Term Limits

[fj1200]

I will hang on to that since it is a fact.

Once an illegal act is codified as an Amendment it becomes legal, same for entitlements. Perhaps you misunderstood section 3:

...meaning social security gets gone, except for those who have already paid:

Nope, didn't misunderstand this either:

I don't want entitlements either but many do so in order to be legal thaey need to be codified in an amendment.

You seem to be confused about fact; don't worry it's fairly common here. An amendment doesn't confer legality, ultimately the SCOTUS confers legality and that boat left the shipyard 70 years ago, has come in for refitment a couple of times, and delivered a few million passengers all while being an incredibly bad design from the beginning.

So as far as your codified entitlement:

Section 7. No person shall receive compensation from the United States for any reason except labor, payments to injured veterans, earned pensions to employees, and as payments made for prior social security taxes.

Congratulations, you've just codified a budget busting entitlement that preferences the old over the young to boot. Perhaps we shouldn't use the Constitution for legislative purposes unless you think Prohibition went fairly well.

The only other entitlement written into this proposal is the indigent farms, which provide a low safety net, not the luxurious welfare state that we now endure.

Why are you proposing a Federal amendment that forces the States to act in a particular manner? indeed.

[glockmail]

Nope, didn't misunderstand this either:



You seem to be confused about fact; don't worry it's fairly common here. An amendment doesn't confer legality, ultimately the SCOTUS confers legality and that boat left the shipyard 70 years ago, has come in for refitment a couple of times, and delivered a few million passengers all while being an incredibly bad design from the beginning.

So as far as your codified entitlement:

Section 7. No person shall receive compensation from the United States for any reason except labor, payments to injured veterans, earned pensions to employees, and as payments made for prior social security taxes.

Congratulations, you've just codified a budget busting entitlement that preferences the old over the young to boot. Perhaps we shouldn't use the Constitution for legislative purposes unless you think Prohibition went fairly well.



Why are you proposing a Federal amendment that forces the States to act in a particular manner? indeed.

Actually SCOTUS can't overrule an Amendment, so you're confused about that fact as well. Don't worry though because it's fairly common here.

Ending social security with a balance budget amendment isn't a budget buster. Keeping it in place with no budget is. How silly to think otherwise.

Perhaps we should use the amendment process as intended, to clarify and amend the constitution by super majorities and ratifications instead of letting congress ignore it and pass laws with 50% plus one majorities.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Sorry, double post.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Not saying we couldn't use an amendment to clean things up but the above listing seems to be too far along the lines of legislation by amendment and last I checked Prohibition didn't work out to well. I'd start with repealing the 17th and require the legislatures to appoint Senators to fill terms, require run-off elections for all Federal elections that don't result in 50% + 1 including POTUS electors, and Congressional term limits to 12 years.

Oh yeah, and weed; can't forget the weed.

An Amendment or two would be no problem but the concept to hold a convention to rewrite the entire Constitution is actually Un-Constitutional because it would be the work of a single government in our history and no different than it being destroyed in other ways. Its not like the Constitution is a motor that can have a massive overhaul and just be a better version for future use! The Amendment process was put in to make damn sure the sneaky idea to overhaul the entire damn thing wasn't ever allowed IMHO. That is WHAT THE VERY IDEA OF DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION IS ALL ABOUT. A tactic to ( in essence) destroy it by totally revamping it was exactly why the Amendment process is there! There is not even one politician alive today that I'd trust to be involved in such an action. Not even one! For not a damn one is even remotely the caliber of any of the original founders!-Tyr

[Arbo]

but the concept to hold a convention to rewrite the entire Constitution is actually Un-Constitutional

The founders wrote in the process for the purpose of changing or abandoning the Constitution, so it can't possibly be un-Constitutional.

[fj1200]

Actually SCOTUS can't overrule an Amendment, so you're confused about that fact as well. Don't worry though because it's fairly common here.

Ending social security with a balance budget amendment isn't a budget buster. Keeping it in place with no budget is. How silly to think otherwise.

Perhaps we should use the amendment process as intended, to clarify and amend the constitution by super majorities and ratifications instead of letting congress ignore it and pass laws with 50% plus one majorities.

Not really confused as SCOTUS has already conferred legality on SS and Medicare... much to your chagrin as it didn't require an amendment. Nevertheless you don't actually end SS, you express a desire that those who paid in be entitled to be paid out when those dollars have long since been spent. And where do you think those dollars will come from? As designed the young pay payroll taxes to fund the retirement of the old, as you've "ended" SS there will be no dollars coming in to pay anyone back.

But I do agree that the amendment process should be used as intended but not to legislate and codify bad ideas.

