The Constitution is Outdated-Part III

 

 

In the first two installments of this blog on constitutional reform, I recommended that the United States should implement a Parliamentary system of government. whereby the leader  and deputy leader of the party that has the most seats in the House of Representatives  become President and Vice President. I also made proposals that would delineate specific responsibilities for both the Senate and the House of Representatives to avoid overlap. In addition, I made suggestions concerning the timing of federal elections.

 

It almost goes without saying that the same reforms would work well at the State level. Although I don’t want to dwell on this issue to any great extent, I find it somewhat absurd that there are so many elections for positions that could more effectively be filled by appointment rather than by election. Examples would include members on school boards, hospital boards, airport boards, police commissions and even district attorneys and judges. Appointments should be based on qualifications and not likability.

 

We Need HONEST Government

 

In this last blog installment on political reform, I would like to concentrate on ways of making our government more honest, as well as efficient. My first recommendation is that lobbying by special interest groups should be much more closely regulated

 

In a free-market system, including a framework based on Enlightened Capitalism  (Capitalism with a Conscience) the right of freedom of speech must be cherished. I am not suggesting that any particular industry or organization should be prohibited from hiring and training people to promote its interests. In fact, without advocates, our society might never change for the better. For example, slavery might never have been abolished and women might never have obtained the right to vote. In my opinion, there is also nothing wrong when a special interest group decides to support one candidate over another for election. After all, each party should have its own distinct platform.

 

 

However, I believe that lobbyists must be prevented by law from offering monetary or other personal incentives directly or indirectly to candidates for political office and members of their families.  Restrictions should include paid vacations. the use of private jets, significant campaign financing and offers of post-political employment and or directorships.

Let’s  Regulate Each Candidate’s Campaign Spending

 

 

I also believe that campaign financing legislation should be introduced to impose reasonable limits. I really don’t have the necessary personal knowledge or experience to propose specific monetary limits, so I will restrict my comments to the concept of tightening the rules governing campaign financing.

 

in 1976, the US Supreme Court ruled that it would violate the First Amendment to limit what any candidate could spend on his or her own behalf. In so ruling, the Court extended the right of free speech perhaps beyond the original intentions of the people who drafted and approved this amendment. I believe that, since the First Amendment does not protect racism or hardcore pornography, the doctrine of unlimited campaign spending should not be protected either. Let’s amend the First Amendment.

 

Can one seriously expect someone who is a multi-millionaire or is a member of a multi-millionaire family to consistently represent the needs and wishes of the Common People? John F. Kennedy once remarked during the 1960 West Virginia primary that he had received a telegram from his father, telling him not to buy another vote since his father refused to pay for a landslide.

 

I believe that good government would be well-served by requiring most (if not all) allowable campaign contributions to be made to the parties and not the candidates.  I covered this in Part II of this blog. The parties   could then decide how much to allot to each congressional candidate. A larger “ slice of the pie” could be allocated to the people who are their parties’ respective nominees for President and Vice President.

 

Let’s Also Regulate Overall Campaign Spending.

 

 

In this, the 21st century, is it really necessary to clutter our roadsides with signs and placards that promote candidates for office? Is it not true that we can learn all we need to know from radio, television and the internet? Don’t the high-profile candidates debate each other, and aren’t these debates recorded and posted on YouTube and Facebook? If you’d rather tune into hockey, basketball or a sitcom, can you not record candidate debates and watch them at some other time? Don’t the candidates post bios and outlines of their platforms in the newspapers and in the voting pamphlets we receive prior to each election?

 

Again, I don’t believe that I can suggest monetary limits. However, if campaign spending and campaign financing could  be  realistically curtailed, this would go a long way to reduce political dependency on special interest groups.

 

Although it would be difficult to implement rules of good conduct, I strongly recommend that it would be much more beneficial if candidates spent their allotted dollars emphasizing their own  credentials without taking potshots against their opponents.

 

 

 

Lawmakers Must Themselves Obey The Law

Perhaps my most significant recommendations in this segment of my blog on Constitutional reform are targeted to ensure  that our lawmakers obey the law. Since the members of our Congress are the lawmakers of our nation, in that they create our laws, we, the people, must, in turn, formulate effective methods to make sure that they also obey them.

 

My first recommendation is  that each Congressperson and adult members of his or her immediate family should be subjected to an independent annual audit to determine whether changes in their net worth are commensurate with their legitimate incomes and personal net worth at the end of the preceding year. I believe that these audits should be continued until five years have elapsed after they have left office. Penalties for corrupt activities should be as onerous as those in place under the provisions of RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act).  These include criminal prosecution and confiscation of assets.

My second recommendation is to introduce the administration of periodic polygraph test to members of Congress. Under current legislation, the Employee Polygraph Protection Act limits ( but does not prohibit) employer use of lie detector tests. However, Federal, State and local government employers are exempt from the Act.

 

In general, a public company employer, whose business is covered by the Act, cannot require, or even suggest, that an employee or prospective employee take a polygraph test. The only exception is for investigations involving economic loss or injury to the employer’s business. This includes theft, embezzlement misappropriation or any act of unlawful industrial espionage or sabotage.

 

These criteria could easily be adapted to test Congresspersons, especially when an audit  turns up reasonable grounds for further investigation. The potential existence of offshore investments and or corporations or trusts set up by others for the benefit of Congresspersons and their families should be a major focus of these tests.

 

 

Let’s Make an Efficient Use Of Internet Polls

 

Finally, I would like to recommend that more use should be made of internet polls.  Historically, government representation has always been a necessity, since no one could never expect all citizens, or even only all concerned citizens, to weigh in on important matters. With the proliferation of the internet, this is actually no longer the case. The internet allows for mass participation in the political process.

 

Granted, many existing polls are administered by organizations (including the media) that have an agenda or bias. However, an independent polling system could be established through which our country’s citizens could participate in referendums on “hot button” issues, such as gun control and how to deal with illegal immigration.

 

Identification of participants in these polls by way of social security numbers and birthdates would eliminate abuses that might otherwise arise from the casting of multiple ballots. Participants’ responses could also be protected to eliminate privacy concerns.

 

I am not really in favor of putting every single measure under review by the individual States in the form of a poll. In California, for example, there are always a number of Propositions that are placed on the ballot when one votes for Presidents and Congresspersons. Although  an attempt is made to show both sides of a given argument, it is very difficult for anyone who is not extremely knowledgeable to make an informed judgment.

 

Recently, I looked through the Official Voter Information Guide that I found in my mailbox that was prepared in advance of the upcoming Federal election. One of the issues under discussion in California is legalization of marijuana. Those who are opposed, pointed out that, in Washington State, automobile accidents and fatalities rose  after legalization. On the other hand, supporters  of legalization provided data proving that there  really was no difference in the number of automobile accidents and fatalities following legalization in the state of Colorado. Who should I believe?

 

Another Proposition deals with a proposal to require shoppers to pay a fee when using plastic grocery shopping bags. Supporters provided arguments that rules geared toward reducing plastic consumption are ecologically sound. Those that were opposed viewed  this measure as simply a means of subsidizing grocery store profits.

In my opinion, measures like these would be better dealt with by our elected officials . In my mind, however, there is no doubt that 21st Century technology can ensure that our government is one “ of the People, by the People and for the People” .

The post The Constitution is Outdated-Part III appeared first on Thoughts From Outside The Box.

source http://thoughtsfromoutsidethebox.com/2016/10/13/constitution-outdated-part-iii/