Pottsville man on a mission to abolish the state Legislature…
Pottsville man on a mission to abolish the state Legislature…
|
Comment Commandments:
1) No Personal Attacks. (Debating is encouraged, but be respectful). 2) No Sexual Discussion (unless it specifically pertains to a cited story). 3) No Profanity (Let’s all behave like adults). |
GOLDEN RULE:
Be civil and statesmanlike. You can disagree without being disagreeable. Annoying trolls who break these rules will be blocked from commenting. ***Please don't disable anonymous commenting for everyone else*** |
NOTE TO COMMENTERS: CREATE AN INTENSE DEBATE ACCOUNT
|
-vote comments up or down
-email notifications when someone replies |
-pick a profile picture
-promote your website or blog |
***TOPIC FORUM: 50 STORIES LAST COMMENTED ON***
***LIST OF TOP 50 COMMENTERS***
***LIST OF 50 MOST COMMENTED ON STORIES***
***LIST OF 50 LAST COMMENTS***
.
50 Comments
Dedicated reformers need to find our how the people can enforce Section 2 of Article I of our Constitution, which reads as folows:
"Section 2. Political Powers – All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper."
If, as this Section says, the people: "….have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they (the people) may think proper"……….just how can the people do this?
SS
Interesting and revealing facts from the article if true:
"Pennsylvania, Bertasavage writes, is one of only nine states with a full-time Legislature and ours is the second largest in the country.
"The Legislature's budget in 2004 was $241 million, which included salaries for staff. Bertasavage wants you to know that in 38 other states, legislatures have no staff.
"Of the nine states with full-time legislatures, Pennsylvania pays its lawmakers the most, and is one of only two states that provides them with cars."
With all that free money and power that we give our legislators, is it any wonder that we attract nothing but the malevolent and greedy?
Straight Shooter,
"Section 2. Political Powers – All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper."
"in such manner as they may think proper." It says nothing about being legal, something the corrupt government would surely claim was illegal. It leaves it up to the people.
Some claim the courts would have to be involved but the courts are part of the problem and they should also be abolished, clear up to and including the PA. Supreme Court. If our Pennsylvania Courts were on the up and up, we wouldn't have the problems we have.
How about a petition of registered voters demanding the PA. Legislature, the Governor and the Courts step down. If they don't the people have the Right to change,alter,reform or ABOLISH as they see fit. I see no limits as to what actions the people may take.
If the 200 legislators took a ten percent pay cut for starters, we’d save a few million dollars off the top.
But I guess what this guy is saying tear it down and build something new.
A revolution in the French tradition is not my desire, but an American one would do with some sound ideas.
I think cutting salaries and staff in government, especially education would get us into a more reasonable system of taxation and spending.
Otherwise, we are going to “hell.” Its just a question of when the whole house of cards falls.
State Rep. R. Curt Schroder, R-155th, of East Brandywine, said he had not seen the proposed legislation but noted that repealing the COLA law would not make a dent the state budget, which is expected to end the fiscal year some $1 billion to $2 billion in the hole.
Schroder said he expects the measure to "make good political points but not help the state's bottom line."
The state's drop in revenues and sinking budget does not bode well for spending next year, said Schroder, a seven-term representive from north-central Chester County.
Schroder said he expects the measure to "make good political points but not help the state's bottom line."
The state's drop in revenues and sinking budget does not bode well for spending next year, said Schroder, a seven-term representive from north-central Chester County.
Schroder suggests House and Senate members begin to contribute to their own health care plan as employees in the private sector do. Repealing COLA is more politically motivated than helpful, he said.
As for charitable contributions, Schroder had a little chuckle.
Schroder's wife, Deanna, is one of the 900 employees caught in the QVC layoffs announced Nov. 12. A nine-year employee, Deanna Schroder worked in the department that handles Internet inquiries. Her layoff will take place by March 2009, her husband said.
"With my wife's situation, we won't be doing that," Schroder said of the matching donation with the COLA raise. "In our situation, we have two young kids. Their needs are first and foremost."
There really is only one way if you care to avoid being branded a terrorist, insurgent, traitor or some other term that describes a legal enemy of the state, and that's a citizens' constitutional convention. This needs to be part of the gubernatorial and legislative campaign lexicons in 2010. It's up to you to make it so.
Russ,
Great idea but then the political class will make sure they control the constituional convention delegates and then the politician amendments will probably remove the prohibition on elected officials having two public jobs, institute a graduated income tax, remove the taxes must be fair accross all classes clause and other really dangerous things not to mention Philadelphia will probably get a constitutional right to waste more state money and some really communist gun control abilities
Way too dangerous for us to let the political class re-write our liberties. Wish we the people could control the delegates but the political class will control them
Best way to go is two amendments – one term limits on the legislature – two reduce the legislature's size – set their compensation and perks-and require a referendum to change their compensation.
