Perry’s proposals gut Constitution

By Scott McKeag

-----

A recent Yahoo! article (“Seven Ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution”) discussed the Texas governor's book, “Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America from Washington.” Perry proposes several ideas to change the Constitution.

Among them:

l Abolishing lifetime tenure for federal judges.

The American judicial system, in particular the federal judiciary created under Article III, is meant to be a consistent, apolitical entity in an America where politics places power into the hands of diverse voters. The courts can block radical change or slowly implement needed change. They're not meant to be political targets.

Although the selection of federal judges is a circus, once appointed, these judges are meant to be consistent voices to prevent the other two branches of government from running roughshod over citizens. Replacing this proven system with a revolving door policy would only serve to stall crucial appointments as both parties spend even more time gearing up for the political fight to confirm new judges. The judiciary would be taken hostage by Congress.

l Giving Congress the authority to override the Supreme Court:

This would disintegrate the Constitution. It is the Supreme Court's constitutional obligation to ensure the other two branches of the federal government act in good faith and adhere to the Constitution that created them. This means declaring laws unconstitutional, or defending new laws as constitutional. It is Congress' duty to write laws - nothing more.

l Abolish the federal income tax by repealing the 16th Amendment:

If that were to happen, prepare for skyrocketing property taxes and/or eye-popping state income taxes. Then risk having the federal government balloon its debt by borrowing to pay for basic government functions, along with eliminating other key programs.

l Ending direct election of U.S. senators by repealing the 17th Amendment:

Given how ineffective (Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa) and volatile state legislatures have been the last couple of decades, it's doubtful there would be consensus on choosing senators. This may have been tolerable in an era when the voting public did not have access to news, but this is 2011. We have public education, and those who care can find out what candidates stand for.

l Balanced budget amendment:

We've seen what happens when we impose a debt ceiling on ourselves - let's not compound this by forcing our Congress to stare down violating the Constitution (or re-amending it) to avoid slashing vital public programs that would have to be eliminated to stay in line with a BBA.

Save for Jon Huntsman, much of the Republican presidential field sympathizes with Perry.

The American public should remind candidates that it is detestable to say you uphold the Constitution, while constantly proposing to ravage it with radical amendments.

Scott McKeag is a secondary history and government teacher working as a substitute in Iowa City and coaching West High's We the People teams. He has extensive background in constitutional studies. Comments: scott.m.mckeag@gmail.com