2. Congress should be able to override a SC decision with a 2/3 majority vote

Again...VIOLATION OF THE SEPERATION OF POWERS.

The President appoints and Congress confirms the SC nominees.

Those are the checks of the Legis. and Exec. branches on the Judicial Branch.

This removes the final authority of the NON-electoral, popular voice in matters, ie, the Conscience of the Supreme Court, and places the last word in the hands of the ELECTED and POPULAR, drumming out the voice of the minority, and making law, even unconstitutional law, the say of the popular.

Democracy is rule by choice, not an ad populem attack on logic, reason, and the documents which found the nation.

Theoretically, with this, Congress can introduce a bill, have the President veto it, have the Congress override it with a 2/3 majority, have the SC strike it down, and then have Congress STILL make it law with that same 2/3 majority.

Anyone else see an imbalance there?

3. Scrap federal income tax

It's so fun to hear how it's "wrong" or "Unconstitutional" to have to pay taxes.

Especially since the Constitution was created uin part because the old Articles of Confederation weren't working and the USA wasn't able to effectively tax, and without taxes...you have no government.

That's a necessary and inescapable truth; the military Mr. Perry seems to extol the virtues of at every photo opportunity COSTS MONEY.

As do public works.
And healthcare.
And Social Security (which I'm sure he'd love to privatize, but one battle at a time.)
And Education.

And so on and so forth.

Suck it up, Tea Partyers and Far-Right-Wingers...

It costs money to be an American, or an En glishman or Frenchman or German or any other citizen of any other state, for that matter.

Taxes keep the nation going, and those F-15s flying.

4. End the direct eelection of Senators, and have them be appointed by the state legislature, as was the case Pre-1913

Do I need to go into detail as to why this is an abhorrent idea?

Do away with the election of elected officials...because elections in a free society are a terrible, terrible thing.

(Additionally, you can not that if you take THIS with #1, there is a fundamental flaw in Mr. Perry's rationale that giving Congress the last say in the constitutionality of law fair and just because it's reflective of the views of the people...well, if the SENATE is now no longer elected, where is this democratic voice coming from? The House, yes, but the Senate ultimately passes the bill, so it comes down to, once more, a group of non-elected officials passing law.

IT's just the officials Mr. Perry now believes will side with him, rather than the relative-incorrutibility of the Supreme Court as it stands now.)

Skipping #5, since that's something of a no-brainer and an "easier-said-than-done" hope that sounds lovely to say but is difficult in practice:

6. Ammend the Constitution to ban gay marriage and formally define marriage as being between a man and a woman

I don't think I need to comment on why THIS is a repugnant suggestion, either...so, #7:

7. Ban Abortion Nationwide

Wow.

Really?

NEVER saw that coming, not from this man's view...

Next up on the agenda, I'm sure:

Re-institute school prayer, make Christianity the official religion of the US, ban all "Anti-Christian" textbooks, teach intelligent design in science classes...and on and on and on...

Repugnant ideas from a foolish man with a foolish base.

And, sadly, both are seen and heard more and more...

As a non-american I would like to point out that the separation of power is in no way a must for a working democratic society: In most of Europe the parliament (congress) is the only real power, while the justice system is more of an bureaucratic institution. Also, as the government is wholly dependent of support in the parliament it prevents the lock-down effect when the president and congress is of different opinion as the last month of Obama vs. Tea party has shown. Even if I can understand the fundamental principle why separation of power might be good I do think it produces a lot of ineffectivity that the equally democratic parliamentary model don't have to cope with, and I'm not so sure that a more centralised government in the US would be bad right now to prevent even more political fighting.
Other than that he seem like a normal right-wing lunatic, and it amazes and frightens me that there is a chance he might become president.

@Obi - The "excerpts" the fool who wrote that article use take his thoughts completely out of context. Instead of reading some fools blog about the book, why not go read the book. He doesn't propose judicial term limits as the only way to reign in activist judges who write law instead of interpretting it, which is all he wants to do with regards to judges and I agree with him that we need to do *something*. Activist judges run amok in this country and the judicial system needs to be reeled in and spanked so they stop twisting the interpretations and enforce what is clearly written on the page.

As far as #2, the veto override of the SC... Again, it's a suggestion of how to reel in activist courts. And it's just one suggestion of a possible way.

Scrapping the current income tax system (#3 on this fools list) doesn't mean not collecting taxes. It means the system is *FUCKED* beyond belief and needs overhauling. I agree with him on this.

