
to issue and vote on articles of impeachment.

12. Failure to Issue VoC when a valid request is presented by any state, obligates congress to issue and vote on articles of impeachment
against Oversight chief.

--

Here is an example:

Lets say that State X residents do not like what Bush is doing, they persuade their legislature to issue a Vote of Confidence Request to the Oversight branch.

The Oversight Branch, issues the VoC nationally, the dates are published over the 12 months.

On designated days the public votes, these are spread roughly 4 months apart.

On each occasion there were 26 or more states participating and at least 26 states had 50% or more registered votes turn out.

Overall each referendum failed to get 50% of Confidence, thus paving the way for instant removal of official.

--

This of course is in addition to the impeachment processes already in place. Impeachment is enhanced by constitutional
amendments making it mandatory for the violations listed in my points above where it is referenced.

Also the regular election processes would be unchanged.

Sure they may be frivolous VoCs and those that have little support, but those officials that are really pissing people off, would be risking their positions with a maximum of 12 month delay as opposed to terms currently in place.

[AmericaFyeah92]

we don't need a "fourth" branch called oversight, because that is what the citezenry is supposed to be. If we (including myself) would get off our asses and cause serious trouble when our constitution was violated, we wouldn't have these issues.

[TheEvilDetector]

we don't need a "fourth" branch called oversight, because that is what the citezenry is supposed to be. If we (including myself) would get off our asses and cause serious trouble when our constitution was violated, we wouldn't have these issues.

The citizens do not have any power to do anything except to walk around, talk and wait till elections come up.

So I think a 4th branch would be good as described above. Think about it. Its a fast track to removal. It is an improved feedback mechanism.

Credible Threat of Relatively Fast Political Punishment (ie. removal) is a useful thing.

Unless you are advocating violence, but you will quickly find, that you will come off 2nd best against military and militarised police and all their weapons.

If you think for a second that Iraqi insurgents are kicking butt, you forget that for every 1 soldier killed there is like 100 insurgents killed.

[Truth Warrior]

Powers better separation?

Cluster bombs, land mines, barbed wire, 24/7 surveillance springs suddenly to mind for some very strange reasons.

[AisA1787]

I think the Constitution and the three branches are fundamentally sound. The problem is with the electorate, not the system. Every major problem can be fixed by Congress, with a large enough majority - avoiding unnecessary wars, abolishing the Fed, shrinking the size of government, shrinking spending, and so on. Educate the electorate so that they elect the right people to Congress and you fix the major problems.

I strongly disagree that we need an "oversight" branch. We already have terms of 2, 4, or 6 years. These times are fine for individual office holders. Individuals, especially in Congress, have little power. And the president can be removed by Congress, so really he doesn't have as much power as people are led to believe.

The real threat comes from groups of congressman. I sincerely doubt that the electorate, which can't even vote for the right people in the first place, would be wise enough to remove large groups of legislators mid-term and replace them with better legislators. It's just not feasible, and would only add instability to the system.

Most important, the threat of shorter times in office based on a "democratic" vote by the entire citizenry would only lead our government more towards a democracy and further away from a republic.

[TheEvilDetector]

I think the Constitution and the three branches are fundamentally sound. The problem is with the electorate, not the system.

What specifically is the problem with the electorate and how do you fix it?

Every major problem can be fixed by Congress, with a large enough majority - avoiding unnecessary wars, abolishing the Fed, shrinking the size of government, shrinking spending, and so on.

Yes, it can be fixed, but it doesn't get fixed.

Educate the electorate so that they elect the right people to Congress and you fix the major problems.

Educating the electorate is quite difficult when the MSM and Public 'Education' try to do the opposite.

I strongly disagree that we need an "oversight" branch. We already have terms of 2, 4, or 6 years. These times are fine for individual office holders.

Yes, if you have decent politicians, then that would be the case.

Individuals, especially in Congress, have little power.

Some individuals have a lot of power. Sometimes this power is not obvious.

And the president can be removed by Congress, so really he doesn't have as much power as people are led to believe.

Just because the president can be removed by Congress (and it seems that he will never be removed) does not mean he has little power, the two things aren't related.

The real threat comes from groups of congressman.

The real threat comes from a bunch of traitors on the hill whatever the branch.

I sincerely doubt that the electorate, which can't even vote for the right people in the first place, would be wise enough to remove large groups of legislators mid-term and replace them with better legislators.

First of all you do not need to remove groups. Removal of individuals has a chilling effect.

Further this is not limited to the legislative branch.

The point is made when a person is removed not so much as to who replaces him.

Yes, the electorate's critical thinking skills may be fuzzy, but even J6P can see when the country is seriously going downhill when everything costs more and freedoms are becoming a thing of the past.

