Rubio: Amend the U.S. Constitution

[What Would Jesus Do?]

[7) Establish one-person-one vote as the law of the land.]

7. ??? How is it not that now?

We act like it is, but it really isn't in a number of important ways. Even if we ignore the ways in which we make it hard for some eligible people to vote, it remains the case that not everybody's vote counts equally. Your representation in Congress (and in the Electoral College) is much more powerful if you are from Wyoming than if you are from Michigan, for example.

It is also the case that we don't let some citizens vote. Not just by intimidation and voter IDs and inadequate voting stations and so on, but because they are children or they committed some crime 20 years ago.

Sure, you can argue that children don't have the mental capacity to vote. But does that mean they shouldn't get a vote? That's a criterion we don't apply to the rest of us. I think their parent or guardian should get extra votes but I'm open to other ideas. No, I don't have young children. And, yes, this will help some demographics more than others and that will necessarily make those demographic more heavily sought after by the main parties. But what's wrong with that? They ARE citizens and their concerns deserve to be represented in our Congress in proportion to their numbers. This is not addressed by census-based-apportionment (where the number of children are counted), by the way, although that probably helps a little.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

[8) Eliminate the Senate.]

8. Disagree entirely

I'm not surprised. Almost nobody agrees. But why not?

We are not a collection of rural, parochial, semi-independent nation-states huddled together for group protection any more. We haven't been in any of our lifetimes.

It makes no sense that tiny Rhode Island has as much say in the upper house as Texas or California. Especially when you couple this hugely anti-democratic slant with the Senate's filibuster and supermajority rules, why even pretend we are a democracy?

That protection against mob rule may have seemed sensible to people living over 200 years ago with virtually no experience of democracy outside philosophy books. But we do have that experience. Time to take off these handcuffs against doing the people's will. We have the constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect us against the tyranny of the masses. We don't need a House of Lords, too.

I would suggest changing the House of Reps to 4-year terms, half elected every 2 years. We don't need any more brake on democracy than that.

 

[The Tradition]

I'm not surprised. Almost nobody agrees. But why not?

We are not a collection of rural, parochial, semi-independent nation-states huddled together for group protection any more. We haven't been in any of our lifetimes.

It makes no sense that tiny Rhode Island has as much say in the upper house as Texas or California. Especially when you couple this hugely anti-democratic slant with the Senate's filibuster and supermajority rules, why even pretend we are a democracy?

That protection against mob rule may have seemed sensible to people living over 200 years ago with virtually no experience of democracy outside philosophy books. But we do have that experience. Time to take off these handcuffs against doing the people's will. We have the constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect us against the tyranny of the masses. We don't need a House of Lords, too.

I would suggest changing the House of Reps to 4-year terms, half elected every 2 years. We don't need any more brake on democracy than that.

Maybe you think the concept of states rights is antiquated, but I don't think so. For example, without states rights, there would be no medical marijuana and certainly no legal recreational marijuana.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

[9. Eliminate the Electoral College.]

9. How do you prevent the POTUS and VPOTUS from being of different parties. Or do you think such an arrangement would work out in modern times.

I was imagining that they would run as a ticket. Isn't that how it's done in your state now?

It would be interesting if we did away with the race for VP and just installed the #2 vote-getter. But I doubt that would work very well. I'm having House of Cards flashbacks.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

[12. Hold an up-down referendum on the constitution every 10 years or so.]

12. No, if you get a down vote what do you replace it with?? Maybe a constitutional amendment convention every 10 years with a specific length of time such a convention can run. (So as to focus on what can pass and not endless debates)

I was imagining that a "no" vote would trigger a constitutional convention with a reasonable deadline (2 years?). The constitution would continue in force for the duration. Perhaps the 2 would have a run-off at that point.

I imagine what we'd get would be a lightly-tweaked revision of the current constitution. But that's probably a good idea. Clarify some of the stickiest issues.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

We act like it is, but it really isn't in a number of important ways. Even if we ignore the ways in which we make it hard for some eligible people to vote, it remains the case that not everybody's vote counts equally. Your representation in Congress (and in the Electoral College) is much more powerful if you are from Wyoming than if you are from Michigan, for example.

It is also the case that we don't let some citizens vote. Not just by intimidation and voter IDs and inadequate voting stations and so on, but because they are children or they committed some crime 20 years ago.

