Sometimes you come across an article, or an op-ed, that almost makes your head explode. I
have to give credit to the libtards at the Charlotte Observer. They have an uncanny ability to ferret out and
publish some of the most ridiculous and disingenuous pieces of trash that only
a fish wrap can appreciate. The latest
absurdity was penned by Jonathan Bernstein at Bloomberg Review.
There has been a lot of buzz about invoking Article
V to convene a convention of the States as a means to restore relevancy to our
federalist system as dictated in our Constitution. Mr. Bernstein, and his ilk, has no regard for
this noble endeavor. No, he would rather
implement a monstrosity, or some sort of Californian death star that would lord
progressivism over a hapless people who are starving for life, liberty and
property. Here is his first proposed
amendment:
The
right to vote: It doesn’t appear in the Constitution. It should.
Actually, the 26th Amendment grants that very right to persons over 18 years of age. Would Mr. Bernstein allow five year olds to pull a lever? We might as well. I’ve met quite a few progressives who have the mentality of a child.
Statehood
for the District of Columbia. There’s no legitimate justification for
disenfranchising citizens in the U.S. capital. This can be fixed without an
amendment, but the best way would be through the Constitution.
The residents of Washington D.C. are
not disenfranchised. They are afforded
electors as dictated in the 23rd Amendment. I find this particular proposal insulting. That hellhole town is the seat of
government. You can’t get more
representation that that! As a matter of
fact, I wouldn’t allow that town to have any influence in presidential
elections at all. I will go even
further. I propose that no federal
employee - except military - should be allowed to vote in any election that pertains to the general
government. These people will expand a totalitarian state at the expense of their fellow citizens and then
lord their power over us all.
As
long as we have the Electoral College, get rid of the loopholes, mainly by
getting rid of the electors. Each state’s electoral votes should automatically
be cast for the candidate who wins them according to the laws of that state.
I’d include wording to make it clear that the state must hold an election and
apportion the electoral votes based on whatever the rules were going in.
Eliminate both the problem of disloyal electors and the chance that a state
legislature would change the rules after the fact (or even, as they can do now
under the current wording of the Constitution, cancel the election entirely and
appoint electors themselves).
I have no idea what this
guy is talking about. He wants to get
rid of the electors in an Electoral College system by dictating to the states
rules to remedy problems that, I guess, might come about from a brokered
convention? Personally, I would rather
have a proportional system instead of a winner-takes-all. I don’t believe more populist areas in a
state should lord their values over their rural neighbors.
Eliminate
the “natural born citizen” requirement for presidents. Any citizen should be
eligible
I guess that means a
child born to illegal aliens who have no allegiance to this country should have
the means to “rule” this country. Didn’t
we learn anything from the Obama presidency?
Remove the minimum age requirements for federal
office.
Why?
Term
limits for Supreme Court justices – probably 18- year terms, staggered so that
one opening comes up every two years. I can see arguments for and against – but
if we did it, the amendment should formally set the nine-justice limit, ending
the possibility of future court-packing (currently there’s no constitutional
provision specifying the court’s size).
How about repealing the
14th Amendment? That would
stop a whole lot of judicial activism.
Public
financing of elections. Don’t require it, but make it clear it’s allowed. I
oppose amendments to restrict private money to candidates and parties, or to
restrict what parties can do with their money, but I support partial public
financing – and fear the court may rule against it in the future.
No public
financing! Sooner or later, progressives
will require it.
Address
the malapportionment of the Senate. There’s no justification in democratic
theory for giving Wyoming (population of less than 600,000) the same number of
senators as California (population: 40 million) has. But absolute
proportionality isn’t necessary, and the Senate should stay small. Suppose we
keep two senators for each state, but weigh their votes differently. Wyoming’s
senators would each get half a vote, for example, for a total of one, and
California’s two senators would be given five each – 10 total. Alas, Article V
of the Constitution guarantees “that no State, without its Consent, shall be
deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.” And Wyoming, Vermont and the
Dakotas will make sure it stays that way.
This proposal is really
offensive. First of all, the Senate was
designed to representative the States, that was until the 17th Amendment.
The House of Representatives represents the people. This is basic stuff. What Mr. Bernstein is proposing is a California
caliphate, not a constitutional republic.
If this man’s proposals
were to ever become the law of the land, I guarantee you there would be an
armed revolution.
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment