What should the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution address?

[Trakar]

The "taxpayer cache" is an accumulation of funds from the same people who select the Congresscritters.

no. Tax collections are a pool from all taxpayers, to be used for the equitable benefit of the nation as a whole. An individual congressman represents a small select group of tax payers, it is a difficult argument to make that securing double dip scoops of federal tax dollars for select members of your constituency who contribute heavily to your re-election war chest is either acting in the best interests of your constituents or the nation.

Disbursement of those funds is a function of government. Representatives, not least among their duties, are responsible for seeing that such disbursement is equitable to their constituents. It can be said that they are tasked with making it as advantageous as possible for their constituents, but there is no question they bear a responsibility to insure those constituents get a fair share.

There is no entitlement to tax monies for citizens, tax-payers, or districts. The perspective that there is, is a source of abuse, not a definition of proper federal fund usage. "Tasking" congressmen with pulling such funds into thier individual districts and in particular into the hands of those who are generous with donations to party and campaign, is the root abuse. It is not the responsibility of a congressman to insure "fair share" distributions of federal monies, merely that their constituents views and voices are heard in the legislative process.

You seem to be confusing abuse with use. Misuse of tax money is a problem. You have failed to explain why that problem will be ameliorated in any fashion by the mandatory expulsion of individuals whose behavior is established and replacing them with others whose record is unknown.

The regular replacement of representatives helps prevent the establishment of the types of mature relationships between special interests and representatives which leads to them representing the special interests more than the bulk of their constituents and is key in the complex (tit for tat) system gaming that tends to develop over time in such relationships. With a new face coming in every few years, the irregularities and trends become much more obvious and easier to regulate.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

But you're wrong. The liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause is the law of the land.

I never said it wasn't. I simply said it was the wrong interpretation.

Even a strict constructionist has to recognize that the authority to interpret the U.S. Constitution is granted to the Judiciary and the Supreme Court. So dismissing the substantial case law that has led to the liberal interpretation of the Commerce Clause would require ignoring Article III.

While some here have disputed the claim that constitutional interpretation is expressly authorized by the Constitution, I do not join them. I see no reason a challenge to the constitutionality of a statute should be a topic excluded from the realm of "actual Cases and Controversies" absent explicit statutory language from Congress to that effect.

However, dismissing stupid interpretations of the commerce clause is no more ignoring Article III than dismissing stupid interpretations of the fourteenth amendment (as done by Brown v. Board of Education) was, and passing an amendment that makes clear the current, stupid, interpretation of the commerce clause is, in fact, stupid, isn't ignoring Article III at all. I don't see an argument that a rational person could present that would make the case that it does.

Article III plainly spells out this authority in very simple language. ETA: In other words, what YOU think the Commerce Clause means is not the law if it differs from what the Judiciary says it means.

In other breaking news, Earth is round and water is wet. I don't know where you got the idea that you needed to point out the fact that what I think the law should be isn't necessarily what the law is, but I can only imagine that you're sitting on it right now. Regardless, the Supreme Court is not infallible and if they refuse to change their interpretation of laws, we are perfectly free to compel them to do so by explaining to them in an amendment exactly what we want.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

The bolded bits are saying relatively the same thing. Impeding is affecting, and I can't think of a single issue where the federal government promotes restricting trade between states.

Not really. The second case is merely a miniscule subset of the things that can fall under the rubric of the first.

Take health care for instance, using the wording of both, the federal government can strike down state restrictions on health care insurers and set a national standard. The federal government can also require citizens in each state to purchase health care, which also facilitates interstate commerce.

Well, yes, under a perverted and tortured interpretation of the clause that ignores completely the intent of its drafters that the federal government be one of few and enumerated powers. Furthermore, state restrictions were not the issue in interstate purchase of health insurance, the federal government itself was -- it wasn't the states who all got together to ban purchase of insurance from a provider in another state. And the point of the clause wasn't simply to facilitate interstate commerce by whatever means one could imagine, but only to keep the problems of protectionism that ran rampant under the Articles of Confederation from happening again.

Sure, as long as the right small words are used.

"The interstate commerce clause in Article I shall be read to allow the national government to prevent states from taking actions that impede the flow of goods and services across state lines, and shall not be read to delegate any other power to the national government."

That took about thirty seconds, and no word has more than three syllables or ten letters. That's a pretty hard amendment to foul up, though I'm sure some of our dumber judges (and citizens in general) would do their damndest to try.

