Please specify what in the 1789 constitution has resulted in a poorly run and wasteful government ? National defense? Be specific.
A few quibbles (I have many more than this):
1. The two-party system. I would like to see the House elected proportionally, which would give Libertarians, Greens, Socialists and Paultards a seat at the legislative table. The structure of how we elect and apportion Congress led to this.
2. Disparity of political power in the Senate. Wyoming has two Senators, even though it has fewer people than the City of Seattle. It made sense in 1789 before there were such wide disparties between the states in population, but it is ridiculous that California and Vermont have the same representation in the Senate.
3. Political speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech, and that corporations have free speech rights analogous to individuals. I think that corporations are a legal fiction of the state and that by applying to the state to legal personhood a corporation submits to regulation on its speech, whether that speech be advertising or political in nature. IMO we need either a new Supreme Court ruling with 5 lib justices (but that's a constitutional problem, innit) or a change to the Consitution itself to restore to Congress its (I believe) sovereign right to regulate the electoral process.
4. A more parliamentary structure. When the government shuts down or when Congress fails to exercise its obligated functions, the legislature has failed and snap elections should be called to create a Congress that is responsive to the legislative needs of the moment. Instead we have a Congress which is virtually immune to public rebuke due to the power of incumbency, aided by the Constitution which has caused the Supremes to state (in dicta I think) that term limits are unconstitutional. I actually don't like term limits because I think there are better ways to get a similar result.
5. Article III judges serve for life. Bullshit. They should get a lengthy term of office (say, 15 years), after which they may be re-appointed or not.
I've got more, this is all off the top of my head.
The thing is we've built up all this hero-worship of the Founding Fathers to the point that there is even constitutional law doctrine which has built up around it ("original intent"). So we've taken a document which was already hard to amend and laden it down with emotional hero-worship to the point that making changes to our governmental structure is almost impossible, even when the original document fails again and again. The post-Civil War amendments should have been a clue. The constitutional debates surrounding the WPA and court-packing in the 1930's were a second one.
So if we focused on funding "just what is needed" my estimate of reducing my tax bill to 20% of what it currently is looks about right.
I'd like more detail in the "Other" for WA state spending, but I think that it is harder to cut budgets than you think - government spending is historically around 20% of GDP and has been declining relative to GDP lately.
I think we can be more efficient, but you get there by good government. Part of my problem with the GOP is that they haven't been a party of good government since Nixon's time. In the words of P.J. O'Rourke, "Republicans say government doesn't work, then they get elected and prove it."
It made sense in 1789 before there were such wide disparties between the states in population
They created the system the way they did precisely because they knew there would be wide disparities in population. You can disagree with the system, but it's doing exactly what it was designed to do.
Please specify what in the 1789 constitution has resulted in a poorly run and wasteful government ? National defense? Be specific.
A few quibbles (I have many more than this):
1. The two-party system. I would like to see the House elected proportionally, which would give Libertarians, Greens, Socialists and Paultards a seat at the legislative table. The structure of how we elect and apportion Congress led to this.
2. Disparity of political power in the Senate. Wyoming has two Senators, even though it has fewer people than the City of Seattle. It made sense in 1789 before there were such wide disparties between the states in population, but it is ridiculous that California and Vermont have the same representation in the Senate.
3. Political speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech, and that corporations have free speech rights analogous to individuals. I think that corporations are a legal fiction of the state and that by applying to the state to legal personhood a corporation submits to regulation on its speech, whether that speech be advertising or political in nature. IMO we need either a new Supreme Court ruling with 5 lib justices (but that's a constitutional problem, innit) or a change to the Consitution itself to restore to Congress its (I believe) sovereign right to regulate the electoral process.
4. A more parliamentary structure. When the government shuts down or when Congress fails to exercise its obligated functions, the legislature has failed and snap elections should be called to create a Congress that is responsive to the legislative needs of the moment. Instead we have a Congress which is virtually immune to public rebuke due to the power of incumbency, aided by the Constitution which has caused the Supremes to state (in dicta I think) that term limits are unconstitutional. I actually don't like term limits because I think there are better ways to get a similar result.