Sure, you can argue that children don't have the mental capacity to vote. But does that mean they shouldn't get a vote? That's a criterion we don't apply to the rest of us. I think their parent or guardian should get extra votes but I'm open to other ideas. No, I don't have young children. And, yes, this will help some demographics more than others and that will necessarily make those demographic more heavily sought after by the main parties. But what's wrong with that? They ARE citizens and their concerns deserve to be represented in our Congress in proportion to their numbers. This is not addressed by census-based-apportionment (where the number of children are counted), by the way, although that probably helps a little.

Not in favor of children voting although I could see rehabilitating criminals to the vote.

The vote not counting equally for the presidential election would be fixed by removing electorial college which you already mentioned.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I was imagining that they would run as a ticket. Isn't that how it's done in your state now?

It would be interesting if we did away with the race for VP and just installed the #2 vote-getter. But I doubt that would work very well. I'm having House of Cards flashbacks.

Hmm interesting but we do vote for Gov. and Lt. Gov as a ticket. I suppose a similar thing could be done with VP. Don't like the #2 vote getter being VP, we've tried that in the past actually and it didn't work very well so we moved away from it.

Plus it would provide a lot of added incentive for others to try to remove the president through any means necessary knowing that their guy is waiting in the wings.

We live in a country that before Obama even took office there was talks about impeaching him. People get a little nuts about this stuff and both sides do it. We don't need to make it easier to remove the POTUS from office or provide extra incentive for doing that.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

[13. Make voting mandatory.]

13. Pass . . . if someone doesn't care to vote then they likely have no idea what they are voting for.

I don't like forcing people to do things. And I share your worry about forcing the ignorant to vote in even higher proportions. And yet....

I don't think it's a more than trivial intrusion to ask people to behave in a civic fashion for a few minutes every couple of years. Less intrusive than seat belts.

You have to figure how to make it work. The easiest way is to include a NOTA (none of the above) option for every race. My guess is that people who are forced to vote will make at least a minimal effort to become informed. Get them to show up. Give them choices. See what happens.

One of the benefits of mandatory voting that I would hope to see is less negative campaigning and fewer efforts to discourage people from bothering to show up. Because they ARE going to show up. If they ARE going to show up, you'd better have spent some time winning them over, not just discouraging them.

Sure there will still be plenty of adds demonizing the other side. But with NOTA as an option, you also have to give people a reason to vote FOR you, not just against everybody. If nothing else, mandatory voting might see a decline in the spurious "they're equally bad" nonsense that we hear from both right and left extremes. They are both bad, but they surely aren't equally bad - and which is worse depends on what issues matter to you most (abortion for you, climate change for me, for example).

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Not in favor of children voting although I could see rehabilitating criminals to the vote.

The vote not counting equally for the presidential election would be fixed by removing electorial college which you already mentioned.

I'm not saying the children themselves should vote. Although, I would probably want to set up some sort of testing that, if passed, would let people vote at a younger age. You get to vote at 18 no matter what kind of total idiot you are, but you also get to vote as early as 16 (or whatever) if you can pass tests showing knowledge and mental maturity. I'd want more of those people voting, wouldn't you?

But, no, I'm not saying 4-year-olds should vote. But if you are a single dad with a 4-year-old, you would vote twice.

That would change things in a beneficial way, I think.

As a parent, you presumably already vote for candidates who seem to advocate good schools, safe streets, safe food and whatever else you think is good for kids. But, let's face it, most campaigning does not focus on those issues. Even after multiple school shootings, the overheated gun debates spend very little ink on child safety.

But . . . here's the thing. If people with kids get extra votes, issues that focus more on kids will get more campaign air.

I not only feel strongly that kids should be represented in voting, but that policies that are good for kids tend to be good for society and our future on this planet.

Nor is this a clear win for left or right. But we'll see the arguments honed differently. As examples, we already see those on the right saying we shouldn't be leaving our kids huge debts, while on the left we hear that we shouldn't be leaving our kids a burning planet.

 

[naturalmwa]

Or . . . maybe they could stick to what's important and actually show up for work most days.

Think of it this way: why should we be subject to laws passed by reps we have voted out? Why should we be subject to laws passed before any of us were even alive?

That's the point of revoting on the constitution, too. No one alive today voted to approve the constitution. For all the good ideas in the constitution, it was still written by men who thought women were chattel, blacks and indians were subhuman, and that it made sense to let states decide whether and which people should have rights. Sure, we've corrected some of those flaws, but plenty remain.

