We need to make some real changes

There are many lessons we as a nation should be learning from the experience of the Bush administration.  I have already posted a previous diary stating my belief that we should re-examine the notion of the presidency itself, but that didn't meet with much support here.  I don't know why many so called progressives are actually clinging to the status quo, but I will leave that alone for now.  I have another idea about a constitutional amendment we should all be considering that I think might meet with more approval. We'll see.

Our constitution allows the president to make "recess appointments" when the Senate in is recess, that apparently are allowed to remain in the appointed office for the duration of the president's term, or as it is actually stated in the constitution:

"The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session."

It looks from this language like the appointment would expire when Congress recesses again, but that just opens the door for the president to reissue a new commission to the same person (or someone else, if he/she wishes), i.e another recess appointment.  In any case, it appears that those appointed in recess appointments do not ever need to go through a Senate confirmation.

Bush has blatantly abused this power on more than one occasion to appoint someone that didn't stand a chance of being confirmed in the Senate, even when his party had the majority.  He has shown us that we can't always trust our president to do what's right (in this, and in many other areas), and that the only way we can guarantee that our democratic processes are honored is to change the laws to remove the discretion of the president to subvert them.

Therefore, I assert that at least as long as we retain this antiquated notion of an individual executive (i.e. president), we should amend the final sentence of Article II, section 2 by simply changing the word "end" to "beginning," forcing the president to find someone who will meet the standards of the Senate as soon as they reconvene from recess.

•  There's lots more changes I would like to see.

  I would like to see Lobbyist groups have to report to the ACLU.
  I would like it to be illegal for lobbyist to write legislation-and have to consult with ACLU and together with legislators write legislation.
  I would like there to be a limit to the amount of earmarks a Pres can dole out-that includes OPIC funds.
  I would like to see a "Energy Project" go forward nationwide to work on combining nano-battery technologies, coal technologies, Nuclear, wind, solar....
  I would also like to see input on new materials-that are eco-friendly and not petrolbased.
  I would like to see higher mpg standards.
  I would like to see farmers and those who employ illegal aliens or cheaps labor-have to accomodate by providing some housing assistance to these people-either by ptting housing directly on parts of the farms or apartment complexes, low-income housing....
  I would like to see the Oil windfall profits tax put back in place since GHB$! repealed it.
  I would like for the derivatives and stock options market to be regulated.
  I would like to see lobbying groups have paperwork to fill out-just like medicare recipients do (it's ridiculous the amount of paperwork for medicare patients). This paperwork would cover the objectives, business plans, legalities that the company would have to be able to project on its' own.
  I would like for laws to have a probationary time period before it goes into effect-so any last-minute details that come about-have the ability to be rejected when comes up for review again by line item. Or items in a bill can be voted on line by line rather as bulk package.
  I would like to see limit to number of boards CEOs can be on.
  I would like fairness Doctrine to be implemented again-with penalties for distortions of truth be news media and with equal time for opposing arguments by an unbiased host.
  I would like to see more audits of top companies at least every 2 yrs by FEDs.
  I would like to see companies no longer claim tax-exmpt status for having overseas companies. should be where HQ is and a certain percentage of total company holdings should be located in the states for any kind of Fed asssistance-private loans...
  Outside lobbies who represent the the interest of another country would be illegal.
  I would like to see companies no longer have to post quarterly earnings-but biannually.
  I would like to see no tax deferrals putoff from year to year-and payment rendered during that year.
  I would like it to be illegal for banks and mortgage companies to have more debt than income-again no reliance on fed $$$ for bailouts. (Enron, worldcom...)
  Would be illegal for CEOS/companies to use pension funds in any way.
  Torture and technologies of the mind as subscribed to by Geneva Convention will be put back in place.
  Restore Habeus Corpus.
  Restore FISA courts-illegal to wiretap without FISA.

  I could go on-but you get my drift....

  by bethincary on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 12:56:59 PM PDT

  •  These are much more realistic than changing

    the Constitution!

    by FightTheFuture on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 09:37:24 PM PDT

  •  Many good ideas

    and many I don't know enough about to even have an opinion.  However, rather than restoring FISA courts, why not just restore the idea that the government should present evidence for warrants in a regular court?  I don't buy into all this secret government crap.  Of course, I realize I'm a radical in my desire to see a more direct form of democracy, but I don't think our government needs to have any secrets from the people (I can hear the shit-storm coming now). And I don't see any reason to give that much power to the ACLU.  While I like the work they do, they are just one organization, and not a public institution. While they would look out for our civil liberties, are you going to expect them to look out for social and economic justice, too?  And why not just eliminate lobbyists altogether by moving to publicly funded elections, prohibiting consecutive terms, and making representatives more accountable to their constituents by instituting a recall measure?  Of course, getting these things will also be a tremendous struggle against the powers-that-be, but so is anything aimed at stealing control of the control from the elites who have come to think of it as theirs (I don't use the phrase "take our country back" because it never really was ours, despite some of the rhetoric that has been used in our history).

    by real democracy on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 11:46:09 PM PDT

