2012 USA Presidential Election - Who's The "Best" Choice?

Ushuaia Or Bust wrote:

So, in other words, you limit your realm of thought specifically to what you personally believe a group of individuals may or may not have said over 200 years ago? That doesn't seem very pragmatic, and certainly not free thinking. So much has changed since that era, that it has been absolutely necessary to utilize our "living, breathing" document in order to further build upon what our founding fathers established in those times. Really, just standing on the shoulders of giants.

More accurately, much lesser men kicking them in the face rather than standing on their shoulders.

The plea that we had to treat the Constitution as a "living, breathing" document to adapt to change ignores the fact that the Constitution has a vehicle for addressing change. It has an amending formula, which has been used repeatedly throughout US history. Why the Founders would have spent so much time working out a process allowing change to the Constitution if their intent was for the Constitution to be a "living, breathing" document where rights, privileges, powers, etc could be read in or eliminated by courts and governments never gets explained. Furthermore, it is telling we have now reached a point where overreaching government never even bothers to attempt change through the amending formula. They head straight for the "living, breathing" method of changing our conditions. If an attempted amendment would fail and can only be accomplished by a judicial ruling or a president applying his own interpretation, then maybe that says something about whether the states actually wanted that interpretation of the Constitution or not.

Fortunately, we don't have to rely much on what you're concerned I or anyone else thinks the Founders may or may not have said over 200 years ago. Their writings are extensive, and most of us have encountered them either during our education or in our reading about the foundation of our country.

Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.
James Madison

The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by me (as President) according to the safe and honest meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United States at the time of its adoption - a meaning to be found in the explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it.

and

...the leaven of the old mass seems to assimilate to itself the new, and after twenty years' confirmation of the federal system by the voice of the nation, declared through the medium of elections, we find the judiciary on every occasion, still driving us into consolidation. In denying the right they usurp of exclusively explaining the constitution, I go further than you do... For intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone, the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one too, which is unelected by, and independent of the nation... The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also
Thomas Jefferson

There are others... Jefferson also pointed out, incidentally, that SCOTUS never held the power of judicial oversight of the meaning of the Constitution above all other branches until they took that role upon themselves in one particular case in 1808 (Or around there... the name of the case escapes me right now). Jefferson pointed out that the judiciary had usurped that power for themselves, and even in his day he warned of a judiciary which would treat the Constitution like putty to mould and change as they please. Predictably, like governments, once a judiciary gains power for itself over how we live our lives, it never relinquishes it but only expands it. Jefferson's fears, concerns, and warnings about the judiciary are all the more true today than they were in his time.

The idea of a "living, breathing" Constitution in preference to following the Constitution as written and seeking amendment where necessary is not a new one. Current luminaries supporting a "living, breathing" document include Al Gore and the Anointed One, and a collection of liberal judges who have found the "living, breathing" concept to fit in quite nicely with moving the US away from the principles of the Founders to provide more power for government and more government "help" for us in running our lives and pursuit of happiness. They use the exact same excuse that the world as changed and so they have the obligation and unfettered power to correct the Constitution where the Founders failed to see the future. Thank God they don't have to bother trying to convince The People of the country to make those changes through some dusty old amending formula put together by a bunch of old guys over 200 years ago. Neither Al Gore nor Obama's agendas' would stand a chance if facing a Supreme Court made up of originalist judges - which I believe is itself enough to demonstrate why originalism is not only correct, but preferable.

Justices who disagree with the "living, breathing" argument of their brethern include William Rehnquist, Clarence Thomas, and Antonin Scalia - who said of those advocating a "living constitution" that they want matters to be decided, not by The People using the amending formula, but to avoid The People and have those matters decided by the justices of the Supreme Court. Telling enough, originalist judges seem to all be conservatives.

There are obviously people on both sides of the fence, but I am definitely not in agreement with the argument for a "living constitution", either in the US or in Canada where the Supreme Court now "reads in" to what the Canadian constitution says as a matter of routine. All the more so when one can't help observe that the perfectly functional amending formula for the constitution lies pretty much unused and trampled in the dust and ignored these days. Almost as though it had never been provided in the first place.

