Today on Blogcritics
Home » Is a New Constitution Called For?

Is a New Constitution Called For?

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Try asking the American people if either the Republican or Democratic political party is the answer to America’s woes and future needs. They will answer in majority with a clear and stoutly resonated “NO”!

Polls show confidence in the Republican and Democratic Parties is AWL, Absent With Leave, by the actions of the parties. But the public has only two options, vote out incumbents regardless of which party, or overthrow the government, and convene a new Continental Congress and draft a new Constitution which starts with the old one, but, removes money and parties from their roles as primary movers of politicians.

Given this choice, and paths of least resistance, obviously, the people are going to choose to toss out incumbents.

This is not rocket science. Just simple psychology and sociology. And precisely because the people aren’t sufficiently educated and motivated to reconvene a Constitutional Convention, America’s future is more perilous than it has ever been since the period between the first Constitution’s adoption and the end of the Civil War.

Republicans have for years been telling us everything is getting better as our national debt doubles, the future of Social Security, Medicare, our Health Care system, and our education without system move inexorably toward collapse, and American industry and business lose ground to global competitors. And the only answer Republicans and Democrats have is to throw money we don’t have, or withhold money from, these problems, as if money is the answer to all problems. And of course Republicans have told us that we are becoming more secure as we alienate more and more of the rest of the world, including our allies, from our foriegn policy based on the threat of our military superpower status.

Democrats have not offered better solutions than Republicans, if they offered any at all. So, yes, Republicans will be getting the boot. And later, Democrats will get the boot. Our nation’s future and the looming iceberg with America’s name on it will not be averted. ‘This Titanic can sink, I assure you. It is a mathematic certainty. United we stood. Divided, we will sink’. (To paraphrase the movie).

It happened to the Roman empire; it happened to the Babylonian empire; it happened to the British and the Egyptian empires. And now, for lack of intelligence, education, and the lessons of history, it is happening to the age of the American superpower. And the one single fundamental root cause, history will show, was our failure to educate our people sufficiently to vote in accordance with the lessons of history.

For a united democracy demands a united electorate with the vision and intelligence to hold their representatives to the task of guiding our ship of state through troubled waters. But if the public knows not the perils within the waters, how can they hold their representatives to the task of navigating around such perils?

Yes, it is the Republic in our democracy which is failing. For without the democratic capacity to hold representatives to account for basic survival skills: like top notch education for all, like fiscal responsibility, and insuring means constrain policy, like guaranteeing domestic tranquility and unity of national purpose and resolve, the Republic is doomed to fail for the very reasons our founding fathers foresaw and fretted over.

Our founding fathers fretted over greed with access to the public purse, concentration of power into the office of one, and propaganda which cloaks reality and truth in secrecy and laws designed to protect the office holder, not the nation and the public. Yet, the fears of our founding fathers, despite their best efforts to design checks and balances to protect against them, are being realized and witnessed everywhere we look throughout our political system.

Perhaps my grandchildren will be part of the new Constitutional Congress. Hopefully, my daughter will teach her children what I have taught her about politics and it will be incorporated into the new Constitution as follows:

We hold this truth to be self-evident: that money and individual power corrupt politics and governance. Therefore, in order to provide a more perfect union in which enlightened national and self interest may flourish without corruption, we lay these constraints upon office holders and those seeking office: ________________.

To be completed by some future generation.

How would you fill in the blank?

Powered by

About David R. Remer

  • Dean

    Hey, things aren’t bad for everyone.

    Our “leaders” get their salary increases, their pensions are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the United States government (read taxpayers) and their health care has got to be the best in the world.

    Add to that all the travel and other perks for which the taxpayers pick up the tab.

    I almost forgot the extra benefits they get when they leave government and become lobbyists and put on their alligator shoes. That’s when the gravy train really rolls in.

    What “leader” hasn’t become a millionaire while “serving” the American people in Washington?

    That’s why they don’t understand all the concern over the fact that the country is going to hell in a roller coaster ride.

  • http://www.diablog.us Dave Nalle

    Remer, you seem to have a pretty flimsy grip on the thinking of the founding fathers. Not only would they not support your efforts to get money out of politics, they would find it inherently contrary to the spirit of the nation and the constitution.

    The guys who wrote the Constitution supported laws in their home states which limited voting rights on the basis of race, gender and most importantly WEALTH. In most states you couldn’t vote unless you owned a certain amount of property or could demonstrate a specific level of material wealth.