5. Article III judges serve for life. Bullshit. They should get a lengthy term of office (say, 15 years), after which they may be re-appointed or not.
I've got more, this is all off the top of my head.
The thing is we've built up all this hero-worship of the Founding Fathers to the point that there is even constitutional law doctrine which has built up around it ("original intent"). So we've taken a document which was already hard to amend and laden it down with emotional hero-worship to the point that making changes to our governmental structure is almost impossible, even when the original document fails again and again. The post-Civil War amendments should have been a clue. The constitutional debates surrounding the WPA and court-packing in the 1930's were a second one.
So you believe California, Texas, New York, and Florida should mandate the federal laws for all states.
Does Wyoming have the same needs as New York, as an example water rights?
If there is a difference in needs, should Wyoming not get equal representation in one of the two houses of the legislature?
If Wyoming doesn't get equal representation, then should Wyoming be free to secede from the nation to protect the local rights, which may or may not differ from those in New York?
Number three is interesting ... you say it would be ok if it was 5 liberal justices. So it is not a flaw in the political speech ruling, but instead you disagree with the interpretation of the constitution, which is based on who sits on the bench. That sounds more like you wish the constitution was based more on your will than the intent of the founding fathers. In other words, if it was always 5 lib judges ... you'd be cool.
And where does it state a two party system in the constitution?
The structure of first-past-the-post inexorably leads to a two-party system. It's baked into the cake.
California, Texas, Florida, and New York should have more say than Wyoming. Let's say those states get 4 Senators. Washington, and other middle-range states should get 2 or 3. Wyoming, Vermont, and the other dinkies get one, which is more than they deserve by sheer proportion of population, which I think helps them represent their interests - after all, Wyoming doesn't have 1/4 of CA's population. And DC should be represented in Congress.
The question was about what I think - I think the Supremes got it wrong WRT political speech. I also think that the Supremes do a bit more legislating from the bench than they should - lib and conservative. I think that a lib court would be more likely to craft a ruling that I would agree with, but I would rather this issue be handled explicitly by the constitutional document. In most countries elections are managed by the legislature as representing the will of the sovereign (the people) rather than the people that think they know best (the judges).
"wide disparities" - I don't think the Founders thought that we would have this much disparity between the states. I also don't care. It's undemocratic as hell.
The structure of first-past-the-post inexorably leads to a two-party system. It's baked into the cake.
California, Texas, Florida, and New York should have more say than Wyoming. Let's say those states get 4 Senators. Washington, and other middle-range states should get 2 or 3. Wyoming, Vermont, and the other dinkies get one, which is more than they deserve by sheer proportion of poulation, which I think helps them represent their interests - after all, Wyoming doesn't have 1/4 of CA's population. And DC should be represented in Congress.
The question was about what I think - I think the Supremes got it wrong WRT political speech. I also think that the Supremes do a bit more legislating from the bench than they should - lib and conservative. I think that a lib court would be more likely to craft a ruling that I would agree with, but I would rather this issue be handled explicitly by the constitutional document. In most countries elections are managed by the legislature as representing the will of the sovereign (the people) rather than the people that think they know best (the judges).
"wide disparities" - I don't think the Founders thought that we would have this much disparity between the states. I also don't care. It's undemocratic as hell.
Agree wholeheartedly. It's time to get this country back. We've made some progress in this administration and we need to make the institutional changes to cement these victories for generations to come.
The structure of first-past-the-post inexorably leads to a two-party system. It's baked into the cake.
California, Texas, Florida, and New York should have more say than Wyoming. Let's say those states get 4 Senators. Washington, and other middle-range states should get 2 or 3. Wyoming, Vermont, and the other dinkies get one, which is more than they deserve by sheer proportion of poulation, which I think helps them represent their interests - after all, Wyoming doesn't have 1/4 of CA's population. And DC should be represented in Congress.
The question was about what I think - I think the Supremes got it wrong WRT political speech. I also think that the Supremes do a bit more legislating from the bench than they should - lib and conservative. I think that a lib court would be more likely to craft a ruling that I would agree with, but I would rather this issue be handled explicitly by the constitutional document. In most countries elections are managed by the legislature as representing the will of the sovereign (the people) rather than the people that think they know best (the judges).
