PDA

View Full Version : How would you amend the Constitution?



KC
09-10-2012, 05:48 PM
If you had the political will and the necessary support to amend the Constitution or call for a Constitutional convention, how would you amend/change it? Or would you? (Based on a discussion in another thread).

Since I want to go for brevity, I will limit myself to only three.

1. (a) Campaign contributions may only be given by individual citizens of the United States. (b) No outside group may spend or encourage the election of any person running for any federal office through paid advertisement. (c) The Legislature may pass limits to the amount an individual may give to a political campaign or political party. (d) the Legislature may pass limits to the amount of money a political campaign is allowed to spend.

2. The Federal government may apply environmental regulations to any entities within the jurisdiction of the United States.

3. The Federal government may not spend more money than it takes in through various sources of revenue for more than a consecutive two year period.

Peter1469
09-10-2012, 05:52 PM
I would first want federalism returned and then we could talk about amending the Constitution.

I do agree with your first two including a repudiation of the concept of corporate person-hood. I would change the third to allow exceptions, such in declared wars and perhaps other emergencies.

KC
09-10-2012, 05:57 PM
I would change the third to allow exceptions, such in declared wars and perhaps other emergencies.

I understand that there are times when we need to pull together and maybe even spend more to achieve important goals, but I think that if we allow the politicians too many exceptions we will end up in a situation like the one we are in now, where federal spending levels are out of control. Making the spending control strict will force the government to either cut spending or take in more revenue.

Captain Obvious
09-10-2012, 05:59 PM
I would put a modest ceiling on campaign spending giving every (and more) candidates equal opportunity to promote their ideology, taking away the ability of those who "buy" their campaign contributions and this their candidacy.

Goldie Locks
09-10-2012, 06:00 PM
3. The Federal government may not spend more money than it takes in through various sources of revenue for more than a consecutive two year period.

Oh boy...now we can look forward to 100% in taxes.

Goldie Locks
09-10-2012, 06:01 PM
Anything congress passes they must partake in.

Peter1469
09-10-2012, 06:02 PM
I understand that there are times when we need to pull together and maybe even spend more to achieve important goals, but I think that if we allow the politicians too many exceptions we will end up in a situation like the one we are in now, where federal spending levels are out of control. Making the spending control strict will force the government to either cut spending or take in more revenue.

I take exception with this part:

Making the spending control strict will force the government to either cut spending or take in more revenue.

Typically "take in more in revenue" means raising taxes. Raising taxes often leads to less tax revenue. I agree that providing exceptions allows abuse, but citizens must stay vigilant. If there is a war that threatens the US, I don't want such a Constitutional amendment leading to a US surrender.

KC
09-10-2012, 06:02 PM
Oh boy...now we can look forward to 100% in taxes.

Don't worry Goldie, doing that would bring spending down to 0% of GDP!

KC
09-10-2012, 06:07 PM
I take exception with this part:


Typically "take in more in revenue" means raising taxes. Raising taxes often leads to less tax revenue. I agree that providing exceptions allows abuse, but citizens must stay vigilant. If there is a war that threatens the US, I don't want such a Constitutional amendment leading to a US surrender.

If we can take in more revenue by cutting taxes, then we should. If we find that the sweet spot for raising revenue is 30%, yet the top marginal income tax bracket is only 28%, then they should be raised. I'll defer answering that one to the economists, but from looking at the boost we got from the Bush tax cuts, we at least know that a tax rate of 36% (or is it 35%?) is better than a tax rate of 38.6%.

KC
09-10-2012, 06:08 PM
Anything congress passes they must partake in.

So, for example, if Congress should pass a program like Medicaid, they must use that program, the same way as their constituents?

Goldie Locks
09-10-2012, 06:10 PM
So, for example, if Congress should pass a program like Medicaid, they must use that program, the same way as their constituents?