    They believed that this was a GOOD thing. They wanted government run by those who had a financial commitment and something at risk in the Republic. They didn’t believe in unbridled democracy, but in a representaitve Republic where money had as large a voice as ideology.

    Dave

  • http://voidnow.org David R. Remer

    Dave Nalle, you ignorantly mistake the founding fathers requirement for voting to be that of landholders with bribery of the political system. The founding fathers intended that voters should have a vested stake in the proceedings of governments, and as the British confiscated personal property at will, the founding fathers believed landholders, having the most to lose at the hands of confiscatory government, would become the most knowledgeable and aware voters of the actions of government officials.

    This is not to be mistaken with what I wrote in the article as to our founding fathers fretting over “greed with access to the public purse”. If you think our founding fathers believed laws should be made by the highest bidder, you have a serious lack of education about our founding fathers and authors who influenced their thinking of the time like Adam Smith and his Theory of Moral Sentiment. In fact, our founding fathers made bribing an official a crime. Which makes my point quite neatly doesn’t it?

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    David,

    I do not disagree with much that you write ablut the floundering of your country. But it strikes me that your problem is not with the constitution, it is with human nature. Rewriting the constitution will not reduce greed, ill will or hatred. But it may open up questions you may wish had not been revisited, like how much liberty or dignity or privacy citizens are entitled to.

    Just a thought from a third of the world away.

  • Nancy

    The problems confronting this republic are manifold: voters too apathetic or incapable of independent judgement to make sound decisions – when they bother to vote at all, an administration that contends it is above the law including the constitution, a deliberative body captive to one party that is sunk in corruption and ethical bankruptcy through having ensured themselves permanent, unrealistic levels of privilege as well as personal enrichment at the public expense. For the most part, the constitution & bill of rights are fine as they stand; the problem lies with creating – and ENFORCING – restrictions on congress severely curtailing opportunities for corruption and independent means of monitoring same, and also for reigning in and enforcing compliance with constitutional parameters on the executive, which currently is impossible with a corrupt congress totally uninterested in policing or being policed even at the expense of totally losing credibility and confidence by the public, and so dominated by the same executive that is degrading the constitutional parameters. There’s the rub: they write the laws, and they’ve arranged it so no one can force them to either clean up their act, or even to comply with the glaringly deficient standards they have now. Witness the disgraceful situation over Jefferson & the stalled FBI investigation, with congress on both sides of the aisle maintaining he is above the law & not subject to criminal investigation or search & seizure! Incredible.

  • http://voidnow.org David R. Remer

    Ruvy, your point is well made that a new Constitutional Convention could have very unpredictable results, and not all of them improvements.

    My point is, that unless we make this Constitution work to solve more national problems than our politicians and their donors create, a new Constitutional Convention may become an inevitability.

    I don’t disagree with your warning at all, however.

  • http://voidnow.org David R. Remer

    Nancy, quite right. That is why I work hard to convince Americans to vote out incumbents, for that is the only power the people have over Congress, short of revolution. If enough incumbents lose their careers, the remaining incumbents and freshman may place the voters agenda for peace, prosperity, and liberty ahead of lobbyists and corporate donors agenda’s for military expansion, public subsidies, and bankrupting future workers through national debt.

  • Nancy

    You’re preaching to the choir, bro, altho unfortunately there are no incumbents in any of my area’s races, except at the very local level.

  • Ruvy in Jerusalem

    David,

    Don’t make assumptions about what the voter’s agenda in America is. Many politicians have faced career change for that precise reason.

    An example for you to chew on: George Wallace started out as a left leaning moderate in Alabama. After all, he was a truck driver and had a good sense of what poor people wanted. He was beaten by a segragationist.

    Wallace said, “I’ll never be ‘out-niggered’, again, adjusted his political sails and became the “states rights anti-integration” Democrat, the symbol of the segregated south. Only in his wheelchair did he return to his political roots of caring about poor people…

  • Heloise

    I think the Constitution should be amended to read that those who are not born in this country cannot hold high elected office, and those who do must prove that their grandparents on both sides were both in this country.

    This would NOT exclude folks but include more people.

