Seven ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution

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

Rick Perry has many ideas about how to change the American government's founding document. From ending lifetime tenure for federal judges to completely scrapping two whole amendments, the Constitution would see a major overhaul if the Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate had his druthers.

Perry laid out these proposed innovations to the founding document in his book, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington. He has occasionally mentioned them on the campaign trail. Several of his ideas fall within the realm of mainstream conservative thinking today, but, as you will see, there are also a few surprises.

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

The nation's framers established a federal court system whereby judges with "good behavior" would be secure in their job for life. Perry believes that provision is ready for an overhaul.

"The Judges," reads Article III, "both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."

Perry makes it no secret that he believes the judges on the bench over the past century have acted beyond their constitutional bounds. The problem, Perry reasons, is that members of the judiciary are "unaccountable" to the people, and their lifetime tenure gives them free license to act however they want. In his book, the governor speaks highly of plans to limit their tenure and offers proposals about how to accomplish it.

"'[W]e should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability," he writes in Fed Up! "There are a number of ideas about how to do this . . . . One such reform would be to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power. One proposal, for example, would have judges roll off every two years based on seniority."

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

Ending lifetime tenure for federal justices isn't the only way Perry has proposed suppressing the power of the courts. His book excoriates at length what he sees as overreach from the judicial branch. (The title of Chapter Six is "Nine Unelected Judges Tell Us How to Live.")

Giving Congress the ability to veto their decisions would be another way to take the Court down a notch, Perry says.

"[A]llow Congress to override the Supreme Court with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which risks increased politicization of judicial decisions, but also has the benefit of letting the people stop the Court from unilaterally deciding policy," he writes.

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

The Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." It should be abolished immediately, Perry says.

Calling the Sixteenth Amendment "the great milestone on the road to serfdom," Perry's writes that it provides a virtually blank check to the federal government to use for projects with little or no consultation from the states.

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

Overturning this amendment would restore the original language of the Constitution, which gave state legislators the power to appoint the members of the Senate.

Ratified during the Progressive Era in 1913 , the same year as the Sixteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment gives citizens the ability to elect senators on their own. Perry writes that supporters of the amendment at the time were "mistakenly" propelled by "a fit of populist rage."

"The American people mistakenly empowered the federal government during a fit of populist rage in the early twentieth century by giving it an unlimited source of income (the Sixteenth Amendment) and by changing the way senators are elected (the Seventeenth Amendment)," he writes.

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

Of all his proposed ideas, Perry calls this one "the most important," and of all the plans, a balanced budget amendment likely has the best chance of passage.

"The most important thing we could do is amend the Constitution--now--to restrict federal spending," Perry writes in his book. "There are generally thought to be two options: the traditional 'balanced budget amendment' or a straightforward 'spending limit amendment,' either of which would be a significant improvement. I prefer the latter . . . . Let's use the people's document--the Constitution--to put an actual spending limit in place to control the beast in Washington."

A campaign to pass a balanced budget amendment through Congress fell short by just one vote in the Senate in the 1990s.

Last year, House Republicans proposed a spending-limit amendment that would limit federal spending to 20 percent of the economy. According to the amendment's language, the restriction could be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress or by a declaration of war.

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

Despite saying last month that he was "fine with" states like New York allowing gay marriage, Perry has now said he supports a constitutional amendment that would permanently ban gay marriage throughout the country and overturn any state laws that define marriage beyond a relationship between one man and one woman.

"I do respect a state's right to have a different opinion and take a different tack if you will, California did that," Perry told the Christian Broadcasting Network in August. "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'.

In an interview with The Ticket earlier this month, Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said that even though it would overturn laws in several states, the amendment still fits into Perry's broader philosophy because amendments require the ratification of three-fourths of the states to be added to the Constitution.

7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.

Like the gay marriage issue, Perry at one time believed that abortion policy should be left to the states, as was the case before the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. But in the same Christian Broadcasting Network interview, Perry said that he would support a federal amendment outlawing abortion because it was "so important...to the soul of this country and to the traditional values [of] our founding fathers."

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

Can't disagree with this. When a judge is in his/her position for life, they're accountable to no one. Judges seem to decide cases based on their ideology these days.

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

Not sure about this one.

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

Yes. Insitute the FairTax instead.

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

Yes. Repeal.

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

Yes.

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

No.

7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.

Abortion should be left to the states.

I intend to write my own response following the same format Tex used, when I get a sec.

