I propose the following Amendment to the Constitution.

[jobycom]

"Congress shall make no law which violates the Constitution, nor shall they ignore the Constitution, nor shall they pretend not to understand the restrictions placed upon them by the Constitution, even if they don't like something the Constitution makes them do. Further, Congress shall obey all Articles and Amendments which guarantee equality and freedom before the law to all people, even when Congress really just wishes those people would go away."

Maybe telling them twice would make them realize the Founders were serious when they said it all the first time.

[virginia mountainman]

1. K & R!! Great Post! NT

[LaurenG]

2. Good job - I particularly like this part!

nor shall they pretend not to understand the restrictions placed upon them by the Constitution, even if they don't like something the Constitution makes them do. :rofl:

[suston96]

3. Sorry, don't agree......

Way too long and so beyond attention span of most congresspeople.

[Catamount]

4. I think it's a great idea!

Another k&r

[Senator]

5. Such A "For Idiots Amendment" Would Also Need A "Treaties (Yes, Even About Torture)...

Clause", reminding Congress and the President that "treaties that our greater generations of Americans fought and died to forge really, really still need to be enforced and abided by as "the supreme law of the land" (just like it says in Article VI); even if you and all the other Serious People at your cocktail parties imagine something inconvenient might result."

Add that, and I'll start collecting petitions with you.

--

[Kablooie]

6. You forgot the most important part ...

... unless you are Republican.

I mean let's get real here.

[Towlie]

7. The big problem with the Bill of Rights is that it doesn't prescribe any penalties for violators.

[jobycom]

8. It's not supposed to. It's a charter document.

The Constitution creates the government and defines all of its powers. When the government does something against the Constitution, it's simply invalid, and the government has no authority to do it. So they can't penalize government for violating it, because technically government can't violate it--they don't have the power to violate it.

The problem of course is that when those in government conspire to violate the Constitution, no authority exists to stop them, because they are the authority that is supposed to stop them. You could penalize every violation with the death penalty, but there would be nobody to enforce the penalty, since the only authority is also the lawbreaker.

It's up to the voters. Except of course since December 12th, 2000, when the Supreme Court declared that the US government only had to listen to the votes when they felt like it. Once they got away with it, the Constitution was a "by choice" document. Government will obey it if they choose to obey it, and will honor elections only if they choose to honor them.

We're no longer a Republic. That ceased on December 12, 2000. We're now a plutocracy whose government asks the advice of its citizens but no longer is required to listen to them, and whose government exists because it exists, no longer bound by the document which created it.

[unblock]

11. the founders intended each branch to keep the others in check

they expected the president to veto or the courts to strike down unconstitional actions by congress.
they expected congress to impeach a criminal presidency or justices who overturn elections to impose their personal whim.
they expected the states to amend the constitution when the federal government became too strong or too corrupt.
they expected the voters to kick out corrupt and criminal representatives.

they did not expect, and did not develop a remedy for, party organizations that would use party loyalty and legalized bribery as a transcendent method to corrupt all the institutions and checks and balances they carefully created.

[jobycom]

13. They understood bribery. That's nothing new.

Money will always control power. Or, it should be stated that money will always be power, and power will always be money. To think we can "clean up" government by getting money out of it is like thinking we can clean up the ocean by getting the water out of it. They are the exact same thing. Our Founders knew this, which is why they worried about checks and balances.

As for party, it's just a word to describe the alliances that have to happen in a democracy. Get rid of party, and you have something else doing exactly the same thing under a different name.

The problem are the voters. They are uninformed, and easily fooled.

[unblock]

9. there's absolutely no way they'd ever pass that

in fact none of the first 10 amendments would ever pass today, not by popular vote, not by legislatures, not be cogress, nope, none of 'em. we couldn't even get quartering of soldiers banned. at least not without major revisions.

and of course, if they did pass an amendment that said, no really, we meant it, well, of course, they'd just ignore that too.

[jobycom]

10. It was rhetorical, not literal.

Obviously they wouldn't pass it. :)

[unblock]

12. i understand. that they wouldn't ever pass it is a sad, sad statement.

and it's not that they wouldn't pass it because it's unnecessary and redundant.

they wouldn't pass it because there's no yield in terms of campaign contributions, and it would only serve to make future unconstitutional acts look doubly bad.

[anonymous171]

14. K&R. nt

[GeorgeGist]

15. Proposing another amendment should make you realize ...

the Founders got it wrong the first time. Seriously.

[sutz12]

16. Are we being too literal?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colonel Sandurz: Are we being too literal?
Dark Helmet: No you fool, we're following orders. We were told to comb the desert so we're combing it.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0094012/quotes