We should include subversion in the Constitution as an equal to treason. Treason is to move against your country in a way that aids another power. Subversion is to move against your country that damages your country without directly aiding another. There's really no difference, and any act of subversion should be grounds for immediate removal from office for any elected or appointed official.
This should also include sanctions against politicians who refuse to honor the Constitution.
State and local politicians constantly subvert the 14th Amendment by going after "illegal aliens" even though the 14th supposedly guarantees "equal protection of the laws" to "all persons" within a state's jurisdiction. Last anyone saw, an "illegal alien" was a person and has the same rights as everyone else under state law, but not under federal law where there is no equal-protection clause governing federal actions. Solutions to the "undocumented immigrants" problem now being whacked around are unworkable and appear to be only political posturing by some wanting to make a reputation for him or herself. Perhaps the profits-tax proposal would ease the problem because when businesses must pay a living wage and a specific percentage of their profits to those creating the profits there is no incentive to hire "illegals" just to drive labor costs down.
Federal politicians continually enact unconstitutional laws, forcing the courts to negate them, then campaign against "activist judges." That practice should be stopped. There are conditions such as age, residency and citizenship one must meet in order to hold public office. Perhaps mastering the Constitution should also be included.
6) The death penalty:
This barbaric practice should be eliminated. It is applied unfairly, it costs too much and wastes too much time. It appeals to sadists and allows those such as George W. Bush to take glee in its application. Some people have been sent to death row after their court-appointed defense lawyers fell asleep during the trial, or didn't put up any form of defense, have been convicted on the testimony of one witness who claimed to have seen the crime from several hundred feet across a parking lot in the dark of night, have been convicted on the testimony of a jail-house snitch who was looking for a lighter sentence for himself and on many similar dubious "facts".
Many politicians build their reputations on how "tough on crime" they are. In doing do, truth and justice are less important than are convictions. We have seen thousands of convictions overturned years after an innocent person was sent to prison for a crime he didn't commit. But prosecutors or police who submit false or misleading "facts" are seldom held accountable. In one recent case, the famous Duke University rape case that turned out to be no rape case at all, the prosecutor was punished and lost his license to practice law. Similar actions are never taken against those in power who send innocent men and women to prison. The difference: in the Duke case the three lacrosse players falsely charged were rich privileged young white men while in the majority of cases of miscarriage of justice the wrongly convicted are poor and mostly of a racial minority.
If total elimination is not acceptable, we need a special court that is entrusted to review every death-penalty decision in the nation to assure fairness and unquestionable guilt.
7) Leaving the union:
This does not need an amendment or a law; it just needs understanding.
People, not states, created America, therefore states cannot leave of their own accord; one state cannot uncreate what the whole of the people created. To get into the union, states followed a well-defined approval process. States first needed permission from their citizens, then needed permission from US citizens to join them in the union, which was granted by the peoples's agents, the United States Congress. That means to leave, states need permission of their own people then permission from all other Americans through that same Congress. Article IV, Section 3, says no political alterations allowed without both state and congressional approval.
All states have considerable federal property (buildings and courthouses, national parks, forests, monuments, highways, military bases, ports and airports, etc.) which can be disposed of only by acts of Congress. So, if a state wishes to leave the union, it must petition its residents to get permission, then petition the residents of all other states for their permission. Those steps being done through the state legislature and then through Congress. After that it must get Congress to authorize disposal of territory and property belonging to the United States as Article IV, Section 3, states. So, if Texas wished to be an independent republic again, it would have to buy all federal property in the state; a $9 trillion bill to pay for the Reagan-Bush-Bush fiscal insanity might be a good price. Besides, now that Ann Richards, Molly Ivins and Lady Bird Johnson have departed, who needs Texas anymore?
