Constitutional Amendments

I am a big fan of Mark Levin, and in particular of his The Liberty Amendments. I don’t suppose I’m one to do better than he has, so I should refresh myself as to what is in the set he proposes and what is not. Just the same, I would like very much to see some limitations imposed from the Constitution side against the American voters. not because I like this idea very much, but because when push comes to shove, I must not let perfect be the enemy of good. This is how we get Fausted, yes, but there are principles and then there are Principles.
[mantra-pullquote align=”left|center|right” textalign=”left|center|right” width=”33%”]excludes any current or former spouse, sibling, parent or child of an office holder[/mantra-pullquote]I would support an amendment limiting eligibility to run for President based on proximity to prior office-holders. Specifically, I would like to see an amendment that excludes any current or former spouse, sibling, parent or child of an office holder to that same office. I realize that this is not perfect and can be gamed, but it makes dynastic abuse a few steps harder than it is now, and it is certainly being abused.
You can argue that limiting the options available to the American electorate is not an enhancement to liberty, and I agree. At the same time, we are plummeting down a dangerous path, and should accept some changes based on pragmatism. The loss of opportunity to vote for promising family members of beloved former incumbents must surely be less than the loss of liberty caused by the now easy establishment of political dynasties. If you have any faith at all in the American electorate, then it must be reassuring to see how many more promising candidates will be identified if the presumptive nominee is not by default a family member of a past favorite.
And let them laugh about a “former child” or any of the rest of that phrasing. If the phrasing is not broad and bulletproof, it will be abused by those who argue over the meaning of the word “is”.

Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Constitutional Amendments

  1. AvatarNanda Panjandrum says:

    What of the Adams and Harrison iterations of the phenomenon? (Not to mention the roundabout Roosevelts?)

    That said: When and where is the Convention? I’m in…

    • AdministratorAdministrator says:

      What little we may lose in the disqualifying of a handful of decent candidates is paltry compared to the corruption of the system by a few families. If people want to bust monopolies, I can’t think of a better place to look.

  2. DevereauxDevereaux says:

    Let me reiterate the basic squemishniss I have over Constitutional Amendments. We have only had some 27, and numerous of them were bad (16, 17, 18, 19, 20 – just to name a few).

    Our problem today is not the actual Constitution; it’s the current “perceptioni” of it – and the primacy of the courts.

Leave a Reply