Also, Oversight has no authority to bring new people into the posts of the old.
If a person is removed, then a designated deputy takes their place, until regular elections come around.

I would imagine that if this system was in place for the last few years then Bush/Cheney would have been removed by now.
By the way once removed, the person is open to criminal and civil prosecutions just like any regular citizen. This would be quite a deterrent.

It's just not feasible, and would only add instability to the system.

The system is totally unstable now, you will find out when armed soldiers are patrolling your streets and when every medical, economic, social etc transaction you ever participate in is logged in some federal database. When you have trouble affording the basic necessities through no fault of your own, you may wonder if the system works at all, especially if you are doing the wondering sitting amongst your friends in a civil work brigade next to the electrified FEMA built fence.

Most important, the threat of shorter times in office based on a "democratic" vote by the entire citizenry would only lead our government more towards a democracy and further away from a republic.

It would enhance the power of the people to alter their government to suit their preferences within constitutional limits ie. individual rights of the citizens are to be respected regardless who is in office or what laws are passed, that's what the SC is supposed to check.

Do not forget that this republic has a government by consent of the people and so giving the people the opportunity to express their consent in a more timely manner is helpful as far as the establishing principles of the governing system go.

It would be quite difficult to remove an official prior to regular elections under this system, so unless someone did something quite bad AND did such deeds over a period of at least a year (such that the public is deeply negative about this person over a long interval), the politician's position would be quite safe.

The requirements for removal are difficult to meet, you need a majority of states who have a majority of registered voters turning out and you need to repeat that 3 times in 1 year period (except when dealing with the oversight branch itself, then you only need to do the referendum once). Oversight staff are easier to remove and the management go through regular changes to avoid systemic corruption (see my original post where it refers to random draws from volunteers).

Do not forget that oversight only deals with politicians in the federal government and I think that as federal public SERVANTS their position can only be maintained by consent of the general public at ALL times. The PUBLIC is supposed to be the MASTERS of the politicians, who are the SERVANTS of the PUBLIC. Sadly, people have forgotten this very basic fact.

Last but not least: Just like any other branch of government, oversight cannot infringe on basic rights guaranteed by constitution. In fact Oversight is specifically prohibited from taking any action against regular citizens or state officials.

If you really think about it, Oversight is a Police force focussed on the government itself at all times.

[TastyWheat]

A lot of this won't come about unless the people wise up. There is merit in legislation or amendments that prevent bad legislation but you can't always prevent bad legislators. My ideas for amendments, some have already been mentioned (some of these may better fit into the legislation category):

• Bills must deal with one subject at a time.
• Bills must include clause or clauses that authorize the legislation.
• Federal taxes may only be levied on states (i.e. not individuals or businesses).
• No powers granted to any branch by the Constitution may be forfeit or delegated to any other branch.
• All new bills must contain a sunset clause. Bills can only be made permanent by approval of 1 senator from each state, plus 1 for a majority, if originating in the Senate or by approval of the majority of representatives from each state if originating in the House.
• (I have to have one crazy, far out idea) Presidents, upon leaving office, must forfeit any personal possessions and assets to the Federal government (Call it the "Ultimate Sacrifice" amendment).

[AmericaFyeah92]

The citizens do not have any power to do anything except to walk around, talk and wait till elections come up.

So I think a 4th branch would be good as described above. Think about it. Its a fast track to removal. It is an improved feedback mechanism.

Credible Threat of Relatively Fast Political Punishment (ie. removal) is a useful thing.

Unless you are advocating violence, but you will quickly find, that you will come off 2nd best against military and militarised police and all their weapons.

If you think for a second that Iraqi insurgents are kicking butt, you forget that for every 1 soldier killed there is like 100 insurgents killed.

ur trying to find a perfect fail-safe system where nothing ever goes wrong and people don't have to worry about their government $#@!ing them over. But it won't happen. That is why the people are supposed to keep the government in check when it goes against the constitution. We are the fourth branch

As for the heavy casualties part, i say we do something before it gets to that point.

[TheEvilDetector]

ur trying to find a perfect fail-safe system where nothing ever goes wrong and people don't have to worry about their government $#@!ing them over. But it won't happen. That is why the people are supposed to keep the government in check when it goes against the constitution. We are the fourth branch

As for the heavy casualties part, i say we do something before it gets to that point.

There is no perfect system, I was just talking about something that may be an improvement. Who knows how it would work out in real life.

Yes, under normal circumstance the people are supposed to be the safeguards of their liberty and yet, history shows us how easy it is to brainwash the masses into accepting and sometimes even wanting the very things that are actually bad for them.

[slothman]

As Senators at one time, were not directly elected by the people, but chosen by the state representatives. ...
It was a big mistake to make them directly elected by the people, IMO.