My issue is less philosophical than it is practical although I can think of many philosophical reasons for why we should value long term stability in the law. Just looking logistically, there are many thousands of laws. To pass them all every other year would mean passing hundreds of laws each day. At such a clip there would be no debating let alone even reading of the bills. They would literally be just rubber stamping past legislation all day every day. It seems like Grover Norquist's dream proposal to keep government so bottled up it can never accomplish anything.

 

[KitingHigh]

My issue is less philosophical than it is practical although I can think of many philosophical reasons for why we should value long term stability in the law. Just looking logistically, there are many thousands of laws. To pass them all every other year would mean passing hundreds of laws each day. At such a clip there would be no debating let alone even reading of the bills. They would literally be just rubber stamping past legislation all day every day. It seems like Grover Norquist's dream proposal to keep government so bottled up it can never accomplish anything.

I would give them a longer shelf life, but as I said earlier, we have too many laws as it is.

 

[naturalmwa]

All of those societal issues could be addressed through a marital contract drafted at your local attorney's office.

Yes, that contract has a name. You seem to be having a number of semantic problems today.

 

[The Tradition]

I'm not saying the children themselves should vote. Although, I would probably want to set up some sort of testing that, if passed, would let people vote at a younger age. You get to vote at 18 no matter what kind of total idiot you are, but you also get to vote as early as 16 (or whatever) if you can pass tests showing knowledge and mental maturity. I'd want more of those people voting, wouldn't you?

But, no, I'm not saying 4-year-olds should vote. But if you are a single dad with a 4-year-old, you would vote twice.

That would change things in a beneficial way, I think.

As a parent, you presumably already vote for candidates who seem to advocate good schools, safe streets, safe food and whatever else you think is good for kids. But, let's face it, most campaigning does not focus on those issues. Even after multiple school shootings, the overheated gun debates spend very little ink on child safety.

But . . . here's the thing. If people with kids get extra votes, issues that focus more on kids will get more campaign air.

I not only feel strongly that kids should be represented in voting, but that policies that are good for kids tend to be good for society and our future on this planet.

Nor is this a clear win for left or right. But we'll see the arguments honed differently. As examples, we already see those on the right saying we shouldn't be leaving our kids huge debts, while on the left we hear that we shouldn't be leaving our kids a burning planet.

Speaking of getting two votes, I wonder how many people wheel mom or dad into the voting booth when mom or dad is no longer competent to cast a vote?

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I'm not saying the children themselves should vote. Although, I would probably want to set up some sort of testing that, if passed, would let people vote at a younger age. You get to vote at 18 no matter what kind of total idiot you are, but you also get to vote as early as 16 (or whatever) if you can pass tests showing knowledge and mental maturity. I'd want more of those people voting, wouldn't you?

But, no, I'm not saying 4-year-olds should vote. But if you are a single dad with a 4-year-old, you would vote twice.

That would change things in a beneficial way, I think.

As a parent, you presumably already vote for candidates who seem to advocate good schools, safe streets, safe food and whatever else you think is good for kids. But, let's face it, most campaigning does not focus on those issues. Even after multiple school shootings, the overheated gun debates spend very little ink on child safety.

But . . . here's the thing. If people with kids get extra votes, issues that focus more on kids will get more campaign air.

I not only feel strongly that kids should be represented in voting, but that policies that are good for kids tend to be good for society and our future on this planet.

Nor is this a clear win for left or right. But we'll see the arguments honed differently. As examples, we already see those on the right saying we shouldn't be leaving our kids huge debts, while on the left we hear that we shouldn't be leaving our kids a burning planet.

I'm not so sure that kids arn't being represented. Most candidates out there are trying to win the vote of parents quite a bit. As a parent your right I want a big focus to be on what's going to be good for our children and as an extension my children. I'm just not convinced that we don't already do that.

I don't have a problem with it mainly because I wouldn't be the loser in that sort of arrangement. My wife doesn't go to the polls so it means I would get 4 votes (myself and our 3 kids) in the next election. But I'm sure that people without children would mostly be unhappy with the arrangement.

Although it does bring up an issue. What parent get's to vote on behalf of the children? And see I think that's the brass tax of it and also the issue that's going to decide which party benefits. Honestly I think the dems would benefit because child custody would likely play a part in that sort of decision (especially in broken relationships) and the courts nearly always default to mom not dad.

I'd win big because like I said, my wife doesn't really vote a lot, I vote every election and we will have 3 born children by the next election but I actually tend to fear that men in general would lose big because overall mom would end up voting for the kids most of the time.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I have one. . . RANKED CHOICE VOTING or RUN-OFF ELECTIONS. For all elected offices from local to federal.