The permissive idea of rejecting originalism and the amending formula for a "living" interpretation of the Constitution by judges and governments is what allows people to argue against the Second Amendment because two centuries have passed and you don't need that anymore, or that the threat of terrorism is so great that we have to play fast and loose with your rights in other areas, because the Founders never forsaw the conditions and events of today. Sometimes referred to as "sacrifices must be made". It's an open door invitation that is commonly and regularly exploited by statists and social engineering leftists who would get nowhere under an originalist, textual Constitutional test, nor succeed with a constitutional amendment.

I'm not "limiting my realm of thought" - I'm hoping we limit those who think we just need to be "free thinking" and increasingly put power in the hands of judges and governments (instead of The People) to decide not only what the Constitution SAID, but what they think the Constitution SHOULD HAVE SAID. Because for them amending the Constitution is just too inconvenient, and why put constitutional matters before The People for decision when they know what's best for us and what kind of country we want for ourselves.

taoshum wrote:

My sense of it, in order to get the congressional approval rating above 50%, they need to do things such as:

1. Show up for work

When they flee the state to avoid showing up for work, can we put out a warrant for their arrest? If they're working at home with constituents instead of sitting in Washington, does that qualify as "work"?

Quote :

2. Stop the wars

Simplistic. Military action should have a direct relationship with the security of the US, in whatever form. I don't think Obama bombing Libya has that connection. His semi-secret military adventure in Yemen supporting the current government against Al-Queda allied forces may or may not have a demonstrable link. Staying in Afghanistan long enough - or twisting enough NATO arms to make sure they stay long enough - to ensure it doesn't become a Taliban held, Al-Queda friendly base of terrorism and operations against the US again in the future is appropriate.

Quote :

3. Get the military out of every foreign county

Simplistic and naive.

What do you propose as the plan to replace the function Diego Garcia currently serves, for example? As another example, if we leave South Korea, can you guarantee that the North will stay on their side of the line once we have signalled we are out of there? Can you guarantee that if they don't, it won't go nuclear? And if they don't stay on their side of the line, can you guarantee the economic and nuclear fallout won't affect the physical health or economic security of the US? Do offshore bases increase or decrease our ability to defend ourselves against an enemy? Consider how the loss of Pearl Harbour and the Philippines affected our ability to fight the Japanese, along with the fact the Chinese are building carrier strike forces and bringing carrier-killer missile systems online (to deal with some country's carriers, I wonder whose) while answering that.

Proposals to "get the military back home" are also simplistic and naive without explaining what you plan to do with them once they get home and how that will effect the economy. There's been an average of about 400,000 US troops stationed overseas for the last 50 years. The bases they are attached to have an unknown number of American civilians working there in support functions. Let's say 450,000 all told. Once you bring all them back - and their dependants - how do you propose to employ them all? How many more infantry soldiers do we need here in the US? Artillerymen? Do we pay them the same salary to sit around and do nothing - or do we do a RIF? If we do a RIF, where are the civilian jobs for those soldiers whose expertise is infantry, artillery, repairing weapons, etc? In our current economy? Now that everyone's back home, all the military functions and positions related to supporting offshore bases are no longer required. Probably another 100,000 military jobs right there (and associated civilian employees to those operations on top of that). We can pay them to do nothing or RIF them as well - where will they be working? The US support workers don't have jobs overseas anymore, so what jobs are waiting for them back home? In our current economy?

"Bring 'em home" is not a simplistic situation where every serviceman returned to the US is automatically money saved. It extends to a discussion of whether the cost of some of our bases overseas is offset by economic activity with the host country that may or may not exist otherwise.

But if the federal government does have one clear responsibility and obligation, and a requirement to spend on that, it is military matters and the defense of the US. Nowhere is that defence limited to only the physical, it can be economic as well. And defense does not start, at least for intelligent people, only at the instant the bad guy crosses your border - that's a little too late. Cutbacks on military spending are not off limits - but they are one hell of a long ways up the priority list to all the spending that takes place on programs and subjects that the federal government has no business being in to begin with. The priority should be with eliminating spending in areas where the federal government doesn't belong before we even get to what military spending we should and shouldn't be doing.

