Peter G (sinetimore) wrote,
Peter G
sinetimore

Any Chance Of Rick Perry Dropping Out Of The Republican Race Right Now?

Rick Perry had himself a little sitdown with the Yahoo blog The Ticket. The candidates are trying to say things to get people to vote for them. So what is Rick Perry talking about?

Seven ways he would change the Constitution if he could.

Right away, I want to say, Fuck you, but okay. Let's let him speak and try to take him seriously. That way, I can shit all over his statements completely one by one.

1) He wants to abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges. Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution reads, "The Judges, 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 believes that this makes members of the judiciary "unaccountable" to the people. In his book, Fed Up!, he writes, "[W]e should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability. 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."

Where do I even begin with this? Term limits do not guarantee beholden to the public. We've seen judges in Iowa voted out because they ruled in favor of same sex marriage. We've seen judges here in Illinois who blatantly abuse their authority, and the judge panel gives him a slap on the wrist. We have states with term limits for elected officials who still see corruption or elected officials, judges and politicians, who serve their own little cliques instead of the people. The only way to fix that is to get better people, not to turn the elected office into a carrot on a stick.

And you know goddamn well that, if the judges were ruling in ways Perry liked, he'd defend lifetime appointments like you wouldn't believe.

2) Congress should have the ability to override the Supreme Court with a two-thirds supermajority vote. Anyone else think this is an extraordinarily bad idea? Oops, I'm talking out of turn. In the same book, he writes, "[A]llow 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."

Congressmen freely admit they simply pass laws and let the courts decide if they should be kept. And according to the Constitution, Congress makes laws and the courts protect people from them. It's part of checks and balances. Thinking that eliminating that check should get him slapped.

3) Repeal the 16th Amendment, which enables the government to collect income tax. Perry writes the 16th Amendment is "the great milestone on the road to serfdom." He says it provides a blank check for the government to use for projects without any input from the states.

Uh, no. The federal deficit enables the government to use money for projects without input. The income tax is one way they pay for it, but not the only one. The government is on the verge of defaulting even with the income tax. Maybe if we held politicians accountable with the same zeal he wants to hold federal judges responsible, maybe this spending problem will go away, hmm?

4) Repeal the 17th Amendment. The 17th was the same year as the 16th, 1913. Before that, state legs appointed their senators. After, they were elected by the citizens. You know, like the President, reps, and even people like the governor of Texas. Oh, wait. As governor, he would be able to use his connections to appoint senators he liked. Aaaaaaaaah....

5) Require the federal government to balance the budget every year. Oh, yeah. THAT'LL pass Congress.

6) A Constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Marriage is only about love if people want it to be. Legally, marriage is about property. It's about power of attorney. It's about making decisions. I still have yet to hear a convincing argument about why an opposite gender makes one person more worthy of such decisions than the same gender. Especially when there are already legal documents establishing such for domestic partners and they work and are honored just fine.

7) Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country. Notice how it's always the men who control the debate on abortion instead of the women they put in the situation where they have to make the decision?

These aren't campaign platforms. They're pipe dreams. And I'm seriously wondering what's in the pipe.
Tags: did not do the research, haven't we suffered enough, history, hypocrisy, infernal gall, let's talk about sex bay-bee!, news, nightmare fuel, politics, portents of doom, stupidity, wtf
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 0 comments