If You Had the Power...

[Warfish]

[QUOTE=kennyo7;4008581]I would make PACs and other lobby groups illegal.
Individuals may donate up to $100 would be ok. But donations by companies, churches or any organizations would be illegal.[/QUOTE]

Including Unions?

[kennyo7]

[QUOTE=Warfish;4008602]Including Unions?[/QUOTE]

Of course.

[Warfish]

[QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;4008621]Every four years (Presidential cycle) place all 9 U.S. Supreme Court Justices on the ballot, approve or disapprove, and require a 40% approval (nationally) for each Justice to get another four years, otherwise the President nominates a replacement pending the Senates approval.

I don't believe in lifetime tenures for anyone (absolute power corrupts), least of all someone who exerts so much power and influence over the way we live our lives as American. In my view that invites the tyranny of an oligarchy (in Jefferson's words), and if you cannot even garner a mere 40% approval from the American people, you have lost their trust and ought not be in such a lofty position.[/QUOTE]

How does a "common man" judge the qualifications/experience/talents of a prospective Justice, prior to voting?

I understand the sentiment (and agree about life-time appointments to some degree), but Politicizing the Court would probably suffer from the rule of unintended consquences.

Instead of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Court, you'd have Ted Kennedy. Instead of Scalia, you'd get Rush Limbaugh.

Not sure thats a improvement.

[Buster]

Either

For every 300,000 Americans there should be 1 representative in congress

Or

Remove tax exemptions for Churches

[kennyo7]

[QUOTE=Warfish;4008632]How does a "common man" judge the qualifications/experience/talents of a prospective Justice, prior to voting?

I understand the sentiment (and agree about life-time appointments to some degree), but Politicizing the Court would probably suffer from the rule of unintended consquences.

Instead of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Court, you'd have Ted Kennedy. Instead of Scalia, you'd get Rush Limbaugh.

Not sure thats a improvement.[/QUOTE]

I agree. This would politicize the Supreme Court more than it is now.
How about a 16 year term limit (4 presidential terms) with mandatory retirement after 80 years of age.

[Warfish]

[QUOTE=kennyo7;4008629]Of course.[/QUOTE]

Let me propose then, a counter-idea, run it up the flagpole, see what you think.

We, as a Nation, believe striongly in "No taxation without representation", do we not? And we have a history of expanding personhood in some ways to such organizations (union and corporate and all in between).

We also tax many of them.

How about this:

We pass yoru amendment. But we also provide individual status to Companies, Groups and the like, and give them each the same donation limits as individuals, and the same vote (done by the CEO, President, Union Head, etc). as an individual?

So the 100 members of Local Buttpluggers 251 get 100 votes, and can donate $100 each say, and LB251 also gets one vote, and can donate up to $100.

This way, all groups (taxed groups at the very least) get some representation, even if it's a tiny fraction of that wielded by the much more numerous individuals.

Obviously, limits would have to be set, minimum membership, minimum employees, etc. But the same strict limits would apply, 1 vote per, and a low cash-donation limit.

[shakin318]

Hey Kenny, we missed you over on the signing statements thread. We got lonely :cool:

[Tyler Durden]

Politicalizing the Supreme Court would be the worst thing you could do. Though ending life time appointments may not be a bad thing.

[Winstonbiggs]

[QUOTE=Green Jets & Ham;4008621]Every four years (Presidential cycle) place all nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices on the ballot, [B]approve or disapprove[/B], and require a 40% approval (nationally) for each Justice to get another four years, otherwise the President nominates a replacement pending the Senates approval.

I don't believe in lifetime tenures for anyone (absolute power corrupts), least of all someone who exerts so much power and influence over the way we live our lives as Americans. In my view that invites the tyranny of an oligarchy (in Jefferson's words), and if you cannot even garner a mere 40% approval from the American people, you have lost their trust and ought not be in such a lofty position.[/QUOTE]

What Federal Judges have absolute power? We have a three teir appelate process. A single Judge tries a case a 3 Judge panel hears appeals and a 9 Judge panel hears appeals to the next level. The President appoints the Senate confirms on all appointments. There is no absolute power.

