For someone who holds the Constitution so dear, he sure wants to make a lot of changes...

1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.

The nation's framers established a federal court system whereby judges with "good behavior" would be secure in their job for life. Perry believes that provision is ready for an overhaul.

"The Judges," reads Article III, "both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office."
Perry makes it no secret that he believes the judges on the bench over the past century have acted beyond their constitutional bounds. The problem, Perry reasons, is that members of the judiciary are "unaccountable" to the people, and their lifetime tenure gives them free license to act however they want. In his book, the governor speaks highly of plans to limit their tenure and offers proposals about how to accomplish it.

"'We should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability," he writes in Fed Up! "There are a number of ideas about how to do this . . . . One such reform would be to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power. One proposal, for example, would have judges roll off every two years based on seniority."


2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.

Ending lifetime tenure for federal justices isn't the only way Perry has proposed suppressing the power of the courts. His book excoriates at length what he sees as overreach from the judicial branch. (The title of Chapter Six is "Nine Unelected Judges Tell Us How to Live.")

Giving Congress the ability to veto their decisions would be another way to take the Court down a notch, Perry says.

"Allow Congress to override the Supreme Court with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which risks increased politicization of judicial decisions, but also has the benefit of letting the people stop the Court from unilaterally deciding policy," he writes.


3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.

The Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress the "power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." It should be abolished immediately, Perry says.

Calling the Sixteenth Amendment "the great milestone on the road to serfdom," Perry's writes that it provides a virtually blank check to the federal government to use for projects with little or no consultation from the states.


4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.

Overturning this amendment would restore the original language of the Constitution, which gave state legislators the power to appoint the members of the Senate.

Ratified during the Progressive Era in 1913 , the same year as the Sixteenth Amendment, the Seventeenth Amendment gives citizens the ability to elect senators on their own. Perry writes that supporters of the amendment at the time were "mistakenly" propelled by "a fit of populist rage."

"The American people mistakenly empowered the federal government during a fit of populist rage in the early twentieth century by giving it an unlimited source of income (the Sixteenth Amendment) and by changing the way senators are elected (the Seventeenth Amendment)," he writes.


5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.

Of all his proposed ideas, Perry calls this one "the most important," and of all the plans, a balanced budget amendment likely has the best chance of passage.

"The most important thing we could do is amend the Constitution--now--to restrict federal spending," Perry writes in his book. "There are generally thought to be two options: the traditional 'balanced budget amendment' or a straightforward 'spending limit amendment,' either of which would be a significant improvement. I prefer the latter . . . . Let's use the people's document--the Constitution--to put an actual spending limit in place to control the beast in Washington."

A campaign to pass a balanced budget amendment through Congress fell short by just one vote in the Senate in the 1990s.
Last year, House Republicans proposed a spending-limit amendment that would limit federal spending to 20 percent of the economy. According to the amendment's language, the restriction could be overridden by a two-thirds vote in both Houses of Congress or by a declaration of war.


6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.

Despite saying last month that he was "fine with" states like New York allowing gay marriage, Perry has now said he supports a constitutional amendment that would permanently ban gay marriage throughout the country and overturn any state laws that define marriage beyond a relationship between one man and one woman.
"I do respect a state's right to have a different opinion and take a different tack if you will, California did that," Perry told the Christian Broadcasting Network in August. "I respect that right, but our founding fathers also said, 'Listen, if you all in the future think things are so important that you need to change the Constitution here's the way you do it'.

In an interview with The Ticket earlier this month, Perry spokeswoman Katherine Cesinger said that even though it would overturn laws in several states, the amendment still fits into Perry's broader philosophy because amendments require the ratification of three-fourths of the states to be added to the Constitution.


7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.

Like the gay marriage issue, Perry at one time believed that abortion policy should be left to the states, as was the case before the 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. But in the same Christian Broadcasting Network interview, Perry said that he would support a federal amendment outlawing abortion because it was "so important...to the soul of this country and to the traditional values of our founding fathers."

Hence the country and states being broke. Wait... what?

More crazy "conservative" rantings from a lunatic, nothing to see here. I find it infuriating how the right seem convinced that it is their "god given duty" to trample all over the rights of everyone who disagrees with them.

