The Democrats are making their idiotic push to place term limits on the Supreme Court. This won’t work (at least right now) and it has nothing to do with fixing anything: they just don’t like a Court that doesn’t rule in their favor. But a clever GOP (don’t laugh) would latch on to this and broaden it into a general reform effort.
I do think the American people are getting into the mood where, per Jefferson, they are willing to alter or to abolish their form of government. Part of this sentiment does stem from ignorance – the nimrods who don’t like the Electoral College, eg. But the main thing is that a broad majority perceives, however imperfectly, that things just aren’t working. That the government is actually hostile to the people. In light of this, I’ve got some suggestions on how we should go here.
Term Limits
Yes, indeed, let’s have some. Of course on the Supreme Court – but also on the House and Senate. Eight years is more than enough for a person to be President. Probably twenty is good for a Justice (and that is all federal judges, not just the Supreme Court). But the House should be a ten year max (5 terms) and the Senate eighteen (3 terms). But we don’t stop there! Oh, heck no!
One of the objections to term limits on Congress is that it in theory turns all power from transient office holders to permanent staff and bureaucracy. And this is a genuine danger. The solution is simple: nobody is allowed to be a federal employee for more than twenty years. There should be a fairly rapid turnover of all government personnel – both to bring fresh ideas in and to periodically clear out people who have burrowed in, set up a corrupt system and now just reap the benefits. A wrinkle I’d like to add to term limits: if you are in one elected office, you can’t seek another. So, you’re a Representative who wants to run for Senate? Resign your office first. Senator who wants to be President? Resign your office first. You ran for a term and you are obligated to serve that term dedicating 100% of your time to that office…if you are seeking another office, you busted that deal. Out you go.
Power Corrupts
It isn’t just that they are in there too long, it is also what they do when they’re in there. Most of our Congresspeople are dimwitted pyschos who merely follow orders so they can stay at the trough. Replacing them on a rapid basis will help cure this but it can’t cure human nature – and anyone who actually seeks power is to some degree insane. So, we need some controls on them.
First off: nobody elected or employed by government can make more than 200% of the median American income. We’re just not going to pay them very much. This might seem counterintuitive in that a low paid bureaucrat is theoretically easier to bribe (and that risk is real) but what I’ve seen in history is that low paid bureaucrats tend to be dedicated people…in other words, they wouldn’t take the job in the first place based on money as there simply isn’t any. Low paid bureaucrats tend to be dedicated, hard working people who do it as a calling. Oh: no pensions except for retired military. Everyone else gets a 401k. Electeds get nothing.
Second: Upon leaving office, every person who was paid by the Treasury endures a full financial audit from an outside auditor. Every last thing is looked into – where every penny came from, where it went to. Save those receipts guys: you have to account for every cent. If you can’t, then lots of jail time is on the horizon depending on how many cents are unaccounted for. This is the backstop – the sure knowledge that once you’re out of power, someone is going to check and see if you were on the take while in power.
A large problem is friends and family. As we have seen with Hunter, family and friends latch on to the elected family member and milk the connection for all it is worth. So: if you have a family member in elected office you may not be employed by any government agency, government contractor or non-profit organization. Nor can you be employed by any entity that receives more than ten percent of its funding from the government. Essentially, once you’ve got a family member in office (family: parent, sibling, grandparent, uncle/aunt, child, first cousin), you can only work in 100% private sector enterprises. Persons identified as close friends of an elected are audited every five years. Another aspect of this: once an elected or bureaucrat leaves office they can never be employed by an agency of government, a non-profit or an education entity that receives government funds. Need to stop the nest-feathering.
Best and Brightest
As we have seen of late, the people running our government are very stupid when not actually malevolent. This is because the government has used the same feeder system of schools to obtain their staff and those schools have collapsed into a morass of Marxist indoctrination. The bright, young New Dealer of 1933 actually had a substantive education often far in advance of the overwhelming majority of the American people. He might have got it wrong, but he got it wrong after thinking it over. Today’s Ivy League graduate has barely a sixth grade education from 100 years ago and is infused with some of the most stupid, illogical and anti-human ideas ever created. We need a new way to find our bureaucrats.
Aside from the twenty year limit on having them around, I also say that nobody over the age of 25 can start government employment – civil or military. The oldest government employee will now be 45. We don’t need old barnacles like Fauci hanging around for decades. The low pay will stop attracting people who are primarily motivated by money and that is a big help right there – but to make sure we’re not just replicating the corrupt and stupid bureaucracy generation after generation, I want competitive testing for entry and these tests to be conducted by randomly chosen outside testing companies. Basically, nobody in government gets to decide who will be employed by government. The old boy network comes to an end. We’ll still get idiots and thieves, but I think this would vastly reduce their number.