"wide disparities" - I don't think the Founders thought that we would have this much disparity between the states. I also don't care. It's undemocratic as hell.
Agree wholeheartedly. It's time to get this country back. We've made some progress in this administration and we need to make the institutional changes to cement these victories for generations to come.
Please specify what in the 1789 constitution has resulted in a poorly run and wasteful government ? National defense? Be specific.
A few quibbles (I have many more than this):
1. The two-party system. I would like to see the House elected proportionally, which would give Libertarians, Greens, Socialists and Paultards a seat at the legislative table. The structure of how we elect and apportion Congress led to this.
2. Disparity of political power in the Senate. Wyoming has two Senators, even though it has fewer people than the City of Seattle. It made sense in 1789 before there were such wide disparties between the states in population, but it is ridiculous that California and Vermont have the same representation in the Senate.
3. Political speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech, and that corporations have free speech rights analogous to individuals. I think that corporations are a legal fiction of the state and that by applying to the state to legal personhood a corporation submits to regulation on its speech, whether that speech be advertising or political in nature. IMO we need either a new Supreme Court ruling with 5 lib justices (but that's a constitutional problem, innit) or a change to the Consitution itself to restore to Congress its (I believe) sovereign right to regulate the electoral process.
4. A more parliamentary structure. When the government shuts down or when Congress fails to exercise its obligated functions, the legislature has failed and snap elections should be called to create a Congress that is responsive to the legislative needs of the moment. Instead we have a Congress which is virtually immune to public rebuke due to the power of incumbency, aided by the Constitution which has caused the Supremes to state (in dicta I think) that term limits are unconstitutional. I actually don't like term limits because I think there are better ways to get a similar result.
5. Article III judges serve for life. Bullshit. They should get a lengthy term of office (say, 15 years), after which they may be re-appointed or not.
I've got more, this is all off the top of my head.
The thing is we've built up all this hero-worship of the Founding Fathers to the point that there is even constitutional law doctrine which has built up around it ("original intent"). So we've taken a document which was already hard to amend and laden it down with emotional hero-worship to the point that making changes to our governmental structure is almost impossible, even when the original document fails again and again. The post-Civil War amendments should have been a clue. The constitutional debates surrounding the WPA and court-packing in the 1930's were a second one.
Not sure how your points are the cause of government waste, but anyway... 1. Not a constitutional issues 2. That's by design and it works as intended. Keep it. 3. If an individual has rights, who would a group of individuals not enjoy the same right? When natural persons band together voluntarily the can confer their individual rights on that entity. 4. If a district likes their rep, they can't keep him? Some people thought congress did their job just fine when they "closed" the government. I think you mean you want a legislature that is responsive to your needs/wants... 5. I would rather not have lifetime appointments.. (why 15 years?)
The document is supposed to be hard to amend, put it is possible and has been done 33 times. The good news is we can still amend it if we choose to. We can make it anything we want. We need to elect the right people and get it done. The problem is the things you want may not be what others want. The only point you brought up that I would be in favor of changing is lifetime appointments.
All this said, the root cause of government waste is based elsewhere, not in the constitution itself.
All this said, the root cause of government waste is based elsewhere, not in the constitution itself.
Mostly disagree.
1. The two party system is baked into the cake, and the Founders knew it. Hence all the debate about parties in the Federalist papers.
2. "One man one vote" is a basic principle of democracy. I think the structure as it is tilts the playing field too far, and has fueled corruption in small states. Think Robert Byrd in WV.
3. The individuals don't lose any rights. The corporation as a legal fiction never had them.
4. Like I said, I don't like term limits. I just think that system which incorporates proportional representation would be a better fit, and get more voices into Congress than we currently have. I'm all for a system that does not favor incumbency to the degree that ours does currently. I'm open to lots of different ways to structure it. Right now Congress runs to the political middle and then to K Street. Its a problem that stems directly from the structure of how we consitute our Congress. I think a good litmus test for Congress is the % of lawyers. We should have more people from different backgrounds in Congress. Right now it is all lawyers.