With regards to appointing instead of electing senators, read the book. He didn't say what this asshat thinks he said. He said the two were passed in a fit of populist rage. They were. But he only wants to overhaul the 16th amendment and make taxes fair and equitable, reigning in the feds and the spending that goes on.

#5 is a good idea, if a bit naive. We, the people, live on balanced budgets in our everyday lives (OK, us *responsible adults* live on balanced budgets). Why shouldn't the government?

#6 and #7 are just extreme right bullshit that every tea partier and far right republican believes. Those of us who are conservative leaning independents don't believe in that crap. But hey, Perry is a tea partier so he is going to tow that line.

@Draugnar - I can agree that activist judges could be a bad thing, specially on the first degree of jurisdiction, but there is no way a Supreme Court could work without some activism as this is one of this roles in any country that have one (USA, Germany, Brasil, etc.)
Onf of the SC main roles is exactly avoid attacks from the majority to the fundamental values of the society, like equality, human dignity, democracy, etc. So there is no way this same majority should be allowed to overrule the SC without breaking the more basics principles of the justice system.

1. makes you sound pro-dictatorship
2. Good point
3. Should be scrapped
4. This is how it is done in Canada :)
5-7 are stupid

Guys its basic economics: During a recession your suppose to be spend more then you earn, however when its not a recession your suppose to spend less.

@RDR - I agree. But when the SC can say "well you may have passed this amendment to the Constitution, but we don't believe it is valid" they are oversteppign their bounds. The US Supreme Court is bound by oath, just as the President, to abide by the Consitution and it is their law to apply it evenly and consistently. To just ignore something because they don't think it is right is a violation of their own oath.

Most of the problems, however, reside in circuit court and appeals court judges. Not in the SC itself. That is where we need to be able to remove a judge from office for neglect of duty when their decisions are overturned repeatedly by the Supreme Court. Short of a judge commiting an actual crime, we have no real way to remove one from power. We can impeach members of both the Executive and Legislative branches, but it takes an act of God to remove a sitting federal judge who is abusing his authority.

"Onf of the SC main roles is exactly avoid attacks from the majority to the fundamental values of the society, like equality, human dignity, democracy, etc."

True to an extent. But as I previosuly pointed out, if the majority gets it put in the Constitution, the SC does *not* have the authroity to override it. If, God forbid, we had a consitutional amendment that turned all illegal aliens into personal slaves for anyone who caught them (I'm not saying I support this to the asswipes in the peanut gallery) then, like it or not, the SC would be overstepping their authority when the ACLU tried to have them overturn it. Again, I'm not saying I advocate that particular scenario. I don't. It is a made up extreme example to show where the limits of the SCs power reside.

@Draug - Well, at least here on my country (I have a law degree here, but obviously don´t have qualification to talk about US Supreme Court and legal system) the SC have the right to call unconstitutional a constitutional amendment. That´s why we said that the original constitutional power has no limits (so, the SC and all the other powers have to abide to the constitution) while the derivate constitutional powers (the legislative of today) is limited by the constitution and for the values considered as fundamentals (also, the international treaties and the likes). This is one way to avoid that one insane legislation twist the entire constitution (like your alien slaves example or what happened on Germany Nazist era).

I'm from Texas and no fan of Perry's. Voted against his ass for governor in 2010.

There is only one reason you need to know to hate him - google Cameron Todd Willingham.

Well, here in the US, the SC has *no* power to declare an amendment unconstitutional. Hell, how can the Constitution be unconstitutional? :-) No, a ratified amendment is part of the Constitution and the SC has no power to even stop it being presented for ratification.

Well, before I must give up this computer...

@Draug:

-Whether it was his main idea or one of many ideas he has to reign in "Activist judges," the idea of abolishing life terms for SC judges is STILL directly against the founding fabric of the US Constitution...

doesn't THAT sound a bit "activist?" (And while I won't go so far as to say I'd like to see judges write law instead of judging it, I also don't merely want judges who just READ LAW, if that makes sense...there's a middle bground between "The Constitution implies that any and all ammendments and rulings I propose are totally cool!" and "The Constitution is to be read word for word for word with absolutely no room for implied powers or ideals at all...unless, of course, you mean it says that America is a Christian Nation and gays are bad and should NEVER be allowed to marry, no, THAT, gents, is implied!"