*****************************************************
Thomas Bonsell is a former newspaper editor (in Oregon, New York and Colorado) United States Air Force cryptanalyst and National Security Agency intelligence agent. He became one of American journalism's leading constitutional experts through years of study at Georgetown University Graduate School of Government in Washington, D.C., and tries (without much success) to be patient with people who argue endlessly on subjects they have never studied. He is the author of "The Un-Americans: Trashing of the United States Constitution in the American Press", a critique of the mainstream media for ignorance of, or disdain for, our constitutional principles of self-government. He left newspaper work years ago, disgusted at the direction the Fourth Estate ~ under the mismanagement of ineffectual, out-of-touch, can't-do executives ~ was taking away from honest responsible journalism and the observation that there was no place in the mainstream media for a progressive, or liberal, constitutional "expert". Bonsell is an honors graduate of Woodbury College (Los Angeles, California) with a bachelor of business administration degree. He is profiled in Marquis Who's Who in America. (Self-portrait, above, was handled to make author/artist appear prettier than he actually is.)
Personal motto: Have brain; will use.
You argue that the money would be used "to pay for advertising."
Well, most advertising is done over the PUBLIC's airwaves that are granted to the broadcast networks. I would require that as part of their right to have and profit from the public's airwaves, they need to provide the airtime for political advertising FOR FREE.
Why should a select group of businesses that have been granted the right to use the PUBLIC's airwaves be allowed to make a massive profit from a PUBLIC ACTIVITY such as an election. By allowing the networks to profit from political advertising it simply gives them the motivation to have lots of ugly mud-throwing back and forth that will result in bigger and bigger ad buys. Without the profit motive, advertising could get longer and more thoughtful, rather than simply 30-second sound bites.
That's my 2 cents.
by
Charlie L (2 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 715 comments)
on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 1:07:44 PM
Nice. I tried something similsr once and came up with the following (originally posted at Alternet) which overlaps with your own ideas in several places:
I have compiled a list that was originally conceived as a wish list for changes in the Constitution. But as I've come to understand that making such changes would be virtually impossible given the entrenched resistance, I now conceive of the list as improvements that I would make to an imaginary new constitution for a hypothetical new nation, perhaps this one some day. These are the kinds of changes for which I would advocate. Each element addresses a perceived flaw or deficiency in the present system:
1. It would be a treasonable offense punishable by life imprisonment or death for any elected public official to be caught taking money from any other source other than his meager paycheck. Just as it is recognized that influencing a judge or policeman’s decision with regard to enforcing or interpreting the law is a crime (bribery) and is immoral, it should be acknowledged that lobbying those who write the laws is just as corrupt and should be just as illegal.
2. Public campaigns for elected office are funded entirely by the appropriate level of government (federal, state, county, etc.) from tax dollars. There is no private collecting of campaign contributions permitted and no spending permitted except within prescribed limits. National and state level candidates will have television channels assigned to them and their race where they will campaign according to guidelines that insure the dissemination of all relevant information to anyone interested.
3. The Federal government would be banned from turning over the right to print currency and regulate monetary policy to private interests such as the Federal Reserve. This little known major flaw in American government has cost Americans trillions in debt and has deliberately caused countless depressions and recessions. Most readers will not see the value of this because they are unaware of the nature and the magnitude of this problem that is, unbelievably, the source of the national debt, not deficit spending.
4. Documents cannot be classified as secret by the whim of the president alone. Just as judges must approve warrants, so too do we need an independent body to approve removing documents from public scrutiny. Only matters of bona fide national security would be classifiable.
5. A draft or an automatic two-year period of service is expected of young people (to include the children and grandchildren of Congresspersons.
6. Attorneys would be held responsible for the merit of the cases that they bring, especially those taken on contingency. Contingency rates would be fixed and capped by a stepwise algorithm that limits the attorney fees to a fair amount that competent and successful attorneys will willingly work for. Expert witnesses are held liable for the accuracy of the testimony that they give. Juries for general criminal cases should be drawn from a pool of qualified and trained jurors representing all demographic categories proportionately. Trials of some professionals will be judged by specialty juries with special relevant training in that professional area, perhaps elected, and empanelled for extended terms, probably with pay or stipend.
7. There would be no crimes of vice. Specifically, there would be few or no illegal drugs. There would be no war on drugs.
8. Egregious election fraud would be punishable by life in prison.
9. There would be no foreign troops or military bases unless they are part of a larger, global policing network such as the UN's "military". War can legally ensue only following attack or imminent and apparent evidence of attack. The military could also be used for humanitarian purposes, in times of natural disaster and to serve in a planetary police force such as the United Nations if relevant, but for no other purpose. There would be no covert operations other than intelligence gathering (spying).