Letting the political class re-write the whole document is just too dangerous!
Before anything resembling reform happens we need to close down the country club. As long as incumbency is a 90%+ phenomenon, few sitting members of the General Assembly are going to support a citizens' constitutional convention. If you want to change things, start voting out the incumbents of both parties. That doesn't mean voting against just one incumbent in one election. NEVER vote for an incumbent at any level of government. Returning incumbents to office election after election is what empowers them to put their interests ahead of ours. Send a message. Vote them out.
The personal income tax, the state sales tax, and probably many other taxes on individuals and businesses are percentage taxes. State revenues grow when our incomes grow and decline when family incomes decline. Therefore, to the Governor and legislature – you want to raise taxes now. Where were our tax cuts when the economy grew after the Casey tax increase? You had a lot of extra money with the hiked percentage that you no longer needed when the economy grew. You wasted the money didn't you? Now you want to jack-up your percentage share again! Every time you need money you want to increase your percentage. When you get extra money after a raid on us – you never give it back. You are not trustworthy!
How about this amendment – "Increase in percentage base taxes shall only be enacted after voter referendum approval" Either save the money in the good times for the bad times or get out of our face!
You're right. We should simply allow the status quo to continue while we bitch. Wouldn't actually want to DO anything about it now would we?
Russ has given this a lot of time and thought. Current or former legislators, their spouses, current or former judges/justices and their spouses, and current or former members of the executive branch must be ineligible to serve as delegates. This must truly be a citizens convention.
Great, but how do we MAKE it happen? What if the gubernatorial candidates aren't in favor of a constitutional convention?
We can kiss goodbye any notion that our "representatives" will even discuss it. My rep, a republican, said during a telephone town hall that he was most likely NOT in favor of a con con.
How can we forget the legislative pay raise.__The PA Constitution somewhere some how prohibits the raising or lowering of an elected officials salary during their term of office. Increases must be effective after their next election. The legislature clearly violated this with the midnight pay raise and they purportedly had a deal with the Supremes to ignore the constitution in excahnge for judicial pay raises. When "we the people" forced the repeal of the legislative pay raise the judicial pay raise remained since taking away that pay raise would have been a decrease. Strangely, the constitution applied to the Judges and DJ's keeping their midnight pay raise but didn't apply to the legistators giving back theirs.__ Russ Diamond and Gene Stilip help flesh this out..__ 20 some years ago State Rep John Kennedy (later State Treasurer candidate) sued but got nowhere.__My point is: Do we really want to open up the Constitution allowing repeal of this provision by the political class' chosen delegates. Imagine PA when every township Supervisor, County Commissioner, Philadelphia City Councilman could increase their own salary and collect it before you get a shot at them via the next election.__Constitutional Conventions are dangerous.__
Of all the current candidates declared as running for governor, the only one that hodls a glimmer of hope for real change is Jack Wagner, and I am not sure that even he would go so far as to advocate for a Constitutional Convention. We must have a Constitutional Convention, or at a minimum Initiative and Referendum whereby we could get a Constitutiona Convention through the backdoor, although, we get everything else we need that way, so maybe I and R would negate the need for a Con Con. But if there is to be a Con Con, Russ is right, it has to be a CITIZENS' Con Con. No lobbyists or public officials of any kind can serve. No township supervisors, no party precinct committeemen, none of that. But the only way it has a prayer is to elect a governor who makes wholesale reform is reason for being. Corbett and Gerlach represent the status quo on steroids. Ditto for Onorato.
While I agree that any Con Con must be a citizen's , I think we have a snowballs chance in Hades of making that happen. Assuming we could find a gubernatorial candidate who would agree to a Con Con, no representative would leave it up to us, the mere mortals to handle.
When someone says they are "most likely" opposed or gives any other non-definitive answer, it is our duty to query until we figure out exactly what their fears/concerns are. The fears/concerns of most are swept away easily with logic and sound planning.
Um, before anyone gets excited about the notion of eliminating the legislature and having a citizens constitutional convention, it's important to question whether we have the caliber of citizen's to rebuild the state.
I'm not saying the citizen's cannot be educated and brought up to the task but in light of the fact that so many ninny incumbents keep getting re-elected, I think this effort is kind of a rush.
Call me a terrorist or any other thing you like but there will be no meaningful change for the better take place in State or National government on paper. These guys in charge now and down through the years have their fannies covered when it comes to any meaningful changes on paper happening.
As for voting them out, that will never happen as long as we have two major political parties. Republican or Democrat, they aren't interested in anything but their own power base and getting the money to power it. I probably won't live to see real change but at some point in the future, this State and this Nation will get a cleaning out, from top to bottom and it won't be pretty for some.