 

[Thunder]

Amendmend #28- Require Time Warner Cable to create a "Family Guy" channel.

all day, all night, every day,.....Family Guy.

 

[Dancing David]

Representatives represent peoples voices and opinions, thier role isn't to shovel as much gravy as they can get from the federal treasury and spread it among their friends back home. You seem to be equating a right to be heard with a right to gather largess from the taxpayer cache.

Um what do you think the phrase 'best interest' means, representatives represent teh best interest of their district, not some other entity.

 

[Dancing David]

I would insert an amendments specifying that:
-citizenship is available only to pure Whites, and the constitutional protections extend only to them
-Abolishing all elements of the welfare state
-Rescinding suffrage for women
-Failure to adhere to the Christian faith be punished by rescinding of citizenship
-Mandating that all members of the Supreme court be picked from pastors of the Christian Identity movement, rather then secular legal backgrounds.

I am still proud to be a Jew in your book, I shall defend your right to your beliefs and oppose their implementation.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Not really. The second case is merely a miniscule subset of the things that can fall under the rubric of the first.

It is literally a subset, but practically, it's the same as the federal government doesn't promote policies which impede state commerce.

Well, yes, under a perverted and tortured interpretation of the clause that ignores completely the intent of its drafters that the federal government be one of few and enumerated powers.

Not really, it depends on which "drafter" you're referring to. The founding fathers are not a monolithic group.

Furthermore, state restrictions were not the issue in interstate purchase of health insurance, the federal government itself was -- it wasn't the states who all got together to ban purchase of insurance from a provider in another state.

States set their own restrictions about what providers may operate in their state. No need for get-togethers.

And the point of the clause wasn't simply to facilitate interstate commerce by whatever means one could imagine, but only to keep the problems of protectionism that ran rampant under the Articles of Confederation from happening again.

Again - the founders are not monolithic. Also, they are not time-travelers nor are they prophets. There was no health insurance, air force, etc nor did they prepare for one. You want to re-write the constitution based on what your interpretation of what their interpretation would have been. It's silly.

"The interstate commerce clause in Article I shall be read to allow the national government to prevent states from taking actions that impede the flow of goods and services across state lines, and shall not be read to delegate any other power to the national government."

Both ending state restrictions and having a individual mandate wrt health insurance are still in line with your amendment. Both are taking actions which impede the flow of goods and services across state lines. See?

That took about thirty seconds...

Mmm, then you should have spent more time on it.

 

[Upchurch]

Which one?

The one true one. duh.

 

[Trakar]

Um what do you think the phrase 'best interest' means, representatives represent teh best interest of their district, not some other entity.

it doesn't mean grabbing as much of everyone's tax dollars as you can get your hands on giving it to the people who contribute money to your election campaign. "Best interest" is best described, IMO, along the manner the courts use the the terminology with respect to the public interest.

To be honest, we seem to be arguing at crossed purposes without adequately addressing each others concerns. I have no problem with senators negotiating federal funds to help improve highways or other public infrastructure projects, even if in the process contractors that donated to the Senator make some money, so long as there is significant and demonstrable public benefit commensurate with the expense and the contractors aren't engaged in any tit-for-tat entanglements.

Unfortunately, these entanglements are all too common and so persistent and widespread that there are few, to no, clean hands, much less anyone really interested in cleaning up the mess. I'm really starting to think the mess and the easy graft of public funds that is a symptom of the mess, are the main reasons many politicians choose the profession. I hope I'm mistaken, but rejection of serious and significant campaign and election reform seems to be about the only thing both parties agree upon strongly.

 

[Dancing David]

it doesn't mean grabbing as much of everyone's tax dollars as you can get your hands on giving it to the people who contribute money to your election campaign. "Best interest" is best described, IMO, along the manner the courts use the the terminology with respect to the public interest.

I am not saying it is the best possible system, just that they are to represent their district or state, not the whole nation, this was by design. I believe that the founders wanted movers and shakers in power, and that is what they set up.

That is the whole point, instead of bureaucratic stalemate they wanted people to act, so then you have the balances, the House vs everybody, the Senate to represent the monied interests, the President to act hopefully as needed, and the SCOTUS to sit on top of too much radical change.

There is supposed to be power and influence flowing through the channels of the government, but balanced to make sure everyone has a voice.

The point being that you want an active government accountable to the electorate, not just to the interests of the department of ministry.

The reps are supposed to make deals and wangle with ach other, now does that mean they act as a nation, no they are not supposed to, the founders really were thinking of an alliance of separate sovereign states. The wanted the competition to drive the system.

