There were bills passed that have incremental spending that will extend out over the next ten years. It is going to make it more challening for Trump and likely also make people think Trump did it.
1 Like
No changing the Constitution.
It’s unclear to me what concept is undefinable/unenforceable.
I could fully agree that cities should, generally, be self-sufficient; however, I don’t see how that would stop them from choosing to pay more to be so called sanctuary cities. Although congress outlawed impoundment in '74, the idea of withholding funds from any political subdivision that gives sanctuary to illegals has merit. The '74 law would have to be withdrawn - or declared unconstitutional - before funds allocated could be refused to those jurisdictions. From what I’ve observed of CA, there are political subdivisions there that will tax their citizens to pay for illegal, non-citizen costs.
go a step further. close all federal facilities until compliance. close the parks, close the courts, close all federal departments within the sanctuary state. further, disconnect all infrastructure that passes through federal land and maintain federal blockade at borders and coastlines. california played with this idea when other states did not follow its sanctuary lead. its time to pay the piper. citizens of sanctuary states should have the option of registering their vehicles federally, with accompanying federal id to allow passage of the blockades. all state vehicles will remain in the state of sanctuary.
exactly, if there is no money in the federal coffers, then the states do not get funded. do away with the income tax and the job is done.
You comment is very lacking in understanding how things work. Obviously you’ve been lucky enough to have never been severely impacted by a hurricane, tornado, 100 year flood, or train derailment. These obviously are more pressing needs but it works in similar ways in other areas as well.
However, it can certainly be managed far better than it is.
1 Like
Too bad! 
The Constitution doesn’t allow for “sanctuary” anything. And for good reason,too!
2 Likes
%100 agree
@ eagans DRSE
If you are going to make such a blanket statement against changing the Constitution, you should at least state why and what changes should not be made.
Your statement adds little to the discussion.
Anyone who knows the value of the Constitution knows it should be changed. This is the best argument for all government workers to have to be tested on the Constitution and for our history courses in school to be improved. I am completely against changing the Constitution. It is there for a reason and was written the way it was for a reason. If you don’t know those reasons you need to go back and study.
Why are you trying to change our Constitution? That’s the question that needs to be answered. This is a policy platform not a change the Constitution platform.
1 Like
If the constitution is immutable and perfect as it is, why then did those who wrote it provide ways to change it?
The obvious answer is that they knew the future would bring things that they couldn’t foresee. In fact, it was those same men who wrote the first 10 amendments known as the Bill of Rights. Since then, congress and the states have passed 17 more and even repealed one of them (the 18th, prohibition).
As for knowledge of the constitution, I will take any test on the matter you suggest and believe that I will do better on it than will you. I’m past 80 years old. I’ve had longer to study it, and I’ve always been a keen student.
As for why it needs to be changed, IMO (and it’s only my opinion, not fact), history has overtaken the vision of the founders. There are countless advances in human knowledge and human society that they had no means to foresee or address. They knew that, being the brilliant men they were, and provided for the means for future generations to amend their work, to improve it and accommodate those things their vision did not encompass. In their minds, congress would have the primary duty to make those changes, but they realized that congress might not do the will of the states so they provided a means for the states to make those changes when congress would not - Article V. Those founders, perhaps, did not foresee serving in congress to be a life long synecure for office holders. In fact, there is a body of evidence showing that the founders saw serving in government to be a temporary, short-lived experience for statesmen. Alas, that vision proved untrue; and, worse, congress has become a self-interested and self-serving institution. Political parties - also a construct not considered by the founders nor mentioned in the constitution - have made it nearly impossible to unseat those in office. I’ll leave it to you to investigate why; but here’s a hint: Congressional power is assigned based on seniority, not by constitutional authority, but by rules of congress.
As to why the constitution needs changes, here are the top 3 that I see.
- The national debt. It is, IMO and that of many others, the single biggest threat to our republics continued existence.