    Heloise

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption12

    It’s not the constitution that’s the problem. A constitution cannot by definition make corruption illegal. Laws do that. And that’s up to the people. Our constitution gaurantees certain rights to the people and grants certain rights to the branches of government. The only reason it would need to be thrown out is if it made corruption a requirement for being elected, which it doesnt. Since it doesnt say corruption is a good thing, and since it doesnt say making laws against corruption is wrong, the answer is: make tougher laws against corruption.

    The constitution creates a government and enumerates certain rights. Beyond that, it’s up to us.

  • Lumpy

    This may be the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. Can you imagine the disaster of a constitution we’d get out of a convention full of the crazy one issue extremists who dominate politics today?

    We’re exttraordinarily lucky to have a constitution written in general terms on universal principles in a simpler age. We just need to actually pay attention to it.

  • Dean

    What the country needs most is a strict tightening of laws controlling our free-wheeling lobbyists and adding a new law guaranteeing the public hanging of any lobbyist or public official who is involved in bribery or other such crime.

  • http://voidnow.org David R. Remer

    Lumpy, you think human nature and political differences were different in 1776? You’d be wrong. Look at the vehement disagreements between Hamilton and Madison. And the issue of slavery which almost derailed the U.S. Constitution entirely.

    The problem with folks who don’t understand history is that they erroneously assume that human nature changes over the course of a few hundred years. It doesn’t.

    That said, my article does not call for convening a new Constitutional Convention. If you read it in its entirety, you may actually grasp what is being argued here. Should our current Constitution fail to save the nation from the corruption of politicians and wealthy donor agendas, a new Constitution may be in the cards for some generation in the future.

  • http://voidnow.org David R. Remer

    Dean, I agree with your drift. But, public square hangings? Whoa, a bit over the top to make a point don’t you think?

  • http://voidnow.org David R. Remer

    Pleaseexcusetheinterruption said: “A constitution cannot by definition make corruption illegal.”

    Really? Then what do you make of this from our Constitution? “No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.”

    Sounds like our Constitution made this particular kind of corruption illegal right in the body of the Constitution. With this as precedent, what is to prevent any Constitution from proscribing behaviors which constitute corruption of public office by its holder?

  • http://voidnow.org David R. Remer

    Heloise, thanks for the levity.

  • Dean

    Those involved in killing Linclon were publicly hanged. Public hanging should be brought back for those who cause great harm to the country.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption12

    If you read what I said I was making the distinction between laws and the constitution. The constitution gaurantees rights and a method for creating a government. That said, corruption is a lot more complex than the basic method prescribed by the constitution. Under that guideline it would be perfectly legal for me to pay off my local wetlands regulator to build a house smack dab in the middle of the swamp.

    You’ll note it doesnt prohibit special interest or lobby groups from giving presents does it? Just foreign governments, princes and kings.

    Now, my point is that if the constitution prescribed every action to be made or not made be govt officials, it would be thousands of pages long. Furthermore, that’s not the purpose of a constitution. A constitution establishes a method of government and certain rights on which it cannot infringe.

    The only reason I can think of throwing out a constitution would be if it demanded that lobbying and corruption be LEGAL. Our constitution doesnt limit it either way. It’s up to us to make laws – laws which would certainly fit within the context of our constitution – against corruption.

    Furthermore, you have contradicted yourself. Your article is all about how our constitution doesnt prohibit corruption properly.

    When I pointed out that a constitution is not made to regulate corruption, you break out quotes about how our constitution already prohbits corruption. This would seemingly contradict the thrust of your article.

  • http://voidnow.org David R. Remer

    Pleaseexcuse, man, you make some pretty outrageous allegations there. First you say the Constitution does not prohibit, it enables rights. I gave you an example of how you are wrong. I have seen this, “don’t confuse me with the facts” defense before. Nuff said about that.

    Second, you claim “Your article is all about how our constitution doesnt prohibit corruption properly.”

    Please, quote something from the article in context that makes that outrageous claim. Defend your statement. Since, I don’t have edit capacity for the article, you can be assured it has not changed.

    I enjoy good debate, and even critical thinking that logically and defensibly counters assertions in my articles. But, your critique here is baseless and false and the evidence of that is here in black and white.

    That said, I appreciate your commenting on the article, and many of your original points were quite logical and correct. Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

  • http://voidnow.org David R. Remer

    Dean, thanks for the reply. Seems to me America has enough death occuring in its streets and on its highways and in its hospitals. But, I see your point about deterrence. I just don’t agree with it. Many states have the death penalty. Doesn’t seem to deter capital crime much.