And the president represents the nation.

 

[Trakar]

I am not saying it is the best possible system, just that they are to represent their district or state, not the whole nation, this was by design. I believe that the founders wanted movers and shakers in power, and that is what they set up.

That is the whole point, instead of bureaucratic stalemate they wanted people to act, so then you have the balances, the House vs everybody, the Senate to represent the monied interests, the President to act hopefully as needed, and the SCOTUS to sit on top of too much radical change.

There is supposed to be power and influence flowing through the channels of the government, but balanced to make sure everyone has a voice.

The point being that you want an active government accountable to the electorate, not just to the interests of the department of ministry.

The reps are supposed to make deals and wangle with ach other, now does that mean they act as a nation, no they are not supposed to, the founders really were thinking of an alliance of separate sovereign states. The wanted the competition to drive the system.

And the president represents the nation.

Evidently you are uninterested, or unable to discuss the issues of my concern, and as you are continuing to talk about something that is unrelated to any of my comments or issues and not contradicted by anything I've said, we seem to at an impasse.

 

[TraneWreck]

I would like one that makes explicit the "penubra of rights" implicitly contained in the Bill of Rights.

The legal framework for abortion rights, privacy rights, rights to contraception, and many others are on relatively shaky ground (given the composition of the current court). Nailing those down in plain text would do a lot of good.

I would also like an amendment that gave term limits to Supreme Court Justices. Currently, age is one of the most important qualifications for a justice because so much is riding on each appointment. You need someone that will be there for a while because you don't know when the chance will come again. Thus, a lot of good, qualified, experienced candidates are passed over because of historical timing.

Additionally, it would keep more contemporary views in the court. A limit of 10 to 15 years would leave the Justices beyond temporal whims. Staggering the limits would make the turnover less dramatic.

Ending the electoral college would be a good one, also.

 

[Dancing David]

Evidently you are uninterested, or unable to discuss the issues of my concern, and as you are continuing to talk about something that is unrelated to any of my comments or issues and not contradicted by anything I've said, we seem to at an impasse.

It is not an impasse, there is just no way that I can see to hold the representatives to any idealistic system of action.

It would be nice if the representatives would act in the 'best interest of the nation' however that is what has led to the DOMA and DADT and many other notions, as well as the whole Mccarthy era The issue is that there are different issues that different people see as being in the 'best interest of the nation', so the only way to keep the representatives honst is self interest, balance and checks on each other.

I wish it was different but it is human nature. I understand your point, I just don't see how it would work. I am saying that unfortunately the system we do have works about as well as any system can. The forces that play off of each other seems to work about as well as it can.

It could work better yes, but I am not sure how you can modify the system to have that happen. I am open for suggestions.

 

[FattyCatty]

<snip>
I would also like an amendment that gave term limits to Supreme Court Justices. Currently, age is one of the most important qualifications for a justice because so much is riding on each appointment. You need someone that will be there for a while because you don't know when the chance will come again. Thus, a lot of good, qualified, experienced candidates are passed over because of historical timing.

Additionally, it would keep more contemporary views in the court. A limit of 10 to 15 years would leave the Justices beyond temporal whims. Staggering the limits would make the turnover less dramatic.<snip>

I am adamantly opposed an amendment establishing any kind of term limits.

Term limits on Supreme Court Justices take away some of their protection from interference by others. It also would remove the institutional memory the longevity of the Justices provides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Criticism

Lifetime tenure. <snip>
...others suggest lifetime tenure brings substantial benefits, such as impartiality and freedom from political pressure. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78 wrote "nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office."[194]

Term limits on elected officials take away my right to choose my representative. It would also remove the institutional memory length of service provides. If we get so little accomplished now, with most people knowing how the system works, how much worse would it be if so many members are having to learn the ropes/reinvent the wheel.

I would resent this very much, and fight hard to keep it from happening.

I would support, however, an amendment depoliticizing the selection of clerks to the Supreme Court Justices (if we can figure out a good way to do that).

