Log In | Register   
HomeLocal NewsState NewsSportsOpinionObituariesAgriculture
Quick Links
  Home
  My Bulletin
  Contact The Bulletin

Marketplace
  Display Ads
  Classifieds
  Dir. of Advertisers

Opinion

North Korean threats cut close to home

Sexual dis-orientation and the Boy Scouts

More opinion

Ag News

Sustainable crop residues on cow/calf, yearling operations

Registrations due for tractor safety course

More Ag News


Email Article | Print Article
Opinion - Opinion
 
Kerrey's amendment: Work that needs doingTell North Platte what you think
 

Bob Kerrey, that smart, pleasant-but-cheeky guy that Republicans say is an East Coast liberal, has presented some relatively good ideas -- one of which would put party politics somewhere back behind the welfare of the nation.

NebraskaLand National BankYou've got a
facebook Request!
CLICK HERE!

Sure, that would mean changing the Constitution of the United States, a cheeky idea, but when you read it, Kerrey’s proposal is not all that radical.

The Constitution allows Congress to organize itself anyway it chooses in Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2. And, somewhere back in history, Congress chose to let the majority party (the one that has the most representatives there) control the agenda.

Congress agreed to let the majority leaders of the House and Senate set the schedule of the floor -- determining when debates are held and, in effect, when votes are taken. And, the members of the majority party who are in office the longest have seniority, and they become the chairpersons of the committees.

If a party doesn't want a bill to advance they can "bury it in committee." For instance, staunch Republicans currently don't want a postal reform bill, even though there is one written, so the bill is currently buried in a House committee. Same goes with the Farm Bill.

Yes, these days, the parties mainly argue and fight while the national debt skyrockets, the gulf widens between rich and poor, war continues to drift in Afghanistan, unemployment soars, energy prices climb and for tens of millions, good health care is more of a campaign issue than it is a reality.

Our Congressional representatives are fixing little of national importance, and for that, they blame the other party.

Kerrey’s proposed Constitutional amendment is named for George Norris, a smart, pleasant and cheeky guy himself, who organized the non-partisan Nebraska Legislature back in the late 1930s.

Norris was once a U.S. Senator. One time he got in a fist fight during a Senate debate. But Norris evidently tired of fights. When he retired from national politics, he personally ran a petition drive to create the Unicameral. He came back to Nebraska to put the Unicameral on the ballot, persuading people to change the state constitution.

The wording of Kerrey's proposed (and aptly-named) Norris amendment is simple. (See the first line, especially.)

“Congress shall write rules so as to elect its leaders and organize itself in a non-partisan fashion. Members shall be limited to 12 years of consecutive service and shall be permitted to enact legislation limiting the amount of money that can be spent by themselves or outside groups on Congressional campaigns.”

That’s right, the amendment also sets term limits in the Senate. About time. Fresh faces are good faces in Congress. And, it gives Congress the power to limit campaign spending, something many of us would sorely like.

If these simple 45 words become a part of our Constitution, holy cow, what a difference it could make.

“I promise you that Nebraskans will see more solutions and fewer slogans, more problem solving and fewer created problems,” Kerrey said.

Kerrey also cited James Madison, a founding father who warned of “warring factions” that can paralyze a government – much like Republicans and Democrats of today.

In writing our Constitution, Madison and other founding fathers looked at failed governments of history, including democracies, and aimed to do better with the United States. The principles of a Republic – including the guarantees of individual and state's rights – were installed in our Constitution to prevent “warring factions” from constantly doing battle and tearing our country apart with vile, bitter, destructive infighting.

Madison foresaw that one faction might gain a voting majority and do everything their way, oppressing even a big minority. That oppression would motivate the minority to do what they could to gain a slight majority and then have it their way.

Every four years, Republicans and Democrats split the popular vote down the middle. Presidential elections are incredibly close, with an all-out campaign to win the White House and majority in Congress and blame-games that last all the way from one election to another.

Kerrey can see all that, and more. He is cheeky in several ways, also proposing specific reforms to Social Security, Medicare and the national budget, talking about what our nation needs to do, even during the campaign. Imagine that. I like to listen to him, even if the Republican opposition says he's a no-good liberal, because the Norris proposal is a breath of fresh air.