There is an example they could follow. It should not be considered a wild, off the wall idea, either for a citizen or a gubernatorial cantidate.
Chris Christie, the Establisment Republican cantidate for NJ Governor has the following in his platform.
"Twenty Eight:
I will give New Jerseyans a stronger voice in government by amending the State Constitution to create a statewide initiative and referendum process to allow public questions to be placed on the ballot.
Twenty Nine:
I will provide New Jerseyans regularly occurring opportunities to petition for their government for action by amending the State Constitution to include a provision, whereby every 10 years, voters will have the opportunity to convene a popularly-elected Constitutional Convention. "
<A href="http://www.christiefornj.com/about/88-ways-chris-christie-will-fix-nj.html"
How much he believes it and wants to push it through, I don't know.
By the way, he is 8-10 points ahead in the polls.
<A href="http://www.pollster.com/polls/nj/09-nj-gov-ge-cvc.php?"
Spoken like a true elitist. Did the colonists question whether they had the caliber of citizens necessary to throw off the oppressive taxation of the crown before they rebelled?
Actually, they did.
Two years before the Declaration, people like John Jay and John Dickinson openly questioned whether the American people had the strength of character and moral foundation to reject the crown of England. It took the chronic abuses of the king combined with a growing spirit of self-evaluation of the people themselves to convince these skeptics that America was ready for independence.
Do Pennsylvanian's have the strength of character to reorganize their state government? Do Pennsylvanian's have the moral foundation to govern themselves in a responsible manner?
Or, it was a diversion to throw the person who asked the question off, because most likely a Con Con as you all are talking about, with citizens only at the helm, will not be happening. Since the idea of a Constitutional Convention is not forefront in the news at the present time, the budget has not been passed, and a host of other reasons, no representative wants to put themselves out there as supporting one.
While a con con may have it's merits, it may also be the opening of Pandora's Box with consequences that none of us can see right now and no amount of planning can determine. But that's just what I, in my infinite wisdom think.
Right now, we're probably a little weak in the strength of character department. However, our nation is in a protracted economic decline. When the effects of 40+ years of misguided economic policy begin to cause real pain for substantial numbers, things will change. Let's just hope that the guys who are hoarding weapons and ammunition right now are wrong about what those changes will look like!
I think the bigger issue in PA is whether we, as a commonwealth, can hang together against the triple threat of an oppressive federal bureaucracy, a collapsing financial system, and a the resurgence of outright Marxism (masquerading as the Democrat Party, labor unions, et al).
I think we can pull this off but it will be critical for us (a) to get re-educated in traditional American values and (b) the representative process.
But we need to recognize the need to reform ourselves as individuals before we think we are capable of reforming our government.
Please define "Pandora's Box" as it applies here, in your view.
I didn't reference "Pandora's Box" but I think it is the idea that a wide open CC as advocated by some, that means EVERYTHING in the state constitution would be up for grabs. Would we want the anti-gun crowd to kill our rights to own a firearm? Would you want pro-family groups to prohibit gay marriage? In short, do we want to run the risk of having a people who have neither the moral clarity nor acumen of character to meddle with our rights as individuals?
I'm not saying this is impossible – but it must be dealt with delicately – especially in light of the fact that Obama and the liberals want to turn the rest of the country into Cuba; would we have the guts to stand up and say "no"?
My concern is this: if the guys hoarding guns and ammo are right, do we as a commonwealth have the strength of character to join them in fighting back? I'm not advocating violence but if they are trying to force a revolution on us that we don't want, what options do we have?
Exactly what I meant by "Pandora's Box." The process would take too long, be complicated, controversial, and would probably get us no where.
If we DID manage to get a Con con, how could we be assured that whatever changes came out of it would even be adopted? Look around. The current crop of reps can't even pass a budget and they are certainly not listening to their constituents, and THEY are at the helm. Imagine what would happen if citizens ran the show and they were forced to watch from the sidelines.
The key thing to remember is the operative word in Constitutional Convention is con. To make sure that we get it, it repeats itself.
A Con Con before we control the reins of government will surely bring more government and fewer rights.
Sorry but I could only give you one plus vote.
You are exactly right.
I seriously doubt you could find enough people with knowledge of the Pennsylvania Constitution to hold a discussion let alone a Con Con. We can't enforce the Constitution we have now.Why would we think we could enforce a new one ?
I've said this on here many times before. They (the politicians) don't respect us. Maybe we should teach them to fear us. As coarse as that may sound, the thought is straight from the Founding Fathers. We shouldn't expect good government. We should demand good government.
You prevent that by launching the convention via statute that includes specific language that prohibits tampering with Article I and proscribes serious criminal penalties for violations. Previous conventions were launched via non-binding legislative resolutions. Even so, 1968's convention did not mess with Article I.