Bases should be dealt with on a "show cause" basis. If a reasonable case cannot be made for why a base contributes to the defense and security of the US, then it should be changed until it does or closed if it is unnecessary. That would include at home as well as overseas. Base spending should also be on a "show cause" basis - why are we spending taxpayer money to build golf courses at US bases, at home or abroad, as just one example? What military function does that serve? Military personnel are entitled to a reasonable standard of living at permanent locations, including recreation if not available from the local civilian side. But recreation isn't free at home, and if we are going to build golf courses, they better operate at a profit or at least break even levels. As a soldier, I expect the taxpayer to provide me with a reasonable environment at the bases they assigned me to. I don't expect the taxpayer should also pay for me to have free golf courses, free motocross tracks, free sporting clays ranges, etc.

The existence of soldiers and bases has nothing to do with where they are, but instead with what purpose they serve. And when you're discussing costs you need to look at where all the spending is that accounts for the grand total - and what the costs will be of eliminating bases and soldiers. Put 500,000 Americans and their families out of work with the military by eliminating overseas bases and the accompanying economy of running the military is not going to translate into 500,000 Americans simply transitioning into civilian employment. Nobody wants to talk about what that cost will be in economic and human terms - they just want to talk about how much money they will eliminating all offshore bases and positions.

Quote :

4. Solve the border/immigration issue

We already have enough laws. Enforce them. Instead of suing states for enforcing them and having the President lay a human rights complaint against a state with the UN because they chose to enforce existing laws.

Quote :

5. Reform the income tax system to have no loop holes and maybe a flat tax a VAT or something that is easy

What's a "loop hole". The tax deduction you get for your home mortgage payments? The tax deduction you get for caring for an elderly parent with Alzheimer's who is a dependent? Or is it only a "loophole" if it is something somebody else gets and not you?

The tax code is badly in need of reform. And a system that has nearly 50% of Americans who pay no tax at all voting for or against candidates' platforms on raising or lowering taxes and where taxpayer money should be spent is doomed to failure eventually anyways. A flat tax for EVERYBODY is perfectly fine with me, as is that combined with some kind of VAT, depending on how it's proposed. But "eliminate loopholes" is just one of those feels good buzz words that doesn't mean anything until you provide specifics.

Quote :

6. Institute terms limits... two terms max

And, good or bad, let's pull the pitcher in the 6th, the quarterback in the third quarter, and the goalie at the end of the second period. Make companies like Google and Microsoft change their CEO every five years as well.

We already have term limits. They're called "elections". Don't blame our system of government if voters are stupid enough and self destructive enough to continue reelecting losers. If that's still not enough, amend the Constitution. You know, that document that was written to give The People freedom to choose.

Quote :

7. 15 years and you're out for Judges

See above.

Instead, how about tackling the elimination of the judicial oligarchy that exists today and was never intended by the Framers?

Quote :

8. sell off enough federal assets to pay off the debt

How about first eliminating all spending that the federal government shouldn't even be involved in to begin with? If it is indeed an asset, why sell it instead of eliminating spending that shouldn't be occurring in the first place?

Quote :

9. Set a foreign policy that never "fires the first round"

Shall we also forbid our police to fire until after the bad guy has taken the first shot? People at home defending themselves from criminals cannot fire until their assailant has "fired the first round". Did we learn nothing from the Philippines and Pearl Harbour, the World Trade Center?

Quote :

11. clean up the corporate tax system so every corporation pays some tax

Just so we're clear on the concept, no corporation EVER pays taxes - at least, not the ones who survive more than a year or two. YOU the consumer pay those taxes. Because the corporation passes those taxes down to the consumer buying the goods and services they provide. Whether it is your motorcycle, the shipping company that got it to the dealership, the parts jobber, whoever.

Raising the taxes on corporations is simply another way of saying "raise the taxes for the taxpayers who purchase goods and services from that corporation". Which is not to say corporations shouldn't pay taxes in one form or another, but a lot of people seem to think that taxing the hell out of "corporations" is the answer to economic woes. Tax them high enough, and they will fail, particularly those competing with offshore interests. Tax rates have to leave corporations as profitable entities for them to reinvest, for stockholders to buy in and provide them with capitol, and for those companies to keep the employees they have and grow to hire others.

Quote :

12. get a health care for all system like all other semi developed countries

Unconstitutional. Go get an amendment. No "right to health care" exists in the Constitution. That's up to the states to do if they so choose, but it has nothing to do with Congress.