Yes

KC
09-10-2012, 06:19 PM
I think that's a good plan Goldie. It would give them an incentive to create programs that work for people or just leave it to the free market.

Speaking of incentives, often times bureaucrats and policymakers will do what's best for special interests because they hope to get some kind of kickback. Is there something we could change in the Constitution to prevent this from happening? Like an incentive for good governance?

Deadwood
09-10-2012, 06:20 PM
I agree with campaign financing being entrenched in the constitution, especially banning ANY foreign involvement either direct or indirect AND limiting the "back door' PAC issue.

I disagree with a constitutional amendment preventing deficits. Where it has been tried [although not a constitutional aspect there was such a law in British Columbia and it was soon apparent that it was unworkable.

I would strengthen the first amendment making access to information mandatory by all levels of governments and political parties and strengthen provisions for the protection of whistle blowers.

The more the populace knows, the less the elected can get away with.


Oh, and I would introduce a qualification process to carry a hand gun. I have no problem with open carry, I DO have a problem with allowing wing nuts to do so.

KC
09-10-2012, 06:23 PM
I disagree with a constitutional amendment preventing deficits. Where it has been tried [although not a constitutional aspect there was such a law in British Columbia and it was soon apparent that it was unworkable.


I had no idea that it had been tried elsewhere. Sometime I'd like to read about the details of the law, see what made it fail. Learning that might make it easier for us to improve our hypothetical Constitution.

Chris
09-10-2012, 07:13 PM
Rescind the 16th and 17th amendments.

KC
09-10-2012, 07:27 PM
Rescind the 16th and 17th amendments.

Interesting. Why would you rescind the 17th amendment?

Chris
09-10-2012, 07:32 PM
Interesting. Why would you rescind the 17th amendment?

Because it would be a step back toward federalism, returning power to the states.

Trinnity
09-10-2012, 07:33 PM
Flat tax.
Limits on how much the tax could be (17%).
Require the fed govt to operate within the revenue received, as the states must do.
States collect the tax, take their part (half), and send the rest to the fed.

KC
09-10-2012, 07:36 PM
Flat tax.
Limits on how much the tax could be (17%).
Require the fed govt to operate within the revenue received, as the states must do.
States collect the tax, take their part (half), and send the rest to the fed.

What makes the 17% rate ideal?

Deadwood
09-10-2012, 07:50 PM
I had no idea that it had been tried elsewhere. Sometime I'd like to read about the details of the law, see what made it fail. Learning that might make it easier for us to improve our hypothetical Constitution.


Briefly the right wing coalition government calling themselves Liberals enacted a law making balanced budgets mandatory. Cabinet [who are elected members of the legislature] had salaries reduced with a bonus attached, which they would earn if their particular ministry met their targets.

It came as a result of the previous, socialist government's "fudge-it budget" where they ran on a balanced budget which they knew would run a large deficit.

The ensuing law was soon seen to be something of a gimmick but they did manage a few surpluses in a row as resource [natural gas mostly] soared. Then the economy tanked and the forecasts became an academic exercise..and wham, there was a deficit they had not foreseen due to matters beyond their control.

See above, where posters have suggested exemptions in times of war and so forth. If the government had held to the law their hands would have been tied and their ability to soften the impact of the recession would have been removed. In this case, some simple things like expanding pharmacare coverage, work access and retraining programs would have to have been scrapped and there would have been severe suffering.

The law was removed and left in its wake is the accountability act, which forces transparency in the formation of the provincial budget and the means by which the forecasts are made. That act also forces a form of zero-based budgeting by all departments and agencies. It is a compromise, but we are left with the problem of spend and tax governments like Owebama, which it appears will likely happen in next May's election...not because the people want that, but because the Liberals have become so unpopular.

The truth is that it has become evident that you simply cannot legislate against deficits.

Peter1469
09-10-2012, 07:58 PM
Because it would be a step back toward federalism, returning power to the states.

Exactly.

