Major General Smedley Butler, USMC (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940) was the winner of not one, but two, Medals of Honor.  In the 1930s, Butler wrote a short book called War is a Racket.

If you're looking for a weepy, sentimental tale about how war is unhealthy for children and other living things, pass this by.  This is a no-nonsense, practical way to not only extricate ourselves from our current blunders in Afghanistan and Iraq, but also to prevent our engagement in future wars.

Four years ago, when Del Martin, Phyllis Lyon and more than 4,000 other couples said "I Do" this country took an irrevocable step toward securing equality for every American.

While many feel what we did was too much, too fast, too soon – we stand firm in the belief that our actions were not only just, but legal and constitutional. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the pursuit of happiness.

Today, the California Supreme Court is hearing arguments on whether excluding gay couples from marriage violates the state constitution. Today, these Justices have a unique chance to follow in the proud tradition of California's high court, which took a courageous stand on marriage equality in 1948 when it ruled that the state's ban on inter-racial marriage was unconstitutional.

Florida has no citizen initiative, so our only recourse is constitutional amendment. So every election cycle we have a frantic battle as the deadline approaches (February 1) to make the November ballot. And given that this is Florida and our elections are usually a Three Stooges sub-plot, things couldn't be more interesting.

And, with any sort of luck, there will be road kill as a result!

The Florida Family Policy Council,associated with Focus on the Family, reports that they have obtained the necessary signatures for a ballot initiative that would amend the constitution to ban gay marriage. 612,000 signatures were obtained and the group is still collecting more. The State of Florida already has a law banning gay marriage so this is an attempt to bring out the intolerant conservative religious voters in the presidential election by countering rising blue tide in Florida to the republics. As you know Florida is the largest swing state in the country and the right wing will do anything to make sure Florida does not go to the Democrats. We all saw what happened during 2000 and expect more brown shirt tactics to follow. Heck, if you can't win on your ideas or record put some hate filled bull shit on the ballot. That will attract the cretins to vote for you.

Constitutional amendment.

President of US makes 100 times the poverty rate.

No one may be compensated more than the President of the US.

Here in New York State, home of the country's most dysfunctional legislature, we have a very effective system of checks and balances -- better than the federal government.

Why?  Because the Attorney General and the Comptroller are elected, and are not beholden to the Governor or the Legislature.  We get the best people for the job and they act as stringent watchdogs (because that's how they get re-elected!).

The United States deserves the same system, even though it requires a Constitutional Amendment.

at this point in time".  

Ok, this is lifebouy time imo, and here's my toss - without so much as an argument for it.  Just laying it out there. If it fits above the flip, that's good enough for now.

Amendment 28 (or whatever)

"Section 1. The prerogative of the President to issue Pardons notwithstanding, no Pardon or Commutation shall be considered valid if issued to reprieve a current or former member of the President's Administration, or a current or former offical in the President's political party.

Section 2. Any Pardon shall be valid only insofar as it applies to a specific conviction against an individual obtained in a Court of the United States."

Among the millions of Americans frustrated with the refusal by the federal government to forcefully control illegal immigration is South Carolina Senator Glenn McConnell.  As President Pro Tempore of the Senate McConnell has explained why he is calling for the nation’s first use of the US Constitution’s Article V provision for a convention of state delegates to propose constitutional amendments.

"While this action is unprecedented, I also believe that the danger facing our country is unprecedented.  We need to act now.  ...Congress has refused or is incapable of acting, thereby leaving the states in the position of burning while Congress fiddles.  ...the problem of illegal immigration is one that has reached a boiling point," said McConnell, a Charleston Republican.

The dangers of private security contractors to civil society have been much discussed in light of the recent shootings of Iraqi civilians by employees of Blackwater Security.  Author Naomi Wolf (among others) has emphasized, in a current diary on Dkos,  the dangers  to Democracy of a Praetorian Guard responsible ultimately to the President, and largely protected from the legal consequences of their actions.