There are no constraints on congress to prevent it from borrowing and spending. Without constraints, congress has developed the habit of borrowing to pay for political advantages for itself as a body and its membership individually. The national debt stands at ~$33 TRILLION; interest on the national debt runs to almost a TRILLION dollars a year - more than the national defense budget. Interest payments on the national debt are ~25% of federal income. Every American would have to pay over $100,000 if the debt were called and had to be paid today.
That is not sustainable. Congress has shown no indication that they understand the problem and no sign that they will act to contain it, much less reduce it.
- Limits on terms in office and on life time service in government to include all who are elected or appointed and mandatory civil service retirement upon reaching years of service or biological age.
To accomplish term limits, I think even those currently defined should be revised. I think that presidents should be limited to a single term of 6 years and should be prevented from engaging in support for any political candidate or cause while in office. Members of the House of Representatives currently have 2 to be re-elected every 2 years. Because the majority in congress seek to be re-elected, they spend a great deal of time fund raising and campaigning which detracts from their congressional duties. I would like to see house terms increased to 3 years but with a limit of 6 consecutive years; thereafter they would be eligible for a future term only after having been out of office for as long as they previously served. I would like to see members of the US Senate continue to be elected to 6 year terms, but I would like to see them limited to 2 (12 years) and have the same constraints on being re-elected (have to sit out for as long as they previously served). Federal magistrates and judges, including the Supreme Court, should be appointed for no more than 12 years and should not be allowed to sit on any bench thereafter. I think there should be a lifetime limit of 15 years service applied to all elected, appointed, advisory, and contracted individuals with a restriction being placed preventing them from becoming lobbyists or taking employment in any business that they served to make laws to regulate. No federal government civil service employment should extend beyond 25 years or past the age of 70 years with termination of employment occurring automatically whenever either of those conditions first arises.
- Limit the life of all federal deparments and agencies to 12 years, with the exceptions of the State Department, Defense Department, US Treasury, and the Department of Justice (AG) which would be permanent under the constitution, unless congress acts to renew them for another 12 years which should require compelling evidence of the value they produce for American society.
The Deep State is real. Government agencies’ 2 primary objectives are to seek additional power and to continue their existence. This comes from the human drives of those manage and work within them. Congress has long abdicated its constitutional duty to make laws by giving agencies the powers to make rules that have the force of law and the power to enforce. No US citizens gets to vote for those who make and enforce those rules. (Talk about a danger to democracy!) The SCOTUS has recently shown that those agencies lack that constitutional power (vis, EPA rulings).
Finally, as for this being a policy platform, what could be more important to Americans than the constitution?
By what right do you assume to dictate what the intent of this platform is? If I’m wrong and you own the platform, delete this and revoke my login credentials.
Why do you want to restrict freedom of expression and repress ideas?
No changes to the Constitution. This is a policy forum.
Why are you trying to change it?
So, when you have no cogent or credible response, you resort to repeating a vapid, inane question?
I’ve stated why I think the constitution needs to be changed. I’ve studied the constitution since 6th grade when I was 11 years old - in the '50s. I’ve studied it intently for the last 25 years. I daresay I’ve probably forgotten as much about the constitution and case law based on it than you have ever studied.
The more reasonable question is, “Why are you opposed to changing the constitution - apparently for ANY reason?”
To answer your question as to why I think it should be amended, here are 3 reasons to change the constitution and limit the power of the federal government (there are more, but 3 will do to start).
- To limit congressional and administrative ability to increase the national debt except in times of national emergency to be declared by POTUS, affirmed by a super majority vote of both chambers of congress AND affirmed by a super majority of the states.
- To change terms of office for all federal government positions and impose both term and age limits on service to include civil service employees, the latter to be limited to 25 years of service based on performance and good behavior with an age limit of 70.
- To define and apply culpability - with penalties - for abuse of power of office to address 3 levels of misconduct: non-feasance (failure to perform assigned and/or legally required duties at all); misfeasance ( to include nonfeasance, failure to perform assigned and/or legally required duties or to perform them poorly, with or without intent); malfeasance (to include nonfeasance and misfeasance, failure to perform duties as required and using the power of office for personal gain or to benefit family, acquaintances, or any other entity in manners not available to the general public). The constitution should require that any of these failures cause removal from office, forthwith upon charges being brought by a grand jury or by petition of the people with financial penalties and incarceration appropritate to the offences.