I'm a BIG fan of those approaches. I thought about including them on my list. But there are several and I don't claim to now the best way to go. I'd like to see states and localities experiment more with these ideas. There's a little of this already. I'd also like to see more proportional representation schemes.

Until we have more experience to draw upon, I'm reluctant to lock them into the constitution.

By the way, these approaches work even better coupled with mandatory voting. Wouldn't it be nice not only to have people who win office with the clear approval of a majority of voters but also with the clear approval of a majority of citizens.

This is a bigger problem than most realize - especially if you are a fan of democracy. Even clear winners in our presidential elections only tend to receive approval by around 30% of adult citizens. That's because not everybody registers or is otherwise eligible to vote; plus, of those who are registered and eligible, only around 70% actually vote - meaning typically around 55% of voting-age citizens actually vote.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I'm not surprised. Almost nobody agrees. But why not?

We are not a collection of rural, parochial, semi-independent nation-states huddled together for group protection any more. We haven't been in any of our lifetimes.

It makes no sense that tiny Rhode Island has as much say in the upper house as Texas or California. Especially when you couple this hugely anti-democratic slant with the Senate's filibuster and supermajority rules, why even pretend we are a democracy?

That protection against mob rule may have seemed sensible to people living over 200 years ago with virtually no experience of democracy outside philosophy books. But we do have that experience. Time to take off these handcuffs against doing the people's will. We have the constitution and the Bill of Rights to protect us against the tyranny of the masses. We don't need a House of Lords, too.

I would suggest changing the House of Reps to 4-year terms, half elected every 2 years. We don't need any more brake on democracy than that.

The issue I have with that is that removing the senate allows the populous areas to take all for themselves and ignore the needs, desires, and feelings of the less populated areas.

That's still a potential issue if you ask me.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I'm not so sure that kids arn't being represented. Most candidates out there are trying to win the vote of parents quite a bit. As a parent your right I want a big focus to be on what's going to be good for our children and as an extension my children. I'm just not convinced that we don't already do that.

I don't have a problem with it mainly because I wouldn't be the loser in that sort of arrangement. My wife doesn't go to the polls so it means I would get 4 votes (myself and our 3 kids) in the next election. But I'm sure that people without children would mostly be unhappy with the arrangement.

Although it does bring up an issue. What parent get's to vote on behalf of the children? And see I think that's the brass tax of it and also the issue that's going to decide which party benefits. Honestly I think the dems would benefit because child custody would likely play a part in that sort of decision (especially in broken relationships) and the courts nearly always default to mom not dad.

I'd win big because like I said, my wife doesn't really vote a lot, I vote every election and we will have 3 born children by the next election but I actually tend to fear that men in general would lose big because overall mom would end up voting for the kids most of the time.

For me this is a "let the chips fall where they may" issue. Just because I may not like the way I think hillbillies are likely to vote, I nevertheless approve of efforts to get out the hillbilly vote.

Let the parties figure it out.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

The issue I have with that is that removing the senate allows the populous areas to take all for themselves and ignore the needs, desires, and feelings of the less populated areas.

That's still a potential issue if you ask me.

That's an argument that sounds better than it really is. Most states are involved in many multi-state agreements and councils of government and so on. They know it makes no sense for neighboring cities to be separated and disadvantaged by state lines that make no more sense than the boundaries of Iraq. We need less state competition and more cooperation across state lines. Giving small states the power to deny services and programs to large states is much more problematic than the fear you seem to be expressing.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

I'm a BIG fan of those approaches. I thought about including them on my list. But there are several and I don't claim to now the best way to go. I'd like to see states and localities experiment more with these ideas. There's a little of this already. I'd also like to see more proportional representation schemes.

Until we have more experience to draw upon, I'm reluctant to lock them into the constitution.

By the way, these approaches work even better coupled with mandatory voting. Wouldn't it be nice not only to have people who win office with the clear approval of a majority of voters but also with the clear approval of a majority of citizens.

This is a bigger problem than most realize - especially if you are a fan of democracy. Even clear winners in our presidential elections only tend to receive approval by around 30% of adult citizens. That's because not everybody registers or is otherwise eligible to vote; plus, of those who are registered and eligible, only around 70% actually vote - meaning typically around 55% of voting-age citizens actually vote.

See I think the approval of the majority of citizens issue that you are getting at with mandatory voting is a farce.

