Source: Yahoo
Coming right out and saying you want to change the Constitution is about as bold a move you can make politically in the U.S. If "America" is a religion, then the Constitution is most certainly its Bible. It's not that people believe its unchangeable; it's just that historically the U.S. has taken great pains not to modify the document. Prohibition is perhaps the best example of why Constitutional changes should not be entered into lightly.
I also want to note that for the most part what Perry is suggesting is unattainable. To get 3/4 of the country to agree on anything would be a miracle, one that could possibly justify Perry's anti-abortion and anti-gay-marriage stances. Short of that, he is nothing more than a politician who wants more power located in places he can control.
With that said, I'm going to focus on the following three issues Perry wants to change in the Constitution, and I'll explain why I think it's a really BAD idea.
1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.
2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.
4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.
I put these three together because they work at the same root concept: the equal distribution of power between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, and their accountability to the general public.
It also highlights one of the biggest, clearest examples of cognitive dissonance I've seen out of the GOP in a while (even including the whole "90% of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions" shenanigans).
On the one hand, he believes that Article III should be altered so that federal judges' tenure is reduced from lifetime. The article states that judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior", and it is this line that Perry takes exception to. He suggests that this gives too much freedom to judges to do whatever they want without the possibility of consequences. By removing lifetime tenure, Perry states that judges can be made more accountable to the general publlic.
What's wrong with this: The judicial branch is meant to be a check against the vagaries of the people, a long-term viewpoint that is badly needed in these myopic times. At any given point, the opinion of the majority of the country can change at any time. One year, we may elect a Congress that would repeal Roe v. Wade; the next year, an entirely Democratic Congress works to restore those rights.
This is what the founding fathers were trying to avoid; instead of actively working towards progress, the government would be stuck trying to "undo" everything the last Congress did. If this weren't the case and Congress could be trusted to leave something alone once it's resolved, Roe v. Wade wouldn't still be on the table. Bottom line: Nothing would get done if the federal judges could change according to the will of the people or the will of Rick Perry, which is what I suspect the true motive is here. If Perry could guarantee that he could appoint the judges he wanted to, then he could accomplish all of his goals. By attacking the lifetime tenure of judges, he is redirecting focus from his issues and forcing judges to justify their tenure.
Source: Wikipedia
His second point involves a much subtler but revolutionary idea: Perry believes judges are not to be trusted. Judges ideally are impartial, looking at the law and the facts, and occasionally attempting to look at what the lawmakers might have "intended," though all involved know it's no better than any other form of speculation. By removing the ability of the Supreme Court as the final say of the land and allowing Congress to override judicial decisions, Perry is insinuating that the judges are no longer capable of being impartial. The wide-reaching implication is that no judge can be trusted to be impartial.
I fail to see how this accomplishes anything other than throwing the courts open to far more criticism than they already encounter, and taken to an extreme, this could be kindling for a heated battle between judges who are simply trying to do their jobs, and the people who no longer trust them to do it. If judges cannot stand as an (admittedly inadequately) impartial, trusted opinion, who will? Mr. Perry? Who does Perry suggest could fulfill the role of impartiality?
I believe igniting social anger and sowing distrust is more what Perry is intended, as Congress already has the power to override judges in every single instance exception Constitutionality; just change the law. Feel the judge is stepping to far? Amend the Constitution. There are methods for this, and when federal judges have proven insufficient in protecting the interests of the U.S., Congress has amended the Constitution as needed (see 14th and 19th amendments, for example). This isn't enough for Mr. Perry.
On the other hand, one of the core issues leading to the Revolutionary War was representation in government. The ability of the citizens to directly elect the officials who will make policy that affects them is a core belief in the United States religion. It is the role of Congress to make the law, the President to enforce it, and the Courts to interpret it. Two of those three branches are in some way elected by the people. But Rick Perry, while on the one hand advocating for more direct accountability in federal judges, actually argues for less direct accountability of Congressional Senators. Not only that, but he wants state governors to be able to appoint the Senators. Why is this important? Because Mr. Perry was a governor. About as clear a case of supporting policies for self-interest if I've ever seen it.
So, Mr. Perry wants the public to distrust the judiciary AND give up its right to elect Senators directly while at the same time allowing said Senators (elected by State governors) to override the judiciary.
Interesting.
However, even the village idiot can give good advice. I do think the federal income tax should be scrapped, but I think it should be scrapped in favor of a tax system that more adequately furthers the interest of the country, such as instituting an Unlimited Savings Allowance tax. This tax system would be more about behavior modification and manipulation (yes, I'll say it outright) than about income and revenue. By encouraging good money policies, you can help protect the country against a third Depression. Considering Perry is running for President, I wonder where he thinks he's paycheck will come from, if all taxes are abolished. He must have some idea of an alternative.
I'd love to read it; unless of course his ideas would be politically damaging, circumstances under which I would understand his reluctance to go public.
Source: http://www.viennava.gov/Town_Departments/
budget/budgetbrief.htm
I also agree with the requirement of Congress to pass a budget every year, but my implementation would be a little different. If the government fails to pass a budget, a new election is called. After about the third election, the DNC and RNC would be so poor that they'd be forced to work with each other, or we would finally elect a mix that would get the job done right. Like people, politicians are motivated by their pocketbooks and a quest for power. Affect their bottom lines, and they'll do their jobs. I disagree that the budget always needs to be balanced; there are times (such as now) when going into debt makes sense in order to help the country get out of an economic slump. The trick is to then roll back spending in good times and bank the surplus.
I also differ from Perry in his exception in times of war; it's simply far too easy for a President to declare "war" (officially or not) and get spending restrictions waived. I wonder which country Perry was thinking of invading.
By taking a closer look at the language Perry has used, we can see how Perry's language relays where he thinks political power should be located, and the role of the U.S. public in electing the people who make and interpret policy.
