Rick Perry's Seven Amendments to the US Constitution

[dbackjon]

Rick Perry wants seven changes to the Constitution...

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

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



So he wants to wreck the judicial independence, and subvert the three branches of government model

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

This will get support, but what do you replace it with?

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


You want Russell Pierce appointing Senators?

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

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

Allow Jim Crow laws next?

7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seve ... 34517.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[danefan]

"and if elected I promise to have pizza and ice cream parties every friday and I'd abolish all homework."


Sorry, just reminded of my 5th grade student senate campaign speech.

[dbackjon]

"and if elected I promise to have pizza and ice cream parties every friday and I'd abolish all homework."


Sorry, just reminded of my 5th grade student senate campaign speech.

What kind of ice cream?

[SuperHornet]

Some good and a lot of bad here. A mixed bag, to say the least.

One could say that the 3-branch model has ALREADY been subverted by those who would enact legislation through the courts, as opposed to the Congress as provided for in the Constitution. Perry probably sees himself as RESTORING the Constitution here. Sounds good until you ask HOW he intends to do it. While I don't like lifetime appointments for activist judges, repealing it opens up a can of worms I'm not sure ANYBODY's ready for.

As far as Congressional authority to override the SCOTUS, well, precedent was set in the veto override. Not saying I'm FOR this additional override authority, and not saying it would happen very often. (Such overrides would probably be at least as rare as a veto override, if not more so.) But this is likely another thing that would come back to bite the guy who puts it in.

I gotta go with Jon on #3. Sounds good, but the government MUST have some sort of income IOT operate. The only other ways to get income are sales tax and duties. People would scream bloody murder at a sales tax (at least at the beginning. Increased duties would likewise bring protests, both from countries affected (Exhibit A: what's already happened with CHN) and those who would have to play increased prices. The tarriffs are usually passed on to the consumer as any sane import company looking out for its shareholders won't want to give up part of their profits to the government.

#4 would save the people a ton in terms of elections (money spent AND mudslinging). But the senators have to come from SOMEWHERE. Either the state legislature appoints them or the governor does. In either case (especially that of the governor), if you get a bad appointing body, you get a bad senator. Plus, without the direct election, there's no direct accountability to the people.

#5 is a non-starter at best. You can require it all you want, but it's difficult at best to put any teeth into such a "requirement." Sacramento has had a balanced budget requirement for years, but they hardly ever meet it. In fact, THIS year, there was a provision to dock legislative pay, but they threatened to sue the Comptroller, who actually had the temerity to declare that he would impose it. One could expect the same at the national level, especially since the travesty known as term limits has reduced legislatures everywhere to playing to the party margins.

I wholeheartedly agree with #7.

EDIT: In addition, given Cali's bloated mess of a state Constitution, I'm not at all sure that all of these provisions are important enough to warrant Constitution status. While the Federal Constitution is hardly near the shape of the Cali one, if we do this, it could portend budgetary problems in the future as people would try to get voter amendment initiative power approved at the federal level. That's NOT a good idea....

[Pwns]

Cripes! Could Perry be even more of a demagogue than he already is? It's clear that he doesn't plan to win any of the battles on the social issues as president. Constitutional amendments? Congress having the power to overturn SCOTUS? How f'n gullible are people to think that he is really serious about this stuff?

[danefan]

"and if elected I promise to have pizza and ice cream parties every friday and I'd abolish all homework."


Sorry, just reminded of my 5th grade student senate campaign speech.

What kind of ice cream?

Sundae bar of course.

[ASUG8]

And what are the odds that any of that would actually see a vote, much less be enacted during a 4 or even 8 yr tenure? The pundits say a balanced budget amendment would take several years to get through.

[Ivytalk]

He's 0-for-7 in my book. The Texas constitution has been amended so often that it's unrecognizable. Maybe Rick thinks it's that easy to change a governing document that's served us well for almost 225 years. The guy would emasculate the judiciary. Check to Romney is in the mail.

[citdog]

He's 0-for-7 in my book. The Texas constitution has been amended so often that it's unrecognizable. Maybe Rick thinks it's that easy to change a governing document that's served us well for almost 225 years. The guy would emasculate the judiciary. Check to Romney is in the mail.

That SACRED document ceased to be valid when the first yankee jackboot trod on the soil of the SOVEREIGN States. No sir, the voluntary union of the States is but a corpse. Buried upon the rolling hills of Appamattox.

[Baldy]

Rick Perry wants seven changes to the Constitution...