There's a middle ground between Far-Left Activism and Far-Right Word-for-Word readings...

And if these presences must be, then they should be roughly equal, which they generally have been...some SCs have leaned more to the Left or Right, but most have at least some decent representation for both the Far-Left and Far-Right and every shade in-between...the Court is at it's best, at it's most ideal, optimal working capacity, in my opinion, when you have one or two on the Far-Left, trying to "write law," one or two on the Far-Right, reading literally and Word-for-Word, and the rest somewhere in the middle.

This allows SOME room for the Court to debate and fashion new policies via ruling when appropriate--case in point, de-segregation in Brown v. Board of Education, that was a policy shift marked by a court decision, but a fair and necessary one--without it becoming wholly-activist or wholly-conservative.

I REALLY recommend the "West Wing" episode "The Supremes"...it's just entertaining, and they talk ALL about this, and pretty intelligently and passionatly as well.)

And "one possible way" doesn't work for overriding the SC via Congressional vote, either.

BREACH OF SEPERATION OF POWERS.

It doesn't matter what ends you're seeking (and I'd argue your ends don't work, either, as, again, citing Brown v. Baord of Education, in some cases, like it or not, dictate US policy is what the SC gets tpo do via the powrs of the Constitution.

PERRY doesn't liek that, becasue this means that if a SC ever found banning gay marriage to be a violation of rights enumerated and implied or, conversely, if intelligent design were ever struck down by a SC as non-scientific dribble--and it is--then Perry and the GOP, even if they had a stacked Congress...

JUST wouldn't get their way, and be able to ruin kids' educations to suit their ideological means or deny rights to certain people.

And, to prove I'm fair, YES--the sC ALSO fucntions so an all-Left Congress/President combo can't run the country into communism (and que the anti-Obama-ites here who'll say this has already happened and we're all fools and sheep to a herd and we need to open our eyes and see the truth to fascist-communist-nasty Obama and blah blah blah blah blah...spam another thread with it, folks, we've heard it HERE enough times.

Go talk to TC if you want to here that, he's always happy to preach to his choir about his inane ideals...just don't question a thing he says, or you get muted.)

"With regards to appointing instead of electing senators, read the book. He didn't say what this asshat thinks he said. He said the two were passed in a fit of populist rage. They were. But he only wants to overhaul the 16th amendment and make taxes fair and equitable, reigning in the feds and the spending that goes on."

That first part...OK...so was that a bold-faced lie and he DIDN'T approve appointment-over-election for Senators, or is there a degree of truth to this betwen "not at all" and "100%?"

The second part...that sounds lovely when you, myself, Mr. Perry, or anyone SAYS "we MUST 'reign in the feds'!"

But lovely words aren't a comprehensive policy...and doesn't explain how the entire system.

Perhaps he elaboates in-book, but even then, that's not enough...it'd take a book-length thesis ITSELF to cover all the changes and bases and costs and such necessary for such an overhaul.



Maybe his idea's a winner, maybe it stinks.

Either way, my point here--he should lose the flowery, insubstatial rhetoric unless he has the big, beefy, book-sized plan to actually fix things.

Words alone do not impress me; in fact, they rather annoy me, when every sEan Hanniry and Anderson Cooper blathers on to listeners how X "must be change" or how Y "must be brought to task" and so on and so forth...

Results and Research, not Rhetoric.

At leas we agree #5 is silly, pie-in-the-sky nonsense, and 6-7 are absurd and signs of the Tea Party's idiocy.

(Not the REPUBLICAN Party...though I don't care for it at all these days...the distnction, the TEA PARTY is what I call insane, inane, or just plain moronic and whiny with an ill-educated fan base and half-drunken hordes of Beck-boosters and conspiracy nuts.

GOP=...meh.
DNC=...meh.
TEA=BLEH!

And with that...I leave, and hope to have my own computer back soon! :)

@Obiwan - I ask this with all sincerity... Did you just suggest the court has the right to tell private / religious schools that they can't teach ID? I ask because that would violate the constitutional guarantee to practice religion by banning an aspect of religious teaching. If you want to say it can't be taught in public schools, fine
But don't you dare imply a Catholic school can't teach ID as it is their Constitutional right to do so.

