Is this what they meant?

Looking at the US Constitution, it seems apparent that the Founding Fathers intended to limit the Federal Government to functions and actions specifically called out in the document.  The structure of the document seems to envisage a process where new functions and actions would be viewed as unconstitutional until allowed under amendments to the Constitution.  This has not been the way the government has evolved.  Rather, new functions and actions have been routinely undertaken via Federal laws, Presidential edict, or other mechanism.  A classic "fox guarding the hen-house" situation.

For unknown reasons, the Supreme Court has been complicit in this by often ruling that the Constitution intends some government function by implication because it was not ruled out.  In this manner the Supreme Court has de facto continuously revised the Constitution without following the Amendment process specified in that document.

Examples of Federal incursions into "unconstitutional" areas include entire Departments (Labor, Health & Human Services, Environmental Protection, Housing and Urban Development, etc.) and specific legislation (Defense of Marriage Act, Abortion Laws, some Immigration Laws, Marriage Laws, Adoption Laws, Americans with Disabilities Act, Equal Pay Act, Minimum Wage, some Education Laws, Health Care Laws etc.).  Despite the enticing titles of some of the legislation, the Founding Fathers intended that the States make decisions in these areas.  They celebrated diversity instead of trying to force everyone into the same mold.

In many of the above cases, it might be perfectly reasonable for the Federal government to perform the functions and actions that they have taken on -- but not in the way it has been accomplished.  If the States desire such functions and actions by the Federal government, the constitution should be amended to provide the authority for such functions and actions.  The fact the Founding Fathers provided the amendment process demonstrates their intention that the Constitution be both a living document and literally interpreted.

Robocalls

Unsolicited phone calls are driving me crazy -- especially the "robocalls" from machines!  Despite being on the "do not call list" I still get calls soliciting for credit cards, roofing, funeral services (these will probably never end), various vacations, and solicitations disguised as surveys.  The political calls have pushed me to the edge.  Its time we did something about it.  Here are some ideas:

Keep track of the number of calls you get from each political candidate.  When the election comes, vote for whoever made the fewest calls.  Pretty soon candidates would figure out that making calls is an ineffective and counterproductive approach.

Pass State laws that require an actual person to answer within 10 seconds if the person receiving a robocall pushes the "0" button.  This would make robocalls too costly for most organizations.

Presidential Race

Does it seem like the party running against an incumbent President often chooses a candidate that is highly unlikely to win?

Bush vs. Kerry

Clinton vs. Dole

Reagan vs. Mondale

Nixon vs. McGovern

Obama vs. Romney(?)

Is there any dispassionate, unbiased person out there who honestly believes that Kerry, Dole, Mondale, McGovern, or Romney had/have a chance to win unless the incumbent was exposed as a cross-dressing child pornographer shortly before the election?  Kinda makes one wonder what is going on in the primary election process that arrives at these candidates.  

 There are several possibilities:
1) The opposing (to the incumbent) party may have decided that it is impossible to unseat the incumbent short of a miracle, so the selected candidate is sacrificial fodder.  This seems unlikely due to the gargantuan egos and incredible work involved, but the slate of Bozos the Republicans have fielded for this election certainly brings the possibility to mind.
2) The opposing party may be manipulating the primaries so that a powerful candidate (within the party) is selected at a time least likely for success.  This might be done to push aside the candidate in the future so a more desirable candidate is selected for a more winnable election.  This too seems unlikely because it implies a secret, well-coordinated, focused effort within the party hierarchy.  Neither secrecy, nor coordination, nor focus are hallmarks of any actions within our political system.
3) The media might be manipulating the outcome by coverage patterns for certain candidates in order to steer results toward their favored candidate.  While I believe the media does a disservice to the public in their coverage, I don't believe they are capable of a successful overt effort to steer the election for the same reasons as the parties being unable to steer it.
4) The primary process is actually what it seems to be.  While severely disconcerting, this seems to be the most likely situation -- Heaven help us!




 