Deadwood
09-10-2012, 08:00 PM
Flat tax.
Limits on how much the tax could be (17%).
Require the fed govt to operate within the revenue received, as the states must do.
States collect the tax, take their part (half), and send the rest to the fed.


The idea of a flat tax is probably the most ingenious idea to come along since the US Constitution. But it will never happen.


The reason is that politicians everywhere WANT the ability to play with the tax system, to add and subtract exemptions either for personal political reasons or for social engineering....tax exemptions for bus passes to get people out of their cars.

These "perks" go away with a flat tax and politicians of ALL stripes fear not having that leverage.

Peter1469
09-10-2012, 08:02 PM
I have an idea:

make tax day Nov 1. Of course this will only affect individual filers. Not businesses that file quarterly.

Trinnity
09-10-2012, 08:16 PM
What makes the 17% rate ideal?Oh, thanks for asking. Respected economists and the Cato Institute (libertarian) has calculated that 17% is the max a person can be taxed before it becomes a burden such that it would affect economic growth.

When you add up all taxes (hidden and overt) you pay, it's around half your income.

Goldie Locks
09-10-2012, 08:19 PM
Oh, thanks for asking. Respected economists and the Cato Institute (libertarian) has calculated that 17% is the max a person can be taxed before it becomes a burden such that it would affect economic growth.

When you add up all taxes (hidden and overt) you pay, it's around half your income.


Which is way too much....I'm at 15% flat tax.

Captain Obvious
09-10-2012, 08:31 PM
40% tax on HH incomes of > $500k
25% tax on HH incomes of > $250k
5% tax on HH incomes of > $50k
2.5% tax on the balance

We'll have a surplus in a couple years and nobody loses their free cheese.

Of net personal income, not earnings - that's the key.

Goldie Locks
09-10-2012, 08:33 PM
40% tax on HH incomes of > $500k
25% tax on HH incomes of > $250k
5% tax on HH incomes of > $50k
2.5% tax on the balance

We'll have a surplus in a couple years and nobody loses their free cheese.

Of net personal income, not earnings - that's the key.


That sounds reasonable but I would have to run the numbers.

Goldie Locks
09-10-2012, 08:35 PM
Wait a minute...40% on incomes >500k??? With other taxes that would most likely put them at least at 60% taxes.

Captain Obvious
09-10-2012, 09:27 PM
Flat

Peter1469
09-10-2012, 09:28 PM
Taxes are less an issue than government spending. We need to force the federal government to stop spending outside its Constitutional authority.

Captain Obvious
09-10-2012, 09:29 PM
Taxes are less an issue than government spending. We need to force the federal government to stop spending outside its Constitutional authority.

Agreed.

Tax structures are meaningless if it's all getting pissed away.

countryboy
09-10-2012, 11:27 PM
40% tax on HH incomes of > $500k
25% tax on HH incomes of > $250k
5% tax on HH incomes of > $50k
2.5% tax on the balance

We'll have a surplus in a couple years and nobody loses their free cheese.

Of net personal income, not earnings - that's the key.

Patently unfair, and utterly absurd. No offense. $250,000 pays 25% and $250,001 pays 40%? I don't think so.

Flat tax is the only truly fair way to go. I would be willing to allow for a poverty level exception.


Haven't read the whole thread yet so, my apologies if someone has already mentioned this.

Chris
09-11-2012, 06:09 AM
I have an idea:

make tax day Nov 1. Of course this will only affect individual filers. Not businesses that file quarterly.

I like this idea!!



Here's another idea, rescind all legislated laws and court findings that corporations are persons of limited liability that must report quarterly profits. This would end the protections of corporate welfare at the same time allowing corporations to extend time preference to long-term development over short-term profit.

Akula
09-11-2012, 06:32 AM
The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18-year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971 . . . before computer, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc.

Of the 27 amendments to the constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land . . . all because of public pressure.