  • Lumpy

    In actuality I think it is you who missed my point’ david.

    If we cannot have a functional government with the extraordinary constitution we currently have, how could we be expected to come up with a decent one to replace it?

  • http://voidnow.org David R. Remer

    Lumpy, so your argument is that if this Constitution fails the nation, there’s no point in trying to improve adapt it. Sounds a bit defeatist to me. But, hey, we are talking pure hypothetical here.

    The problems are these: Political parties and big money agendas are preventing Congress persons from carrying out the responsibilities they are charged with, like fiscal responsibility, securing our borders, and maintaining a unified nation as in United States, instead of red and blue states similar the blue and gray states of the 1860’s.

    The laws required to change these circumstances must come from the politicians themselves. But, should they make such changes, their political parties and big money donors would abandon their reelection campaigns. Hence, the nation’s entire political system charged with managing the nation’s affairs is corrupted.

    As I said in the article. There are two ways for voters to respond. Remove incumbents until those left standing and the freshman replacements recognize that their reelection is even more beholding to their consitutents demanding responsible, accountable, and efficient management than to the wealthy donors, lobbyists, and political party leadership. And the other alternative is to allow the nation to fail, which would result in trying to create a new Constitutional government that would prevent a reoccurance.

    That is the point you missed in the article which was not so elaborately made as here, but, was posited in these exact terms.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption12

    First you say the Constitution does not prohibit, it enables rights. I gave you an example of how you are wrong.

    I didnt say that. The constitution obviously prohibits a wide range of actions. I said the constitution cant make corruption “illegal.” It makes it “unconstitutional.” There’s a difference between the LAW and the CONSTITUTION. That was my only point. All im trying to say is, laws against corruption etc. should be exactly that – LAWS.

    The constitution only gaurantees us a method for making those laws. The U.S. constitution provides ample opportunity to make such laws and even goes so far as to specify certain types of corruption that cannot be allowed – presents by kings, princes + foreign govts.

    Second, you claim “Your article is all about how our constitution doesnt prohibit corruption properly.”

    Please, quote something from the article in context that makes that outrageous claim. Defend your statement. Since, I don’t have edit capacity for the article, you can be assured it has not changed.

    OK. Ill quote something back to you from your article.

    “Perhaps my grandchildren will be part of the new Constitutional Congress. Hopefully, my daughter will teach her children what I have taught her about politics and it will be incorporated into the new Constitution as follows:

    We hold this truth to be self-evident: that money and individual power corrupt politics and governance. Therefore, in order to provide a more perfect union in which enlightened national and self interest may flourish without corruption, we lay these constraints upon office holders and those seeking office: ________________.”

    Those last two paragraphs would seem to imply there is something wrong with the current constitution and that any future constitution needs to specify exactly what actions office holders and seekers can take – to gaurd against corruption.

    Hence my statement “Your article is all about how our constitution doesnt prohibit corruption properly.”

    Again, all im saying is that the current constitution has ample room and would even encourage laws against corruption. We dont need to revise it.

  • http://voidnow.org David R. Remer

    Pleaseexcuse, I don’t mean to be pedantic here, but, the passage I quoted from the Constitution does precisely what you claim it doesn’t. It proscribes an activity that shall be deemed illegal by virtue of the Constitution.

    Second, logically, your argument has no merit in trying to distinguish between law and the Constitution. The Constitution is the FIRST body of law for the nation. As a body of FIRST law, all other laws must be measured against it to insure that no subsequent laws contradict the FIRST laws. The only method proscribed for altering these FIRST laws is by amendment.

    Your distinction between the two on this basis has no merit. There are differences between the Constitution and all subsequent laws that promulgate from it, but, to fail to recognize the Constitution is our First set of laws, is a fairly big oversight.

  • http://voidnow.org David R. Remer

    Pleaseexcuse, I agree with you, I too do not see any need to alter our Constitution, YET! If however, our nation fails economically from massive national debt and unmet debt obligations to both the America people and overseas investors at some point in the future, then, clearly, the system constructed, mutated, and altered under the present Constitution will have failed.

    Some will say it is a result of an inherent flaw in the concept of democracy, or a republic form of it. I personally would interpret as a failure of the best of intentions in our Constitution to provide checks and balances to safeguard the people’s commonwealth.