1st of all that wouldn't happen because you earlier suggested a "none of the above" option. A lot of peoplee might pick that.

2nd if you remove that option then the approval of the majority of citizens becomes more or less I approve because you made me show up and pick one of a couple of options to approve of.

Also something I would like to add is that primaries all happen on the same day in every state. Living in Indiana but posting on this board I'm reminded every election that all you people in Iowa get to decide between the douche and the turd on the presidential ballot in November and all the people in Indiana and 39 other states have to just pick from what you and like 9 other states decide on. Because by the time it gets to us, the winner of the primary has almost always been determined and every other candidate has dropped out.

I once watched an Iowa game and was flabbergasted because I saw a political ad and it took me a minute to realize that I saw that ad only because I was watching an Iowa game.

You guys see the candidates so much that I can't imagine that it would be hard for an Iowan to get to at least one stump of their favorite candidate. Meanwhile here in Indiana all I have is that one time that Bill Clinton rode through Michigan City on a train and stopped to talk for 10 minutes or that other time that Obama flew into South Bend on Air Force One on his way to Elkhart and we had to close off Highway 20 so all the manhole covers could be welded shut and clear a path for his tank limo.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

That's an argument that sounds better than it really is. Most states are involved in many multi-state agreements and councils of government and so on. They know it makes no sense for neighboring cities to be separated and disadvantaged by state lines that make no more sense than the boundaries of Iraq. We need less state competition and more cooperation across state lines. Giving small states the power to deny services and programs to large states is much more problematic than the fear you seem to be expressing.

I don't know there is a lot of very big political issues that often boil down to urban voters verses rural voters. And a lot of states that are almost entirely rural that more urbanized states might love to use, abuse and stomp upon.

Wyoming can't stop New York from having their own state wide health program for example. Federal laws don't prevent states from doing that sort of thing. But New York can use federal law to tell Wyoming what kind of guns they can have.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

Wyoming can't stop New York from having their own state wide health program for example. Federal laws don't prevent states from doing that sort of thing. But New York can use federal law to tell Wyoming what kind of guns they can have.

Can you provide an example of how that would work? I don't see many states suing other states to enforce federal laws. States suing the federal government - sure. Texas can't go 3 consecutive days without suing the feds. But states suing other states is a new issue to me.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Can you provide an example of how that would work? I don't see many states suing other states to enforce federal laws. States suing the federal government - sure. Texas can't go 3 consecutive days without suing the feds. But states suing other states is a new issue to me.

It's all about who has the power to enact laws and decide funding at the federal level. Less populous states would have no power while populous states would have all the power.

New York is a state that believes in strict gun laws. Wyoming doesn't. A lot of that has to do with most of New York's population is urbanized while Wyoming's is rural. Guns are much more useful and much more needed in a rural area.

However New York's reps can enact strict gun laws that apply all over the country and less populous states with no senate representation would be entirely powerless. Remember we're talking about a situation where Wyoming would have 1 house rep while NY would have like 27 and California would have more then 50. You could get a coalition of 30 of the smallest states in the Union and it likely wouldn't have enough votes to stop a supermajority from the other 20.

You don't think small states wouldn't find themselves getting the short end of the stick in the federal government and their views and needs would be entirely glossed over?

Edit: Just did a little bit of calculating and I figured out that a grand total of 10 of the most populus states would make a simple majority in congress. Cali, Texas, Florida, NY, Pennsilvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia if my math is correct. (remember take their electorial vote and subtract 2.) I could go further to check but I'm guessing if I take the next 10 states in terms of population they would have a supermajority.

Meanwhile I may point out that 6 states would have just one representative. ND, SD, Montana, Wyoming, Vermont, Deleware. A further 3 would have just 2 reps New Hamshire, Rhode Island, Idaho. Throw in the only state with 3 reps Nebraska and you have 10 states with 15 reps and 10 states with over 200 reps.

How do you see that going for those bottom 10 states?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

My issue is less philosophical than it is practical although I can think of many philosophical reasons for why we should value long term stability in the law. Just looking logistically, there are many thousands of laws. To pass them all every other year would mean passing hundreds of laws each day. At such a clip there would be no debating let alone even reading of the bills. They would literally be just rubber stamping past legislation all day every day. It seems like Grover Norquist's dream proposal to keep government so bottled up it can never accomplish anything.

Most of what seems like the overload would be handled by staffers instructed by their principals (the elected reps). That's pretty much what happens anyway.

