Lots to discuss here....
Seven ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution | The Ticket - Yahoo! News
Seven ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution | The Ticket - Yahoo! News
Seven ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution
- Thread starter OntarioVanMan
- Start date
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Nah, Let's post it here.
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. ...
Well let's think about this for a moment ... Both parties enjoy the same benefit with judges appointed to the bench in the federal system. Oh and we already have a way to deal with judges that have "bad behavior" or what I think is a dangerous way to think - those who don't meet a specific level of "Good Behavior" - its called the impeachment/removal process in congress. I may also add that "behavior" is all defined by the party in charge.
In other words Mr. Perry if you don't like a decision, get over it.
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.
Well here again is an issue with the stupidity of the parties based on their need to change something they don't like.
At first I liked the idea but after discussing it with people who work in the legal field, they pointed out that the congress and the president has the option not to allow the SC or federal courts to hear specific cases through a process already in place, even though it is rarely used.
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.
OK I can agree with this but replace it with what?
A flat tax?
Has he even considered the replacement or is he just stealing an idea from Ron Paul?
I DON'T want my labor taxed and if we are going to hear someone say something about serfdom, that starts with taxing their labor.
GO Fairtax
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.
Smartest thing he could ever say but how well does this go with the republicans who believe in "Democracy"?
I see a really BIG fight over this if it starts in congress - it is a good thing for states to do with a constitutional convention.
I have a question Mr. Perry, how about adding a recall clause in the constitution to allow citizens to recall their representatives with a petition of say 60,000 signatures?
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."
OK this is a good idea but I think not just balancing the budget is needed, a few other things may be also needed.
Like limiting the size of the federal government based on the population.
Another one is campaign financing changes by having those contributions which the candidate holds in both his PAC and personal campaign accounts get folded back into the system to run the FEC and state agencies?
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'.
He apparently doesn't respect the people.
I don't agree with this, don't give a crap what religious zelots want - it doesn't matter in the bigger picture of things and it is pandering to a group who also looks at some religions should be restricted based on their interpretation.
Regardless the founding fathers left a lot of things open while they stressed on many different levels that we as a nation have rights as individuals DIRECTLY from God and pass that onto the states which pass onto the feds. By telling me what is a marriage, that is all circumvented to restrict and limits my rights to practice my religion as I see fit because the restriction is being made for a religious reason. MAYBE we need to start considering taxing churches and forcing some clergy to pay their fair share in taxes if we approach the idea that we need to define marriage.
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."
Well again he has it wrong and seems to be atypical idiot comment about the issue. The abortion issue is about privacy, not the procedure and removing the right to privacy will end up making Obama care have more access to our records and the right to limit our medical options. You have to define abortion, put in safeguards to ensure our rights are not trampled and then ensure that other means for those "rights" that came into view through Row v. Wade are also protected. Pretty much an impossible task from my point of view and pretty much the same thing as a liberal would say - I don't like something so I want to force you to stop doing it because I'm have the power to control you.
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. ...
Well let's think about this for a moment ... Both parties enjoy the same benefit with judges appointed to the bench in the federal system. Oh and we already have a way to deal with judges that have "bad behavior" or what I think is a dangerous way to think - those who don't meet a specific level of "Good Behavior" - its called the impeachment/removal process in congress. I may also add that "behavior" is all defined by the party in charge.
In other words Mr. Perry if you don't like a decision, get over it.
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.
Well here again is an issue with the stupidity of the parties based on their need to change something they don't like.
At first I liked the idea but after discussing it with people who work in the legal field, they pointed out that the congress and the president has the option not to allow the SC or federal courts to hear specific cases through a process already in place, even though it is rarely used.
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.
OK I can agree with this but replace it with what?
A flat tax?
Has he even considered the replacement or is he just stealing an idea from Ron Paul?
I DON'T want my labor taxed and if we are going to hear someone say something about serfdom, that starts with taxing their labor.
GO Fairtax
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.
Smartest thing he could ever say but how well does this go with the republicans who believe in "Democracy"?
I see a really BIG fight over this if it starts in congress - it is a good thing for states to do with a constitutional convention.
I have a question Mr. Perry, how about adding a recall clause in the constitution to allow citizens to recall their representatives with a petition of say 60,000 signatures?
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."
OK this is a good idea but I think not just balancing the budget is needed, a few other things may be also needed.
Like limiting the size of the federal government based on the population.
Another one is campaign financing changes by having those contributions which the candidate holds in both his PAC and personal campaign accounts get folded back into the system to run the FEC and state agencies?
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'.
He apparently doesn't respect the people.
I don't agree with this, don't give a crap what religious zelots want - it doesn't matter in the bigger picture of things and it is pandering to a group who also looks at some religions should be restricted based on their interpretation.