Race to the bottom

A student at Georgetown University's School of Government sat next to me on a cross country flight the other day.  We discussed this blog at some length and she expressed a concern that allowing States to make their own choices about items currently handled at the Federal level would lead to a "race to the bottom" (RTB).  The concern is that if one State is different from another residents will depart the State providing fewer benefits and move to the State providing greater benefits causing a counter-productive catch up approach from the first State.  Ultimately everyone loses.  Having subsequently thought some about this, I present the following thoughts:
1) There are countless counter examples to the RTB.  Virtually every business encounters and deals with competitors and few make the decisions that drive both out of business.  Most either find a win-win path or only one prospers -- but at least that one does prosper.
2) The functions currently performed by the Federal government consume resources that would presumably become State resources (assuming the total outlay to governments by citizens remains constant).  Since citizens of States are not currently leaving the State, and since presumably the State would be a better judge of what its residents need, it is likely that the same financial resources would be likely to make the residents happier rather than anxious to leave the State.
3) Perhaps a bad example given its fiscal condition,but California has for many years had significantly more restrictive laws in the areas of environmental effects than required by or implemented by other States.  This did not cause any mass migration.  Similarly other States have had unusually beneficial welfare and/or health care conditions, once again causing no significant migrations to or from other States.
As businesses that have opened plants in other areas have found, it is very difficult to get most people to move -- even when their moving costs are paid by the company.  Most of us want to be right where we are locationwise.
Further consider that we're talking about a survivability issue for the decision makers in a State.  If the Governor and the Legislature of a State make decisions leading to a RTB, they will lose their positions and livelihood -- their very survival as they have defined themselves will be at risk.  According to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs their survival will dominate all other factors in their decision processes and they will refuse to enter a RTB.
Now weigh the above against the benefits of allowing, tracking and reporting on fifty different approaches as discussed in an earlier article.  Diversity has great potential for leading to convergence on a far better solution for every State.  I just can't buy RTB as a significant risk.   

Seeking help

At this writing only a few hundred people have viewed this blog.  I originally envisioned that the ideas represented herein would become broadly discussed conversation topics and compete with the relatively trivial but seductive discussions and the major items with no proposed practical solutions that politicians seem to want to lead us into today.  It is not evident that this is happening.  I solicit your help in two ways:
1) If there are a substantial number of items in this blog that match your views, please send the link to everyone you know who might be interested.  It would also be good to include your personal perspective.
2) Please provide comments with your perspective on this blog or other items associated with the Federal Government and perhaps we can get some meaningful debate generated.

Thanks
Ron

Additional Material on the Founding Fathers

Several people have asked about more material on the Framers.  There are numerous books available and many individual biographies of the more popular members of the Constitutional Convention.  Below are a few interesting references that provide more details than appear in this blog but are much more concise than the books.


William Pierce, one of the Framers, wrote a short biographical sketch of the others.  His sketchs, together with other interesting materials, are available at:

http://www.usconstitution.net/constframe.html

A different and interesting perspective of some of these men as citizen soldiers is provided by the U. S. Army Center for Military History at:

http://www.history.army.mil/books/RevWar/ss/ss-fm.htm

A geographically oriented description of these individuals, excerpted from Carol Berkin's book, A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution, is available at:

http://constitutioncenter.org/ncc_edu_Founders.aspx

Summary of Tax Plan

At this time, more people have read Abraham Baldwin's discussion of taxes than any other of this blog's entries.  Given the changes over the last 200+ years it is likely that Baldwin would recognize the need for taxes other than import and export duties, but it is also likely that the complexity and inherently bureaucratic structure of today's tax system would be appalling to him.  The tax plan below is a summary of what he might have proposed if he was willing to accept the notion of taxes at all. 


INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES


1) Income taxes are paid by employers on their employees at a flat rate with no deductions. No individual is required to file an income tax return.
2) Citizen employees, regardless of income level, are returned a single payment monthly including the following:
     a) a sum equal to the flat tax rate applied to the current poverty level, plus
     b) other government payments to individuals such as social security, disability, unemployment, etc., plus
     c) any incentives the Congress deems desirable, for example, a homeowner incentive, a child care incentive, or other.
3) No government payments or incentives are paid to non-citizens whether or not taxes have been collected on their earnings.
4) Unearned income of individuals is not taxed.
5) The flat tax rate may be changed by Congress but changes do not take effect for four years from the date the new rate is established


CORPORATE INCOME TAXES


1) U.S. industries producing tangible products that have a continuing market after first sale pay no income taxes on the portion of the earnings from producing such products
2) Industries, such as service industries, producing other than tangible products (as described above) pay taxes on earnings at a flat rate with no deductions
3) Industries headquartered or based outside the U.S. are taxed at the flat rate regardless of the type of product they produce

Proposed 37th Amendment -- Support for States

Any majority of States may direct the Federal government to perform any function deemed desirable by those states, provided:
1) the function is not precluded by the US Constitution
2) the entire cost of the function (for all States) is borne by the States directing the Federal government to perform the function
3) the State Executives, with approval of their legislatures, will be the deciding authorities for requesting such functions. 

Proposed 36th Amendment -- Term Limits

No person may serve more than a single term in any elected office within the Federal government.  Persons may serve in multiple elected offices such as one term as Representative and one term as Vice-President.
Representatives shall be elected for a term of four years with one-fourth of the representatives elected each year.

Proposed 35th Amendment -- District Boundaries

Congressional district boundaries are to be chosen so that States are divided into the appropriate number of districts, each with the same population, minimizing the sum of the perimeter of all the districts.