[fj1200]

An Amendment or two would be no problem but the concept to hold a convention to rewrite the entire Constitution is actually Un-Constitutional because it would be the work of a single government in our history and no different than it being destroyed in other ways. Its not like the Constitution is a motor that can have a massive overhaul and just be a better version for future use! The Amendment process was put in to make damn sure the sneaky idea to overhaul the entire damn thing wasn't ever allowed IMHO. That is WHAT THE VERY IDEA OF DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION IS ALL ABOUT. A tactic to ( in essence) destroy it by totally revamping it was exactly why the Amendment process is there! There is not even one politician alive today that I'd trust to be involved in such an action. Not even one! For not a damn one is even remotely the caliber of any of the original founders!-Tyr

I'm not exactly sure what point you're disputing. No one is suggesting that we have a Con-Con to rewrite the Constitution... outside of some actual lefties that is. An amendment that restores certain aspects, to me anyway, of the Constitution by repealing the 17th, reducing the reality of two-party politics by mandating a run-off, and implementing some term limits is not rewriting the Constitution.

[logroller]

Congress overstepped its authority, and when challenged, SCOTUS wimped out and decided it doesn't want to overrule Congress. It's still ALL unconstitutional.

Well that's your opinion; however article 3 section 2 states that 'The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States...'; so the power to confer legality/constitutionality of a law is constitutionally vested in scotus. There's no exception for their wimping out. Only scotus can overrule scotus, notwithstanding an amendment and only then when a suit is brought before them and deemed justiciable and ripe. It's really quite difficult to receive a ruling from the Court. Scotus could, theoretically, ignore the constitution, the amendments / their previous rulings etc and interpret a law any way they so choose and there's really no legal/ constitutional recourse save stacking the court... which they'd avert only by 'wimping out', but that is to assume that congress and the president mutually agree to such-- that is the nature of the balance of powers created by the constitution itself. Its not perfect, nor equitable necessarily, but it is constituional.

[Kathianne]

Well that's your opinion; however article 3 section 2 states that 'The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States...'; so the power to confer legality/constitutionality of a law is constitutionally vested in scotus. There's no exception for their wimping out. Only scotus can overrule scotus, notwithstanding an amendment and only then when a suit is brought before them and deemed justiciable and ripe. It's really quite difficult to receive a ruling from the Court. Scotus could, theoretically, ignore the constitution, the amendments / their previous rulings etc and interpret a law any way they so choose and there's really no legal/ constitutional recourse save stacking the court... which they'd avert only by 'wimping out', but that is to assume that congress and the president mutually agree to such-- that is the nature of the balance of powers created by the constitution itself. Its not perfect, nor equitable necessarily, but it is constituional.

Congress can write a new bill to overcome SCOTUS objections. There is always the option of amending, though not likely.

[fj1200]

Congress can write a new bill to overcome SCOTUS objections. There is always the option of amending, though not likely.

Though Congress has been woefully bad of late in offering good legislation I still prefer that the Constitution lay the groundwork for government and allows Congress to manage the day-to-day of legislating.

[glockmail]

Not really confused as SCOTUS has already conferred legality on SS and Medicare... much to your chagrin as it didn't require an amendment. Nevertheless you don't actually end SS, you express a desire that those who paid in be entitled to be paid out when those dollars have long since been spent. And where do you think those dollars will come from? As designed the young pay payroll taxes to fund the retirement of the old, as you've "ended" SS there will be no dollars coming in to pay anyone back.

But I do agree that the amendment process should be used as intended but not to legislate and codify bad ideas.

The proposal ends SS as we know it, and since it requires a balanced budget Congress will have to find out where to pay the money. Since all the hundreds of other non-constitutional departments will be gone, there will be plenty of money to pay back the old folks.

[glockmail]

Well that's your opinion; however article 3 section 2 states that 'The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States...'; so the power to confer legality/constitutionality of a law is constitutionally vested in scotus. There's no exception for their wimping out. Only scotus can overrule scotus, notwithstanding an amendment and only then when a suit is brought before them and deemed justiciable and ripe. It's really quite difficult to receive a ruling from the Court. Scotus could, theoretically, ignore the constitution, the amendments / their previous rulings etc and interpret a law any way they so choose and there's really no legal/ constitutional recourse save stacking the court... which they'd avert only by 'wimping out', but that is to assume that congress and the president mutually agree to such-- that is the nature of the balance of powers created by the constitution itself. Its not perfect, nor equitable necessarily, but it is constituional.

Since these acts did not arise under the Constitution, SCOTUS has no authority to claim that they are constitutional. Since judges serve "in good behavior", an extremely low bar for impeachment, ignoring the constitution clearly trips over that bar.

[Arbo]

The proposal ends SS as we know it, and since it requires a balanced budget Congress will have to find out where to pay the money. Since all the hundreds of other non-constitutional departments will be gone, there will be plenty of money to pay back the old folks.

An end to SS is a good thing. Either be responsible for your own retirement or work until the day you die. Not the governments problem.

[aboutime]

Since these acts did not arise under the Constitution, SCOTUS has no authority to claim that they are constitutional. Since judges serve "in good behavior", an extremely low bar for impeachment, ignoring the constitution clearly trips over that bar.

Something I do believe all of us have forgotten. There are supposed to be THREE Equal Branches of Government, and, according to the Constitution...No one branch should be more powerful than any other.

[glockmail]

Something I do believe all of us have forgotten. There are supposed to be THREE Equal Branches of Government, and, according to the Constitution...No one branch should be more powerful than any other.

True, which is why SCOTUS long ago decided that whatever Congress passes and the POTUS does is OK. Therefore SCOTUS does not decide Constitutionality.