* Disclaimer -- although this IS my original work, this is one of the articles that I have also published through Associated Content by Yahoo! and as such I am also including a link to it here http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8328211/governor_perrys_ideas_on_the_us_constitutiohttp://www.associatedcontent.com/article/8328211/governor_perrys_ideas_on_the_us_constitution.html in the hopes you will click on it and help support my paid writing through there*
The framers of the US Constitution made a document that has lasted since 1790 with very little change and the reason for this is that it is a reasonable document. Governor Perry's proposed changes seem to have very little to do with reason and more with politics.
In an article for Yahoo! News Chris Moody (Fri, Aug 19, 2011) writes: “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.”
The changes Governor Perry wants are for the most part, in my opinion, VERY bad ideas. This article will attempt to explain why.
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." THIS is what the framers intended. But Governor Perry has his own ideas of what constitutes “good Behavior” and apparently that means making decisions HE agrees with.
"'[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."
One of the major problems with this is that it then makes the nominations for the replacement judges for the Supreme or circuit courts even more politicized than they are now because then the legislature and executive branches will have to tie up even more of their time and resources trying to get “sympathetic” jurists in place every few years. The Supreme Court under Chief Justice Marshall was one of the most progressive incarnations of that body, but it was not the progressives that pushed his nomination through. Can you imagine what would have happened if Gov. Perry’s ideas were in place then? Things like the reading of our “Miranda rights” upon being arrested would not have become required.
2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.
According to Mr. Moody’s article “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.")
"[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," Perry writes.
This completely counters what the framers of the US Constitution had in mind. The reason that the Legislative and Executive branches do NOT have the power to over-ride the Judicial in the US Constitution without the AMENDING of that document is that this is the MAIN way that the framers saw to place a check on both the Legislative and Executive branches against over-reaching THEIR authority. Perry states that it “risks increased politicization” of decisions by the courts. I disagree. This proposal, along with his term limits proposal, guarantees that politicization.
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.
This is actually the ONLY thing that I even partially agree with Governor Perry on. The way that income taxes are currently assessed is inherently unfair to the poor of this country because even though many do not pay income tax because they fall below the minimum threshold for it, they are STILL paying a disproportionate amount of their income in taxes due to other things like gasoline taxes and regular sales taxes. UNLESS the tax burden on the “super-rich” is equalized the way Warren Buffet promotes and the Koch brothers decry, we need to find another way to fund the government than income taxes. For many years there has been a movement for a flat national SALES tax. If you eliminate staple foods and certain types of clothing from the taxation, you still have a LOT more money that would be produced – in a way that is fair to both rich and poor and cannot be argued to “favor” any special interest groups.
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. Fair enough, but this is something that actually puts the individual citizen in the position of power and has actually accomplished the goals that it was intended to in 1913.
I ask Governor Perry this question: “As we have seen that the Seventeenth Amendment actually WORKS as intended, why scrap it?” This makes me wonder what Governor Perry is worried about by not allowing the people to directly choose their US Senators instead of leaving it in the hands of State legislators who, in many cases seem to be the puppets of corporate influence.
5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.
This one is only good on paper as long as there is a “no new taxes” mindset in Washington, DC – especially no “new” taxes on large corporations such as those that are driving the current political debate in our nation’s capital.
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."
If we are to balance the nation’s budget Mr. Perry, how about increasing the SUPPLY of money to the government in the form of taxes instead of trying to cut out vital safety nets for the elderly, the working poor and children (both in education and healthcare)?
6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.
"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'.
That’s all well and good Governor Perry, but please remember that the Constitution was designed to guarantee the rights of ALL U.S citizens, not just those of any particular group. Same-sex marriage is gaining in approval so why create an amendment that will only be overturned the way that the 18th Amendment was after only 14 years? This is a waste of time and money that could be used more productively to handle substantive issues like job creation.
The 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution banned the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcohol (i.e. the beginning of Prohibition). It was ratified on January 16, 1919 and repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933. In the over 200 years of the U.S. Constitution, the 18th Amendment remains the only Amendment to ever have been repealed. http://history1900s.about.com/od/1910s/a/18thamendment.htm
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."
The problem with Mr. Perry’s stand on the issue is that this elevates the rights of an unborn and potentially unviable fetus above the rights of a woman, even if the woman’s health is in danger or the pregnancy is the result of criminal activity. There is already a disturbing trend to disallow women who have already made a decision not to have an abortion losing the rights to dictate their medical treatment during pregnancy. To completely criminalize abortion will only end up in MORE women being subjected to illegal and dangerous practices than it will save – women who may have had an abortion only for the purpose of saving their lives so that they can take care of already living children.
There are additional joint issues to think of in regards to numbers Six and Seven on this list as well. These are issues of “State’s Rights”. If you are interested in REDUCING the power of the Federal Government, as many of Governor Perry’s supporters are, then the proposed amendments prohibiting Same-Sex marriage and abortion do just the opposite. They INCREASE the power of the Federal Government and potentially, the costs of that government due to prosecutions of violations of those amendments.
I wonder if Governor Perry has thought THAT part through, or if the proposed amendments that he espouses are just a way to get the approval of the Evangelical Christian voting bloc by putting in religiously based amendments.
No comments:
Post a Comment