5. 15 years is an arbitrary number, OBK style. I'm not married to it. It should be well longer than a given Presidency so that the judge is not beholden to the President that appoints him/her, but not lifetime. 15 was my wild-assed guess.
The structure of first-past-the-post inexorably leads to a two-party system. It's baked into the cake.
California, Texas, Florida, and New York should have more say than Wyoming. Let's say those states get 4 Senators. Washington, and other middle-range states should get 2 or 3. Wyoming, Vermont, and the other dinkies get one, which is more than they deserve by sheer proportion of poulation, which I think helps them represent their interests - after all, Wyoming doesn't have 1/4 of CA's population. And DC should be represented in Congress.
The question was about what I think - I think the Supremes got it wrong WRT political speech. I also think that the Supremes do a bit more legislating from the bench than they should - lib and conservative. I think that a lib court would be more likely to craft a ruling that I would agree with, but I would rather this issue be handled explicitly by the constitutional document. In most countries elections are managed by the legislature as representing the will of the sovereign (the people) rather than the people that think they know best (the judges).
"wide disparities" - I don't think the Founders thought that we would have this much disparity between the states. I also don't care. It's undemocratic as hell.
Agree wholeheartedly. It's time to get this country back. We've made some progress in this administration and we need to make the institutional changes to cement these victories for generations to come.
I know you're being sarkasmic, but... huh?
Not at all. I've seen the errors in my thinking. In deeper reflection, I've come to see how great government can be with the right person in the presidency. We need to continue to the right (lol) thing and elect Hillary Clinton in 2016.
The structure of first-past-the-post inexorably leads to a two-party system. It's baked into the cake.
California, Texas, Florida, and New York should have more say than Wyoming. Let's say those states get 4 Senators. Washington, and other middle-range states should get 2 or 3. Wyoming, Vermont, and the other dinkies get one, which is more than they deserve by sheer proportion of poulation, which I think helps them represent their interests - after all, Wyoming doesn't have 1/4 of CA's population. And DC should be represented in Congress.
The question was about what I think - I think the Supremes got it wrong WRT political speech. I also think that the Supremes do a bit more legislating from the bench than they should - lib and conservative. I think that a lib court would be more likely to craft a ruling that I would agree with, but I would rather this issue be handled explicitly by the constitutional document. In most countries elections are managed by the legislature as representing the will of the sovereign (the people) rather than the people that think they know best (the judges).
"wide disparities" - I don't think the Founders thought that we would have this much disparity between the states. I also don't care. It's undemocratic as hell.
Agree wholeheartedly. It's time to get this country back. We've made some progress in this administration and we need to make the institutional changes to cement these victories for generations to come.
I know you're being sarkasmic, but... huh?
Not at all. I've seen the errors in my thinking. In deeper reflection, I've come to see how great government can be with the right person in the presidency. We need to continue to the right (lol) thing and elect Hillary Clinton in 2016.
All this said, the root cause of government waste is based elsewhere, not in the constitution itself.
Mostly disagree.
1. The two party system is baked into the cake, and the Founders knew it. Hence all the debate about parties in the Federalist papers.
2. "One man one vote" is a basic principle of democracy. I think the structure as it is tilts the playing field too far, and has fueled corruption in small states. Think Robert Byrd in WV.
3. The individuals don't lose any rights. The corporation as a legal fiction never had them.
4. Like I said, I don't like term limits. I just think that system which incorporates proportional representation would be a better fit, and get more voices into Congress than we currently have. I'm all for a system that does not favor incumbency to the degree that ours does currently. I'm open to lots of different ways to structure it. Right now Congress runs to the political middle and then to K Street. Its a problem that stems directly from the structure of how we consitute our Congress. I think a good litmus test for Congress is the % of lawyers. We should have more people from different backgrounds in Congress. Right now it is all lawyers.
5. 15 years is an arbitrary number, OBK style. I'm not married to it. It should be well longer than a given Presidency so that the judge is not beholden to the President that appoints him/her, but not lifetime. 15 was my wild-assed guess.
