• Log In
  • Sign Up
    • Government structure should be designed so that significant changes in policy do not happen quickly. The idea that the Senate is the saucer that cools down heated decisions made by the lower house is a frustrating concept in practice sometimes, but it avoids hasty policy changes that future generations have to contend with. At the same time, I do think that allowing over two hundred years to obtain sufficient states to ratify a constitutional amendment is not representative government, even if it does reflect the views of the current generation.

      The one thought I have with the argument you’ve made is that government is an ever evolving network of individual pieces. People often create workarounds when the system isn’t operating efficiently or the way it was intended, and if you fix the system without removing those workarounds, the system will still be broken.

      How do you decide how long should be allowed for state legislatures to ratify an amendment? Four years or less may have been the precedent until 1992, but is that for the best? Should it be open for a generation? Or until the children born when the amendment began ratification are old enough to vote for new state legislators?

      Fascinating ideas on the governing process that you’ve caused me to ponder.

      Thank you!


    • I am far from a constitutional expert or even a novice at best but I do have a problem with putting too much power into the hands of the courts whether balance goes to the left or right. The power of referendum taking issues directly to the people through amendments is a necessary component in my view to keep the democratic in the republic.

      As far as time limits I have never even thought of this so this is a teachable moment for me. But I don't see how you would want to keep a ratification window open indefinitely. People have a chance to vote and at some point the window needs to close or really want is the point.

      Another point on limits is term limits. I believe we should have 2 - 4 year terms for senate and the house. If it is good enough for the president it should be good enough for congress. I know all the arguments but 8 years will give them plenty of time to figure out the job. We would obviously need an amendment for this but I just don't see the necessity for a career politician in the same role. I know the founding fathers had their reasons but if they could have had the luxury of a looking glass into contemporary society they may have had a change of heart.

      And while we are at it let's throw in another amendment for campaign finance reform taking money out of election cycles completely. Create media slots and media services for TV, Radio, Newspaper, Web ads, and Social to allow candidates to run their messaging. (Same slots and level of services for all candidates) The government could provide tax breaks for the services or even subsidies.. Candidates would then use these services and slots to explain their platform. Everything else is door to door or through volunteer activities. I know this is wishful thinking but money should be taken out of the electioneering process, period. Candidates utilizing the fixed resources most effectively with the best messaging wins the better exposure. It will still be flawed but I believe it would have to be better than the mess we currently have.