10. There is no constitutional right to firearms for individual citizens.
11. Media outlets have a social obligation to provide balanced views of political matters and must provide equal time for all qualified candidates and issues in a manner similar to that of the Fairness Doctrine revoked in the 1980’s. Also, no single entity could own more than ten (maybe 15) percent of television or radio stations or newspapers.
12. Prisons are to be run humanely. The only penalty permissible by law is the loss of property, loss of freedom and/or, in well-defined instances, permanent removal from the society by relocation to self-sufficient penal islands without weapons or landed guards (shore patrols would be necessary). Isolation is appropriate at times, but not in darkness, cold or on concrete. It is merely isolation. Prisons are not to be violent, abusive or dangerous. Torture is expressly illegal.
14. Congressional ethics committees will be manned not by Congressmen but by other citizens free to act independently. They will judge the ethical lapses of Congressmen, not the legality of their actions.
15. Most laws and governmental programs would have an expiration date and would need to be periodically studied and reaffirmed to maintain them in effect. Only programs that accomplish their stated and defined goals would be retained. Only laws that were still considered relevant and beneficial would be renewed.
This was posted at Alternet. One response was this:
A couple (or so) of things you overlooked, in my opinion, that I'd like to see:
1) Elimination or complete restructure of the Supreme Court since it's purpose was to maintain the status quo of the priviledged by design, and the only times it has acted in a progressive (meaning forward-moving) manner is when overwhelming public opinion demanded so and it's makeup happened to be less ultra-conservative than normal. Make them electable with explicit minimum qualifications for the position, and make them impeachable.
2) Political parties, per se, are expressly illegal. Citizens may form groups to foster positions or ideals and candidates may endorse these positions or ideals but beyond endorsement or rejection of such cannot claim any associations with such groups.
3) Corporations are formed as an act of government (already true) and do not have any standing within government (already true, believe it or not) beyond the revokable priviledge to do business under the act of incorporation. Corporations must act in the best social interests of the country and the people that the country belongs to or their charter to exist will be revoked and the corporation will be prohibited from engaging in commerce and the responsible principals will be prohibited from participating in future incorporations for (x) number of years. Government is expressly prohibited from taking acts that provide any advantage (tax reliefs, incentives, etc.) to any particular corporation and is prohibited from taking acts that provide corporations as a whole a benefit that does not also clearly benefit the citizens to which this country belongs.
4) All proposed acts of government must pass a review based on the "7th generation rule"- a rule, as I understand it, that was common among tribes of the original "Americans"- that states that any act undertaken by those in power must be shown to do no harm to the next 7 generations of people to come. (And many of our forefathers called them "savage" as they savaged them. Our ancestors, and we, are the true savages.)
by
Yaybob (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 174 comments)
on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 3:14:53 PM
We are of one mind on what you proposed, but virtually all can be done under ordinary law right now with no need for Constitutional alterations.
The problem is getting elected officials to enact such reforms; a virtual impossibility since the reforms would affect them. That is why I only proposed needed alterations while not expecting any of them to be enacted any time soon. Perhaps, if enough Americans propose them long enough and loud enough, something might be done in the distant future.
A couple of points.
The Federal Reserve Board is a government body while the Federal Reserve Banks are private entities owned by the banks that are subject to federal regulation. Learned that while working at the Federal Reserve in Los Angeles while in college.
The President doesn't have much say on what is classified secret. That is an automatic action in any agency that deals with secret material. Everyone had a bunch of rubber stamps designation material as "top secret" or "secret" or "classified." Whenever a person created a document at any "secret" agency he or she automatically stamped the paper with whatever stamp was at hand. Learned that while at the National Security Agency.
by
tabonsell (29 articles, 0 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 261 comments)
on Tuesday, July 24, 2007 at 5:36:45 PM
In the 1886 Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the state tax assessor, not the county assessor, had the right to determine the taxable value of fenceposts along the railroad's right-of-way.