And having watched both my mother and father die on waiting lists for cancer treatment under the Canadian health care system, I'll pass on that option on those grounds alone.

Quote :

13. restore the SSI fund to a self sustaining level, like every other pension system and keep it that way

"Restore"? Please provide a decade where the SSI was ever at a "self sustaining level". It has been a Ponzi scheme since the day of it's inception - as has its Canadian equivalent.

It's also unconstitutional in my view, so all the more reason to phase it out and replace it with incentives for people to take responsibility for creating their own pension system.

Quote :

14. raise the gas tax to keep the hiways repaired and in good shape

User pays, why not? But why is the answer always "raising taxes" instead of "cutting government spending"?

Quote :

15. get the thermal efficiency of coal burning power plants up to the same level as Europe

Euro-envy again. Provide companies with the economic incentive (like examining the regulatory blanket they have to work under) to improve their technology and I think Americans can compete with anyone.

Quote :

16. encourage private PV power production and pay double the rate per kw-hr compared to coal based power

Is that kind of like those smart "green" cars that actually have twice the carbon footprint of an ordinary vehicle? Government paying (or requiring they be paid) a private company "double the rate" for the power they produce kind of sounds to me like one of those "subsidies" you want eliminated a few lines down.

Ask SheWolf how 3P power generation is working out in BC...

Quote :

17. reduce the nuclear arsenal to 20 weapons, 5 for submarines; 5 for bombers; 10 in reserve.

Sell the rest to the Chinese to offset our debt and help them get those carrier strike forces online a lot faster? Would that count as "sell off federal assets to offset the debt"?

I think I'd prefer that the Chinese and everybody else have no idea how many of those nukes there are, nor where they are, thanks. The last thing I want is a country with a political system that sees soldier's lives as belonging to the state and properly expended in a war of attrition to start doing a calculus of felicity.

Quote :

19. Reform the banking regs to get rid of "too big to fail"

Yep. But maybe even more important is getting rid of legislation like the CRA that either requires or tempts financial institutions to make imprudent and risky loans and investments.

Quote :

20. Require all elected officials to send their kids to public schools and do 4 years in the military

Why? No doubt because you think it'll stop "military adventurism"? Unconstitutional as hell - go get yourself an amendment to the constitution.

But I'll support you this one time.

Let's see... every mayor, reeve, alderman, councilman, governor, senator, congressman, and president has to be a veteran of the military. And thus, the theory goes, governance throughout the US made up entirely of military veterans will not only remain equally as open to women, but will also be more likely to be opposed to military operations than supportive of them! And people like me can run for office, and people like MotoKid can't.

HAAA HAHAHAHAAAAAAA.... Me likey! Get rid of all the lightweights! (Pity about losing so many women in public office, though).

Can we go even further and make it like Starship Troopers, where you aren't a voting citizen unless you serve that same four years in the military? How about requiring all in Congress to have at least served in a combat arms branch, rather than just whiling away their four years in some perfectly safe job like in a warehouse making sure everything inside is properly bar-coded?

And the President also has to have at least jump wings or a CIB?

Yep, one unconstitutional proposal by you that I could live with, even though it's morally wrong. But I still have to tell you to go get a constitutional amendment.

Quote :

21. Stop all subsidies/earmarks for select areas like farming or some senator's private deal

Like subsidizing private power production by guaranteeing them sales at twice the going rate you mean?

I'm all for eliminating subsidies and earmarks - including those for private power production.

Quote :

22. Make lobbyists get 250 signatures from qualified voters in the congressional district before they can speak to the congress-person who represents that district.

Sure. Never gave it a lot of thought, but why not?

Quote :

23. Get us a communications system that is at least as good as the one in South Korea.

How about getting rid of the masses of federal regulation that impede private enterprise and see if American businessmen can figure it out for themselves instead of asking the federal government to get deeper into something they have no business controlling in the first place?

Quote :

report on the progress on each of these areas every quarter in writing

I'd rather they were working than preparing and writing massive reports four times a year, thanks. Particularly when nearly 50% of the population can't even be bothered to vote, much less read something as voluminous as that would be.

Quote :

ok, ready, fire, aim.

All in all, you're fired. Particularly because of so many unconstitutional bits.