In the meantime: I'm curious about #4. I know a lot of conservatives agree with Perry (and Tex) on this. But I don't know why, and I don't know why this is a conservative position. How does this fit in with conservative thought?

kronos wrote:In the meantime: I'm curious about #4. I know a lot of conservatives agree with Perry (and Tex) on this. But I don't know why, and I don't know why this is a conservative position. How does this fit in with conservative thought?

Because it was intended when the constitution was written to give the people representation (the House) and the states representation (the Senate). The 17th amendment took that away. Now the states have no representation in DC. Before that, the individual state legislatures appointed the Senators. Think of the state being an individual having representation.

I don't know why this is a left/right issue other than that I believe most liberals (in general) prefer it the way it is because it gives DC more power and takes it away from the states. Of course, this is just my opinion. I would like left wingers to explain why the 17th should stand as it is.

I don't see how the 17th either deprives the states of representation, or increases the power of DC, or takes power away from the states.

I support keeping the 17th in place because I don't see the problem with it.

This could change, of course, once I am shown what the problem is.

Otherwise, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

kronos wrote:I don't see how the 17th either deprives the states of representation, or increases the power of DC, or takes power away from the states.

I support keeping the 17th in place because I don't see the problem with it.

This could change, of course, once I am shown what the problem is.

Otherwise, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Executive branch is selected by and intended to represent the interests of the nation as a whole. Half of the Legislative branch (Senate) was selected by and intended to represent the interests of the States. Half of the Legislative branch (House) is selected and intended to represent the interests of the People. As you know, the Judicial branch is a side issue as it wasn't meant to represent anyone. It ensures that what comes out of the legislative process doesn't violate the Constitution. The 17th Amendment changed that. It basically made the Senate nothing more than a glorified House. Lost in that Amendment was anyone representing the interests of the States.

Again, it's hard to argue this here....
1. Executive branch selected by and intended to represent the interests of the nation as a whole.

2. Half of the Legislative branch (Senate) selected by and intended to represent the interests of the States.

3. Half of the Legislative branch (House) selected and intended to represent the interests of the People.

And of course, it's already there (the 17th amendment) but amendments can be repealed... they have been and always will be at one point or another. Do you get what I'm saying?

Yes and no.

TexasBlue wrote:Half of the Legislative branch (Senate) was selected by and intended to represent the interests of the States. Half of the Legislative branch (House) is selected and intended to represent the interests of the People.

Yes, I know this. This is why each state has exactly two senators apiece, while having a number of representatives proportional to its population.

TexasBlue wrote:The 17th Amendment changed that.

This is what I dispute. Before the 17th Amendment, the states were represented. After the 17th Amendment, the states were still represented. The process of selection changed, but the basic fact of representation did not.

TexasBlue wrote:It basically made the Senate nothing more than a glorified House.

No. The important difference between the House and the Senate is apportionment, not the method of selection. California, the most populous state, gets two senators. Wyoming, the least populous state, gets two senators. They are represented as equals in the senate. The fact that they now elect their senators directly does not change this an iota. Apportionment is what matters.

TexasBlue wrote:Lost in that Amendment was anyone representing the interests of the States.

This makes no sense to me. You're saying that the state of Minnesota was somehow shortchanged by having the selection of its senators transferred to its own people? As though 'Minnesota itself' has interests that are distinct from those of its people?

TexasBlue wrote:And of course, it's already there (the 17th amendment) but amendments can be repealed... they have been and always will be at one point or another. Do you get what I'm saying?

Yes, amendments can be repealed, but there needs to be a reason, and I just don't see one...yet.

kronos wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:The 17th Amendment changed that.

This is what I dispute. Before the 17th Amendment, the states were represented. After the 17th Amendment, the states were still represented. The process of selection changed, but the basic fact of representation did not.

Correct, but how can a state be represented when it was the state legislature who appointed the Senator? Now the people do. If my state reelects the GOP next year to be in control of the legislature (as they are now) but Amy Klobuchar wins reelection (via the people), it contradicts this.

kronos wrote:No. The important difference between the House and the Senate is apportionment, not the method of selection. California, the most populous state, gets two senators. Wyoming, the least populous state, gets two senators. They are represented as equals in the senate. The fact that they now elect their senators directly does not change this an iota. Apportionment is what matters.

I know this.

kronos wrote:This makes no sense to me. You're saying that the state of Minnesota was somehow shortchanged by having the selection of its senators transferred to its own people? As though 'Minnesota itself' has interests that are distinct from those of its people?

The people's interests and the state's interests are two different things. What I want/need and what the state wants/needs is two different things.