  • pleasexcusetheinterruption12

    There is a difference between the constitution and other laws. You said it yourself, and the constitutin says it too, all other laws must be passed in accordance with the constitution. It is a broad set of principles on which to base a government. Specifying every which way a government could be corrupt or considered corrupt as illegal is not the purpose of a Constitution. That’s the people’s job – practical laws against corruption need to be made. And as methods of corruption are constantly evolving, specifying them in the constitution would be pointless. As soon as a new “type” of corruption not specifically prohibited by the constitution evolved, it would have to be added to the hundreds of other laws in the constituion.

    The constitution contains unchanging principles for governance. It does not and should not specify every act an official should/shouldnt do.

  • Lumpy

    Again you miss the point.

    It’s not the constitution which is failing the nation but the nation and people who are failing to live up to the ideals of the constitution.

  • Dean

    Q.E.D.

  • Baronius

    Yes, let’s get rid of all those lobbyists, like:
    AAA
    AARP
    American Diabetes Association
    National Education Association

    and both of:
    American Life League
    NARAL

    and also:
    ACLU
    Federalist Society
    NAACP
    NRA

    and why not:
    Vote Out Incumbents Democracy

    or is there a chance that advocacy groups actually amplify the voice of the citizen?

  • Clavos

    I have to go with PETI, Lumpy, Ruvy and others. It’s not the Constitution that’s failing us, it’s our politicians and leaders and their human nature.

    David Remer writes:

    But the public has only two options, vote out incumbents regardless of which party, or overthrow the government, and convene a new Continental Congress and draft a new Constitution which starts with the old one, but, removes money and parties from their roles as primary movers of politicians.

    The problems we face aren’t inherent in the Constitution. To throw it out at this juncture simply doesn’t make sense.

    And, David, you also say:

    And the one single fundamental root cause, history will show, was our failure to educate our people sufficiently to vote in accordance with the lessons of history.

    With which I agree wholeheartedly, and which bolsters the idea that the Constitution is not the source of the nation’s malaise.

    I think we do need to throw out as many incumbents as we can.

  • http://voidnow.org David R. Remer

    Baronius, we don’t need, nor want, to end lobbying. We do need and want politicians to place a higher priority on the well-being of the nation and her future over the narrow interests of lobbyists.

  • http://voidnow.org David R. Remer

    Lumpy, time will tell if the Constitution was too weak to hold the nation together. Given the looming debt, entitlement defaults, and massive economic consequences of their convergence, it remains to be seen whether the Constitution can save the nation form ruin at the hands of the politicians which the Constitution grants power to.

    The Constitutution sought to grant power to politicians, then check and balance that power to protect the people from politician’s human nature. If the nation fails at the hands of the power the Constitution granted to politicians, then, the Constitution will have failed in its attempts to check and balance their excesses.

    The logic is inescapable. However, whether or not the Constitution fails, depends upon whether or not the voters can hold politicians accountable, and responsible at the polls. With an average reelection rate of over 90% for incumbents, regardless of how bad things get for America’s future, it is questionable whether the voters are capable of living up to their end of the responsibility granted them by our Constitution.

  • http://voidnow.org David R. Remer

    Clavos, I disagree. As I said in the article:

    But the public has only two options, vote out incumbents regardless of which party, or overthrow the government, and convene a new Continental Congress and draft a new Constitution which starts with the old one, but, removes money and parties from their roles as primary movers of politicians.

    Obviously, as president of Vote Out Incumbents Democracy, I hope and work to insure that the voters will hold politicians accountable and responsible at the polls by voting incumbents out each and every election in which they increase our national debt, fail to resolve the entitlement crisis looming, and fail to secure our borders and our nation’s future from assault from without.

  • http://voidnow.org David R. Remer

    pleaseexcuse, Prohibition in the 1920’s was a law embedded in the Constitution through the amendment process. Your argument that the Constitution is not law, has no merit. Certain elected Americans govern this nation on the basis of what? The legal (hence, law) dictates conferring that power unto them in the Constitution. The Constitution’s prescriptions determine in many ways what is legal and illegal as assessed by the Judiciary. Ergo, the Constitution is the First Law in America.

  • http://voidnow.org David R. Remer

    Clavos, see also my reply to Lumpy just above.

  • Arch Conservative

    While I do agree somewhat with your premise taht we need to get money out of politics Mr. Bremer, you also come off as the kind of who whines about government 24-7 and how it is the source of everyone’s problems without even entertaining the notion of perosanl responsibility.