That said, I will agree with term limits. There needs to be term limits at all levels of government, the "Lifetime" politician needs to be abolished. Lifetimers are a cancer in our government that needs to be cut out before they manage to destroy the country.

I disagree about lifetime politicians. The underlying principle, that those who have been involved in politics longer can proceed more efficiently, is a sound one. I may agree with limits on consecutive office, forcing politicians to break from their elected positions to return to bureaucratic ones on a regular basis, but then you have the worry of also returning to private sector pursuits and acquiring all the baggage associated with that.

I understand the underlying principle behind it. However in principle and how it actually ends up working as we can see are a pretty far cry apart. The reality is lifetime politicians have little fear of losing their spot and so can spend decades pushing inane policies wasting time and further bogging down the system. In addition it makes it easier for lobby groups to buy politicians to push their agenda's which is the major problem we have now. Politicians today don't fear the people because they don't work for the people. They work for corporate lobbys.

Agreed. This is why I think consecutive term limits would alleviate some of this--it would still encourage and foster the experience the lifetime office offers while forcing contenders into the seat and bringing in some of those democratic principles the people on the talkybox like to blather on about. As for lobbyists, I don't think there is a single, permanent solution. If you force constant reelection, you just move the point of entry for lobbyist influence from the settled positions even further into the campaign stage--already a major issue in our political climate.

Very true. At the end of the day there is no fix all solution, but something certainly has to give.

If you recycle the politicians every few years but leave the staffers, lobbyists and public servants in place, all you've done is shifted the power to the non-elected and least visible parts of the government.

Couldn't be any worse IMO.

How? By forcing new a different candidate into office from the immediately previous one, staffers, lobbyists and public servants don't gain any more power to create or sign legislation.

Who's more important to the trial, the lawyers or the jury?

Experience with the system is important. A newly elected legislator will come into office with a small handful of pet projects but also an enormous mass of ignorance. Most issues they've never even heard of and the things they do care about they won't know how to actually accomplish anything. It makes them much more dependent on their party machine.

The institutional memory of the place, connections made and favors owed, the stuff politics is made of, all of that still exists and it accumulates in the people who have been there for years. With term limits in place, that's going to be the invisible parts of the system, or at best the elected officials who can't run for reelection, politicians accountable to nothing but their own conscience.

1. Yes.

2. No.

3. Don't understand.

4. Don't understand.

5. Yes.

6. No.

7. No.

Require "politician college" before they can run for office, to ensure they know what the hell they are doing before they are allowed to run for Federal Office. The ones who are forced out by maximum limits can teach them. No pass / fail, just a minimum amount of attendance and publish their papers so we can mock the failures even before they run.

heh heh heh

That and Tatoo a big red B for bigot on the forehead of every retard who opposes gay marriage or proposes Abortion be made illegal because those aren't real ****ing issues. So tired of these douchebags using hot button emotion issues as their vote collection method instead of addressing **** that is actually important.

Just gonna link it since its pretty long(read it over the course of 2 lunch breaks)

http://truthout.com/goodbye-all-refl...ult/1314907779

Its an article written by a Republican Staffer who retired after 25 years because hes sick of the current Rep. party. Interesting read. I hate to say it, but nothing in the article surprises or shocks me. Most of the things are passing comments or ideas ive had before. But it is interesting to see someone actually admit to them

For what its worth, I agree about adding term limits to the supreme court. There are supposed to be checks and balances, but realistically the Judicial can push whatever they want once they get the position. There is something terminally wrong with that.

Oh, I think we should have one pass/fail requirement... In order to graduate they would HAVE to be able to complete at least one task that required successfully working together with people who might have differing opinions on said task - and complete it within a reasonable amount of time. Of course we'd have a lot less people in politics with that requirement, but y'know, I'd be OK with that even if it meant less of the amusingly banal petty bickering.

I think it's a bit of a stretch to argue that wanting to repeal amendments falls under the category of wanting to change the Constitution. Unless you mean to say, change it back.

I'm not really weighing in on any of the issues themselves; I just thought that was odd.

What's the point of imposing term limits on Supreme Court justices if they are still appointed positions?

Unless he's also suggesting that SCJs should be elected positions, which would undermine the very reason it exists as rulings would be then made based on political popularity instead of equitable law.