Here's two good ones. They explain it better than I can;
http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2008/10/24/repeal-the-17th-amendment/

http://www.liberty-ca.org/repeal17/states/montana2003oneil.htm

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

Yes. One possible alternative to lifetime tenure for federal judges (or at least SCOTUS judges) is 12- or 16-year tenure. Perhaps 16-20 years for federal judges. Non-renewable in both cases.

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

No--especially if in conjunction with 1. Congresspeople are not judges and are not qualified to interpret the law. This also seems to screw up the system of checks and balances, giving too much power to the legislative branch and taking away too much from the judicial.

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

No. You can't propose destroying the revenue base and a balanced budget amendment and expect me to take you seriously.

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

No. Covered above. The reasoning for this seems really abstract and pie-in-the-sky to me. The problem that this amendment is supposed to address is imaginary, and the solution to this non-problem is purely symbolic.

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

No. Sometimes you have to spend more than you take in. This is not desirable, but you need the ability to do it when necessary.

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

No. And this isn't a matter for the states, either. This violates the Equal Protection Clause. You can't have two Amendments that contradict each other. If you wanted this one in, you'd have to take the EPC out. No thanks.

7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.

No. I'd support an amendment making it legal throughout the country, up to a certain point in the gestation, and illegal past that point. I'll leave aside for now the question of where that point should be. But this is not a state's issue.

kronos wrote:

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

Yes. One possible alternative to lifetime tenure for federal judges (or at least SCOTUS judges) is 12- or 16-year tenure. Perhaps 16-20 years for federal judges. Non-renewable in both cases.

Agreeable.

kronos wrote:

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

No. You can't propose destroying the revenue base and a balanced budget amendment and expect me to take you seriously.

Ever heard of the FairTax? It's doable from everything I've heard and read about it. But I'll let Dbl explain that since he actually worked with legislators back in the day on it.

Where is Dbl anyway???

kronos wrote:

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

No. Sometimes you have to spend more than you take in. This is not desirable, but you need the ability to do it when necessary.

Works for states. Why not the fed? Inquiring minds need to know.

kronos wrote:

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

No. And this isn't a matter for the states, either. This violates the Equal Protection Clause. You can't have two Amendments that contradict each other. If you wanted this one in, you'd have to take the EPC out. No thanks.

This is where I stand. This is where the SCOTUS will rule on it if it ever gets there (which one day it will).

kronos wrote:

7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.

No. I'd support an amendment making it legal throughout the country, up to a certain point in the gestation, and illegal past that point. I'll leave aside for now the question of where that point should be. But this is not a state's issue.

Why not a states issue? As I've said numerous times, I have no quarrel on abortion, yay or nay. As an "outsider" looking in, I have yet to buy into the argument that the 1973 ruling is sound.

TexasBlue wrote:

kronos wrote:

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

No. You can't propose destroying the revenue base and a balanced budget amendment and expect me to take you seriously.

Ever heard of the FairTax? It's doable from everything I've heard and read about it. But I'll let Dbl explain that since he actually worked with legislators back in the day on it.

Where is Dbl anyway???

I've heard of it. Nationwide 30% sales tax on everything, AIUI. If someone wants to make the pitch, I'm all ears.

TexasBlue wrote:

kronos wrote:

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

No. Sometimes you have to spend more than you take in. This is not desirable, but you need the ability to do it when necessary.

Works for states. Why not the fed? Inquiring minds need to know.

Because like I said, sometimes deficit spending is necessary. World War II, for example. We couldn't have fought that war on a balanced budget.

TexasBlue wrote:

kronos wrote:

7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.

No. I'd support an amendment making it legal throughout the country, up to a certain point in the gestation, and illegal past that point. I'll leave aside for now the question of where that point should be. But this is not a state's issue.

Why not a states issue? As I've said numerous times, I have no quarrel on abortion, yay or nay. As an "outsider" looking in, I have yet to buy into the argument that the 1973 ruling is sound.

Because Constitutional issues are at stake.

The key question is whether (or when) a fetus is a person protected by the Constitution--specifically, the Fifth Amendment, which (among other things) prohibits the taking of life without due process.

The Constitution does not apply differentially in different parts of the country. You can't have a Constitutional right in one state that doesn't exist in another. That is a fiction.

A fetus at a given stage of gestation is either protected by the Fifth Amendment everywhere in the US, or nowhere in the US. There is no middle ground.

And if it is not protected, there is no rationale for outlawing abortion.

I still fail to see where Roe v Wade was a constitutional issue.

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

This is where the religious right don't bend on abortion.

TexasBlue wrote:I still fail to see where Roe v Wade was a constitutional issue.