Like this story to send to your facebook

The North Platte Bulletin - Published 10/9/2012
Copyright © 2012 northplattebulletin.com - All rights reserved.
Flatrock Publishing, Inc. - 1300 E 4th St., Suite F - North Platte, NE 69101
 
Hide Talk Back
 

Talk Back
 
Also Yoda I took some time today to reprint a guest op from May regarding the "no budget" Congress. It's above this opinion piece.
0
Posted by George Lauby    - 10/13/2012 3:31:26 PM
(0 current warnings - 9 warnings total)

Yoda, you didn't discuss the main point -- partisan/senority control of Congress. You didn't talk about the "free speech" difference between anonymous corps and superPACs compared to individuals and newspapers. I didn't say you were too skeered to talk. Shoot, you'd talk all day even to someone who doesn't really have that much time, lol. Your fear seems to be in considering a change to the Constitution. I hope to publish more on the Kerrey amendment later and hope to have time to TB with you.
0
Posted by George Lauby    - 10/13/2012 2:44:38 PM
(0 current warnings - 9 warnings total)

George, what points have I failed to address? I already told you that the proposed amendment, while a "good idea" creates problems, because the laws that would be passed later would still be subject to Constitutional review. If you want this idea to work, the limits have to be stated in the amendment. We agree, generally, on the budget issues. I responded to your interpretation of the Constitution. What did I not respond to? Yet, we are back to me being scared. When exactly did I say I wasn't worried about the influence of corporations or the wealthy? But, you win, I won't try to discuss or debate the merits or detriments of proposal with you...I am obviously to skeered to do that.
0
Posted by Yoda    - 10/12/2012 5:41:17 PM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

sorry yoda, my patience wears thin. You didn't address a lot of the points I made, just expound on possible negatives. I think there is a real danger that we will lose our democratic republic to the extremely wealthy and big government. Already they are "warring." I do think you are scared of the solution proposed and the topic of the editorial, in your mind, rightly so. Not in my mind.
0
Posted by George Lauby    - 10/12/2012 3:55:09 PM
(0 current warnings - 9 warnings total)

George, that's beyond funny to the point of being sad. To suggest that a person is scared because they point out the most basic premise of the Constitution, reeks of an inability to discuss the issue beyond the surface. Really, I'm scared, and the insinuation that carries? Kinda like the nonsense of comparing the President to Hitler.
0
Posted by Yoda    - 10/12/2012 2:52:03 PM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

I think you are too scared to consider it with an open mind, yoda. Nuff said for now, gotta go.
0
Posted by George Lauby    - 10/12/2012 2:21:33 PM
(0 current warnings - 9 warnings total)

George...I'm really not trying to argue, just trying to get an understanding. I certainly see merit in the issue of "groups" or corporations and the influence they have on both sides, but I disagree with your surmise that the Amendments were intended to be applied to individuals only. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." My problem with the proposed amendment, to a certain degree is that it leaves it to Congress to define what may be a 'group'. Not an institution I really want messing around with definitions of the minute. I also disagree that the Constitution did not recognize the rights of the 'group'. In fact, the Constitution really diodn't grant a thing to the Federal Government, it restricted it, which is what makes it perhaps the greatest document ever. This proposed amendment (without a discussion of the merits) goes exactly opposite of that intent...it empowers Congress with more authority...the very thing that the Founders warned against. That in a nut-shell is my biggest problem with it...it seems to be another step toward the government beiong able to tell the citizens what it can and cannot hear. The influence of corporations, groups, donors is unquestionably huge. But an ammendment, which at its core implies that the citizens are too stupid to recognize the issues and vote accordingly, and that the government is in a better position to do this, runs contrary to anything the Framers ever intended, and is a base example of everything they feared about a central government.
0
Posted by Yoda    - 10/12/2012 11:28:37 AM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

yoda now hear this, I don't have time to write editorials and argue them point for point with you and keep the business running too. I don't have time right now to read each of your points, but regarding free speech... I believe the intent of the Constitution is to allow people to speak freely. People, not corporations, not anonymous wealthy groups and corporations. Our founders went to great lengths to protect the rights of individuals. They did not guarantee the rights of groups, except states with representative governments. In fact, they warned of the dangers of powerful groups. Washington warned of the power of political parties. At the Bulletin, we allow readers to respond and we publish the response at no cost...as opposed the situation in expensive attack ads.
0
Posted by George Lauby    - 10/12/2012 10:31:49 AM
(0 current warnings - 9 warnings total)

