Saturday, December 14, 2013

It's Time for a "New American Convention to Consider Needed Amendments"!


It seems we are clearly overdue on one very important task that our nation's founders expected of us!

Every indication points to an expectation on their part that we would reconvene periodically to update the documents they worked so diligently to produce.

Virtually every delegate to the American Constitutional Convention in 1787 expressed the opinion that the system for governing the new nation they had conceived was a very good one - but not a perfect one! So, they deliberately included two means by which we could change and improve on it as history moved along and exposed any such needs.

The first of these means was for Congress itself to recognize and propose amendments. This could be done by having two-thirds of the members in both the Senate and the House of Representatives vote to propose any changes. Then, if their proposals were subsequently ratified by three-fourths of the states, those changes would become part of our Constitution.

Unfortunately, very few of us now seem to believe that either our Congress or our state legislatures could ever take such a major step with any intent to seriously alter what has become for these elected representatives a source of such great personal power and individual wealth. There are simply too many career politicians (i. e. - not "Statemen" and "Stateswomen") and they are too "influenced" by so many "turf-protecting" (and entrenched) bureaucrats, party officials and high-paid special-interest lobbyists.

Fortunately, the founders included a second means for amending our Constitution that is considerably more within the "people's" ability to take action.

If the legislatures in two-thirds of the states apply for a convention for the purpose of proposing changes, then Congress must call for one to be convened. And, if three-fourths of the legislatures or state conventions ratify these changes coming out of that convention, they will automatically become official amendments to our Constitution.

           
This is critical!

First - we are much more able to get such action from our state governments. Its not automatic because there are also far too many politicians, bureaucrats and lobbyists in our state capitols as well. But – these representatives are closer to the voters and therefore at least somewhat more responsive and less able to disguise their motives and actions.

Second - we need for the states to insist to Congress that ratification be done by state conventions rather than by the state legislatures.

So - the "trick" here is for "the people" to insist on the second route, and establish the rules under which this convention will operate.

             One more thing here is also critical!

What is provided for in Article V of our Constitution – and what is needed now by our nation - is a convention to consider amendments!  Article V does not provide for a “Constitutional Convention” to replace today’s Constitution – and we must jealously guard against any ideas some people may have of “hijacking” this convention we need.  (Read more on this in Shortening Our Leash On Politicians, Pages 122 - 126 and 141 - 159.)

Here are some ideas to consider for rules we should require for the national convention:
 
1) Allow delegates to come only from politically "lay people" willing and able to take an oath of independence from political party interests (i. e. - no politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists or political party operatives).  (If this sounds to you to be unconstitutional and without precedent, take a look at the limitations our founders specified for the Electoral College “electors” in Article II Section 1’s second paragraph.)

2) Select delegates in each state in a manner that protects their individual identity as much as possible from advance influence directed toward them (and their families) by politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists and other special interest groups.

3) Allow no direct or indirect communications during the time of this convention with politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists or businesses/unions/associations/political party interests.

4) Hold the convention somewhere other than Washington, D.C. or one of the state capitals, and sequester each delegate during the time of the convention.

5) Make available an extensive library of historical and current reference material that can be used by each delegate. (This could include any material that existing politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists and other interested parties care to place there in advance for the delegates while they are sequestered.)


What do you think? Tell us at
affirm1776@hartcom.net and check out our website, http://www.affirm1776.org/.

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Where Does Our Constitution Grant "Lifetime" Tenure to Supreme Court Judges?


Few citizens today debate the current practice of appointing judges to "lifetime" tours in our nation's Supreme Court.  Yet, this practice certainly is not specified in our Constitution.  Article Three, Section 1 clearly states that they "shall hold their offices during good behavior" and that they will not have their pay reduced while in that position.
So where did "lifetime" appointments come from?

There is little doubt that our founders thought it very important to insulate these judges from political pressures and popular movements that might otherwise cause them to make decisions based on those pressures and movements.  If we were to be a nation of laws, the founders felt strongly that our judges had to be free to decide each case on its merits under those laws and in accordance with our Constitution
What would make them more independent than a long tenure without the danger of having their earnings negatively affected if someone else did not like their reasoning?  In addition, the pay protection seemed like a good thing back then - and now.

But did a long tenure have to be one that lasted a lifetime?
In general, average lifetimes were somewhat shorter one and two centuries ago.  Also, the population was much smaller which probably meant there were fewer individuals with the requisite knowledge and experience from which candidates could be identified.  Given these and other circumstances in years past, maybe the practice of lifetime appointments seemed like a natural thing to set up.

On the other hand, while we talk a great deal about the "balance of powers" between the three branches of government, is there much doubt just how much "power" there is in these judges' positions today?  The fact is that they are actually the "referee" with final decision-making authority over the "game" where our Legislature and Executive branches are the "players". So, when we see how this kind of power and influence can affect our other governmental officials, is it really a "good" thing to invest in anyone for a lifetime?

Many of us would think twelve years should be considered a long term.  Some might think a longer time while others would consider a lesser period meets that criteria.  In any case, so long as the earnings part continued while in office (and after), why would some specified time limit not meet the need for a judge's independence?

What do you think? Tell us here or at:
affirm1776@hartcom.net and check out our website, http://www.affirm1776.org/.

AFFIRM1776

 

Friday, November 1, 2013

Should the United States Get Out of the UN?


Let's face two important facts.
1) Our nation pays vastly more of the costs of the United Nations than any other member country, and
2) Far too often far too many of those other member nations "use" the organization as a platform to insult and work against us.

It should not be surprising therefore that we frequently hear citizens express their opinion that we should "Get the US Out of the UN"!

At the same time, many of us sense that there are some worthwhile programs within this worldwide body. Even though we know there is real corruption sometimes practiced, and there is sheer hypocrisy in so many of their "resolutions", sufficient value probably exists in having such a forum where all nations can assemble and interact. Our founders in 1776 certainly recognized the necessity of dealing effectively with other nations.


Maybe there is another way for us to "solve" this dilemma.

What would you think about an idea such as this one?
a) Let's stay with the United Nations as an active member, but greatly reduce the amount of money we provide them in funding. We might also consider "inviting" them to find a new world headquarters location that is not in the United States.  (This might ease somewhat the "dirtiness" we often feel when having to put up with allowing a petty tyrant coming onto our soil to speak his or her particular version of duplicity.)
b) With some of the dollars we save in "a" above, let's organize and fund a new organization of the world's nations who truly grant their people the right to chooose their own governments by voting in fair elections. Membership in this new "United Free Nations" would be limited to countries who continue to give their citizens this privilege, and would fluctuate up and down as fresh governments are created or old ones "fall" in coups, etc.  (In this case, a headquarters in the United States - say the "old" UN buildings - might be more agreeable to a lot of us.)

What do you think? Tell us at
affirm1776@hartcom.net, and check out our website, http://www.affirm1776.org/.