A Proposed Constitutional Amendment

Comment

Comment by Edwin Irby on October 4, 2008 at 11:44am

Several fallacies with the Constitutional amendment approach; I live in a state where our Constitution is relatively easy to amend. It has lead to some rather unusual if not bizarre amendments; amendments whose subjects would have been far better handled by the legislative process. Also they never were "enforced" as the original drafters intended. Then we have had the problem with judicial interpretation.

It is little different with the US Constitution. What an originator thinks the meant or was the intent is not how the courts might interpret what is said or intended to be said. For example the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution clearly meant to refer to legal residents of the US and not those here illegal especially as criminals. . The debate at the time of the Amendment's passage was clear. Yet much later the Supreme Court took one word out of the first paragraph and redefined the entire intent of the amendment. That one word change in interpretation and intent has cost the country hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions; it has placed the security of the country and each of us at grave risk.

The problem we face is not the money in the system; but what those giving such money expect and in turn how the candidate once elected responds to those expectations. Remember that no matter how much money a candidate has it still requires the candidate to obtain the largest number of legal votes. There is where we face a significant problem. And, also remember restricting what a rich candidate wishes to spend has been interpreted as a infringement of the freedom of speech.

Relatively few legal citizens register and vote; not even a large percentage of those that do register to vote go out on election day and cast their vote. Many of those that do not register or do not vote after registering are not voting because, while they may understand that voting is important, they do not believe they have the knowledge to make the correct decision. Others believe that they cannot make a difference so why bother.

Yet even many of those that regularly vote cannot explain how our country is suppose to work and therefore are quite incapable of understanding how it works today. For example, many people believe we are a pure democracy as Athens was, instead of a republic in the form of a representative democracy. By the by, republic has nothing to do with any political party but a government by the rule of law not by a pure monarch or mob rule.

Once upon a time all states required civics to be taught in middle, junior or high school. You were taught the U.S. Constitution, the Federalist Papers, your state Constitution and what your rights and obligations as a citizen were. Most states no longer require civics or if it is taught at all it is now based on the teachers view of the world.

I have pondered this issue of moneyed influence in politics much of my life. I have lived and worked around national and state politics most of my life. I have heard and watched as various groups got laws past to take the influence of money out of the system. Yet each time there were unintended and often unpleasant consequences.None of these laws solved the problem. Remember the Constitution is just our ultimate set of laws. At present corporations are considered by the courts as "equal" to individual citizens.

If we were all educated in how our system is suppose to work; how it was originally designed. Then limited contributions to a fixed amount equal for each citizen and each corporation and require reporting of all such contributions that would be a start. Then eliminate all the other complex rules and regulations. Such rules and regulations only allow for hiding of money sources as well as interpretations of the rules that protect or hide those who we specifically wish to keep from donating and influencing the system.

Of course you must ask 'where is the majority of the money spent on any given campaign, especially national or state-wide campaigns spent?' It is spent with the news media, television and radio. We require broadcast and cable today to have so many public service announcement why not require them to run political advertising for free. With so much money going to TV, radio and news it corrupts just as much as the money going to a specific candidate.

In national elections, especially since we became "the world power" the battle is not over whether you get the candidate you desire, who you think is best for the countyr, that does what they have said during their campaign, but a battle over ultimate power. Power to control the riches and most powerful country on Earth or in history. If you have bothered to study history you will full understand far more and far worse has been done in the pursuit of power than anything we witness today-----or at least those far.

The biggest enemy we all have is someone that has become very rich, in the top ten or twenty, that have made as much money as anyone can imagine having and now they desire what they don't have, ultimate power. No, all rich folks do not desire ultimate power, some do. Some do not involve themselves any more in politics than you do. Those seeking power for power's sake are very dangerous to your liberty and freedom.


One problem we have faced since our country's inception and that is "buying" individual votes. It still is a problem and it has seldom had much to do with money coming in through legitimate political contributions but those folks that want their own power.

Comment by Donna L. Hill Powell on August 23, 2008 at 3:19am

Richard, your intent is clear and purpose is pure. Keep up the effort. I have a sinking feeling in my stomach every time I think our political offices have to be "purchased." Reading that Obama's campaign had received Hamas money, just sent me reeling. Well, one thing I thought of while reading your statement was to keep the maximum allowable contribution from any one person or every potential runner would be grabbing onto a few wealthy constituents in order to push ahead. If the running field is going to be leveled out so more can participate, there's going to have to be some very worthy umpires. Accountability is what you seem to be talking about, accountability to the voter/citizenry. That is good. I too am chagrinned at reading and hearing about the robed "Would be Kings" dictating their agenda, rather than accept their responsibility and administer according to the Constitution. Well, will get off my soapbox and back to your idea. Good one. Thanks for offering it. dp

Comment by Lock Piatt on August 14, 2008 at 5:16pm

Richard,

How about we just let anyone say anything and give money to anyone anytime anyplace as long as it is reported on the web within 24 hour of receipt (no hidden names) groups must identify the individuals involved on the web.

After this let the politicians argue like hell as our forefathers intended. Debate, argue and fight duals on the floor of congress before laws are passed.

Comment by DubleDeuce on August 13, 2008 at 12:28am

Hello Mr. Bibb,

Thanks for the thought but I have a FAR different take on the issue. The Constitution gives the power to the people every 4 years to elect a president, 6 years to elect a Senator, and 2 years to elect a Representative. There is a GOOD reason for this disparity in election cycles.

First, the President is one who is proposed to RUN the government, negotiate treaties, appoint various people to high posts, and is the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. This Constitutional power is broad and definite. As such, he gets some of his power from the very absolute nature of his term (4years) and can ONLY be removed for high crimes and misdemeanors. I say power, because any country having to deal with him MUST consider his semi permanence in office (including the possible reelection to a second term). This gives him certain powers of stability.