I propose to fix this problem by amending the US Constitution; please continue reading for further details.

Salon.com is reporting that Fred Thompson, campaigning in Sioux City, Iowa on Friday 9/7/07, announced that he wants a Constitutional amendment that would be used to stop "deviancy" like gay marriage.

This is short, so I will put it all here.

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of permanent political parties nor prohibiting the free association thereof.

2. No individual or association with a grant of limited liability may be granted powers that violate the rights of individuals granted by this Constitution and its amendmendments.

3. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of gender or sexual orientation.  The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provision of this article.  This amendment shall take effect upon ratification.

4. No election shall be decided except that all votes of the people be counted.  No election shall be certified except that all challenges to the election be satisfied by presentation of evidence that proves the issue one way or the other.

5. Money shall not be construed as protected speech.

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.

On Saturday, I signed onto Rep. Kucinich's H.RES.333, "Impeaching Richard B. Cheney, Vice President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors."

No one is above the law and our Vice President has forgotten that. His wanton disregard for the precepts of our constitution and its separation of powers, in addition to his overwhelming involvement in the continuation of an illegal war, make bringing the articles of impeachment a necessary reality.  Impeachment powers exist to protect the citizens of our country from such egregious abuses of power. Never in our history has a Vice President had more power than Mr. Cheney currently wields. As a member of the House Judiciary committee, I believe this measure is the next step.

Just published an op-ed  in Politico suggesting that the Dems should amend the constitution to make clear that a president cannot pardon himself, the VP, or his top aides.  
Constitutional scholars have believed that it would be legal for a president to pardon himself, but no president has ever been so shameless as to do it.  Bush is both shameless and in danger of prosecution after he leaves office, as I point out in the article.  
Politically, this would force the Republicans in Congress to make a tough choice.  Do they stick with Bush's right to pardon himself (we can depict that as supporting Bush's right to break the law), or do they vote for the amendment as a way to separate themselves from Bush?  I think enough would make the latter choice, given Bush's unpopularity.  But even if we lose on the amendment in Congress or at the statehouses, it will keep Bush's criminal conduct and his sense that he is above the law in front of America all the way to the election

Well, we can all be mighty well and truly outraged at Bush's abuse of his powers to protect his crony and aide, Scooter Libby. But at the core, the problem is, the President's authority to grant pardons and reprieves is absolute except in cases of impeachment.

But we can do something productive about this, and close the loophole by which the Bush administration has evaded justice one more time. We can amend the Constitution, so that neither this President nor any successor can exercise his authority so abusively again.

I would like to submit a possible Amendment towards this end.

Read on...

There is so much wrong with this mal-administration and its abuses of the Constitution that we need to make it crystal clear to future conservative administrations (sorry, but we will have more) just what is unacceptable. For example, passing a law to restore Habeus Corpus is nice (and I hope it is passed quickly), but it doesn't have the impact and power of being explicitly addressed in the Constitution. What follows after the turn are a series of proposed amendments.  All are about limiting the power of the Executive, something I suspect most would agree is desperately needed.

How can we amend the Constitution when Bush & Co just run roughshod over it? I'm not sure, but I have some ideas, and wanted to run it through the system. IANAL, so it isn't written in the proper legalese. Some of what I've added is already in the Constitution in one form or another, but it is perhaps important to make everything crystal clear so that another Yoo doesn't come along to re-interpret.

The latest NBC/Wall Street Journal national poll results vividly show a population incredibly dissatisfied with their nation’s political system.  In other countries in other times such a depressing level of confidence in government would send a signal to those running the government that a major upheaval is imminent.  But not here in the USA.  Why?

On May 17, 2004the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial court ruling in Goodridge went into effect and for the first time in the United States, same-sex couples could get married and have those marriage licences recognized by their city, county and state governments.

Today, three years later, the world has not ended. However, the right of same-sex couples to get married in Massachusetts is hanging by a thread...