Once you eliminate the 5 votes a day to celebrate national chewing gum day, rename some post office or historic outhouse, and the sense of the Senate that baseball is a nice summer sport, the workload would probably be less.

Congress would reorganize to get the work done.

I'm really not too worried about this.

What I AM worried about is all the laws on the books that probably didn't make that much sense in 1876 or 1917 be we are still following. This is not like junk DNA. Every once in a while we throw someone in jail for most of his life under statutes like the the Espionage Act of 1917 becasue we have nothing better on the books. Every once in a while we have the economy collapse because regulations written 80 years ago didn't foresee computer-based arbitrage and derivative trading.

I am also worried that many of our bad laws continue to exist because reps from Southern Baptist regions are scared to make our laws sync with our constitutional values - meaning local authorities periodical jail, beat or kill people under laws against sodomy or voting while black or whatever should have gone away - except, that everybody is afraid of publicly voting like they live in the 21st century. Put these laws up for renewal and some will quietly pass into oblivion.

Just think about this. How many tax loopholes and deductions would go away if we had to renew them? It's one thing to let them continue because they don't come up. It's another to be seen to vote for blatant favoritism or downright corruption.

 

[Hoosierhawkeye]

Ok so now it's on, it takes 9 states to get a majority in congress. Cali, Texas, FL, NY, Pennsivannia, Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina and Georgia. That's 220 votes for 9 states.

Meanwhile the bottom 9 states of ND, SD, Montana, Wyoming, Vermont, Delaware, New Hamshire, Rhode Island, and Idaho would have 13 Reps total.

That's way too much power concentration for me to be ok with getting rid of the Senate.

 

[St. Louis Hawk]

It's all about who has the power to enact laws and decide funding at the federal level. Less populous states would have no power while populous states would have all the power.

How do you see that going for those bottom 10 states?

Gotcha. I didn't read your comment as being based on the hypo of if we change how representatives are allocated; I thought you were talking about the current system.

 

[LuckyNed]

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio is endorsing a Convention of States to amend the U.S. Constitution, saying it’s the only way to impose term limits on Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court and to require a balanced federal budget.

The Florida Republican began a two-day presidential campaign trip to Iowa on Tuesday. He was joined by U.S. Rep. Trent Gowdy, R-S.C., who praised Rubio as a principled conservative who can be trusted to protect national security and public safety. Gowdy has chaired a House investigation into a 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya, that resulted in the death of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

Rubio was repeatedly applauded as he criticized President Barack Obama and Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in his remarks during a town hall meeting attended by about 175 people at Rastrelli’s restaurant and events center here.

He contended that Democratic leaders on the left see America as a flawed country in need of reform and believe government is needed to make decisions because individuals can’t be trusted to think for themselves. Those same people, he added, view the U.S. as “an arrogant global power” and believe that people who support traditional marriage are bigots, while favoring more money for government programs that often help people who refuse to work.

“This is a systematic effort to redefine America,” Rubio said.

Sam Lau, communications director with the Iowa Democratic Party, responded: "Like the rest of the GOP field, Rubio believes the very rich deserve huge tax breaks, that LGBT Iowans deserve fewer rights, and that our foreign policy should be based on fear-mongering and outdated ideas."

The senator vowed that if he’s elected president, he will immediately take a series of steps to reverse the direction of the federal government under Obama, including cancelling Obama’s executive orders, opposing Common Core educational standards, and supporting a constitutional Convention of States.



Rubio told reporters later he has been studying “very carefully” the Convention of States concept to amend the U.S. Constitution and that his former Senate colleague, Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, is an advocate for the initiative.

“It is something we feel very positive about. I think it is the only way that you are ever going to get term limits, and the only way that you are ever going to get a balanced budget amendment,” Rubio added.

Asked if he had concerns about opening up the Constitution to a convention, Rubio remarked, “I think you would have to limit the convention, and that is what they are proposing: a very limited convention on specific delineated issues that they would talk about — like term limits and a balanced budget amendment.”

Approval from 34 states is required for a Convention of States to proceed, and any amendments would need to be ratified by 38 states to become part of the Constitution.

Rubio got high marks after his appearance from several people in the audience.

“I was very impressed. I liked his message of economic liberty and improved freedoms and limiting regulations by the executive branch,” said Dustin Johnson, 33, a Clinton area farmer.

Karli Murrens, 21, of Davenport, a senior nursing student at St. Ambrose University, said she liked Rubio’s ideas about education and college, such as giving students academic credit for experience in the military and other fields.