George...sure the equal time thing was a little bit of a nudge, but a budget is actually required by law. The more important conservation, at least to me, is the proposed Constitutional amendment, what it says, and what it does, and what's its consequences may be. I do find it a bit confusing that you see merit in it, when its intent is designed to limit free speech...political speech, which was the main purpose of that provision of the First Amendment...freedom of political speech. Would you feel the same if there was an amendment suggesting that Congress can pass laws limiting the number of editorials in support of, or against the political issue of the day? And why do you think it is a good idea for amendments to go forth giving Congress additional power? The purpose of the Constitution was to define the power of the respective branches of the Federal government. The purpose of the Amendments was to tell the Federal government, and the State governments (13th & 14th) what they cannot do. Taking the 13th & 14th and applying it to this proposed amendment, well, that would also mean that individual States could pass laws on this very isssue themselves (assuming the Supreme Court follows the abundance of precedent of on the application of the FedConstitution to the States via the 13th & 14th. Is this something that you are advocating for? Speaking not of the term limits provision (though I believe we already have them, it's called voting...it is always the other guy's Congressman that needs to go afterall) but speaking to the expansion of the ability of the Federal govt to regulate speech. Really interested in hearing back. And, if you don't want to engage in a deper discussion of the possible outcomes of the proposal, why write an editorial thayt is suppportive of it? It does seem that things such as Constitutional amendments need to be well thought oput and throighly discussed before deciding if thay are good or bad. There is a reason there have been so few in our history, it is because they are that big and that important...
0
Posted by Yoda    - 10/12/2012 7:56:44 AM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

LOL, I say i don't have lots of time but you Yoda want to engage in a deeper convesation. Not that you don't have good points. The budget in the Senate is not an authorization, just a plan. The problem is the budget plan has been broken over and over again for many many years. Overspending is the problem, and Obama and the current crop of Dems are the greatest overspenders this country has ever seen since Roosevelt, WWII and the Great Depression.

Also, Morgan, I interviewed Kerrey about the specifics of "non-partisan fashion" (yes I agree it's too vague, although if the Constitution says Congress shall do something it certainly gives it more teeth). Look for my interview with Kerrey soon. Re: wording of the proposed balanced budget amendment, what I've seen is relatively long and complex. We've reported it. I could get it for you, but I expect you can look it up on the Internet. If so, you might give us all the link. (Ok, going back to writing news for now.)
0
Posted by George Lauby    - 10/11/2012 4:44:37 PM
(0 current warnings - 9 warnings total)

One more thing George...while the US Postal Bill and Farm Bill may be buried in the House...Can you tell me what the Senate has done with the Budget Bills received from the House. Don't we kinda need a budget too? Isn't that kind of an important thing? Especially, when bills like the Farm Bill would impact the budget? I understand its an editorial, but if you want to remain neutral, and have the appearance of neutrality, I'd suggest examples that are underr the control of each party, rather than just examples of one party's obstructionist ways. While both are equally guilty, you sure wouldn't know it by the examples given in this column.
0
Posted by Yoda    - 10/11/2012 1:07:22 PM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

Also, I'm pretty sure that a balanced budget amendment proposed by Deb Fischer or any one of a number of already-existing supporters would have much more specific language. See, I believe it still goes back to this: Kerrey's proposal is simply a campaign device. If he was serious about passing it he would be including process specifics. Otherwise, how would a Congressperson know what they were voting for or against? (Although at least this isn't 1600+ pages long. Yet.)
0
Posted by Morgan Greenwood    - 10/11/2012 12:31:33 PM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

Thanks, George. And good point, Yoda. About the phrase "organize itself in a non-partisan fashion," that's not very specific. How would that play out? The main scenario I can envision is all of them haggling and accusing over the operational definition of those words, an additional barrier to action. His proposal does not say who decides, or how, a process that satisfies the key words in it. Even if it were reworded to match other amendments and say "Congress shall NOT ... elect.... organize... In a partisan fashion" it would still have the same problems.
0
Posted by Morgan Greenwood    - 10/11/2012 12:22:41 PM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

George...sure if the Constitution is ammended to state that it is Constitutional. But, and maybe it's an over-looked nuiance on your part, that isn't what the proposed amendment, as quoted in the column would do. All the proposed amendemnt says (which is remarkably different than other amendments, is that Congress can enact laws. It doesn't say what the conternts of the laws shall be. So, while the amendement may give Congress Constitutional authority to enact a law, the law itself will always be subject to Constitutional review. While the amendment may give Congress to pass a law, it says nothing about the constitutionality of the law that is passed. Ah...the difference in this one, and pehaps the scary difference...ever notice how the othe amendments tell Congress what it cannot do? There's a reason for that, and reason the proposed amendment seems to ignore.
0
Posted by Yoda    - 10/11/2012 12:08:56 PM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