I assume you mean "I still fail to see how abortion is a constitutional issue."

1. The 5th Amendment is part of the Constitution.

2. The states do not get to decide who is and isn't protected by the Constitution.

3. Therefore, states do not get to decide who is and isn't protected by the 5th Amendment.



I fail to see how it's a states issue.

TexasBlue wrote:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

This is where the religious right don't bend on abortion.

They shouldn't bend on it. It would make no sense for them to.

Abortion is not an issue that can admit compromise. The fetal right to life, just like your own right to life, exists either everywhere, or nowhere.

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

This then should protect all fetuses.

TexasBlue wrote:

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

This then should protect all fetuses.

It should protect all people.

The question is, when does a fetus become a person (in the legal sense)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person#Law

If a fetus IS a person, then its right to life exists everywhere in the US.

If it is NOT a person, then its right to life exists nowhere in the US.

If it becomes a person at a certain point in the gestation process, then its right to life exists everywhere in the US after that point, and nowhere in the US before that point.

^Everything I just wrote that had the word "if" in it is a question that must be answered on the federal level. The concept of state level differences as to who has a right to life, is unworkable.

The point of this post was not to defend either a pro-abortion or anti-abortion position, but rather to explain why the legal status of abortion must be a federal question.

Hope this makes sense.

(see last post on previous page)

Now, my own position:

It is obvious to me that a baby in the womb, a day away from birth, is a person, and therefore has a right to life.

It is much less obvious to me that a zygote just a day after the gametes meet--basically, an insentient blob of cells--is a person. In fact, I don't accept that this zygote has a right to life, the way the baby a day away from birth does.

So obviously, at some point between these two extremes, something that was not a person before, becomes a person.

I don't claim to know what that point is. Like I said, I'll just leave that an open question for now. The point is that that point exists.

Before that point, abortion should be legal everywhere in the US. After that point, it should be illegal everywhere in the US, except when carrying the child to term would jeopardize the life of the mother.

Of course, that's just my opinion. But what is not my opinion, is that this is not a states issue. The Fourteenth Amendment is clear on this.

So I agree with the basic approach of Roe v Wade of establishing a cutoff point. Which is not to say I agree with the specific cutoff point they chose. I'm agnostic on that for now.



What do you think? At what point is a fetus a person?

The filibuster should be abolished by Constitutional amendment.

I understand that you're not making a pro or con position. Just making a case.

I agree. This needs to be looked at again because I believe that life begins at conception. Where I part ways with the right is the way they use it.

I still stand by my stance as it being a state issue.

As far as the state vs fed issue goes, what I really should have done is post Section 1 of the 14th Amendment.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

What this does is it makes the Bill of Rights binding on the states, not just the fed. So a state can't pass a law legalizing murder.

So if it turns out that a fetus is a person, then that person's 5th Amendment rights are protected anywhere and everywhere in the US.

If you're saying it's just your personal preference, or your political philosophy, that abortion is a states issue, that's fine. I can't say you're wrong. But the Constitution quite clearly says otherwise. I'm talking about the way it is, not the way it should be (although I do think it should be a federal issue). If we lived under a different political system, abortion might well be a states issue. Under the Articles of Confederation, had we kept that system, it would certainly be a states issue. Under the Constitution, it is a federal issue.

I respect your view that life begins at conception, but I don't understand how a states rights approach flows from this. If you really do believe that, then abortion must be murder--legalized murder of a certain class of people. How can a state pass a law saying 'it's OK to murder this type of person?' How would a law authorizing the murder of blacks, or gays, or the elderly, or children, be any different?

For the record, the Roe v Wade decision was based on the 9th Amendment;

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This is why I don't argue (much) on abortion. For me, it's one of those issues like religion.... I personally don't care.

I see both sides of the issue and I also believe that both sides use different parts of the constitution to their liking when it comes to the issue itself.

You'll ever see me arguing passionately about abortion (or even religion). I've debated in this thread just for the thrill of debate.

Roe v Wade is actually based on a so-called "right to privacy" that isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but that the judges at the time sort of extrapolated out of it.

Yeah, it's a bit screwy.

I also see both sides of the issue, and I have mixed feelings about it.

kronos wrote:Roe v Wade is actually based on a so-called "right to privacy" that isn't mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, but that the judges at the time sort of extrapolated out of it.

Yeah, it's a bit screwy.

I also see both sides of the issue, and I have mixed feelings about it.

That's something I forgot to mention, too. There's is no right to privacy in that paper. But the states (I believe) have them in theirs (or most of them do).