RDR, I have a law degree here in the US. Draugnar is correct. There is only one possible amendment that the Supreme Court could declare unconstitutional: an amendment depriving a state of its representation in the Senate. This is explicitly disallowed. Otherwise, Draug is right, it is logically incoherent (in our system, I'm not familiar with yours and make no comment) to imagine the an amendment being unconstitutional. If there were a conflict, then according to the canons of interpretation in America (from England), they would be resolved in favor of the newer amendment, and against the original text.

1. He's not saying Supreme Court Justices or federal judges should be elected. He's basically saying they shouldn't work into their nineties, as many do. There's certainly something to be said for getting some new blood in more often. Also state courts don't have life terms and they're hardly dens of rampant populism. Messing with life terms may not be the best idea, but it's hardly radical.

2. Judicial review is only a constitutional convention. Congress hypothetically could exempt a law from review by the courts if it ever wanted to. I don't agree with Perry on this, but again, it's hardly as crazy an idea as you make it out. Also keep in mind this would never ever happen even if Perry won 50 states in 2012 and 70 in 2016.

3. The income tax should be abolished. The government can still get plenty of money from a national sales tax or the Fair Tax or some other system. Indeed, without the byzantine system we have now they could probably get more. Perry has the right idea, and if the Super Committee actually works this fall we could even see President Obama sign on to a tax reform proposal that is nearly as transformative as this.

4. I don't like the idea of going back to state legislators appointing senators wither (unless it's part of a radical reform which increases the size and power of the House and weakens the Senate considerably), but again Perry can't just be dismissed here. I'd also not be using democracy as a defense of the Senate. Delaware has as many senators as California.

5. Ideally the budget should always be balanced. However, an amendment would probably not make it so. Illinois has a balanced budget amendment. It does not have a balanced budget. This does show the guy's serious about fixing our country's problems, though.

6. Yeah, I don't want a marriage amendment. At the same time, though, this would never happen so you can pretty much ignore it.

7. Abortion shouldn't happen, but it also shouldn't be illegal. But once again, an amendment would never pass and there's little he could do to stop abortion besides not giving federal money.


So calm down obiwanobiwan. He's not my first choice by any means either, but the guy's tied with Obama right now in the polls. He very well could be our next president. If that happens the world will not end.

Google Cameron Todd Willingham.

Rick Perry was complicit in the murder of an innocent man, and is not fit for office.

Texas office or national office.

Or any office, except the slammer.

Actually Invictus the guy is pretty much one of the worst possible people we could elect. I would prefer Bachmann.... and that's saying something.

Oh yeah, another reason you missed dude.

Rick Perry does not care about education in any sense of the word. So if you think school is an important thing, vote against him.

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/08/20118218447380373.html

@Thucy - Regarding your first accusation. Prove it. He denies he changed the commission members to alter the outcome. Beyond that, the report about CTW's possible innocence came out 5 years *after* the man was executed. If he was guilty of being complicit, they should have tried him. Until then, innocent until proven guilty applies especially when only the conspiracy whack jobs think there was a crime committed.

Innocent poeple go to jail. Innocent people even get executed. Ours is not a perfect system. But it is better than most. But to accuse a person of complicity to commit murder when he replaced a few members of a commission *and* it took fire science that was 17 years newer than when the crime was committed to show CTW didn't do the crime is irresponsible at best and defamation of character through libel considering your intent.

Sorry, but you are convicting a man in a court of public opinion based on actions whose motives require evidence not where the technology for such evidence wasn't even available at the time.

Shame on you, Thucy. I muted another whack job who thought the Secret Service knew the President wasn't a target on 9/11 for just this same kind of illogical "logic".

Not a conspiracy... not at all. Read a little more about it and get back to me, starting with the New Yorker article. I won't repeat what others have said esp. since you are less likely to believe it coming from me.

I also await your alternative 'legitimate explanation' for Perry's actions.

In Texas we know this man, and we know he is exactly the type who would literally not give a shit about the new evidence and literally, intentionally, move ahead with the execution because "that's what the corsicana fire dept said" or a bullshit technicality like that.

I don't have a burning desire to convince you Rick Perry is a horrible person, but I hope you discover that he is in the course of this campaign.

The man is a snake who is more interested in sticking it to his opponents and winning than anything else. The worst kind (but unfortunately the most common kind) of Republican and indeed politician these days.

I hope the Super Congress(!) doesn't come out with the FairTax or a national retail sales tax. Very regressive tax. Do a flat tax with no deductions, and allow everyone to make up to poverty with no taxes. If they come out with the FairTax, I will know the Democratic Party has been completely co-opted.