Congressional Reform Act of 2012

1. Term Limits
12 years max, some possible options are below.
A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

2. No Tenure / No Pension
Members of Congress receive a salary while in office, that salary ends when they leave office.

3. Congress members (past, present & future) are to participate in Social Security.

All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately.
All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with all Americans.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan,

just as all Americans do.

5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise.
Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

6. Congress loses their current health care system
and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

7. Members of Congress must equally abide by all laws
they impose on the American people.

8. All contracts with past and present members of Congress are void effective 1/1/13.

The American people did not make the contract members of Congress enjoy, Congress made all these contracts for themselves.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career.
The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.



Tax his land,
Tax his bed,
Tax the table,
At which he's fed.

Tax his tractor,
Tax his mule,
Teach him taxes
Are the rule.

Tax his work,
Tax his pay,
He works for
peanuts anyway!

Tax his cow,
Tax his goat,
Tax his pants,
Tax his coat.

Tax his ties,
Tax his shirt,
Tax his work,
Tax his dirt.

Tax his tobacco,
Tax his drink,
Tax him if he
Tries to think.

Tax his cigars,
Tax his beers,
If he cries
Tax his tears.

Tax his car,
Tax his gas,
Find other ways
To tax his ass.

Tax all he has
Then let him know
That you won't be done
Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers;
Then tax him some more,
Tax him till
He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,
Tax his grave,
Tax the sod in
Which he's laid...

Put these words
Upon his tomb,
'Taxes drove me
to my doom...'

When he's gone,
Do not relax,
Its time to apply
The inheritance tax.



Accounts Receivable Tax
Building Permit Tax
CDL license Tax
Cigarette Tax
Corporate Income Tax
Dog License Tax
Excise Taxes
Federal Income Tax
Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA)
Fishing License Tax
Food License Tax
Fuel Permit Tax
Gasoline Tax (currently above 44 cents per gallon)
Gross Receipts Tax
Hunting License Tax
Inheritance Tax
Inventory Tax
IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
Liquor Tax
Luxury Taxes
Marriage License Tax
Medicare Tax
Personal Property Tax
Property Tax
Real Estate Tax
Service Charge Tax
Social Security Tax
Road Usage Tax
Recreational Vehicle Tax
Sales Tax
School Tax
State Income Tax
State Unemployment Tax (SUTA)
Telephone Federal Excise Tax
Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax
Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes
Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax
Telephone Recurring and Nonrecurring Charges Tax
Telephone State and Local Tax
Utility Taxes
Vehicle License Registration Tax
Vehicle Sales Tax
Watercraft Registration Tax
Well Permit Tax
Workers Compensation Tax

Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, & our nation was the most prosperous in the world.
We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

Mainecoons
09-11-2012, 06:35 AM
1. Repeal the 16th and have Senators selected by state governments again, two terms maximum.
2. Increase House of Reps terms to 4 years, two year term limit.
3. Limit legislative sessions to 90 days per year annually, reimbursement by per diem only.

Trinnity
09-11-2012, 08:49 AM
WOW, this is a great thread. So many good ideas.

Agravan
09-11-2012, 09:05 AM
Yeah, but we all know that our "leaders" will never voluntarily/willingly relinquish the power they have. We, the people, will have to do this. By voting if possible, by force, if necessary.

Akula
09-11-2012, 09:41 AM
Yeah, but we all know that our "leaders" will never voluntarily/willingly relinquish the power they have. We, the people, will have to do this. By voting if possible, by force, if necessary.

It's coming. The demographics will change.

KC
09-11-2012, 12:29 PM
Briefly the right wing coalition government calling themselves Liberals enacted a law making balanced budgets mandatory. Cabinet [who are elected members of the legislature] had salaries reduced with a bonus attached, which they would earn if their particular ministry met their targets.

It came as a result of the previous, socialist government's "fudge-it budget" where they ran on a balanced budget which they knew would run a large deficit.