    There’s an economic theory I learned about while in college. I don’t exactly recall who created the theory but I believe it to be true. The theory suggests that if all of the money, power, and influence in the world tomorrow were redistributed tomorrow so that everyone had an equal share, within something like 2 years the people that had the majority of it before it was redistributed would have the majority of it again.

    Why would this be so Mr. Bremer? Maybe because the people who had the power, money, and influence were smarter? Mayber they worked harder? Maybe they didn’t waste all of their time whining about the governemt?

    Do you think the only people doing well in America today are politicians and friends of politicians Bremer?

    Do you think no one in today’s American society has come from poverty or middle class to better themselves financially and professionally Bremer?

    If certain people have come from poverty to better themselves and others have not what is the reason for this?

    Yes there are corrupt politicians and they do sometimes make our lives harder but this does not absolve us all of our own personal responsibilities for our own lives. Life is not about entitlements and everyone having the same quality of life regardless of discrepencies they put forth in terms of bettering thier own lives. It always amazes me that people seem to think that this is what life should be like.

  • http://voidnow.org David R. Remer

    ArchConservative, do you believe we should not be complaining about the 9+ trillion dollar national debt and the looming entitlement crisis? How about porous borders 5 years after 9/11? Should we not complain about that either? How about the entitlement crisis which can and will bring our economy to its knees in my daughter’s lifetime?

    This article does not discuss economic theory, everyone is entitled to have one, I guess. But economic facts also exist, and our economic future is not sustainable unless some serious changes are made immediately. We citizens have not the power or authority under the Constitution to make those changes. We must rely upon the politicians. But, they are not taking the necessary steps.

    What do you propose? We all sit back like quite sheep and just let our children’s future continue to be undermined by the greed, avarice and partisan divide which are so prevalent in Congress today?

    Voting out incumbents is the one authority and power the Constitution DOES grant citizens to exercise authority over government when government fails in its repsonsiblilities. You call it whining and crying. I call it patriotic responsibility and love of country.

  • Heloise

    Anytime Dave, only I was not kidding.

    Heloise

  • Nancy

    Those currently in the executive and congress are of a class who have created for themselves a lifestyle of extraordinary privilege, including the ‘right’ to enrich themselves at the expense of the public they’re supposed to be serving, to vote for special interests absolutely damaging to the interests of the public at the expense of the public, even to keep themselves sacrosanct from the law itself – make themselves above the law itself, immune from investigation or prosecution. It is in our own best interests to vote these vultures out of office asap, ensure that those that should be investigated and prosecuted are held to account & severely punished (Mr. Cunningham was a good start, but he’s just a drop in what should be a very large bucket), and to strictly curtail & monitor the activities of the rest to ensure their priorities are to serve the public, not special interests or themselves.

    As mentioned above, as the current system holds, no candidate has a chance of escaping from the self-perpetuating stranglehold set up by the special interests and political parties. I fear it will take several elections’ worth of voting out incumbents before any of those in congress get the message, and it will take some kind of institution of a neutral, extra-congressional oversight tribunal exercising constant audits & checks over congresspersons before we could manage to get this problem under control…and considering that at this juncture congress itself will have to be the ones to vote for that situation, I predict it will be a cold day in hell before that happens.

  • Dean

    #30
    “is there a chance that advocacy groups actually amplify the voice of the citizen?”

    Does that include citizen Jack Abramoff’s advocacy groups?

    I know the “amplify” worked for him for several years in the White House and the Congress.

    Is there a chance a lot more “Jacks” are still out there?

    When Abramoff is paroled in a couple of years, he can tap his Swiss bank accounts and return to the good life lobbyists are accustomed to.

    That is “punishment” in America for subverting our government (but only the ones who get caught).

    A stronger punishment is needed to subvert those who are inclined to subvert to convince them not to subvert.

  • Lumpy

    Someone should retitle this thread “burning the first amendment” or “bill of rights – who needs one!”.

    It’s like a race between nancy, dean and david to see who can sell our rights out fastest and cheapest.

  • http://voidnow.org David R. Remer

    Nancy and Dean. Great points. Add to them, the inside trading on the Hill by our Congress people who invest based on what is happening in legislation in closed door committee rooms. Insider trading is illegal for everyone else, but, not for them.