Proposed 34th Amendment -- Constitutional Convention

During the course of the calendar year of each one-hundred year anniversary of the original ratification of this Constitution, a Constitutional Convention shall be convened.  Members of the Constitutional Convention shall consist of the senior sitting Senators of each State, the Supreme Court Justices, and the Vice President of the United States who will act as Chairperson of the Convention.  No other person shall be privy to or present at the Convention.  The Constitutional Convention shall propose any amendments approved by two-thirds of Convention members for ratification by a normal ratification process.  During the course of the Convention, all members will be sequestered and have no outside contact with any person, entity, or external information source.  Votes taken at the Convention shall only be subsequently reported as passing or failing without identifying individual votes.

Proposed 33rd Amendment -- Service

Every citizen shall complete two years of National service between the ages of 18 and 50.  Such service may consist of working for any Federal government entity or any State or Local government entity approved by Congress.  Full-time uncompensated volunteer work for a qualified non-profit organization will also qualify. This service is a condition of citizenship and will result in loss of citizenship if not completed by the age of 50.  This Amendment applies to anyone who has not reached the age of fifteen at the time of ratification.  The Congress shall assure that opportunities for such service are available to all citizens.

Proposed 32nd Amendment -- Information

The Executive shall gather and provide to all Citizens all available information to inform their decisions about their lives, businesses, and other interests.  Personally identifiable and national security information is excepted but these exceptions should only be used with great care.

Proposed 31st Amendment -- Responsible Contracts

Government entities contracting with other government or non-government entities shall be responsible for assuring timely and financially sound execution of such contracts.  Should, during the period of the contract, the cost estimate for completion of the contract ever exceed the originally agreed upon price by more than 15%, the contract shall be immediately terminated and the original performing entity shall deliver all completed work and shall not be allowed to provide any additional item(s) included in the contract at time of termination.

Proposed 30th Amendment -- Debt

Within any thirty year period, starting with ratification of this Amendment and again each time the debt reaches zero, the Nation’s debt shall be zero at least one time.  The President and the Congress shall budget to assure this occurs.

Should the thirty year period expire without a zero debt occurring, Congress may not create any new budget line items and each existing line item's budget will be reduce by 5% in the next year.  This will continue each year until zero debt is achieved.

Proposed 29th Amendment -- Line Items

Prior to passage of legislation, any member of the House of Representatives may demand a separate vote by that body on any separable (line item) portion of the proposed legislation.  If such vote results in the item in question receiving less than a majority of a quorum it shall be stricken from the Bill.

Proposed 28th Amendment -- Legislation

Each law passed by the Congress shall have the following characteristics:   
1. An expiration date of not more than ten years in the future shall be included in the legislation
2. Regardless of the expiration date, at time of passage the anticipated lifetime financial impact of the law shall become a firm budget commitment for future budgets unless or until the legislation and associated financial commitments are subsequently repealed
3. All costs associated with the law shall be borne by the nation rather than States, local governments, or individuals

Amending the Constitution

A series of Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, hopefully reflecting the intent of the Founding Fathers, will be included in the next series of these blogs.  The rationale behind these proposed amendments is included in the previous discussions by some of the Founding Fathers.  Note that many of these amendments are not meant to stand alone but rather to work in conjunction with each other.  Also note that many items suggested in the previous discussions are not reflected because they do not require amending the Constitution.


The first ten amendments, The Bill of Rights, provide for rights of liberty and property for the people and the States.  James Madison introduced these ten amendments (and two others) at the 1st Congress.  They were meant to correct deficiencies in the original Constitution.  The proposed  ten amendments described in following articles are meant to correct operational deficiencies in the way the Federal Government operates by establishing an incentive structure that will lead to Government behavior more consistent with the intent of the Founding Fathers.

George Mason Speaks on Gerrymandering

“As a professional politician from Virginia, the largest State in my time, I have an appreciation for the value of Gerrymandering and might have wished to employ it during my tenure.  However, I believe my record of having refused to sign the Constitution because it did not include a Bill of Rights makes it clear that fairness and justice are clear values of mine.

I was amazed at the extent to which the boundaries of Congressional districts are manipulated to assure a particular party can win the district.  For example, North Carolina’s 12^th Congressional District, shown above, has the characteristics of extreme gerrymandering.  But not as extreme as Illinois’ 4^th Congressional district which is so severely gerrymandered that it almost appears to be two districts rather than one.  Such manipulation of the populace is contrary to all the principles upon which this Nation was founded.

Since allowing arbitrary selection of Congressional districts obviously results in manipulation by the group in power to remain in power, and since this practice results in perversion of the objectives  in the founding of the nation, a solution must be found.

  

A formula for drawing district boundaries that would provide appropriate representation would have been difficult if not impossible until the advent of computers.  Today it is quite simple to define such a formula and an appropriate one is to choose the districts so each contains equal population and so that the sum of the perimeter of all the districts is a minimum.