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

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



So he wants to wreck the judicial independence, and subvert the three branches of government model

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

This will get support, but what do you replace it with?

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


You want Russell Pierce appointing Senators?

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

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

Allow Jim Crow laws next?

7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seve ... 34517.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Repealing the 16th and 17th amendments?

[bobbythekidd]

Rick Perry wants seven changes to the Constitution...

1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.-1
2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.-1
3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment. DEPENDS ON HIS SOLUTION no points
4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment. +1
5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year. +1
6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states. -1
7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country. -1

Total for Perry:-2

[∞∞∞]

0 for 7 in my book (#1 is especially dumb). And before anyone says anything about having a balanced budget, normally having some debt means you're investing into the country, growing, and keeping a good credit.

[OL FU]

the boy is from Texas so what do you expect.

[SDHornet]

So he basically wants to get rid of checks and balances. Brilliant. Here comes 4 more years of Obama.

[BlueHen86]

1 & 2 - I trust our judicial system more than I trust Congress. No way I take power away from the judicial and give it to Congress. I don't think activist judges are as big of a problem as some people would have you think. I lot of the time it's just sours grapes because someone didn't get their way in court. If it is a legit issue, there are appeals to overturn bad decisions. The court system may not be perfect, but it runs a lot better than Congress.

3,4, & 5 - There may be some merit to these, he should expand on his ideas. For example, he should explain how he is going to balance the budget. It's easy to say it should be balanced, the hard part is figuring out how. (I hope his solution isn't prayer, every time he prays to end the drought in Texas it gets worse, clearly God isn't responding to him )

6 & 7 - These lame ideas may appeal to his base, but they don't solve any of the real problems facing the country today. I don't agree with either suggestion, but even if I did, this isn't the time to have these debates. We need a President who can fix the economy, get spending under control and extract us from two wars.

I give him an "F" for 1,2, 6 & 7
and an "Incomplete" for 3,4 & 5.

[UNHWildCats]

[Bronco]

-
So you guys aren't going to vote for him?

[SuperHornet]

As if we can't find seven Donkeys to fit that paradigm, UNH.

[UNHWildCats]

As if we can't find seven Donkeys to fit that paradigm, UNH.

i'm sure you can, but they wouldn't make up the entirety of a presidential nomination field.

[AZGrizFan]

So he basically wants to get rid of checks and balances. Brilliant. Here comes 4 more years of Obama.

Please. Perry will be gone before March.

[Ivytalk]

So he basically wants to get rid of checks and balances. Brilliant. Here comes 4 more years of Obama.

Please. Perry will be gone before March.

What makes you say that, Z? I think he'll be in longer than Bachmann. Probably all the way to the convention, unless he gaffes it up big time.

[bulldog10jw]

As if we can't find seven Donkeys to fit that paradigm, UNH.

i'm sure you can, but they wouldn't make up the entirety of a presidential nomination field.

Let's see, Obama, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Kucinich, Richardson.

Looks like it happened 4 years ago.

[SDHornet]

Please. Perry will be gone before March.

What makes you say that, Z? I think he'll be in longer than Bachmann. Probably all the way to the convention, unless he gaffes it up big time.

I agree. Unlike most of the other ass hat repub candidates, Perry can lean on his past executive leadership experience to outshine the others. The Republican base will eat that shit up and then also be overjoyed about all the religious bull shit Perry brings with him. How this guy finds some kind of traction with the middle voters remains to be seen.

[AZGrizFan]

What makes you say that, Z? I think he'll be in longer than Bachmann. Probably all the way to the convention, unless he gaffes it up big time.

I agree. Unlike most of the other ass hat repub candidates, Perry can lean on his past executive leadership experience to outshine the others. The Republican base will eat that shit up and then also be overjoyed about all the religious bull shit Perry brings with him. How this guy finds some kind of traction with the middle voters remains to be seen.

Well, I think that once it comes down to just him and Romney, the middle voters (who could give a rat's ass about the religous bullshit) will lean towards Romney.

[Ivytalk]

I agree. Unlike most of the other ass hat repub candidates, Perry can lean on his past executive leadership experience to outshine the others. The Republican base will eat that **** up and then also be overjoyed about all the religious bull **** Perry brings with him. How this guy finds some kind of traction with the middle voters remains to be seen.

Well, I think that once it comes down to just him and Romney, the middle voters (who could give a rat's ass about the religous bullshit) will lean towards Romney.

Agreed. I thought my old college classmate and Houston mayor Bill White had a shot at beating Perry last year, but it wasn't even close. Perry would get creamed in a general election for POTUS.