Bill of Federalism/States Rights

[larrymcg421]

This is porn for Neil Boortz.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

My ideal implementation of the line-item would look something like, the President has the power to veto specific parts of a bill, but the bill doesn't immediately become law thereafter. No cherry-picking. Rather, once the President has exercised the line item veto, it goes back to both Houses for a straight, up-or-down vote. No procedural tactics, no new amendments or riders, nothing. In fact, mandate that in the Amendment just to be safe. Congress must, when presented with such a bill, immediately vote to accept or reject the changes made. If rejected, the bill fails, and you get to go back to square one. If accepted, then the bill, as amended, becomes law.

So the president signs a budget bill with items vetoed; you're saying you want the bill to go back to both Houses for a vote as a whole or item-by-item? His version to me reads that once the president signs a budget bill, it becomes law with the changes; however, Congress can then vote to override any or all of the vetoes. That seems to me a more logical approach rather than saying Congress has to take all of the changes or none of the changes.

There was a reason why the framers didn't give the president a line item veto. It's simply more power for the executive branch. It would in theory help with wasteful spending but it's just too much of a political weapon to give to the president.

Article [of Amendment 9] -- [The Rights Retained by the People]
Section 1. All persons are equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights which they retain when forming any government, amongst which are the enjoying, defending and preserving of their life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting real and personal property, making binding contracts of their choosing, and pursuing their happiness and safety.

Section 2. The due process of law shall be construed to provide the opportunity to introduce evidence or otherwise show that a law, regulation or order is an infringement of such rights of any citizen or legal resident of the United States, and the party defending the challenged law, regulation, or order shall have the burden of establishing the basis in law and fact of its conformity with this Constitution.

I'm surprised this hasn't gotten more play. From looking up Barnett's work, it makes sense -- he's a Libertarian and this is his amendment to let everyone smoke all the marijuana they want without federales getting involved.

"Pursuing their happiness" could well indeed open doors to gay marriage, abortion on demand for anyone, assisted suicide and even shooting someone who looks at you funny (protecting personal property). Talk about opening up a can of worms.

His 9th and 10th amendments are essentially aimed at repealing any law that applies to civil liberties and eliminating judicial review. I understand the attraction of a Libertarian society, but I'm not sold it would work.

I find some glaring holes in some of the wording but the 10th one really bothers me. "The words and phrases of this Constitution shall be interpreted according to their meaning at the time of their enactment." First, what the courts are supposed to is interpret what those words and phrases mean. Even now we argue over what the framers meant because the meaning of words and phrases change over time.

But let's take it for what it says. When the 2nd Amendment was ratified, Arms meant muskets. So, are we to conclude that the 2nd Amendment means that the right to bear muskets shall not be infringed? Does that mean that we can restrict the right to own handguns and other more powerful guns?

"The press" at the time of adoption meant printed materials; does that mean the first amendment does not apply to broadcast?

As someone who does support states rights, I also have a problem with his expansion of the first amendment to eliminate campaign finance laws. By extending freedom of speech protections to campaign finance, you've just eliminated any campaign finance laws any states have passed.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

So the president signs a budget bill with items vetoed; you're saying you want the bill to go back to both Houses for a vote as a whole or item-by-item? His version to me reads that once the president signs a budget bill, it becomes law with the changes; however, Congress can then vote to override any or all of the vetoes. That seems to me a more logical approach rather than saying Congress has to take all of the changes or none of the changes.

There was a reason why the framers didn't give the president a line item veto. It's simply more power for the executive branch. It would in theory help with wasteful spending but it's just too much of a political weapon to give to the president.

Well, here's the thing. The up-or-down vote I'm talking about is to accept the bill as amended by the President - not to override his veto. Nothing changes in that respect. If Congress wants to override any or all of the line item vetoes, they can still do that as already provided for by the Constitution.

What I'm talking about is, here's this bill Congress presents. Maybe they load it with riders that have nothing to do with the bill in question, or maybe it's a perfectly straight bill that the President just has some objections to. Whatever the case, he exercises the line-item and sends it back to Congress.