Of course those 3 concepts need intense study, debate and change to be made workable; but congress will never do so because their power is at risk and their motivations are not aligned with those ideas. It will be necessary, therefore, for the states to call for - no DEMAND - that a convention be called to consider them. To assure that each is considered on its own merits, there should be separate conventions of states for each, IMO.
Despite their immense intellect and the Grace of Almighty God guiding their efforts, the founders were not prescient, had no crystal ball and could not predict - nor even imagine - how the nation’s people, society and economic conditions would be affected as the experienced first the industrial revolution then the electronics revolution then the technology revolution and the information revolution now unfolding that will include advanced AI. How can any sentient, rational, thinking person not understand that a constitution framed in the 18th Century think that it is not in need of changing given those societal changes. That is Luddite thinking.
I think I’ve answered your question - or was it a challenge - now, I ask you to state why you think the constitution is perfect as it is, immutable, and in need of no changes.
I also must ask if you own this platform? If you do not, by what authority do you demand compliance to your interpretation of what its purpose is? If you do own it, then claim ownership and ban me.
DOGE is already taking care of spending issues. The incoming Administration will be addressing that issue. It does not require changing the Constitution.
All the things you are mentioning do not require changing the Constitution.
Age limits to 70 are not reasonable. There are people who live to be over 100. Age is not a sufficient measure.
When someone has a diagnosis of Dementia before they become President and Congress and the Administration hide the person that is a problem. Those people should be penalized. Doctors who hide conditions should also be held accountable. It is not age, it is health. It doesn’t require a change to the Constitution. It requires a change in who is in the government. It also requires smaller government. The overgrown Administrative state is going to shrink. The incoming people are going to do it. In addition, the Chevron case also helps.
So I don’t think these things require a change in the Constitution.
They require finding what laws need to be repealed and shrinking government.
1 Like
You have as little understanding of federal spending as you do the constitution, it seems.
Only roughly 30% of the federal budget is discretionary. DOGE - if authorized - can only address discretionary funds. Agencies’ budgets are set by congress and the administration is required by law to spend them. Impoundment - the old presidential power to withhold spending - was done away with in 1974. Look it up. If you think DOGE is going to be able to affect the national debt, you are naive, smoking rope, or both!
US federal debt is now in excess of $30 TRILLION. When GW Bush left office it was $16 TRILLION (IIRC) and the left was blaming him for it despite the fact that it has usually been democrat congresses that have incurred budget deficits.
Annual interest on the federal debt is nearing $1 TRILLION . . . more than it costs to fund the entire Defense Department . . . and consumes about 25% of federal revenues. If every household in America had to cough up enough to pay off the debt, they’d have to come up with more than $100,000. I’d ask you to do the math but you’d probably take your shoes off and still be unable to count high enough.
Let’s talk about age. I’m past 80 - older than Biden. I know from experience and from having seen what happens to countless friends and acquaintances and can speak with knowledge and experience when I tell you that mental competence diminishes with age. Some are blessed with less loss, but others - like Biden - show greater signs of that loss. (You seem to think that he was diagnosed with dementia, but I have seen no such evidence. If you have it, please share.) I didn’t make age the sole determinant, only put a cap on federal service at 70 with a tenure limit of 25 years for civil service employment. For those employed at 21, that means retirement at 46 . . . plenty of time for a second career elsewhere before retirement at 70.
For the record, I have no issue with people being employed outside the federal government to whatever age their employers see value in their services. I just want those long-bearded bureaucrats removed. Also, for the record, I have degrees in business and economics.
You and I probably have little in common and little we would agree on, but your wish to hold doctors accountable for faulty diagnoses is one we might agree on. The true problem is that those who serve are not required to take mental competency tests. (How else can you explain AOC.) We surely agree that the federal government is too big - history’s largest employer - costs too much, and has too much power. I only wish that you would come up with some kind of sentient, rational, sapient means to make those changes without changing the constitution.