See this:

Politicization of the Court

Clerks hired by each of the justices of the Supreme Court are often given considerable leeway in the opinions they draft. "Supreme Court clerkship appeared to be a nonpartisan institution from the 1940s into the 1980s," according to a study published in 2009 by the law review of Vanderbilt University Law School.[104][105] "As law has moved closer to mere politics, political affiliations have naturally and predictably become proxies for the different political agendas that have been pressed in and through the courts," former federal court of appeals judge J. Michael Luttig said.[104] David J. Garrow, professor of history at the University of Cambridge, stated that the Court had thus began to mirror the political branches of government. "We are getting a composition of the clerk work force that is getting to be like the House of Representatives," Professor Garrow said. "Each side is putting forward only ideological purists."[104]

According to the Vanderbilt Law Review study, this politicized hiring trend reinforces the impression that the Supreme Court is "a superlegislature responding to ideological arguments rather than a legal institution responding to concerns grounded in the rule of law."[104]

 

[TraneWreck]

I am adamantly opposed an amendment establishing any kind of term limits.

Term limits on Supreme Court Justices take away some of their protection from interference by others. It also would remove the institutional memory the longevity of the Justices provides.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Criticism



Term limits on elected officials take away my right to choose my representative. It would also remove the institutional memory length of service provides. If we get so little accomplished now, with most people knowing how the system works, how much worse would it be if so many members are having to learn the ropes/reinvent the wheel.

I would resent this very much, and fight hard to keep it from happening.

There's a scope shift from Supreme Court justices to elected officials that I didn't follow. I never suggested term limits for Congresspeople.

And please explain how a fifteen year set term would leave a justice more vulnerable to political pressure than an indefinite term. Elected officials need to be, well, elected, and are thus susceptible to political sway. A term limit for a judge still places them beyond such concerns, but has the added benefit of making age a less important determination of who can be on the court.

I would support, however, an amendment depoliticizing the selection of clerks to the Supreme Court Justices (if we can figure out a good way to do that).

See this:

Yeah, that's mostly nonsense. One of my good friends from law school clerked on the Court. She was a devoted leftist but ended up clerking for one of the very conservative members. That was true of many of the clerks during her time (the last 5 years).

Even if clerks are more generally selected based on ideology, however, I fail to see why this is an issue.

If a president nominates a conservative for the court, shouldn't we all expect conservative rulings? As my friend has explained, it's much harder to write an opninion for a judge when you disagree with their ruling that when you agree.

Why wouldn't Scalia choose conservative clerks while Sotomayor chooses liberals? The justices still make the decision and they're very much chosen based on political grounds.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Not really, it depends on which "drafter" you're referring to. The founding fathers are not a monolithic group.

To be sure. But I would dare venture to suggest that not one of them were intending a leviathan monstrosity that pokes its nose in nearly every aspect of our lives and justifies its nose-poking under a perversion of the interstate commerce clause.

States set their own restrictions about what providers may operate in their state. No need for get-togethers.

Not sure what you mean here by "get-togethers." The fact of the matter is that restrictions on interstate commerce in the health insurance industry was a scheme set up by the federal government. End of story. All the states were doing were deciding what things had to be covered by providers within state lines. And restrictions like that have little (read: nothing) to do with interstate commerce, as such commerce was already illegal under federal law.

Again - the founders are not monolithic. Also, they are not time-travelers nor are they prophets. There was no health insurance, air force, etc nor did they prepare for one. You want to re-write the constitution based on what your interpretation of what their interpretation would have been. It's silly.

No, I want to make it clear that the Constitution means what it says until the people change it via the amendment process, the only legitimate means of making a change in the document.

Both ending state restrictions and having a individual mandate wrt health insurance are still in line with your amendment. Both are taking actions which impede the flow of goods and services across state lines. See?

Look, I don't know what you think a state is, but you've not at all shown that forcing an individual to purchase a product is in any way authorized under the text of the amendment I suggested. Let me help you out here: an individual person is not a state.

 

[Drachasor]

So the wealthy aren't "actual people"?

Why don't you make an actual argument for why corporations should be regarded as persons? Corporations are not people.

It's never made sense to me.

 

[DC]

Absolutely not!

Such an Amendment would, in effect, turn the running of this country over to outside powers, not accountable to the American people. Under no circumstances should we ever even think of allowing that. We did not get to be the greatest country in the world by letting lesser countries tell us how to run our country.

huh? they talk about the USA, not about Switzerland.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Why don't you make an actual argument for why corporations should be regarded as persons? Corporations are not people.

It's never made sense to me.

What's never made sense to me is the notion that a group of people should be treated as something other than people.

 

[Trakar]

What's never made sense to me is the notion that a group of people should be treated as something other than people.

So are you implying that the individuals involved in forming a corporation lose thier individual rights and privileges after incorporation?
Or merely that as members of a corporation, groups of individuals should receive additional rights and privileges?