Rick Perry loves the Constitution, except where it’s EVIL!

The US Constitution is a great thing. It’s not perfect, by any means — it has been amended over a couple dozen times, but then, that’s not bad for over two centuries track record. So I don’t object to revisions to the Constitution per se, but I object to ones that I think are goofy.

Which brings me to Rick Perry, who laid out in his book Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington (aside from, y’know, all those constitutional provisions like, y’know, voting) an array of suggested constitutional changes to Make Things All Better.

Let’s take a look at the Amendments That Would Be the Constitution, from The Man Who Would be President.

1. Abolish lifetime tenure for federal judges by amending Article III, Section I of the Constitution.

“‘[W]e should take steps to restrict the unlimited power of the courts to rule over us with no accountability. There are a number of ideas about how to do this. … One such reform would be to institute term limits on what are now lifetime appointments for federal judges, particularly those on the Supreme Court or the circuit courts, which have so much power. One proposal, for example, would have judges roll off every two years based on seniority.”

The Founders explicitly decided on lifetime federal judgeships.  That’s for  two very good reasons.

First, federal judges (including those on the Supreme Court) are appointed by the President, and then approved with the Advise and Consent of  the US Senate.  Thus, there’s already a political vetting element of the appointments, further demonstrated by the increasing stonewalling of such consent from Senators of the opposite party of the President (whether or not in the majority).

Second, the Founders recognized that the importance of their roles demanded political independence.  While federal judges can be removed from office for serious offenses, they are not subject to reelection or reconfirmation.  To be so means that too many judges would rule in law based, not on what they believe the law and the Constitution says, but based on what would get them reelected — just as politicians do.

Perry thinks that means they would be “accountable.”  I say that would make judges more political.  I don’t think that’s a good thing.

The idea of term-limiting federal judges is equally problematic.  While, arguably, it would make them more reflective more more recent political choices (Presidents and Senators alike), it would both reduce the experience of our federal judiciary and only worsen the already critical shortages of federal judges due to Senatorial interference.

While the idea of Antonin Scalia being term limited has its attraction, I don’t see it overall as a critical problem to want to see things changed.

2. Congress should have the power to override Supreme Court decisions with a two-thirds vote.

“[A]llow Congress to override the Supreme Court with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, which risks increased politicization of judicial decisions, but also has the benefit of letting the people stop the Court from unilaterally deciding policy.”

This is silliness, on two levels: First, a goodly number of SCOTUS decisions are not invalidations of congressional laws vs. the Constitution, but interpretation of laws.  When laws are overturned, SCOTUS usually gives the direction by which the laws could address their objections. In the vast majority of cases, Congress can already act to address SCOTUS’ objections.

Second, consider what this would really mean. Congress could, with a two-thirds majority, do whatever they wanted, Constitution be damned.  Outlaw a particular religion (even, gasp, Christianity?).  Now possible.  Shut down a newspaper? Outlaw gun ownership?  Just a two-thirds vote.

In short, it allows Congress to pass its own Constitutional Micro-Amendments by a two-thirds majority, without requiring any input from the states.  That seems highly dangerous, no matter what party is in power.

3. Scrap the federal income tax by repealing the Sixteenth Amendment.

Perry calls the Sixteenth Amendment “”the great milestone on the road to serfdom.”

I call Perry’s statement a great milestone on the road to hyperbole.

Prior to the Federal Income Tax, the federal government was mostly funded by various excise taxes (which, one would think, would be anathema for the GOP’s business allies).  Indeed, the excise tax on alcohol made up a huge proportion of the federal income, and the federal income tax was pushed forward by the temperance movement as a way to make Prohibition even possible.

(Ironically, the wealthy businessfolk of the nation were a key constituency in the eventual overthrow of Prohibition, with the idea that this would then allow the income tax to dwindle away. Unfortunately for them, it happened during the New Deal …)

Perry’s writes that it provides a virtually blank check to the federal government to use for projects with little or no consultation from the states.

Yes, because the states have nothing to do with the membership of Congress.  Um … what?

4. End the direct election of senators by repealing the Seventeenth Amendment.

“The American people mistakenly empowered the federal government during a fit of populist rage in the early twentieth century by giving it an unlimited source of income (the Sixteenth Amendment) and by changing the way senators are elected (the Seventeenth Amendment).”

The Seventeenth Amendment didn’t reduce the powers of the states — each Senator is, of  course, elected by their state residents — but of the state legislatures, who previously got to do it (making it a highly political matter).  I don’t have a problem with that, though I can understand why a state governor like Perry might. After all, what state government leader wouldn’t want to be able to power broker a US Senator’s election?

5. Require the federal government to balance its budget every year.

“The most important thing we could do is amend the Constitution–now–to restrict federal spending. There are generally thought to be two options: the traditional ‘balanced budget amendment’ or a straightforward ‘spending limit amendment,’ either of which would be a significant improvement. I prefer the latter. … Let’s use the people’s document — the Constitution — to put an actual spending limit in place to control the beast in Washington.”

Balanced Budget amendments try to put forth by law something congresscritters have a hard time doing themselves: control spending.  Of course, there are times when spending should be higher than income (and other times when it’s good to, in theory, put some away for a rainy day).  It’s ironic that the GOP is so hep on this particular Constitutional tweak, given that the last federal budget surplus was frittered away by their own party.

6. The federal Constitution should define marriage as between one man and one woman in all 50 states.

“I do respect a state’s right to have a different opinion and take a different tack if you will, California did that,” Perry told the Christian Broadcasting Network in August. “I respect that right, but our founding fathers also said, ‘Listen, if you all in the future think things are so important that you need to change the Constitution here’s the way you do it’.”

Because we need another Constitutional Amendment actually restricting personal rights.  Because that worked so well last time. And it’s so in keeping with the foundational tone of the Constitution.

Perry’s suggestion that this is really about state’s rights because Constitutional Amendments require 3/4 of the states to pass them is … laughable, at best, given that it would overturn existing state laws.

7. Abortion should be made illegal throughout the country.

In the same Christian Broadcasting Network interview, Perry said that he would support a federal amendment outlawing abortion because it was “so important…to the soul of this country and to the traditional values [of] our founding fathers.”

See #6. This is another case where Perry has backtracked on his “states rights” record in the face of conservative pressure. And rather than impacting a small percentage of the population (not that that would justify it), this would personally, directly affect half of all Americans. Sounds like a great example of conservative principles.

(via Pharyngula, who has his own set of objections)