    An inquiry was begun on this by a media source, about a year ago, if memory serves, and within days it disappeared from the media never to be heard from again.

  • http://voidnow.org David R. Remer

    What is Lumpy talking about? Voting out incumbents is how we can restore our rights and one law equally applicable to all, including politicians. Lumpy just wants to make the dialogue bumpy.

    But by all means, Lumpy, if you believe our future is brighter than ever, vote for the status quo. That is your right and obligation if that is what you truly believe. A right I have served 3.5 years in the Army defending. So, please, be sure to vote and honor military service which defends it for you.

  • Dean

    Someone should retitle this thread “let crooked lobbyists run loose in the White House and the Halls of Congress” or “burn down the jails – who needs them!”.

    It’s like a race Lumpy and his cohorts are in to see who can sell our rights out fastest and cheapest to protect crooked lobbyists.

  • Dean

    #28
    “It’s not the constitution which is failing the nation but the nation and people who are failing to live up to the ideals of the constitution.”

    Well said, Lumpy.

    But who are the people most responsible for failing the nation and the ideals of the constitution?

    I’ll give you a clue.

    There are 535 of them along with a cabal of associates down the street, and they cavort in Washington most of the time.

  • http://www.nationalvanguard.com/ Richard Brodie

    I fear it will take several elections’ worth of voting out incumbents before any of those in congress get the message, and it will take some kind of institution of a neutral, extra-congressional oversight tribunal exercising constant audits & checks over congresspersons

    What makes you think the individuals in one more “oversight” bureaucracy will be any less subject to corruption than are those they would be “auditing and checking?”

    Getting rid of the corruptEES will solve nothing. They will just be replaced by a different group which the system will very soon corrupt in turn. Get rid of the corruptORS, the lobbyists, and in particular the biggest of them all, the most costly and dangerous one, the one that keeps getting us into war after war, the Jewish-Zionist-Israeli Lobby.

  • http://kanrei.blogspot.com Brad Schader

    I think rather than write a new one we should try to use the one we have. Over half our laws today are unconstitutional violations of the 10th Amendment because there has never been an amendment passed to give the feds those powers. We need people who actually know thier constitution. The problem is that most people have not read it since they were children and therefore think of it as a child would. They must mentally grow up and know their government like they know thier parents: that they can do bad things and are not always right.

  • http://voidnow.org David R. Remer

    Richard, the anti-incumbents argue that the political party leadership, coveting control of government over all else, will reform themselves if the reelection of their members depends on it. That is how the anti-incumbent movement will achieve its aims, by making reelection depend upon citizen majority expected results from our government, like fiscal responsibility, secure borders against both terrorists and illegal job seekers, saving the safety nets in an affordable and sustainable fashion, and fair and transparent voting results in our elections.

  • http://voidnow.org David R. Remer

    Brad, education cannot be overstated as an essential and vital need to a successful democracy, republic, direct, or parliamentary.

    But, the 10th Amendment is so broad in its wording, it does not hold the constrictive power on federal power that your comment implies you think it should. The 10th amendment says powers not proscribed shall fall to the states or, the people.

    That leaves a huge door open to say the representatives of the people, all the people, is the Congress. Ergo, what begins as a constraint on federal power actually circularly remands power back to the Congress (the people). One of the problems with a Republic is that references to ‘the people’ in matters of government and law by definition, many argue, means the Congress.

    The will of the people in a Republic is expressed through the Congress. When the Constitution says in the 10th Amendment, “or to the people”, it gives the people the power to decide on that power through their Congress. A republic is no panacea, just as direct and parliamentary governments have some serious weaknesses inherent to them. This is one of the inherent weaknesses in the concept of a republic, or our Constitution, depending on which side of the fence one wants to defend the other.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Just for the sake of balance I have to point out that not all of the incumbents are bad. I can name at least a dozen senators and at least as many in the house who are fairly reasonable, and if presented with a strong cabal of new members who want to cut spending and get rid of some of the garbage laws that are on the books, they’d at the least go along and might provide enthusiastic support and even leadership. Certain of them are just waiting for an opportunity to act on their best instincts.

    For a start on identifying the worthwhile folks on the hill, take a look at the endorsements of the Republican Liberty Caucus the one thing you can count on from all of them is fiscal conservatism, which is a good starting point.

    In the enthusiasm to vote incumbents out I certainly wouldn’t want to lose incumbents like Ron Paul, John Sununu and Jeff Flake.

