Repost from George Sarant - The Win in MA

When the most liberal Democratic state in the union sends a Republican to the Senate, which it has not done since 1972, something clearly is up. Scott Brown’s comfortable victory sends a clear message to the most radical government in American history. The people do not want what the congress is trying to put over on them. Never in the history of the country has a radical congress tried to put across a major piece of legislation which a solid majority of people oppose. That is the case with the abominable health care overhaul, which was already bad before it descended into blatant deal-making with certain senators to provide their states with something others are not getting, and exempting the unions from a tax that will be foisted on everyone else. People have looked at this and decided that even what we have now is better than what is being proposed.

That this message resonates as far as Massachusetts indicates how strong feelings are about this congress. This election was clearly nationalized so there’s no doubting the meaning of the outcome. Democrats may find solace in the equally out-of-touch mainstream media, but the course they have chosen is clearly disastrous, no only for them but for the country. People don’t want a socialist America. They do not want a bloated government with ever increasing spending, deficits, and taxes. They do not want the government taking over health care. They do not want cap and trade legislation that will wreck the economy. In fact there is little on the agenda that they do want.

How can politicians be so tone-deaf? The answer is purely ideology. They have misread their majority as an endorsement for a radical agenda of every item on the left-wing wish list. The leadership is so dedicated to this that Pelosi and company will still try to push it forward even as party members drop away for fear of a tsunami of change that is certain to arrive this November. Hopefully the damage between now and then will be limited.


SEE MORE OF GEORGE ON FACE BOOK -SEARCH FOR GEORGE SARANT

The Presidency

No McCain-Feingold needed. The President would be Selected every 6 years by each state legislature meeting on the same day as all others and casting a single vote for that state for a person to serve a single 6 year term. The person getting a majority of the 50 votes is president for the next 6 years but that is all he/she can serve.

This would mean that the person you vote for to represent you in the state legislature for the period when that Selection would take place is going to run on a platform that includes who they would vote for president. To equalize the power of the majority and the minority in the consideration; all state legislatures must be bi-cameral where one house is elected based on population and one house is elected based on areas divided solely on land mass. (Sorry Nebraska!) Thus your legislature would have a House like the US House and a Senate like the US Senate. (See a later post on apportionment.)

So the big money that now goes to Presidential campaigns would in most part go to local campaigns. So you you would see ads that say things like "Vote for Joe Blow for District 5 Missouri House General Assembly; he is committed to Sam Smith for President."

There probably would still be National Nominating Conventions but not necessarily.

A Vice President would be Selected by 2/3 of the US House after the President is chosen; from a member of the US Senate who is a member of the same party as that of the person Selected as President.

The US Congress would lack all powers to regulate this election or any other election of either a member of congress or the state legislatures.

More on the Presidency in a subsequent post.

The Judiciary

In the revised constitution the thing that needs fixed the most is the judiciary.

First: get rid of the life appointment; make it a single term of 14 years. This will make sure that it turns over during the term of a subsequent president. In no case may a judge serve past the age of 75.

Second: If a court finds an act of Congress unconstitutional; Congress can reenact that act by 2/3 of each house.

Third the Supreme Court can find a state act unconstitutional if and only if the State Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of the act. The US Supreme Court must rule by 2/3 of all justice appointed at that time on the constitutionality of the act. If a state act is ruled unconstitutional the state legislature can reenact it by 2/3 of each house unless the state has a unicameral then it must be 3/4 (Nebraska has idiots).

Fourth: The Senate of the United States must immediately put to an up or down vote the confirmation of any appointment to the judiciary sent to it by the President. No procedure other than taking the vote is possible and no other action of the Senate can take place until that vote is taken. Any Senator not present or voting present shall be counted as voting in favor of the appointment. No more holding appointments for years while senators deal for bridges to no where.

There will be some other posts about changes to the Constitution that will touch the judiciary but these are the direct changes.

Step one!

Step one of this effort is to draft an uniform resolution to be used in the States calling for the convention.

The states have never called for a convention so there is no history for it; which adds to difficulty. The thought is that if the states do not pass the exact same resolution that the call will not pass the Supreme Court's scrutiny when the ACLU brings its law suit to stop it.

Suggestions are requested; if you would like to help on the drafting please send an email.

These organizations will not be helpful: Political parties, presidential candidates, and the national organization of legislatures because they will foresee this as a threat to the status quo.

If you are now a member of; have ever been a member of or agreed with the ACLU on anything you are certainly not welcome to participate! Why? You have a conflict that is in violation of the code of ethics.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg please recuse yourself when this case reaches the court following the code of judicial conduct.