Who would favor re-writing the Constitution and abolishing the Presidency and the Supreme Court?

[SeekerOfTruth007]

Hear me out.

We should have one ruling body at the Federal Level, and it should be the Senate. There should be no President and no Supreme Court. The body which writes the law should interpret and enforce the law. duh. they are the ones who know what it means, since they wrote it.

Every 4 years, we waste billions and billions of dollars on campaign spending for President, and we have stupid Supreme Court rulings such as the courts saying the Senate couldn't ban abortion by Constitutional Amendment with the Roe vs Wade ruling, which was itself Unconstitutional.

I'm 42 years old, and ever president in my lifetime has been an unqualified LOSER. It's time we completely abolish the office of President.

Some laws which should be fundamental in a proposed new constitution:

1) All provably false religions are banned. You can be a Deist, but you cannot be a Polytheist nor worship a man-god.

2) Abolish the Double Jeopardy clause from the constitution. If new evidence or a later admission shows you committed a crime after you were falsely aquitted, you should go back on trial and go to prison or be executed as your crime deserves. (O. J. Simpson et al).

3) A federal law requiring both State, Local, and Federal budgets to be balanced regardless of circumstances. If they fail to balance the budget they must immediately raise taxes to balance the budget.

4) A federal law limiting military spending to 2 percent of GDP unless engaged in a fully declared war.

4b) A Federal law making it illegal to declare an offensive war without some benchmark of a degree of risk, such as having already been attacked on homeland, but limiting counter attacks to those nations and terrorist organizations directly responsible. This would have prevented the Iraq and Afghan wars, and would pretty much require that we declare war on Saudi Arabia and Pakistan instead, if any war should have happened at all.

5) A Federal Law giving control of Energy Infrastructure to Congress.

yes, Please

No way

Updates

9 mo

I have other laws I'd propose. Im sick of living in an irrational civilization.

6) A Federal Law making it a Felony to knowingly lie about man-made global warming in EITHER side of the debate. I'm sick of all the armchair QB unqualified FOOLS on the internet with no knowledge or skill in meteorology or climatology spreading lies in defense of fossil fuels.

7) A Federal Law banning political parties and lobbying.

Updates

9 mo

8) A Federal Law making Veto in th e Senate require TWO Senators to agree to Veto... just like the Greco-Roman Senate. That way no stupid laws get passed. Either everyone write something you can agree on, or else don't write anything at all.

9) A Federal Law making State's Governors appointed by the State Senate, not popular vote.

10) A Federal Law making Federal Senators appointed by the State Governors, not popular vote.

[nightdrot]

Without meaning to offend, you may wish to look at the Articles of Confederation. They did not work out so well.

Besides making some questionable historical judgments - EVERY President in your lifetime has been an unqualified loser? Really? Reagan - who brought inflation from 14.5% to 1.1% and won the Cold War in the bargain, was a loser? We could use more losers like that.

The premise of the question is unsustainable. Another small example. Had the USA been obliged to fight WWII with a balanced budget, she would have lost the war. The demand for mobilization well outstripped the capacity of the tax base to meet the immediate challenge.

Quite frankly, it would have been impossible. However, it is a value judgment call. If you can get a balanced budget in return for Nazi rule of the world, eh, why not?

At any rate, without meaning to offend, this sounds more like an emotional rant to the frustrations of the moment than a rational response to circumstances. Public policy is played out - even in its' most brazen circumstances - in the shades of gray.

Moreover, you have an unwarranted faith that government can shape the public ethos with geometric precision. That is not so.

The public says that it wants balanced budgets. That same public has the following profile:

1 in 6 who work , work for government.

1 in 7 is a Social Security recipient - and that will only get worse as the population ages. (By the way, how would the reforms you suggest cause the birthrate to rise? Want to fix the long term structural problems with the budget, start with demographics.)

1/3 of all families, this year, will receive some form of transfer payment.

More than 50% of ALL taxpayers pay NO Federal income tax - AT ALL.

The notion that these deeply rooted behaviors can be fixed with the flick of a pen to write a new Constitution is quaint, to say no more. Politics is more complicated than that and the illusion of easy reforms that will fix all our problems is just that - an illusion.

As likely as not, you will get more complicated problems. Society is not a tinkertoy that can be pulled apart and reassembled at will. Indeed, to attempt to do so is as likely as not to make matters worse.

Bottom line, while your frustrations are understandable - and even noble - you make the classic American mistake of assuming that institutional reform can fix problems deeply rooted in the culture and society.

That is not so. As likely as not, your reforms - if such they can be called - will make matters far worse.

[jammcm]

What we need to do away with the two party system and the electoral college. All candidates go on the ballet. Then the top two have a run off. Every person have an ID and their number tattooed under their arm pit.

[goaded]

Well, not the tattoo thing, but Instant Runoff Voting for a reasonable number of candidates for President would be good. Not just the first two, the least worst candidate should win.

[monorprise]

You don't need a new constitution to abolish the Federal presidency or anything else you propose, merely an amendment.
A new Constitution would be required to abolish the Senate only. This of course means in the current climate not all of the states would agree to rejoin the new union.

Also the U. S. supreme court didn't say you couldn't amend the constitution to ban abortion although their original ban with row v. s. wade was UN-consituiton. The real problem is not the court but the other 2 branches and levels of goverment willing to go along with their lawless edicts.

Prior to the 20th century the court was checked by what they thought the executive branch and at least a majority in either house of congress would be willing to enforce as constitutional. Row v. Wade was thus really a war by all 3 branches of the Federal goverment against the 50 states ability to enforce their laws on abortion.

If we had a just 1 honest president at any point in all that time , he would have done what many other presidents did including Thomas Jefferson [Marbury v. Madison (1803)] and Andrew Jackson [Worcester v. Georgia (1832)] telling the lawless court to enforce its own rulings. Thus freeing the States to enforce their own laws against murder again.

Congress could likewise have simply refused to finance the enforcement of the unconstitutional edict in any budge bill.
But once again they like the presidency was filled with scumbags who frankly supported the idea of court supreme Over the Constitution as it gave them the ability to ignore the same, and hope to control the same power via selection. As well as a handy election issues to run on endlessly.

This is why we really don't have a federal Constitution anymore, we have self-serving imperialist with dreams of permanent power via control of that bench. As such letting the senate run things is not going to change that fact.

Indeed the problem with the Senate is that its is NOT doing its job of protecting the self-goving interest of the states mostly because of the 17th amendment but also in part because of the entirely incorrect Hamiltonian notion of 'noble elite' doing the right things.

[monorprise]

1: How do you imagine any set of politicians honestly define what is a 'provably false' religion? Such a power would be often abused to persecute unpopular religions just as every other part of the constitution is so abused.

2: Do that and unscrupulous politicians and well funded lawyers would simply persecute their enemies until they found a jury and judge willing to convict them. Its bad enough that we have a legal system who's cost and scale have become soo burdensome as to allow similarly powerful or wealthy individuals to bankrupt people via the mere legal progress.

3: This is probably the most agreeable suggestion, although anything you allow the feds to dictate to the States will be abused by federal politicians to make puppets of the same.
In this case there is no point at all at requiring States to balance their budget because they can't devalue the dollar. They must either raise taxes or take loans they will eventually be unable to pay. The only alternative is the Federal Government taking money from other states to bail them out. This already is technically unconstitutional as it is nowhere provided for in the Federal Constitution. Adding a spesfic provision would be helpful but really this is a far broader problem of congress spending tax-dollars on things for which they have no enumerated power. We need somewhat to challenge congress's unconstitutional behavior, before someone who actually has a reason to care about their limits.

[SeekerOfTruth007]

How the hell do we put a stop to false prophets demanding 10 percent of everyone's income or suicide doomsday cults killing hundreds of people? Not to mention both Catholic and Protestant churches are abusing children sexual in secret all the time and get away with it. even when they are exposed they often go unpunished just because they are so-called "clergy". It's ridiculous.

If a person claiming to be a prophet or pastor or religiosu leader cannot empirically prove what they are teaching, they ought to be charged with a felony. It's brainwashing and it's harmful to people.

I saw on one of the Weather Channels recovery television shows where one of the drivers and his family worshipped a SACRED COW and kept it inside and cleaned up afte rits poop, but thought "god" lived inside the cow.

How pathetic is that? Somebody should explain real Deity to all of these FOOLS once and for all.

[monorprise]

@SeekerOfTruth007 "How the hell do we put a stop to false prophets demanding 10 percent of everyone's income or suicide doomsday cults killing hundreds of people?"