    And the truth is that with maybe a quarter of the incumbents not hideously corrupt and in need of flushing, all you have to do is replace a bit more than a third of the total membership of either house to get a majority. That could be done in 2 or 3 election cycles.

    Dave

  • http://voidnow.org David R. Remer

    Good points Dave, except that the Republocrats are the problem as party entities. Their leadership won’t allow their party’s Congress persons to follow their principles or solutions toward resolving America’s big problems. The leadership threatens to revoke their committee assignments or threatens to not allow their bills to exit committee. This happens on both sides of the aisle. And the RNC and DNC are incredibly dependent upon big money interests to fight for majority control. These are the mechanisms of corruption even of well intended Congress persons.

    You and I and many others may disagree on which incumbents need to go and need to stay. And that disagreement is what, in the past, has prevented an anti-incumbent movement to take hold, like Jack Gargins. The new movement dodges this divisiveness by simply asking voters to vote for results.

    If the government isn’t producing the results voters expect, they have an obligation to vote out the incumbents. Period. The instant one begins to cherry pick which politicians are more responsible than others, they have left the anti-incumbent movement, and joined the “They are all bad except mine” club.

    Voters are beginning to understand that voting for intentions and rhetorical promises doesn’t solve problems. To get problems solved, they have to vote for results. If government performance is improving, there is room to vote for incumbents. But, if it isn’t improving, then at the very least one can accurately say all incumbents are ineffective. And that is justification enough for the anti-incumbent organizations to vote out incumbents.

    Obviously, Republican and Democrat loyalists will object to this movement. But, then, they are the problem, not the solution.

  • http://www.elitistpig.com Dave Nalle

    Here’s a depressing thought. Let’s say your anti-incumbent movement takes off. Remember the popular term limits movement of the 1990s where a bunch of candidates promised not to serve more than 2 terms, and then changed their minds once they were in office. Using that as a similar example, can’t we expect your anti-incumbents to start acting just like the incumbents after a few years in office?

    Seems depressingly realistic.

    Dave

  • SFC SKI

    Personally, I’d like to see politicians being called on back-door dealing, and held to account for it.

    More importantly, I’d really like to see an elected body more concerned with accomplishing something for the good of the nation as a whole, not just the band of opportunistic, self-deluding, dishonest, foolish partisans that we the short-sighted people have apparently tolerated for far too long. I guess that’s the crux of the biscuit; we get politics as usual because even though we know we are being lied to, we tolerate it and continue to elect or reelect those who serve only themselves. (this is for both parties, I am apolitical out of disdain).

    The crusty ol’ Sarge in me says “make ‘em all live in Iraq for a few months, they’ll see what’s important”.

    I love my country, but sometimes I have a hard time believing the crap that rolls down from Capitol Hill.

    Maybe, I haven’t considered all the ramifications of term limits, but I don’t see a downside.

  • http://voidnow.org David R. Remer

    Dave, that is why the anti-incumbent must remain anti-incumbent, election after election, until politicians recognize that their reelection depends not as much on wealthy donors and party leadeship, as doing right by the people and their children’s future, in terms of American becoming More secure, More prosperous, and More free from intrusion and the dictates of government in carrying out their private lives.

    The anti-incumbent movement can not be a one election fix, but, an across-elections standard by which voters hold representatives accountable for solving more problems than they create. About 95% of all congressional politicians want reelection more than anything else.

    If the voters deny them that reelection based on poor government results and products, to be sure, remaining incumbents and freshman will alter their priorities; conforming them to demands of the voters for accountable, responsible, and more transparent governance. Nothing so motivates politicians like the prospect of not being reelected. That is the power the people have over government, if they will exercise it. The anti-incumbent movement is only the vehicle to make voters aware of the power they had granted them by the Constitution all along.

  • http://voidnow.org David R. Remer

    SFC Ski, one sure downside to term limits is this: Politicians who DON’T desire to be term limited must vote to limit their own terms in order for term limits to become the law of the land for Congress. They won’t do that in sufficient numbers to ever pass term limits.

    That is the inescapable downside to term limits. Before you can have term limits, you must have a broad anti-incumbent movement that says, we won’t reelect any politician who fails to vote for term limits. But, once a broad anti-incumbent movement has the power force term limits, they also have the power to force responsible, accountable, and transparent governance, thus eliminating the need for term limits in the first place.