The Senate i selected every six years an was considered at the time of the founding of this nation to be a more deliberate body, not subject to popular passions and such. With a necessary 60 votes to command cloture on any subject matter, a minority of Senators can create havoc with the institutions inner workings by DEMANDING a bill have certain considerations in it that the simple majority (50=1) would otherwise run rough shod over.

And than we come to the House of Representatives. Every 2 years we are called to elect member to fill those seats. WHY every 2 years, why not 4 or even 6? Because the Constitution has given the House the unique and bold responsibility to be the only ones that can introduce a spending or appropriations bill into the chamber for consideration. This ability to SPEND money is a critical part of our country's function. As such, we are permitted to cast our approval or rejection on the members of this body every two years.

NOW, to your Constitutional Amendment. Personally, it ain't worth a bucket of warm "spit". Nothing Personal Richard, just calling it as I see it. (lookup McCain-Feingold)

We all piss and moan and groan when the House puts up some ridiculous spending bill and the Senate goes along with it and the President signs it (he claims there is a gun pointed at his head with each bill presented) But we NEVER do anything about it, DO WE?

Does ANYONE reading this KNOW what the actual level of the National Debt is? Does anyone actually KNOW what the National Debt IS? Does ANYONE know HOW the national debt is increased? The national debt is the amount of money that is OWED by the Federal Government. Yep, just like your credit cars and your hose note and your home equity loan, the government has DEBTS. BIG ONES. And ONLY the House of Representatives has the POWER to INTRODUCE a bill to RAISE that debt limit. When wa the LAST time you told your Representative that he was spending too much of YOUR money? EXACTLY my point. You ain't NEVER done it. And you know WHAT? they here you LOUD and clear. (we as a collective people DON'T care that 18 cents of EVERY dollar we send to Washington is to pay INTEREST on that DEBT)

So, just like when a bunch of kids get shot in a school yard, we IMMEDIIATELY call for MORE gun control laws to STOP this useless waste, but we NEVER ask that the EXISTING gun control laws be enforced. Had people FOLLOWED the laws that WHERE on the books we would not have NEAR the tragedies we have.

This is the point, we as citizens of this country HAVE for over 235 years, ABDICATED our civic responsibilities to keep our elected officials feet to the fire. Make them DO what is right before we have to step in and clean up the mess with 'hundret' bills and 30 year Treasury notes. We abdicated our responsibilities on the issue of slavery in the original Constitution, we abdicated our responsibilities in the Missouri Compromise to rectify that first oversight, we abdicated our responsibilities in the Dred Scott case of 1855, we PAID for our sullen and unresponsive attitudes by engaging in a Civil War that cost us some 625,000 men and tore a country asunder for along time, we abdicated our responsibilities again after the adoption of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, we abdicated our responsibilities AGAIN in 1892 by not letting a white man (with 1/16th black blood) ride on a train with white people, and we abdicated our responsibilities AGAIN in the Supreme Court ruling of 1954 when the unjustness of the Jim Crow laws adhere made known to us. We went RIGHT on supporting separate but equal until the scourge of bussing was put upon us, AGAIN by the Supreme Court.

We as a NATION have CONTINUED to reject our hard earned Constitutional right to be represented by the best people we can get. NOT because of WHO is financing their campaigns, but because of WHO is NOT doing their civic duty and going to the poles and keeping them honest. Thad be ME and YOU Richard.

I take considerable offense to the IDEA that our troubles as a nation can be cured by a simple Amendment to the Constitution in the form of campaign financing.

Want a Constitutional Amendment? One that WILL work? One that would RESTORE the power to the Presidency. Power that we erroneously believe the President has? Then do one that gives the President the Line Item Veto. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/06/25/scotus.lineitem/
THAT will CURE more ills that a FULL bottle of grape flavored "Robutussim"

And I am NO fan of Bill Clinton's.

Comment by Lock Piatt on August 12, 2008 at 5:46pm

If this can not be done then let us just pass an ammendment that keeps DC from raising any money except for the common defense and other constitutional issues. Block them from using the commerce clause to get involved in the State and citizens business.

Comment by Janice L Stephenson on August 12, 2008 at 10:02am

We aren't a two party system anymore anyway, they have two different names, and argue back and forth about issues, but are in lock-step when it comes to getting anything done, a bunch of wafflers who are afraid to stand up for what is right and what this country is all about, individual freedoms that give us the right to speak and vote exactly the way we think! I would like to see every single person voted out of office and start all over, including the 9 so called justices. They also should be elected or chosen by some other method than as a political pawn for the parties. They should be deciding on constitutional issues, not deciding who can marry who or what women can do with their bodies.

Comment by Janice L Stephenson on August 12, 2008 at 9:58am

I agree with you and have thought the same for many years. How about we add making lobbying illegal while we are at it? I don't know anything about the legal description of a person or resident, but I am sure you are going to find a way to define it so that it is very clearly stated. I am with you a hundred percent!

Comment by David Smith on August 12, 2008 at 9:35am

Our government has proven repeatedly that it will protect itself before it will protect the American people. An amendment to the constitution is not impossible only extraordinarily difficult. Organizations like the NRA, Move On.org and many other organizations like them will run a massive disinformation campaign to destroy the movement.

Comment by Richard Bibb on August 12, 2008 at 8:58am

I had researched the processes and realize this qualifies as tilting at windmills (how approriate for this site) big time. But lacking confidence in our government to reform itself in any other manner all avenues, however futile in appearance, should be considered.

Comment by James Tracy on August 12, 2008 at 8:53am

But, its fairly easy to amend an amendment. Compared to creating a new one. If we can persuade our "Leaders" to do it.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page