[Sourceworx]

[QUOTE=Warfish;4008632]How does a "common man" judge the qualifications/experience/talents of a prospective Justice, prior to voting?

I understand the sentiment (and agree about life-time appointments to some degree), but Politicizing the Court would probably suffer from the rule of unintended consquences.

Instead of Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Court, you'd have Ted Kennedy. Instead of Scalia, you'd get Rush Limbaugh.

Not sure thats a improvement.[/QUOTE]

I agree. Politicizing the Court would make things far worse. Politics has already rotted away two branches of government. The Supreme Court is the only semi-reliable one we have left.

[JetPotato]

[QUOTE=Warfish;4008640]Let me propose then, a counter-idea, run it up the flagpole, see what you think.

We, as a Nation, believe striongly in "No taxation without representation", do we not? And we have a history of expanding personhood in some ways to such organizations (union and corporate and all in between).

We also tax many of them.

How about this:

We pass yoru amendment. But we also provide individual status to Companies, Groups and the like, and give them each the same donation limits as individuals, and the same vote (done by the CEO, President, Union Head, etc). as an individual?

So the 100 members of Local Buttpluggers 251 get 100 votes, and can donate $100 each say, and LB251 also gets one vote, and can donate up to $100.

This way, all groups (taxed groups at the very least) get some representation, even if it's a tiny fraction of that wielded by the much more numerous individuals.

Obviously, limits would have to be set, minimum membership, minimum employees, etc. But the same strict limits would apply, 1 vote per, and a low cash-donation limit.[/QUOTE]

Better idea: stop taxing organizations. If you're a member of an organization with a political motive to donate $ to a candidate, do so as an individual.

And no caps. Individuals should be free to donate whatever they like. However, this should be public record.

[JetPotato]

[QUOTE=Tyler Durden;4008642]Politicalizing the Supreme Court would be the worst thing you could do. Though ending life time appointments may not be a bad thing.[/QUOTE]

LOL of all the LOL I've ever LOLed.

The Supreme Court isn't already politicized?

[Winstonbiggs]

[QUOTE=JetPotato;4008661]LOL of all the LOL I've ever LOLed.

The Supreme Court isn't already politicized?[/QUOTE]

Yet it's amazingly balanced.

[Buster]

[QUOTE=JetPotato;4008661]LOL of all the LOL I've ever LOLed.

The Supreme Court isn't already politicized?[/QUOTE]

They are political. Look at the recent gun rulings. They could have solved the issue once and for all because they have the conservative votes but they didn't. They left it open so that the Republican Party can still use this issue to get elected. Makes me wanna puke.

But they are not political in that they do not need to shake hands, kiss babies and sell their souls to donors in order to get elected.

So they are less political than the other two branches of Govt.

[Warfish]

[QUOTE=JetPotato;4008656]Better idea: stop taxing organizations. If you're a member of an organization with a political motive to donate $ to a candidate, do so as an individual.[/quote]

Ideal, as the consumer always ends up paying it indirectly anyway, but as Bit says, unrealistic. Just not gonna happen.

[quote]And no caps. Individuals should be free to donate whatever they like. However, this should be public record.[/QUOTE]

I go the other way, giving money is not IMO Speech. It's corruption. I'd much rather have no donations than unlimited donations (outright corrutption). Donations being public is useless, just like it is today.

[QUOTE=Buster;4008669]They are political. Look at the recent gun rulings. They could have solved the issue once and for all because they have the conservative votes but they didn't. They left it open so that the Republican Party can still use this issue to get elected. Makes me wanna puke.[/quote]

Huh?

Care to elaborate some, cause paint me ignorant, I don;t have any idea what you mean by "solved the issue" or who you're describing as Conservative Votes. Please, elaborate causE I do not understand.

[kennyo7]

[QUOTE=Warfish;4008640]Let me propose then, a counter-idea, run it up the flagpole, see what you think.

We, as a Nation, believe striongly in "No taxation without representation", do we not? And we have a history of expanding personhood in some ways to such organizations (union and corporate and all in between).

We also tax many of them.