“He is a great public speaker,” she said.

http://www.press-citizen.com/story/...5/12/29/rubio-amend-us-constitution/78039898/

Many agree!

 

[naturalmwa]

Most of what seems like the overload would be handled by staffers instructed by their principals (the elected reps). That's pretty much what happens anyway.

Once you eliminate the 5 votes a day to celebrate national chewing gum day, rename some post office or historic outhouse, and the sense of the Senate that baseball is a nice summer sport, the workload would probably be less.

Congress would reorganize to get the work done.

I'm really not too worried about this.

What I AM worried about is all the laws on the books that probably didn't make that much sense in 1876 or 1917 be we are still following. This is not like junk DNA. Every once in a while we throw someone in jail for most of his life under statutes like the the Espionage Act of 1917 becasue we have nothing better on the books. Every once in a while we have the economy collapse because regulations written 80 years ago didn't foresee computer-based arbitrage and derivative trading.

I am also worried that many of our bad laws continue to exist because reps from Southern Baptist regions are scared to make our laws sync with our constitutional values - meaning local authorities periodical jail, beat or kill people under laws against sodomy or voting while black or whatever should have gone away - except, that everybody is afraid of publicly voting like they live in the 21st century. Put these laws up for renewal and some will quietly pass into oblivion.

Just think about this. How many tax loopholes and deductions would go away if we had to renew them? It's one thing to let them continue because they don't come up. It's another to be seen to vote for blatant favoritism or downright corruption.

As a man who makes his living by tax loopholes, I remain unconvinced. I'm also slow to think southern baptists would lose the vote. I think it more probable that civil rights and safety net programs would lose out. After all they worked and we no longer are the horrible society they set out to fix. So now we remove them and all of a sudden things have to get very bad before we ever get them back. No thank you. I wish to keep standing on the shoulders of giants rather than reinventing the wheel every few years.

 

[naturalmwa]

Ok so now it's on, it takes 9 states to get a majority in congress. Cali, Texas, FL, NY, Pennsivannia, Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina and Georgia. That's 220 votes for 9 states.

Meanwhile the bottom 9 states of ND, SD, Montana, Wyoming, Vermont, Delaware, New Hamshire, Rhode Island, and Idaho would have 13 Reps total.

That's way too much power concentration for me to be ok with getting rid of the Senate.

How about we get rid of states? Now it suddenly seems fair. It's just reps representing people proportionately.Think of all the money we could save if we sold off the 50 state houses. All that big government repetition.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

See I think the approval of the majority of citizens issue that you are getting at with mandatory voting is a farce.

1st of all that wouldn't happen because you earlier suggested a "none of the above" option. A lot of peoplee might pick that.

You hold another election. None of those who ran the first time may participate - because the majority explicitly rejected them.

Yes, it's inconvenient. But here's the thing . . . how many times will it happen before parties pick candidates the people won't reject?

The rare rescheduled election is a small price to pay for better candidates.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Ok so now it's on, it takes 9 states to get a majority in congress. Cali, Texas, FL, NY, Pennsivannia, Illinois, Michigan, North Carolina and Georgia. That's 220 votes for 9 states.

Meanwhile the bottom 9 states of ND, SD, Montana, Wyoming, Vermont, Delaware, New Hamshire, Rhode Island, and Idaho would have 13 Reps total.

That's way too much power concentration for me to be ok with getting rid of the Senate.

Stop thinking about states. Yes, those nine states can form a majority. Because they represent a majority of the people.

This is like the argument I get in with our libertarians who scream that democracy permits a tyranny of the masses. It doesn't really, but even if it did, the alternative is a tyranny of a minority. Which is better?

The Senate is preserving a tyranny of small states able to prevent the will of a majority of the people from getting done.

It's that simple.

People count. All other things being more-or-less equal, the system that does the will of more people is superior to the system that does the will of fewer people.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

As a man who makes his living by tax loopholes, I remain unconvinced. I'm also slow to think southern baptists would lose the vote. I think it more probable that civil rights and safety net programs would lose out. After all they worked and we no longer are the horrible society they set out to fix. So now we remove them and all of a sudden things have to get very bad before we ever get them back. No thank you. I wish to keep standing on the shoulders of giants rather than reinventing the wheel every few years.

There are risks. Are they worse than the system we have?

 

[KitingHigh]

Stop thinking about states. Yes, those nine states can form a majority. Because they represent a majority of the people.

This is like the argument I get in with our libertarians who scream that democracy permits a tyranny of the masses. It doesn't really, but even if it did, the alternative is a tyranny of a minority. Which is better?