You don't just elect them to public office, or choose to follow them. Frankly people tend to elect such people promising to have all the answer and demanding way more than 10% of your income to do it on a regular basis.

The only way we even contain such 'cult leaders' is by protecting the right of the people to run away via limited and localizing such broad powers. Otherwise they will sway large numbers of people to not only drink the cool-aid but force you to do it too.

As they regularly do with countless goverment programs which have destroyed the family and our economy, and in other countries enslaved the population. Our Constitutional federal system allows us to slow such people enough that usually they expose themselfs and prove the falicy of their plans.

Thus only the really long term poisons like Social Securty tend to get thou, and then only when they rush it thou in a 'crisis'.

[monorprise]

@SeekerOfTruth007 "Not to mention both Catholic and Protestant churches are abusing children sexual in secret all the time and get away with it. " That there is pure anti-christian propaganda designed to drive you away from one of the only institutions in our culture that actually has survived the test of time.

They are NOT sexually abusing children at any unusual rate, nor are they protecting the sexual abusers. They in fact strongly condemn such abuse far more than most of docility, unlike many of their accusers who support organizations like NOMBLA dedicated to such abuse.

[monorprise]

@SeekerOfTruth007 "If a person claiming to be a prophet or pastor or religiosu leader cannot empirically prove what they are teaching, they ought to be charged with a felony. It's brainwashing and it's harmful to people."
Can you prove anything your saying here? I don;t thinks so because they are in fact opinions and believes.
Religion deals with faith and rules which are themself very much time tested opinions and believes.

That time testing is the critical element there because cultures following theses believes have actually survived thousands of years, unlike almost every other system of believes.

[monorprise]

@SeekerOfTruth007 "4) A federal law limiting military spending to 2 percent of GDP unless engaged in a fully declared war."

Why would you want to enshrine any level of standing army funding when Article 1 Section 8 Clause 12 already limits congress to 2 years at a time?

A declared war clause sounds more reasonable forbidding forign adventures and dept spending, but only so long as a significant majority of congress must regularly vote to continue such a war no less frequently than said 2 years.
But even then its is basically the same thing as 2 year funding clause anyway.

[monorprise]

@SeekerOfTruth007 "5) A Federal Law giving control of Energy Infrastructure to Congress."

You do realize the main problem with our existing PUBLIC energy infrastructure is congress has in the past asserted control via funding? A lot of it is neglected because if any private company or state acts to fix or upgrade the system they risk forfeiting any aid congress might get to fix the same issue.

Congress likewise has soo overloaded itself with every responsibility under the sun it neglects everything. So we can fully expect it to be many decades or more before they act if ever.

If you want to fix this problem you need to return to the Constitution which simply prohibits congress from speeding any money at all in theses areas, or at the very least demand every state get the same funding regardless.

The first solution reduces the number of items on Congress's plate allowing them to spend more time focusing on naturally important tasks like War & peace. Thus improving the quality of such goverment as a whole.

The 2nd solution simply allows states to act when needed assured they won't end up bankrolling every other state's infrastructure later for not having this reason to ask for funding.

[Tshsjjdshjsu]

We don't put a stop to them. We just stop giving them money. And that's for the individuals, not the government. Yeah, individual responsibility is a thing. The government isn't your mommy.

[BCA6010]

You lost me in the first sentence.

You cannot just have a single branch of the federal government with all of the power centralized under its authority, elected or otherwise. That is how you guarantee that the constitution will get thrown out the window as soon as it's convenient. It certainly should not be the Senate, either.

[KostasKouvalis]

I think it should be BOTH Senate and Congress. Everything has to be approved by Congress anyways, and congress can even overite the President's veto, so it's stupid to even have a President to begin with, since he has almost no power and can't do anything, except send troops for 60 days and make executive orders.

[strateguy632]

you remove the benefit of "checks and balance" i did not bother reading the rest. but you can always dream.

[Avicenna]

Terrible idea. We already have a flawed democracy and doing away with checks and balances at the federal level would worsen that.

[exitseven]

The government needs to be more decentralized. Too much power is concentrated in Washington. The rest of the country is not represented.

[shortster]

I hope you are politically disappointed for another 42 years.

[Anonymous]

Liberals would.