And why a Democratic Contract with America that needs Constitutional amendments sounds a little more than centrist, and will need more than 55-60% support.
Regards,
Shodan
The Constitution isn’t the Bible, or ancient text. It’s simply law. If it’s just guidelines and aspirations, as some seem to think, then let’s get rid of Obama early, since his four year term is only a guideline. Just pass a law saying the Presidency is three years, hold an election this year ,then turn it back to four years if we like the next President. If we don’t, it’s two years.
No one in this thread thinks that. The point is that law is mutable. Judges change it every day, legislatures change it every session. And even the black-letter law as it is at any moment always open to interpretation and reinterpretation; wording interpretation-proof law is impossible, and not desirable.
The only issue that comes to mind where constitutional amendment might be strictly necessary is campaign-finance reform. And, yes, I think an amendment to the effect that electoral campaign donation/spending is not protected “speech” for First Amendment purposes could get 60% support if properly marketed (though 60% public support does not necessarily translate into simple majority support in 3/4 of the state legislatures).
Okay, well this particular Democrat thinks any mention of a Constitutional Amendment clause would destroy the hypothetical CWA. The only people you’d get to sign it would lose and lose huge. It would be a non-starter.
Can we please focus on things that are even semi-realistic.
Not a constitutional convention clause, certainly; but pushing for this or that particular constitutional amendment is (independently of the content of the amendment) by no means radical, really rather routine in American politics, and should not be ruled out.
Seriously? We’ve only had 17* of the damn things pass in 230 years. Yes, I know that tons of them are filed every year and die in committee, but do you really want to take something that’s supposed to be a positive marketing move and drag it down to that level? Let’s keep this to stuff that might realistically get passed with a slim Dem majority in the House and a Senate where not everything gets filibustered.
I’m discounting the BoR since that passing was really just part of the process of adopting the Constitution
Some law is that clear: such as the length of terms of office. Some law has some room for interpretation, but can only be stretched so far, like the interstate commerce clause. Even under the most generous interpretation of Congress’ powers, there are many things they simply aren’t legally allowed to do, and those things are not just limited to what is specifically forbidden to them. They may only do what they have affirmative sanction to do.
People need to remember that the 1994 GOP Contract With America was not some conservative fantasy list like some posters are making in this thread (albeit from the left). Most of the proposals were pretty mundane (e.g. make Congress follow laws everyone else had to follow, ban proxy voting in committees, cut Congressional staff). It was done after 40 years of Democratic rule which had lead to sloppiness and a feeling that Congress was out of touch with ordinary Americans.
The things which had any substance like term limits, a balanced budget amendment, cutting welfare and the like are still pretty popular with centrist voters to the extent that they actually care about these issues. It was successful because Congress was (and still is) universally hated and after 40 years there was a coordinated effort by a group that said, “Vote for us. We will put a stop to it.”
I don’t think that after only four years of House GOP rule, and two months of Senate GOP rule there could be such an effective type of strategy today.
I disagree:
It would make the election less about personalities and more about actual issues.
It would create a clear line of demarcation between the parties. Here are the things we will do for you which the Republicans simply won’t.
That, in turn would combat some of the voter apathy we often see. The people who don’t vote tend to think “What’s the point? They’re all the same. There’s no difference between the parties.” Well, here are some clear-cut differences, in black and white.
It might force the Democratic Presidential candidate (presumably Hillary) to commit on the issues raised by the CWA.
If it results in a solid victory, you have a clear mandate to pass these bills. That might even discourage filibustering by Republicans in the Senate, lest they be seen as frustrating what the voters have plainly said they want.
I see nothing but positives, really.
I do agree, as I said in the OP, that it cannot be a liberal wish-list. It has to be items that will hit the 60% nark. This means (for example) steer clear of guns and marriage equality. The former is too much of a hot button. Leave the latter to the courts. They are moving things in the right direction already.
In regards to the point I made about the dangers of economic populism:
Buffet is not arguing against any of the populist tax proposals here. He is talking about delivery style.
Certainly. But it’s been said in this thread that the Democrats should campaign on going after the rich, which is a good way to make sure you’ll lose big among voters making 100K or more. Democrats can’t win without a good showing among well off voters.
How do you suppose Buffett would define “criticizing by category?”
Democrats can win with a platform which appeals to 60% of voters. Not everyone votes their narrow self-interests, as you seem to think. Some realize that we live in a society which needs to prosper as a whole.
I disagree. Almost everyone votes for their narrow self-interests. Why do you think that politicians from all parties stay away from talking about social security and medicare? They know that droves of seniors will vote against them even if that means financial ruin for the country. People are, by and large, one issue voters.
For all of the leftist love for Warren Buffett and his altruism, I would hope that if I was in my 80s and had nearly $50 billion in personal wealth, I could likewise not give a shit about an increase in my marginal income tax rate. Tens of thousands of voters, or possibly much more, who cannot afford more money coming out of their pockets will not be so giving. Show me a liberal who doesn’t mind going into the poorhouse because of a tax increase and I will respect that decision more.
I disagree, but even if you’re right, guess what? Only 20% of Americans make more than $100,000.00.
Anyway, we’re not talking about taxing people who make $100K at a higher rate. Those people are small potatoes. We’re talking about a much steeper rate at the upper end. The top 1% of earners in the US make $380K per year, not $100K.
We also need to be taxing capital gains and interest income at at least the same rate as income people earn by the sweat of their brow. (After adjusting for inflation.)
Moreover, to attack the wealth disparity in the US, the estate tax is more important. We should be taxing the hell out of enormous estates. As in taxing them out of existence above a certain (still large) amount. Trust fund babies might have to struggle by on a few million. They’ll live.
Putting aside the wisdom of those proposals, they aren’t 60% issues, they are liberal pipe dreams. It would be as if the GOP Contract with America contained provisions like a constitutional amendment to ban abortion and SSM. They appeal to the base but are not anything like what was proposed in the OP looking for consensus, popular issues that can rally centrist voters to your cause.
IOW, you seem to be presupposing that since 20% of Americans make less than $100k per year that it follows that the other 80% support taxing the living hell out of rich people. It doesn’t follow.
It would be like me saying that since less than 10% of the population is gay, then 90% would support a constitutional amendment banning SSM.
I would be quite happy submitting these questions to a poll:
Do you think profits from investments should be taxed using at least the same rate as money earned by working?
Do you think income made by charging interest should be taxed using at least the same rate as income earned by working?
Do you think those would not get 60%?
Questions about estate tax would need to be more carefully constructed, but I think people could easily be educated to understand the connection between the estate tax rate and the increasing wealth disparity in the US. Do you think 60% would not be in favor of reducing that disparity?