How about this:

We pass yoru amendment. But we also provide individual status to Companies, Groups and the like, and give them each the same donation limits as individuals, and the same vote (done by the CEO, President, Union Head, etc). as an individual?

[B]So the 100 members of Local Buttpluggers 251 get 100 votes, and can donate $100 each say, and LB251 also gets one vote, and can donate up to $100.[/B]
This way, all groups (taxed groups at the very least) get some representation, even if it's a tiny fraction of that wielded by the much more numerous individuals.

Obviously, limits would have to be set, minimum membership, minimum employees, etc. But the same strict limits would apply, 1 vote per, and a low cash-donation limit.[/QUOTE]


Sounds good, except im concerned members may have their arms twisted to contribute.

I would also add I would outlaw donations by any lobby group that dealt diectly or indirectly with foreign interests. For example AIPAC .

[JetPotato]

[QUOTE=Warfish;4008677]Ideal, as the consumer always ends up paying it indirectly anyway, but as Bit says, unrealistic. Just not gonna happen.[/QUOTE]

It is realistic. You know how. At least, you know how I think how.

[QUOTE=Warfish;4008677]
I go the other way, giving money is not IMO Speech. It's corruption. I'd much rather have no donations than unlimited donations (outright corrutption). [/QUOTE]

In today's world, money is speech. It pays for advertising. And with the cost of that, how could you set limits? Candidates simply won't raise enough money to put their stupid faces out there enough to at least inform the public on their positions

[QUOTE=Warfish;4008677]
Donations being public is useless, just like it is today.[/QUOTE]

Fine, then you shouldn't have a problem with it

[TerminatorJet]

[QUOTE=JetPotato;4008661]LOL of all the LOL I've ever LOLed.

The Supreme Court isn't already politicized?[/QUOTE]

One of the biggest examples of conservative hypocrisy is how so-called "constitutional conservative" tea party-esque douchebags calling for an end to "judicial activism." Those darned lib moonbats nominating communist muslims to serve on the Federal Courts to push sharia and mandatory abortions. Oh really?


Two Words for the conservatives: [B]"Citizens United."[/B]

[B]Biggest example of judicial activism and perversion of the constitution EVER and it was politically motivated to help, omfg!, Republicans![/B]

Cue some loser trying to explain that's not the case when it absolutely was.

[parafly]

Campaign Finance Reform

Outlaw political donations and fundraisers. Funding needed to run a campaign would come from a public escrow account, split evenly between candidates who meet a certain signature threshold to run for office. Bottom line, limit the power of special interests and transform politics from "who has the most money" to "who has the better ideas."

Also, as others have stated, term limits.

[Warfish]

[QUOTE=kennyo7;4008689]Sounds good, except im concerned members may have their arms twisted to contribute.[/quote]

Aye, a risk under a system where Corps/Unions/Groups are barred totally too tbh. Perhaps even more a risk then, if Groups (I'll use groups to cover um' all) have no vote and no donation abillity. Assume there would have to be rules/laws in place to protect individuals from such coersion, with severe consequences. Up to an including dissolution of the group in question (decertification or Unions, dissolution of Corporation). No screwing around.

[quote]I would also add I would outlaw donations by any lobby group that dealt diectly or indirectly with foreign interests. For example AIPAC .[/QUOTE]

Well....that gets harder, as most Corporations (or many I should say) have Foreign Dealings, possible Foreign Interests.

Lets just say writing the guidelines for who gets the vote (from Groups) would be tough, but it could be done.

As for Lobyists...idealisticly, I'd ban them all. In the system we're fantasizing about here, there is no cause, you "lobby" by making the max donation, and voting, period.

Instead, Congress should have free range rights to call in industry experts (hopefulyl from all players involved) to get public opinion on the topics they are voting on. It's needed, cause one dark secret of Washington is that Lobyists (on both sides) provide much of the legislative backbone of what we pass as Law (again from both sides here). Bar them (and I would) and make the process of them advising COngress Public, at the very least, and remove ALL fiscal interests out of Lobying. They would no longer be lobyists, they'd be Congresses requested expert witnesses, and we (the people) would get access to every word they say to congress, good or bad.

What do you think Ken?