Still not following on the waste part. You're saying corruption what makes up most of the waste?
I would put incompetence in front of corruption.
Anyway..good debate. Doubt we will ever solve it. We're just fucked.
I'm pretty sure I would kill something if a Clinton/Pelosi ticket won.
Stop for a minute and really think about how good the last 6 years have been. Do you want the progressive cause to end in 2016? Sure, we might not all identify ourselves as progressives, or even Democrats, but it's clear the Obama-led progressive wing of the Democratic party is truly acting in the best interests of every person on American soil.
I'm pretty sure I would kill something if a Clinton/Pelosi ticket won.
Stop for a minute and really think about how good the last 6 years have been. Do you want the progressive cause to end in 2016? Sure, we might not all identify ourselves as progressives, or even Democrats, but it's clear the Obama-led progressive wing of the Democratic party is truly acting in the best interests of every person on American soil.
They just need more time is all. People forget that America was 0-12 in 2008.
I'm pretty sure I would kill something if a Clinton/Pelosi ticket won.
Stop for a minute and really think about how good the last 6 years have been. Do you want the progressive cause to end in 2016? Sure, we might not all identify ourselves as progressives, or even Democrats, but it's clear the Obama-led progressive wing of the Democratic party is truly acting in the best interests of every person on American soil.
They just need more time is all. People forget that America was 0-12 in 2008.
Very funny Purp. But like I said, the time for government cynicism has passed. The time for hope is now. Join us, will you?
Comments
So if we focused on funding "just what is needed" my estimate of reducing my tax bill to 20% of what it currently is looks about right.
1. The two-party system. I would like to see the House elected proportionally, which would give Libertarians, Greens, Socialists and Paultards a seat at the legislative table. The structure of how we elect and apportion Congress led to this.
2. Disparity of political power in the Senate. Wyoming has two Senators, even though it has fewer people than the City of Seattle. It made sense in 1789 before there were such wide disparties between the states in population, but it is ridiculous that California and Vermont have the same representation in the Senate.
3. Political speech. The Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech, and that corporations have free speech rights analogous to individuals. I think that corporations are a legal fiction of the state and that by applying to the state to legal personhood a corporation submits to regulation on its speech, whether that speech be advertising or political in nature. IMO we need either a new Supreme Court ruling with 5 lib justices (but that's a constitutional problem, innit) or a change to the Consitution itself to restore to Congress its (I believe) sovereign right to regulate the electoral process.
4. A more parliamentary structure. When the government shuts down or when Congress fails to exercise its obligated functions, the legislature has failed and snap elections should be called to create a Congress that is responsive to the legislative needs of the moment. Instead we have a Congress which is virtually immune to public rebuke due to the power of incumbency, aided by the Constitution which has caused the Supremes to state (in dicta I think) that term limits are unconstitutional. I actually don't like term limits because I think there are better ways to get a similar result.
5. Article III judges serve for life. Bullshit. They should get a lengthy term of office (say, 15 years), after which they may be re-appointed or not.
I've got more, this is all off the top of my head.
The thing is we've built up all this hero-worship of the Founding Fathers to the point that there is even constitutional law doctrine which has built up around it ("original intent"). So we've taken a document which was already hard to amend and laden it down with emotional hero-worship to the point that making changes to our governmental structure is almost impossible, even when the original document fails again and again. The post-Civil War amendments should have been a clue. The constitutional debates surrounding the WPA and court-packing in the 1930's were a second one.
I think we can be more efficient, but you get there by good government. Part of my problem with the GOP is that they haven't been a party of good government since Nixon's time. In the words of P.J. O'Rourke, "Republicans say government doesn't work, then they get elected and prove it."
Does Wyoming have the same needs as New York, as an example water rights?
If there is a difference in needs, should Wyoming not get equal representation in one of the two houses of the legislature?
If Wyoming doesn't get equal representation, then should Wyoming be free to secede from the nation to protect the local rights, which may or may not differ from those in New York?
Number three is interesting ... you say it would be ok if it was 5 liberal justices. So it is not a flaw in the political speech ruling, but instead you disagree with the interpretation of the constitution, which is based on who sits on the bench. That sounds more like you wish the constitution was based more on your will than the intent of the founding fathers. In other words, if it was always 5 lib judges ... you'd be cool.