My issues with age and tenure are exemplified more by Fauci than by JB. That man was allowed to wallow in the public trough (a reference you probably don’t understand) for 25 years too long, and look at what he did.
I’ll give you credit for understanding the significance of the Chevron case, but you seem to have some expectation that it will be applied generally across all agencies. If that’s the case, I’ve got an old bridge from Manhattan to Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.
How many laws in your lifetime have you ever seen repealed? True, there are some; but, for the most part, laws, once passed, stay on the books forever. IMO all laws should have a sunset clause with a short time to sunset. Those that continue to have validity can be easily reinstated. I’d like to see congress have to work harder for us and less hard at fund raising. It’s my understanding that house members are required to spend 25 hours a week on the phone raising money for their party.
Those things will never change unless the constitution is changed. I rather suspect that you have little faith in the wisdom of your fellow citizens therefore do not trust them to do what our founders did. People today are better educated, more informed, and more at risk from government excesses than were the nations founders. Even the excesses of King George didn’t hold a candle to what congress and the deep swamp are guilty of.
Fear is a loathesome thing. I hope you overcome any that affect your reasoning.
Budgets can be reduced.
And the Chevron Act is no longer valid.
There are a lot of things that can be done here.
You seem to be missing the fact that this Administration is not trying to be every past Administration. They are trying to do things out of the box.
You might want to take a step back before you type and try to take insulting people out of your comments. I’m not going to keep corresponding with someone who is nasty.
Fauci should have been fired decades ago. That was the issue not his age. He never practiced as a Doctor who treated patients. He worked for the government since he graduated. His wife was in charge of ethics. So she is just as much to blame. This not an age issue. This is a corruption issue. This is exactly what Kennedy is going to resolving. He has been fighting Fauci from the outside for decades and wins many cases against the government which is difficult to do. A change in age requirements does not resolve Fauci. Because at least six of the other top officials that were under Fauci are just as much of a problem. Targeting age doesn’t resolve that issue. And by your rules Trump and Kennedy would be out.
In addition, Schedule F is going to be reimplemented and they will counter whatever the current Administration attempted to put in place to stop it.
The new Administration is ready to hit the ground running. They have been preparing for months. The transition is being handled privately and paid for privately. Trump is already saving taxpayers money and is taking the steps to stop sabotage.
We don’t need Constitutional changes. We need the government put back the way it was intended.
If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
I am well aware that budgets can be reduced, but I’m not naive enough to believe that congress- even a GOP congress - is going to stop spending money to purchase political capital. It is congress, not the POTUS, who has the final word on the budget. True, the administration proposes a budget and sends it to congress where it is perennially increased and added to. Plus, the budget is only the allocated funds. Congress then proposes and passes bills for addtional spending. In the recent past, congress doesn’t even vote on the budget but keeps passing continuing resolutions to fund the government. That, to me, is nonfeasance of office and should result in their removal from office. A constitutional amendment could fix that.
I’ve voted in every presidential election since JFK/Nixon. I’ve seen promises made but few kept. I don’t believe ANY politician nor do I trust them to do what they were elected to do. If you do, I think your trust is misplaced. When you have lived long enough and observed sentiently, you will, no doubt, learn that elections have only temporary consequences. Did you not see biden repeal almost everything Trump had done?
Get out of that cannabis haze and wake up.
I’m glad you are optimistic. I am not. I am skeptical.
The very fact that Fauci was not fired is proof of why the constitution must be changed to force accountability in office. It is also proof of the need for term and age limits in civil service. Fauci’s influence and acts against the interests of humankind would have at least been limited. One could even make the case that in his early career - before he learned to manipulate and take advantage of the system - his work was relatively benign, especially when compared to his last decade.
It will take decades - not 4 years - to have meaningful impact on the federal deficit. Even if Vance or some other fiscal conservative - which Trump was not during his first term - follows Trump for 8 years and another follows him for 8 years, the federeal debt will still be too large if they spend only what is absolutely necessary.
You’re having pipe dreams. Wake up and smell the coffee - or roses in your case.