Seven ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution

[lewisipso]

Rick Perry has many ideas about how to change the American government's founding document. From ending lifetime tenure for federal judges to completely scrapping two whole amendments, the Constitution would see a major overhaul if the Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate had his druthers.
Perry laid out these proposed innovations to the founding document in his book, Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington. He has occasionally mentioned them on the campaign trail. Several of his ideas fall within the realm of mainstream conservative thinking today, but, as you will see, there are also a few surprises.
1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution....

Seven ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution | The Ticket - Yahoo! News

[Jenna]

[Five-0]

Agree with all except #1.

[jmur5074]

I agree with all of them except #6.


Overall sounds good to me.

[Car 4]

Hard for me to ar4gue with any of it.


Car 4

[Xiphos]

I can't argue with any of it but it's a pipe dream.

[MacLean]

No.

Screwing with the constitution has some serious drawbacks, the first of which is once you open up on it you open up on all of it.

Number 2 is absolutely absurd. The separation of powers exists the way it does for good reason - to protect us from the tyranny of the majority.

The court is just now striking down the *legislated* gun control debacle brought about by fear and anguish following the death of a much loved President. If congress could overturn the court, our last best remedy for constitutional error would be gone.

Rick Perry just lost my vote, and I had hopes for the man.

Defining marriage and legislating behavior is a STATE power, not a Federal power. Only the States were intended to have police powers over such topics.

The constitution protects everyone, not just the sacred cows of the religious conservative.

[Jks9199]

For convenience -- the seven things listed are:
1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges
2. Congressional override of the USSC with a 2/3 vote
3. End income tax by repealing the 16th Amendment
4. End direct election of Senators; repeal the 17th Amendment and return to legislatures appointing/electing Senators
5. Require a balanced federal budget
6. Constitutional definition of marriage as one man+one woman
7. Make abortion illegal.

Reading how they make some of those claims, I think a few are being overstated. For example, number 6 seems, on reading the article, more like he simply said that IF the Christian Right wants it changed -- there's a process to follow. Don't know for sure -- but that's how I read his quoted statement there.

I have problems with several of these. Don't mess with the balance of power in the Constitution. Look what's happened with the Congress allowing the Executive to usurp some of its powers. That covers 1, 2, and 4. All ending direct election of the Senate would do is make politics even more of a closed club. 1 and 2 directly attack the balance of power.

If you eliminate the income tax -- how are you going to replace the money in the budget? I'm not a fan of the current system; it's too complicated, there are too many loopholes, and it really doesn't meet the goal of being "fair" (whatever that means...)

I don't see marriage or abortion as a federal issue. I'm personally strongly opposed to abortion -- but that doesn't mean I think the feds need to set the law. Gay marriage? State level, not federal.

One of the most brilliant things about the Constitution is that it defined the relationship of the people to the government, and related the level of control with the closeness to the people. In other words -- those levels of government with the most impact on our day to day lives are local, and answer most directly to us.

[ChesCopPodz]

Screwing with the constitution has some serious drawbacks, the first of which is once you open up on it you open up on all of it.

This. You can't just tailor it to whomever is in office currently. This guy does it, then if/when the next super liberal is elected, there would be nothing to stop him from altering it to the extreme left.

Besides, as Obama is painfully finding out, it's near impossible for the the president alone to back his play when he makes pipe dream promises on the campaign trail.

[Xiphos]

It's all fantasy. "How would you fix it if you could" kind of stuff. I don't think any of that would ever make 2/3 support. Pure pipe dream.

I've never liked Perry and never would vote for him. He's a chameleon. He's conservative and brash now because it's popular.