Not sure I have time to adequately respond to you both. We shouldn't give into the tendencies to be certain in our cyncism or our optimism. Yoda, if the constitution were changed to limit campaign spending, then limits would become constitutional. Of course, the danger is that super wealthy warring factions bombard us with election ads and sloganeering (evidenced today) and we don't even know who they (super PACs) are.
Morgan, a constitutional amendment can be adopted with approval of 2/3rd of Congress and 3/4ths of the state Legislatures. No constitutional convention for a specific amendment. Last time it happened was in the early 1970s, giving 18 year olds the right to vote. It is the same thing that Deb Fischer wants for a balanced budget amendment.
0
Posted by George Lauby    - 10/11/2012 11:14:05 AM
(0 current warnings - 9 warnings total)

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the process of making a change to the Constitution also put all other amendments and content of the Constitution back on the table?? Isn't that why people on all sides get twitchy at the very thought of a Constitutional Convention? Ok, my fuzzy memory here has just made me decide I'll take the two free online courses on the Constitution offered by Hillsdale College. It's been in the back of my mind for awhile.
0
Posted by Morgan Greenwood    - 10/11/2012 10:50:24 AM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

It's an excellent campaign device -- it gets lots of us howling in agreement -- but so what?? It's Congressional agreement he needs to pass his ideas, and I just don't see his buddy Harry Reid or others in power positions supporting this. So realistically, it doesn't have to matter to Bob if it would actually pass or not, it's just a device he hopes will get him elected. And it could work. He's a likeable guy, and an engaging speaker. Charisma will always be a compelling thing for voters who do not look further.
0
Posted by Morgan Greenwood    - 10/11/2012 10:39:53 AM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

While the idea is 'good'...the question with all good ideas is what will the effect be. Part of the proposal is likely inconstitutional on its face...the part about 'laws' limiting what outside groups can spend on a campaign. I mean if you like the concept of frerrdom of speech (which any news paper editor should) you can't or shouldn't be in the position of advocating for the limiting of it to others...can you? Should the proposed Amendment include a provision about the number of editorials that can be written in support or opposed to certain candidates? Obviously not...but the effect of this Amendment may very well be to place the emphasis and control of the content of an election, and its outcome, back in the hands of news organizations, as it once was. There's also the influence of the lobbyists and special interests that could possibly increase. Maybe the 'best' solution is an Amendment requiring the voters to actually have a clue (educate themsselves) before voting. (I know, equally un-American in our Republic.) In the end, my opinion is that until people wake-up, voting will always be based on individual self-interest, whether it is at popular elections or within the realm of government itself. When the countey morphed from one of individual states as a whole, to one of a whole of individual states, reliance and solution shifting along with it, the structure of of government changed at its core. Whether that was good or bad, or a combination of the two is debatable, but it does seem that the ever increasing reliance on the Federal Government was the triggering point of a remarkable change of this Republic. I don't think this proposed Amendment will effectively change much...unless the individual is willing to change themselves...
0
Posted by Yoda    - 10/11/2012 9:31:53 AM
(0 current warnings - 0 warnings total)

lol, me too sometimes
0
Posted by George Lauby    - 10/10/2012 1:10:07 PM
(0 current warnings - 9 warnings total)

Good point, George. I just need to step back and stop being such a cynic when it comes to politicians. Anymore these people sound like the Charlie Brown teacher to me.
0
Posted by Northplatypus    - 10/10/2012 9:28:24 AM
(0 current warning - 1 warnings total)

ya northplatypus (love your TB name) it's good to watch em all, but in the case of Congress, inaction speaks louder than words.
0
Posted by George Lauby    - 10/10/2012 7:39:10 AM
(0 current warnings - 9 warnings total)

Kerrey does have good ideas, but so does every other politician. Seems most forget that action speaks louder than words.
0
Posted by Northplatypus    - 10/10/2012 6:34:09 AM
(0 current warning - 1 warnings total)

FLAG LEGEND:
Green Flag = No current warnings. Any past warnings have expired.
Yellow Flag = Minor offense. Post was edited where neccessary. Yellow flags fly for 7 days.
Red Flag = A more serious offense. This user can't post to Talk Back for 7 days. The offending post has been permanently blacked out. Red flags fly for 7 days.
Black Flag = The most serious offense. This flag is reserved for those with multiple or particularly agregious offenses. Last step before permanent banishment. Black flags fly for 30 days.
Skull & Crossbones = Banned.
 
 
Login to post Talk Back

Click on the cop Report Talk Back Abuse to report Talk Back abuse and misuse
 
 
 

Copyright © 2003 - 2013 northplattebulletin.com
All rights reserved.

Flatrock Publishing, Inc.
1300 E 4th St., Suite F
North Platte, NE 69101

 
Your Ip Address - 50.19.155.235
North Platte, Nebraska