Part and parcel of any convention is the people voting on the proposed changes. If proposed changes require 2/3 approval by the convention's delegates, winning approval of the voters shouldn't be a problem. In addition, such a supermajority requirement would prevent most controversial and radical changes.
How do you propose "controlling" the reins of government? And before you answer, I'll ask my follow-up: How's that workin' out for ya?
I think we can find 3 principled people in every Senate district.
But the 1968 convention did our our state constitution in a mess.
My original question, however, remains – do we have sufficient moral clarity and strength of character among the people to accomplish such a task?
Russ is right
We could find 3 principled people in each Senate District. The readers of Grassrootpa.com should be enough alone.
However, the political class will defeat the three principled people with their own lackeys. The political class controls the money raised through pay to play vendors which they will use to defeat principled candidates. Campaigns are marketing and issuing principled press releases never printed by the local entrenched media or standing on a highway with a sign just isn't enough to win.
And a quick study of history shows why: Becuase it was the brainchild of the PA Bar Association and because legislators were not only not prohibited from serving as delegates, but were given ex-offico status and comprised the body's steering committee. Also, it's important to note that much of the PBA's scheme was passed via amendment in the years before the convention. They only held a convention at all to get adopted what they couldn't shove through the amendment process.
To answer your question: Yes, we do.
Then would you support tighter regulation of delegate campaign finance aimed at preventing undue influence by the political class?
Russ, Yes I would support not only tighter regulation of delegate campaign finance but elimination of it above $25 contributions with the same limit applicable to political committees $25 tops. When you look at the structure consult todays articles on pay to play in municipal/County/state pension funds. Investment managers buy their way in with huge political contributions and then the market declines did the fund go down more because we just sold the investment manager job to the highest bidding political contributor? maybe/maybe not.
but when you hire somebody on behalf of others – do you want the best – or do you want the highest kick-back. The taxpayers are on the hook for these funds. The transfer to the state lets a different group of pols collect the contributions but at least the municipalities will be required to put the correct amounts in. They locals gave away the benefits and didn't manage the investments either.Local taxes will probably increase reflecting poor (pay to play) choices of investment managers
On advice of counsel, I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that it might scare the bejeebers out of the political elite.
Russ,
last post too long so here's the finish. I could not have greater admiration for you and your work on the repeal of the pay raise. Thank you BTW.
However, your last post says preceding the last con con the legislature had passed many amendments and a couple were finished with the con con. This legislature hasn't passed one constitutional amendment good or bad. Your post goes on to say the legislature had a lot of infleuence in the last con con. Maybe that legislature had some principles. The current legislature has no principles and they should also face mandatory election losses in the fall of 2010. We need the NO incumbent thing back that you guys did around the midnight pay raise time.
Sorry to disagree and thanks for all you have done and continue to do to force ethics on our unethical government officials!
I may have been too brief then, andy. You must understand that all the changes made to the constitution in the 60's were already being planned in the late 50's by the Bar Association. They even came up witha new way to do amendments: rather than change a few words here and there like one would expect, they created amendments that revamped an entire article in one fell swoop. It was their intent to do it all through the amendment process, but alas, some were just not deemed acceptable enough to pass the legislature at the time. So what the PBA & legislative leadership did was form and extra-legislative body – the convention – to do that work for them. All under the guise of "will of the people" and all that nice-sounding stuff. It was a total sham in my view and the end result was the full-time legislature we "enjoy" today.
Not to mention all the billable hours this revised system has showered upon the legal community. Do you see any connection between the genesis and the end result?
Well played, man, well played.
Wagner doesn't believe in the right of the people to keep and bear arms. He doesn't believe that the the government is restricted from infringing on our right. Therefore, Wagner is an unacceptable candidate for any office, let alone the governor's office.
See Article 1 Section 26 of the PA Declaration of Rights in the Constitution if you have any questions or doubts.
No doubt there are a few different reasons people are hoarding weapons and ammo. The one that got my attention was something I read a couple of months ago. The hypothethis was that in a complete economic meltdown, weapons, food and fuel will be among the most valuable commodities – perhaps surpassing even gold. To your point, if an armed insurrection ever got off the ground, I think it would be a disaster. Let's hope it never comes to that.
The problem with campaign finance reform is that it goes after the wrong thing. It isn't that there is too much money going into the campaigns but rather too money in the hands of those who get elected.
There is too much money under the control of government and too many opportunities for waste, fraud, and theft. Government should not be picking winners and losers.
I've learned from the best.
The problem with campaign finance legislation is that it's either ineffective i.e. McCain-Feingold, or it treads on the first amendment. Why can't we stop organizations from making contributions? Only individuals should be able to make political contributions and every dollar should be accounted for publicly. If we could just get the corporations, labor unions, pacs, 521s, lobbyists etc. out, we'd all be much better off.