|
|
Over the years I've heard much talk of amendments that are needed to the constitution,
most of which are absurd. Examples are the Equal Rights Amendment, which is probably not
needed because what it proports to attempt is covered in the 14th amendment. Or the
"Flag Burning Amendment" which places the flag above the rights it represents. ("Which
is greater, the gold, or the temple which sanctifies the gold." Matt 23:14) However,
there are amendments which could affect or quality of life, and the quality of government
which we have.
On this page I will write a few I'd like to see. Note that I realize none of these have
the proverbial snowballs chance in hell of passing, but that doesn't make them any less
desirable.
On Borrowing Money (October 10, 2000)
The first amendment I would like to see is a negative one, "Clause 3, section 8 of the
Constitution of the United States, reading 'To borrow money on the credit of the United
States' is hereby repealled. Congress nor any other body shall not have the power to
borrow money on the
credit of the United States." This amendment would very quickly solve any problem with
a budget deficit we may have. The budget would not have to be balanced, in that congress
could spend more than it takes in, but the difference would have to be made up in
the issuing of more money, which would result in inflation. This would result in rich
people loosing money due to inflation, so they would very quickly discover ways to
keep the budget balanced. If the money is not made up in taxes, then it would be made up
for in inflation, the hidden tax.
This may seem unfair, and unworkable, but it is not. When the constitution was enacted
by a relatively small country, money meant gold. That is, if I said I had $10, what I
meant is that some place I had $10 worth of gold sitting around. Now, that is not the
meaning of money. Now, money means paper bills, and, in fact, none of our money is
backed by gold. This has the advantage that more money can be, and is, created to handle
the increase in business activity that exist. The problem is that this is seductive,
congress gets the feeling that they can simply make all the money they want, and don't
need to worry about the affect this has.
In fact, one solution to the debt owed by the government is to replace all the bonds
issued by the United States with money. The only real effect is to make the bonds
negotiable; people could spend them. The important diference between what we have and
the result is that we would no longer need to pay interest on the money.
On Elections (September 14, 2002)
All single candidate election in the United States will be conducted using
Instant Runoff Voting.
In all probability, there would need to be some more thought given to this. In
particular, it may be necessary to define the term "Instant Runoff Voting."
This amendment is required because of the vote for president in 2000 (also, 1992).
Some people
say that the problem will be solved if we do away with the Electoral College, a position
which I do no support. Replacing the electorial college will not, however, really
solve the problem.
The "win at any cost" Democrats (as opposed to the "win at any cost" Republicans)
advocate this because it would declare Al Gore the winner. However, suppose that Ralph
Nader had won 4? of the vote instead of 3?, and that all that had come from Al Gore.
(This would probably not be true, but suppose it were for the sake of argument.)
Suppose, further, that anyone voting for Ralph Nader would vote for Al Gore if Nader
were not available. Then, Al Gore would get 47? of the vote, Ralph Nader 4?, and
George W Bush would get 48?, with 1? going to other candidates. George Bush would be
declared the winner (absent the electorial college) even though 51? or more of the
people would not want him as president. Therefore, this amendment would require an
instant runoff (absent the electoral college). In the runnoff, Al Gore would get 51
or
52?, and George Bush would get 48 or 49?, so Al Gore would be the winner.
(The reason that I do not support the abolition of the electorial college is that it
still serves a very important purpose. That is, in addition to getting popular support,
a candidate is forced to get support from geographically seperated areas. Absent the
electorial college, all elections for president would be decided by the voters in New
York and California, with no input from the people in the midwest. Over a period of
time this could be so alienating (particularly since the midwest and western states
have geographically different problems than the coasts) this could yield a split in the
country equal to that that caused the Civil war.)
None of the Above (November 26, 2000)
In all elections, there shall be an option to chose "None of the above." If that option
wins the election, then a new election will be called with new candidates.
This has been proposed by other people, in particular, by both the Green party and the
Libertarian party. What happens when "none of the above" wins may be thought out some
more, but the common reaction is that there should be a runoff.
The major effect of this amendment would be to eliminate nagative campaining. The
reason is that it would never work. If candidate A calls B a liar, A does not pick
up any votes, rather he will alienate people so that, presumably, the alienated
would vote for "none of the above," and A could be in the position of losing to
no one. Yet, if A could present positive statements about the possibility of him
winning the election, then he could pick up votes.
The only problem with this amendment is that there are so many people fed up with the
current system that "none of the above" could win in most races.
|