Forum Post: How to change the constitution without going through congress
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 17, 2011, 10:19 a.m. EST by Deepthought
(4)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
If 34 states decide to work together, then under the provisions of the constitution (Article 5) they can form a Constitutional Convention and override the will of Congress. This means we the people can make new amendments without going through the politicians that have obviously been bought and paid for by special interests. I propose four possible amendments,
First: No person running for a political office may receive more than $1000.00 (adjusted for inflation over time) from any individual person, pac or company. Also, it would be a federal criminal offense for any person caught forcing another person to contribute to a specific party or person and any company that allows such actions as a policy must be broken up.
Second: Any corporation with an impact on our GDP greater than a X (let economist figure this part out) amount or that enables such worth to be warranted or insured will be broken up into smaller segments. If said company is not a US company it shall not be not allowed to function in our country. Finally, at no time shall the government attempt to save any company that has become "too big to fail".
Third: No war may be fought without paying for it through bonds, taxes or other instruments. No loans from foreign powers may be made for the purposes of engaging in warfare or violence of any kind unless we are fighting on and for our own soil.
Fourth: The budget must be balanced. It is not permitted for the government to enslave the people to debt. Any congress that should knowingly enact laws that causes the budget to become unbalanced is to be summarily dismissed after new elections are held. Any cuts in government spending that are enacted to balance the budget must be distributed fairly among ALL the agencies of the government, no exceptions.
1) Punishment should include jail time.
2) One of the reasons for saving "too big to fail" companies was the collateral damage to their customers and suppliers. They should be taken over and restructured, not allowed to collapse. This should be % of the market not GDP.
4) Define balanced? During the Great Depression we borrowed to invest in pubic infrastructure to create jobs. It was a net gain for the country. One of the big problems our country has right now is that during the good times we weren't paying back the loans we took during the bad times. Bonds are much less inflationary than printing money. Now the job situations is so bad and the revenue is so low we have few choices.
Not only do I disagree with some of these proposals (#1 does too little to regulate campaign financing, #4 is just foolish), but it's unclear why the legitimate problems you're addressing (corruption, concentration of wealth, out-of-control debt) have to be solved by a revision of the Constitution instead of just passing regular laws.
So I reject this proposal, both for substantial reasons and procedural reasons.
Your objection necessarily assumes a legislature that has not been bought and paid for by the 1%. Number four is only foolish if you actually think that spending more than you can repay is a good idea...I reject such bogus economic models.
I don't see what you mean. I don't assume that our elected officials have depended upon Wall Street's money in order to get elected to office. I do believe that they are nonetheless capable of passing the responsible legislation we demand.
4 is only not foolish if you believe that capitalism is a bogus economic model. I believe in capitalism. Capitalism requires systems of credit, i.e. ways in which people can spend more that what they currently have. There is nothing wrong with debt -- debt is part of a well-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is overwhelming debt, and to solve that you don't need anything as foolish as #4.
Over the weekend, there was a gentleman at OWS who was talking about Article 5.
Sadly, cant do it on the ground at the moment.
If it is during a converntion then congress dont get any say over the admendments. They are passed based on the legislatures of the individual states.
34 states does that have to be a vote on a specific amendments. Don't ammendments have to come from congress? If not Good thought.
The regulations on donations to candidates aren't strong enough, IMO. Same objection on the third.
Good ideas, I just disagree on the extent of some of them. You need to suggest these on the ground at OWS, though.
Disagreement on extents is to be expected. But the general gist of these is that it should put them to work for all the people instead of just a few.