The Senate is preserving a tyranny of small states able to prevent the will of a majority of the people from getting done.

It's that simple.

People count. All other things being more-or-less equal, the system that does the will of more people is superior to the system that does the will of fewer people.

I don't want the people of NYC and LA making our decisions for us. I'll take it the way it is. Population centers should not have that much power over the rest of us.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I don't want the people of NYC and LA making our decisions for us. I'll take it the way it is. Population centers should not have that much power over the rest of us.

You just shifted from states to population centers. You are still placing artificial constructs ahead of people.

To be clear, what you said - like what Hoosier said - is just a disguised way of saying you don't want the government to implement the will of the people.

 

[naturalmwa]

There are risks. Are they worse than the system we have?

I think so. I think fairly significantly. If the goal is to remove out dated laws, perhaps we could think of a better mechanism than redoing them every other year. Like maybe a commission of experts to scour the books for them and put just out moded (by some to be determined criteria) laws up for reauthorization I personally really like loopholes in the tax system, it's the carrot I prefer to the stick. If your goal is mainly about the philosophical position that laws should be agreed to by the current representative body, I can see that point, but find it fairly minor in my thinking.

 

[KitingHigh]

You just shifted from states to population centers. You are still placing artificial constructs ahead of people.

To be clear, what you said - like what Hoosier said - is just a disguised way of saying you don't want the government to implement the will of the people.

I don't want a true democracy. I can't think of a worse form of government. Our current system has a nice balance to it so that the people of one small island in New York don't have total power over the people farming the lands of Iowa.

I have no problem with putting constructs ahead of people. People are dumb.

 

[tarheelbybirth]

Bullcrap. Whether you're talking about the household budget or the federal budget, making sure you have enough money coming in to cover what's going out is essential. If you don't have the money for something, you either do without, or you cut back somewhere else. EVERYBODY has to do this except the federal government because they're somehow different? GTFO.

Are you seriously contending that no entity beside the federal govt has debt? That no state with a balanced budget has debt? That no individual has debt? You might want to GTFO until you actually have a clue - you're coming across here as an idiot.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I think so. I think fairly significantly. If the goal is to remove out dated laws, perhaps we could think of a better mechanism than redoing them every other year. Like maybe a commission of experts to scour the books for them and put just out moded (by some to be determined criteria) laws up for reauthorization I personally really like loopholes in the tax system, it's the carrot I prefer to the stick. If your goal is mainly about the philosophical position that laws should be agreed to by the current representative body, I can see that point, but find it fairly minor in my thinking.

I'm just a dumb country boy. I think of loopholes as bad things. They let businesses write off fines for dumping toxic wastes, and reward outsourcing, and so on.

I'm not opposed to loopholes, actually, and am supportive of using the tax code for social engineering. But I think we should be engineering in response to current needs and with plenty of sunshine to make sure the benefits are going to the right folks.

I'd love to see a commission to simplify our laws, and to eliminate the archaic and redundant and other problems. That would be good in its own right, and would make it easier when we start sunsetting everything (because there would be fewer, clearer laws).

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I don't want a true democracy. I can't think of a worse form of government. Our current system has a nice balance to it so that the people of one small island in New York don't have total power over the people farming the lands of Iowa.

I have no problem with putting constructs ahead of people. People are dumb.

Well, at least you are up front about it. And, sadly, a lot of Americans agree that the people should not govern. Which is probably why we don't.

Not sure why you think government by and for large corporations, banksters and the rich is better for Iowa farmers than government by and for the people.

 

[KitingHigh]

Well, at least you are up front about it. And, sadly, a lot of Americans agree that the people should not govern. Which is probably why we don't.

Not sure why you think government by and for large corporations, banksters and the rich is better for Iowa farmers than government by and for the people.

I don't really see the power of corporations and banksters being diminished by your proposals.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I don't really see the power of corporations and banksters being diminished by your proposals.

Well, getting rid of the Senate (which is the proposal we were talking about) only does that in the sense that it gets rid of the easiest House to bribe. Might not be a very big impact. The proposals that really address that are those reversing Citizens United and such (the speech=money and corporations=persons issues). But even then, there are no guarantees.

All those do is give democracy a chance. People are obviously capable of dropping the ball when they get it. But I'd still rather people have the ball than acquiesce to one of the more totalitarian isms or ocracies - which we are well on the path toward doing in what I fear will prove an irreversible political transformation.