    •  Yep, I thought of that after I said it-that the

      ACLU is not goin to have that much expertise in business law or other ways that these laws are trying to get slipped under the radar. So maybe a combo of business minds, ACLU, and others formed as an oversight committee to lobbyists-who bot will write laws-not just lobbyists.
        I would love to get rid of lobbists altogether-but I don't see it happening. restrict their access to lawmakers though, and have some transparency-make them use one central system for any recorded $$$$ or favors-where violators-both political, lobbyists, and corporate would be heavily penalized.

      by bethincary on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 07:59:51 AM PDT

      •  I think we have to aim high

        and then we can negotiate as necessary.  

        by real democracy on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 08:35:33 AM PDT

•  Do some homework.

  recesses and sessions aren't the same thing.

  by valion on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 03:50:12 PM PDT

  •  Well, instead of just being a snot

    why not give me some clues where to find out this information? or perhaps you could just enlighten me here?  Why be a jerk about it?

    by real democracy on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 11:11:31 PM PDT

    •  OK. (This took 20 seconds to find).

      A term of Congress is divided into two "sessions," one for each year; Congress has occasionally also been called into an extra, (or special) session. (The Constitution requires Congress to meet at least once each year.) A new session commences on January 3 (or another date, if Congress so chooses) each year. Before the Twentieth Amendment, Congress met from the first Monday in December to April or May in the first session of their term (the "long session"); and from December to March 4 in the second "short session". (The new Congress would then meet for some days, for the inauguration, swearing in new members, and organization.)

      The Constitution forbids either house from meeting any place outside the Capitol, or from adjourning for more than three days, without the consent of the other house. The provision was intended to prevent one house from thwarting legislative business simply by refusing to meet. To avoid obtaining consent during long recesses, the House or Senate may sometimes hold pro forma meetings, sometimes only minutes long, every three days. The consent of both bodies is required for Congress's final adjournment, or adjournment sine die, at the end of each congressional session. If the two houses cannot agree on a date, the Constitution permits the President to settle the dispute.

      by valion on Mon Aug 20, 2007 at 10:37:42 PM PDT

      •  I don't think this changes the substance

        of what I'm saying.  So, I was wrong about the distinction between a recess and an adjournment, and perhaps "recess appointments" can only be made when the Senate is adjourned?  The point is still the same, as soon as the Senate is reconvened, any recess appointments should be considered for confirmation.  I don't understand your reason for trying to distract from this, but thanks for helping me learn a distinction of which I was not yet aware.

        by real democracy on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 06:52:57 AM PDT

  •  PS Of course

    recesses and sessions are the same thing.  Recesses are the breaks between sessions.  Congress just finished the first session of this year, and will begin the second session after the recess.  I'm guessing they will recess again around the winter holiday season?

    The way the line in the Constitution reads suggests to me that a recess appointment made during this recess would be good until the end of the second session of 2007, leaving the opportunity for the president to appoint someone to that post again in that recess...but please correct me if I'm wrong.  Is it not really so bad? or is it even worse?

    by real democracy on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 11:30:12 PM PDT

    •  oops, left out *not*

      by real democracy on Thu Aug 23, 2007 at 06:47:23 AM PDT

•  These are Constituional changes here, not

  that simple a matter!!  It has nothing to do with progressive not wanting to change things, it's more with trying to work with what is realistic and feasible!!

  The intrinsic problem is "rule of law" and "spirit of the law".  These criminal traitors have no care for that, so they are trashing the place.  These concepts are only as good as people are willing to adhere to them; and others willing to hold them to it.  We have a failure on both sides now, with a criminal cartel that has launched a silent coup, and a too many compromised, blackmailed and otherwise dithering spineless pansies in the Congress!  

  All the rule changes won't make a bit of difference.  It will take people, from the bottom up, and lots of pain, to make the changes and get our country back.  it may also take a few hangings of traitors!  Nothing like a few rich and powerful "above the law" royalists swinging from the end of a rope to snap people back to reality!!  Shame if we had to go there, but it worked pretty swell for France!

  by FightTheFuture on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 09:36:38 PM PDT

  •  Constitutional changes are feasible and realistic

    Not counting the bill of rights, or creating and then repealing prohibition, we have had fifteen constitutional amendments, many of them spurred by pivotal moments in our national history.  Certainly, I think the hijacking of our government by a corporatist cartel is a pivotal moment.  I think that the abuses they have been able to get away with exhibit the loopholes in our system that can be exploited again if we don't change them.

    Certainly, this cabal has violated some laws, plenty of them, but much of what they have done has been legal, or at least held to be potentially legal, pending judicial decisions, if the matters should be pursued in the courts. Most of them apparently will not, and maybe that is for the better, as Bush has a rather friendly Supreme Court, and I've heard that the DC courts are rather conservative as well.  And I think much of what they have done has been based on what they and their buddies were able to get away with during the Reagan-Bush I and Nixon administrations.  They are just pushing the envelope, and we keep letting them.

    While talking here about what kind of changes we'd like to see is not going to lead directly to any actual changes, if we don't talk about what we want, we can't begin to find our common ground and formulate real plans, and without plans, we certainly can't take decisive actions, and then of course, nothing will get done.  

    by real democracy on Sun Aug 19, 2007 at 11:09:33 PM PDT