And where does it state a two party system in the constitution?
California, Texas, Florida, and New York should have more say than Wyoming. Let's say those states get 4 Senators. Washington, and other middle-range states should get 2 or 3. Wyoming, Vermont, and the other dinkies get one, which is more than they deserve by sheer proportion of population, which I think helps them represent their interests - after all, Wyoming doesn't have 1/4 of CA's population. And DC should be represented in Congress.
The question was about what I think - I think the Supremes got it wrong WRT political speech. I also think that the Supremes do a bit more legislating from the bench than they should - lib and conservative. I think that a lib court would be more likely to craft a ruling that I would agree with, but I would rather this issue be handled explicitly by the constitutional document. In most countries elections are managed by the legislature as representing the will of the sovereign (the people) rather than the people that think they know best (the judges).
"wide disparities" - I don't think the Founders thought that we would have this much disparity between the states. I also don't care. It's undemocratic as hell.
1. Not a constitutional issues
2. That's by design and it works as intended. Keep it.
3. If an individual has rights, who would a group of individuals not enjoy the same right? When natural persons band together voluntarily the can confer their individual rights on that entity.
4. If a district likes their rep, they can't keep him? Some people thought congress did their job just fine when they "closed" the government. I think you mean you want a legislature that is responsive to your needs/wants...
5. I would rather not have lifetime appointments.. (why 15 years?)
The document is supposed to be hard to amend, put it is possible and has been done 33 times. The good news is we can still amend it if we choose to. We can make it anything we want. We need to elect the right people and get it done. The problem is the things you want may not be what others want. The only point you brought up that I would be in favor of changing is lifetime appointments.
All this said, the root cause of government waste is based elsewhere, not in the constitution itself.
1. The two party system is baked into the cake, and the Founders knew it. Hence all the debate about parties in the Federalist papers.
2. "One man one vote" is a basic principle of democracy. I think the structure as it is tilts the playing field too far, and has fueled corruption in small states. Think Robert Byrd in WV.
3. The individuals don't lose any rights. The corporation as a legal fiction never had them.
4. Like I said, I don't like term limits. I just think that system which incorporates proportional representation would be a better fit, and get more voices into Congress than we currently have. I'm all for a system that does not favor incumbency to the degree that ours does currently. I'm open to lots of different ways to structure it. Right now Congress runs to the political middle and then to K Street. Its a problem that stems directly from the structure of how we consitute our Congress. I think a good litmus test for Congress is the % of lawyers. We should have more people from different backgrounds in Congress. Right now it is all lawyers.
5. 15 years is an arbitrary number, OBK style. I'm not married to it. It should be well longer than a given Presidency so that the judge is not beholden to the President that appoints him/her, but not lifetime. 15 was my wild-assed guess.
1. The two party system is baked into the cake, and the Founders knew it. Hence all the debate about parties in the Federalist papers.
2. "One man one vote" is a basic principle of democracy. I think the structure as it is tilts the playing field too far, and has fueled corruption in small states. Think Robert Byrd in WV.
3. The individuals don't lose any rights. The corporation as a legal fiction never had them.
4. Like I said, I don't like term limits. I just think that system which incorporates proportional representation would be a better fit, and get more voices into Congress than we currently have. I'm all for a system that does not favor incumbency to the degree that ours does currently. I'm open to lots of different ways to structure it. Right now Congress runs to the political middle and then to K Street. Its a problem that stems directly from the structure of how we consitute our Congress. I think a good litmus test for Congress is the % of lawyers. We should have more people from different backgrounds in Congress. Right now it is all lawyers.
5. 15 years is an arbitrary number, OBK style. I'm not married to it. It should be well longer than a given Presidency so that the judge is not beholden to the President that appoints him/her, but not lifetime. 15 was my wild-assed guess.
Still not following on the waste part. You're saying corruption what makes up most of the waste?
I would put incompetence in front of corruption.
Anyway..good debate. Doubt we will ever solve it. We're just fucked.