Regardless the founding fathers left a lot of things open while they stressed on many different levels that we as a nation have rights as individuals DIRECTLY from God and pass that onto the states which pass onto the feds. By telling me what is a marriage, that is all circumvented to restrict and limits my rights to practice my religion as I see fit because the restriction is being made for a religious reason. MAYBE we need to start considering taxing churches and forcing some clergy to pay their fair share in taxes if we approach the idea that we need to define marriage.
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."
Well again he has it wrong and seems to be atypical idiot comment about the issue. The abortion issue is about privacy, not the procedure and removing the right to privacy will end up making Obama care have more access to our records and the right to limit our medical options. You have to define abortion, put in safeguards to ensure our rights are not trampled and then ensure that other means for those "rights" that came into view through Row v. Wade are also protected. Pretty much an impossible task from my point of view and pretty much the same thing as a liberal would say - I don't like something so I want to force you to stop doing it because I'm have the power to control you.
Everything that Greg said except the "Fair Tax" I want NO TAX that involves refunds or continues the reign of the IRS. That is a vile part of government, out of control, and it needs to go.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Have you ever EVER read anything about the FairTax?
The IRS is gone, just gone and there are NO refunds.
For people like you, my dad and others who derive incomes from SS and pensions, it is a great thing - NO pensions or SS is taxed - period.
For people like you and I, we run our business without the worry about per diem rates, justifying uniforms or even trying to figure out the tax advantage of buying a new truck over driving the present one.
For the unemployed it is a great thing because now the US is a tax free zone and businesses will want to come here to invest money to make more money ==> in other words JOBS!
Why is it so d*mn hard to get any of that?
greg334
Veteran Expediter
Yep someone does - oh yes many states and cities ALREADY collect sales tax so DUH! it is easy to make the change.
THE sad thing is those tax prepayers and some EAs are out of work - oh well.
I read it. At least I THINK I am thinking of the same thing. Is that the %23 sales tax. No deductions and everybody gets some big check for basics etc? 23% to the feds is TOO high. They should only get 15% with 5% used for DEBT DEDUCTION ONLY.
Spending should shift back to the States. They would get 10%. No double taxes. Like items that are subject to Pittman/Robinson tax are NOT subject to the other. ONE TAX ONLY.
NO CHECKS. Straight sales tax. No taxes on foods, clothing meds etc. Like PA.
Last edited:
greg334
Veteran Expediter
OK so you read it but you didn't get what it was about.
23% is about what it takes to operate the Federal government in its present form. That is what we pay through each new item we buy so yep 23% sounds like a lot but there is a BIG trade off if you didn't get that.
The states should also control their own money, one of the problems is we have all these stupid little taxes that the states collect, send back to the feds who give it back to the states which screwed everything up with no exceptions.
What do you mean those that fall under the pittman tax isn't subject to others? I pay sales tax, there is no exemption and shouldn't be. Beside if there are taxes applied at the federal level, then maybe they with the others should be done away with.
Why not food, clothing and medicine?
I mean if the change works, the prices will not increase due to the nature of the gap left by companies not having to deal with that 23 to 25% of taxes they pass onto the consumer.
"What do you mean those that fall under the pittman tax isn't subject to others? I pay sales tax, there is no exemption and shouldn't be. Beside if there are taxes applied at the federal level, then maybe they with the others should be done away with. "
I mean do away with double triple etc taxation. NO sales tax on booze, or, ONLY the sales tax on booze. NO fuel tax or ONLY fuel tax.
Some taxes MIGHT go away. I don't WANT the Pittman/Robinson tax too. I LIKE that tax. I ALWAYS tell my reps to reinstate it each and every time it comes up. It likely has little effect on you, unless you hunt. It is one of the few taxes that have, for the most part, been applied as intended. It was requested the first time by hunters and still requested. It is also one of the few trust funds that congress has not raided, yet.
They don't need 23%, they need to cut back on government. They are not taking enough of what the "pay nothings" will be paying in. You know, the 40% "official" non-tax payers + the "scum and scuz" factor. Hookers, drug dealers so on and so forth. Illegals would be paying taxes then too.
IF you don't tax clothes, food, meds, etc, you don't have to monkey around with those "checks" each year.
I mean do away with double triple etc taxation. NO sales tax on booze, or, ONLY the sales tax on booze. NO fuel tax or ONLY fuel tax.
Some taxes MIGHT go away. I don't WANT the Pittman/Robinson tax too. I LIKE that tax. I ALWAYS tell my reps to reinstate it each and every time it comes up. It likely has little effect on you, unless you hunt. It is one of the few taxes that have, for the most part, been applied as intended. It was requested the first time by hunters and still requested. It is also one of the few trust funds that congress has not raided, yet.
They don't need 23%, they need to cut back on government. They are not taking enough of what the "pay nothings" will be paying in. You know, the 40% "official" non-tax payers + the "scum and scuz" factor. Hookers, drug dealers so on and so forth. Illegals would be paying taxes then too.
IF you don't tax clothes, food, meds, etc, you don't have to monkey around with those "checks" each year.