Congress now has options. If they don't have the votes for a veto override, either as a whole or on specific line-item vetoes, then they can accept the bill, as amended by the President, with a straight yes-or-no vote. No adding additional riders or changing the bill further; they had their shot with that. They can agree to the changes, or they can shoot the bill down entirely.

That way, instead of going back to square one just because the President vetoed the bill, you can maybe save a lot of the legwork by letting the President say "Well, this stuff I'm okay with, this stuff is a dealbreaker for me." It's a more specific framework than what you get with a traditional veto.

At any rate, I'm not proposing stripping Congress of its existing veto override powers, just expanding the President's veto powers in such a way that he can refine legislation without being able to cherry-pick. If he exercises the line-item, Congress would still have to approve the changes for the bill to become law.

Otherwise, the line item veto turns basically into a formally codified version of President Bush's signing statements, don't you think?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

The progressive income tax definitely does cause a lot of leeching. But I thought that's what it's intended to do.

I just think it sucks that California gets thrown through the mud on this one. Why isn't Alabama trashed for taking way more money than they contribute into the federal government? The feds pillage through California and then blame them for not being able to balance a budget.

[Tigercat]

My Grandpa's life lessons from 20 years ago didn't mention anything about me making a living on a computer, so I guess I shouldn't...

I think a degree of libertarianism is a necessary foil or cornerstone(depending on your viewpoint) in a society such as ours. Lifting it on the back on what our forefathers supposedly "intended" is seriously weak sauce.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I just think it sucks that California gets thrown through the mud on this one. Why isn't Alabama trashed for taking way more money than they contribute into the federal government? The feds pillage through California and then blame them for not being able to balance a budget.

Because, frankly, California shouldn't be depending on the federal government and ITS spending when worrying about its own budget. Whether or not Alabama is sucking up more of the slop from the trough than its fair share doesn't (or shouldn't) hamper California from living responsibly on the income it does have.

You don't go $20 billion into the red on spending and then sit back and wait for the feds to cut a check. You balance the budget based on the income you've got, and if you get MORE than that, then you can either sock it away for down times, or spend it on infrastructure while you've got it.

[ISiddiqui]

Well also that and its a morality play... on what happens when you give too much direct democracy.

[Huckleberry]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Yeah we can, because that's what an amending convention would turn into with such a rigid document .

Either that, or he's got no clue how unworkable a rigid Constitution would be.

Interesting, you projected your intepretation of one of the proposed amendments onto me and then declared that if I were talking of the standard Constitutional convention outlined in Article V then I have no clue about something else.

The reality is that I'm talking about an Article V Constitutional convention. And that I also completely disagree with your theory on how the proposed amendment regarding interpreting the Constitution according to the language at the time of ratification would make it anymore rigid or unworkable than it currently is. The current situation is that the document offers little help on how to interpret it and when you combine that with the fact that the Judicial branch tasked itself (outside of its delegated powers within the document itself) with intepreting the document and declaring whether or not laws or government actions comply with it, you have a problem.

Personally, I agree with the implications and results of Marbury but disagree that the Judicial had the right to make that decision.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Interesting, you projected your intepretation of one of the proposed amendments onto me and then declared that if I were talking of the standard Constitutional convention outlined in Article V then I have no clue about something else.

The reality is that I'm talking about an Article V Constitutional convention. And that I also completely disagree with your theory on how the proposed amendment regarding interpreting the Constitution according to the language at the time of ratification would make it anymore rigid or unworkable than it currently is. The current situation is that the document offers little help on how to interpret it and when you combine that with the fact that the Judicial branch tasked itself (outside of its delegated powers within the document itself) with intepreting the document and declaring whether or not laws or government actions comply with it, you have a problem.

Personally, I agree with the implications and results of Marbury but disagree that the Judicial had the right to make that decision.

Then you basically took my statement (btw, which started the whole thing) and totally misconstrued it. Congrats.

May I remind you that you were the one that took umbrage at my statement about the OP.