I agree with repealing the 17th Amendment.


I came up with a cooky idea.
Just have term limits.
I actually mean one term.
That way there is less likely the rep. need to pander to the public or lobeists(sp).
They can do bad stuff the people think is bad but they don't.
They also don't need to get money to get re-elected since they can't anyway.

[bill50]

I was thinking just the other day about a 4th branch of the Federal Government. I think the states themselves acting as a 4th branch might work. At least in the case of impeachment. If the Republicans in Congress did not vote to impeach Clinton, I'm sure some conservative states would have. Likewise, with Bush, I'm sure Vermont at the very least would try to petition for an impeachment hearing in front of the states if they had the power to impeach. I'm sure quite a few states would vote to impeach.

[TheEvilDetector]

I was thinking just the other day about a 4th branch of the Federal Government. I think the states themselves acting as a 4th branch might work. At least in the case of impeachment. If the Republicans in Congress did not vote to impeach Clinton, I'm sure some conservative states would have. Likewise, with Bush, I'm sure Vermont at the very least would try to petition for an impeachment hearing in front of the states if they had the power to impeach. I'm sure quite a few states would vote to impeach.

Good idea

[mediahasyou]

The articles of confederation were perfect.

But the power hunger got fed up. And we ended up with an imperfect constitution...Ready to be abused.

[therealjjj77]

I was on Kurt Wallace's show on BTM today and tossed out a challenge on how to "fix" the Constitution. My argument is that, while the Constitution has provisions to separate powers and limit to size and scope of the government to secure the rights of the people we can see that after 200+ years the checks and balances have been subverted (including redress). Basically, we wouldn't be in the mess we are today if there wasn't a flaw somewhere.

So the question is, how can it be fixed? It's not an easy question to answer and there is no perfect solution. Kurt did allude to something that is fundamentally true, that without a free press the people will be ill-informed which will lead to a subversion of any system-- this is true. I still contend however, that some form of added checks and balances could be established to stand up to stronger assaults.

In my imperfect solution, the system can not reply upon money or political connections to gain access to the new checks and balances-- an example of how this could be done is to have a specifically defined 4th branch of government, that is composed of random citizens (who wish to partake) that have the power to repeal unconstitutional law, and remove people from office in some cases. Maybe have a peoples congress of 50 or so citizens from each congressional district.

Again- this has flaw (you'd need to keep random truly random), but what could work better? Let's hear the ideas- else, after this revolution we'll doom our inheritors to a system that would be sure to fail again. Why else would we expect different results?

1st: Government is no longer granted the ability to go into debt

2nd: The original 13th amendment be reinstated

3rd: We take responsibility as citizens to teach our fellow citizens in our communities and hold up the standard

4th: Any person that has won an office be required to pass a test that deals in depth with everything in The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution and a test that does not change.

[deiniol]

My first suggestion would be to remove Congresses ability to choose the form of taxation. No longer would they be able to manipulate the whole of society simply by taxing the things they disapprove of and granting tax relief to the things they do. Instead they would have the power to exact specific amounts from each state based upon population. The Federal Government could, for example ask for $1000 per head, nationally. Montana thus would owe $944,632,000 for it's 944,632 citizens, whereas California would owe $36,457,549,000 for it's 36,457,549 citizens. It would be entirely up to the states to choose the form in which they collect that tax. Enforcement of such requests could be a little trickier. One option would be to suspend or limit the voting powers of significantly defaulted states. You might also consider giving the Federal Government the power to impose specific taxes only in the case that the state had regularly fallen significantly short.

I would improve it further by appropriating taxes more fairly based on the state's GDP. There must be recognition there are factors other than the number of citizenry that produces wealth for a state.

My second suggestion would be to bar the Federal Government from returning any of the money to the States. It must all be spent on Federal duties such as defense, diplomacy, and the basic operation of government. Thus the Federal Government would no longer be able to overtax and then return the money to the states with strings attached.

I agree with this. States should no longer be blackmailed into doing the Federal Government's bidding.

I agree that the senators should be elected by the state legislatures.

I agree with this too. The senators were and should be agents of the state governments.

we don't need a "fourth" branch called oversight, because that is what the citezenry is supposed to be. If we (including myself) would get off our asses and cause serious trouble when our constitution was violated, we wouldn't have these issues.

This probably is the crux of the problem. Many, if not most, people do not vote at all. There are people who don't vote, but should. There are people who do vote, that shouldn't.

I've always thought that there should be some sort of minimum standard that would represent an "informed" public, of which could vote on certain issues.

Every time I vote, there are candidates for a county comptroller or such, I have NO clue as to who they are. The only thing I have to go by is a name and a party affiliation. If I vote here, does that constitute an informed decision? I don't think so and believe it is detrimental to the system overall.