The ensuing law was soon seen to be something of a gimmick but they did manage a few surpluses in a row as resource [natural gas mostly] soared. Then the economy tanked and the forecasts became an academic exercise..and wham, there was a deficit they had not foreseen due to matters beyond their control.

See above, where posters have suggested exemptions in times of war and so forth. If the government had held to the law their hands would have been tied and their ability to soften the impact of the recession would have been removed. In this case, some simple things like expanding pharmacare coverage, work access and retraining programs would have to have been scrapped and there would have been severe suffering.

The law was removed and left in its wake is the accountability act, which forces transparency in the formation of the provincial budget and the means by which the forecasts are made. That act also forces a form of zero-based budgeting by all departments and agencies. It is a compromise, but we are left with the problem of spend and tax governments like Owebama, which it appears will likely happen in next May's election...not because the people want that, but because the Liberals have become so unpopular.

The truth is that it has become evident that you simply cannot legislate against deficits.

Hm. Well it sounds like you are right. I'll have to change one of my amendments then.

What do you think would happen if we gave policymakers a bonus for balancing the budget? The bonus would be separate from their normal compensation but would apply to all members of the legislature who voted "yay" on financial bills and for the executive who signed it into law.

coolwalker
09-11-2012, 04:22 PM
Leave the constitution alone. You wouldn't change the Bible would you? That is our political bible.

Agravan
09-11-2012, 04:27 PM
Question: Would any of you trust the current crop of "leaders" in Washington to do what is best for America, or would they just usurp more power for themselves if we were to have a Constitutional Convention?

KC
09-11-2012, 05:12 PM
Leave the constitution alone. You wouldn't change the Bible would you? That is our political bible.

The founding fathers intended for us to change the constitution, and it has been amended to great ends. Even the Founding Fathers amended it.

As for the Bible, it has been changed multiple times, as new versions change it's meaning through often innocent word change, often for the sake of clarity.

KC
09-11-2012, 05:20 PM
Question: Would any of you trust the current crop of "leaders" in Washington to do what is best for America, or would they just usurp more power for themselves if we were to have a Constitutional Convention?

Absolutley not. I don't trust any political leader to do any thing with country in mind first.

Peter1469
09-11-2012, 06:04 PM
Patently unfair, and utterly absurd. No offense. $250,000 pays 25% and $250,001 pays 40%? I don't think so.

Flat tax is the only truly fair way to go. I would be willing to allow for a poverty level exception.


Haven't read the whole thread yet so, my apologies if someone has already mentioned this.

Under a graduated income tax, if you make $250,001, you don't pay 40% (for example) on the entire thing, just what is over $250K. And so on down the income scale. If that makes sense.

countryboy
09-11-2012, 06:08 PM
Under a graduated income tax, if you make $250,001, you don't pay 40% (for example) on the entire thing, just what is over $250K. And so on down the income scale. If that makes sense.

I don't think that's what the poster I was responding to was saying. But I'll let him clarity if he wants to.

I went back and looked, he specifically referred to a flat rate tax, not graduated (progressive).

Chris
09-11-2012, 06:26 PM
1. Repeal the 16th and have Senators selected by state governments again, two terms maximum.
2. Increase House of Reps terms to 4 years, two year term limit.
3. Limit legislative sessions to 90 days per year annually, reimbursement by per diem only.

That last one would be a damned good revision.

KC
09-14-2012, 12:52 PM
http://images.wikia.com/borderlands/images/3/32/Bump.sign.jpg

patrickt
09-14-2012, 01:13 PM
I wouldn't amend the Constitution until we had at least four years of actually following the Constitution to see how it works.

KC
09-14-2012, 01:15 PM
I wouldn't amend the Constitution until we had at least four years of actually following the Constitution to see how it works.

That would really help us understand what parts of our Constitution are really useful in American politics, and which ones may need revision. Good idea.