However, in writing up the case's headnote - a commentary that has no precedential status - the Court's reporter, a former railroad president named J.C. Bancroft Davis, opened the headnote with the sentence: "The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Oddly, the court had ruled no such thing. As a handwritten note from Chief Justice Waite to reporter Davis that now is held in the National Archives said: "we avoided meeting the Constitutional question in the decision." And nowhere in the decision itself does the Court say corporations are persons.
by
Ignacio Fresas (8 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 11 comments)
on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 at 12:41:24 AM
"According to the official case record, Supreme Court Justice Morrison Remick Waite simply pronounced before the beginning of arguement in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company that
'The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.'
The court reporter duly entered into the summary record of the Court's findings that
'The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteen Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws'."
The implication is that the court reporter entered into the records what the SCOTUS judge had said before the case was argued. Of course there would be no decision from the court whether or not a corporation had the same rights as an individual because there was no argument on the question. The court just said so without any argument whatsoever. That is why the statement doesn't appear in the official decision. And the judge's note to the court reporter only affirmed that the court didn't entertain an argument on the question because it had already been decided by the court without argument.
by
tabonsell (29 articles, 0 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 261 comments)
on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 at 1:20:54 PM
While I appreciate Tomm Hartmann greatly, his take on the Santa Clara case involves only the official deliberations and therefore is not complete.
Here's what the Noel L. Dowling Constitutional Law book says on the matter:
"Justice Waite told counsel that the Court would not hear argument on this point since they were of the opinion that corporations were protected."
When the judges reached that conclusion is not stated but it's reasonable to guess that is was in conference when they decided to hear the case. But, the fact that they reached such a conclusion before the case was even argued shows why it was not included in the official issued opinion. What the clerk wrote in headnotes occurred after the case was decided.
But it was a conclusion from the SCOTUS judges and not because of a "clerk's error" that corporations were given the rights of personhood. This long-standing "clerk's error" fallacy is just that, a fallacy.
by
tabonsell (29 articles, 0 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 261 comments)
on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 at 2:49:35 PM
A second constitutional convention would be very dangerous because anything at all could happen. For one thing, our present Constitution and Bill of Rights could be completely scrapped and a dictatorship be put in place. This scenario would be the will of the right wing since Bush is already doing it without a constitutional convention. This careless, light-hearted talk about a second constitutional convention isn't well thought out and must stop. Be careful of what you wish for because you might get it.
by
Dan Merica (21 articles, 72 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 47 comments)
on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 at 3:15:45 AM
Do you really think that there is much left to lose? Sure, things could (and probably will) get worse, but the existing Constitution isn't stopping or slowing that any, and trashing this one won't accelerate the decay. That document has no meaning or value any more. It is effete absent any desire by the ruling class to honor it, or any remedy for the rest of us when they don't.
Actually, as I indicated in my second paragraph, I don't have any delusions about fixing this country, and for me, the exercise is only meaningful in the context that in other times and places, people, maybe some of us, will be writing constitutions, and perhaps they can learn from our failings.
by
Yaybob (12 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 174 comments)
on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 at 9:53:53 AM
First of all, I don't call for a new constitutional convention, I am leery of such because Americans haven't learned to understand the Constitution we already have.
That is why I write on the subject. Many people on this progressive site write and comment on the Constitution, but I often find they don't know it as well as they think they do.
When I studied Constitutional Law at Georgetown University Graduate School of Government under some of the finest constitutional minds in America, a professor asked why I had quit a job as sportswriter in Portland, Oregon, to study the Constitution at Georgetown. I told her I didn't want to waste my life writing about adults playing children's games, but wanted to get into something important like political reporting or editorial-page work and thought that studying the Constitution would be beneficial because I thought people doing that kind of work didn't know what they are talking about,
She replied, "I know they don't know what they're talking about." She read the Washington Post and New York Times daily and if those two didn't know what they were talking about, there's little chance anyone else would.
I never found a newspaper that cared to know, so I am on this site trying to get people to understand and appreciate what we have. Maybe one or two have learned something, but that I don't know.
by
tabonsell (29 articles, 0 quicklinks, 24 diaries, 261 comments)
on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 at 12:22:13 PM
9 comments
How would you rate this?
You must be logged in (if signed up) to do ratings.
It's free to signup! And easy. And takes just a minute or two....
Must Read (
Well Said (
News (
Touching (
Funny (
Supported (
Interesting (
Inspiring (
Valuable (