These are just some of my ideas: I’m sure others can come up with refinements, improvements and things I haven’t even thought of. But I do think that we on the Right have to start pushing a general program of reform – that will require major Constitutional changes – because we have found that our current Constitution insufficient to secure our rights and the orderly and honest conduct of government.
Blogs For Victory 
I just watched a funny video about Trump’s best comebacks, and then read Kamala’s effort at trash talk: ““Well Donald, I do hope you’ll reconsider and meet me on the debate stage because as the saying goes, if you’ve got something to say, say it to my face,” she told the crowd.”
And the first thing that came to mind, in the context of good comebacks, was to “if you’ve got something to say, say it to my face” respond with “which one?”
As for “reconsider” there is no “reconsidering” to do. Trump agreed to debate Joe Biden, the President and presumed Dem nominee. Harris is neither one, though the DNC did just declare that there is no reason for anyone but Harris to run because they have decided to give the nomination to her. When they finally do that, negotiations can begin to establish the terms of the debates.
The Supreme Court’s Daring Attempt to Limit Government on the Epoch Times opinion page is a must-read, dissecting as does the impact of the Chevron deference both as a former ruling and its rollback, as well as other information on agency overreach.
I know, I’m probably late to the party but I just discovered Sky News Australia hosted by Rita Panahi, and I guarantee these videos will keep you going from one to another even more than videos of cats playing the piano. Trust me—one episode of Lefties Losing It will have you hooked. This is LOL stuff start to finish, from videos to commentary.
Very funny.
… “because we have found that our current Constitution insufficient to secure our rights and the orderly and honest conduct of government.”
It’s not the Constitution. It’s the people. Human nature gets in the way of the honest conduct of government, it’s a story as old as time. Human nature never changes, therefore term limits on everyone in the government is a good thing.
I’ve never watched SkyNews Australia but will now lol
While I agree that the Left desperately wants to turn the Court into another level of Leftist control, I think the current suggested “reform” is a lot more about delegitimizing the current Court to delegitimize its recent decisions.
The Left plays this game all the time. It will put up a bill, for example, with a title like Stop Starving Children, and have a lot of Dems posture about the inhumanity of letting children starve and the need to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. But the bill, which will be for a hundred billion dollars in government expenditure, upon examination will only establish a new level of bureaucracy, with the money going to pay for its new bureaucrats, and by the way also funnel billions into other Leftist money pits like NPR and Planned Parenthood. Republicans will, of course, actually read the bill and understand that it has nothing to do with actually identifying the children allegedly in need and setting up ways to feed them, and will vote against it, thereby giving the Dems the PR tool of headlines saying, essentially, REPUBLICANS VOTE TO STARVE CHILDREN.
If the bill passes, they get their money, they get their expansion of federal size, scope and power and they get a new source of Dem votes—those who benefit from the largesse. If it fails, they get their PR weapon, which will be used forever more to brand Republicans as oppositional and heartless.
So that is the strategy behind this so-called “reform”. It is an unserious bill, offering a non-solution to a non-existing problem, but it provides a platform for inventing a “problem” and convincing a few million low-information mouth breathers that there is not only a problem but a problem so serious (and, naturally, a problem related to the eeeevil Republicans, that Invented Other) that SOMETHING MUST BE DONE. After all, why would you put forth a bill to curtail corruption in the Supreme Court if there was not a problem of corruption in the Supreme Court?
It’s a sly and sneaky form of libel, a way o delegitimizing the Court without having to be held responsible for it, as if challenged they can make the Big Eyes and murmur piously that they are “just trying to solve a big problem that threatens democracy”. They can’t lose. They either accomplish their goal of destroying the Court by making it just another part of Dem control, or they get their PR win.
I think the way to handle these tactics is what you suggested–lean into them, expand them and make them suddenly relate to the Dems instead. So regarding the Court I would explain that the Court already has rules against taking money and favors in exchange for favorable rulings, and this has worked very well, because so far there is not a single example of this happening, BUT…… We need reform to address the very real and existing problem of justices who have worked on programs then being appointed to the Court and refusing to recuse themselves from voting on issues relating to the very programs they had formerly been paid to promote and defend! THAT is the kind of insidious corruption that erodes the legitimacy of the Court! The very IDEA that Elena Kagan could be an integral part of a policy, not just acting in support of her political beliefs but being PAID to do so, and then go on the Court and vote to further advance that same policy, is the very definition of conflict of interest and is the kind of activity that should be addressed!
That’s why, when talking about the Dem effort to pack the Union by adding two new states I suggested leaning into that, and saying ‘No! No! Two states is not nearly enough! We need TEN new states to ensure fair representation of our citizens! And then rattle off the new states that should be created by severing the more rural areas of several states from the tyranny of their urban population centers—two new states carved out of California, a new state made up of eastern Washington and Oregon, another from Illinois, one out of portions of Colorado, Nebraska and Kansas, one in New York, etc.
What wonderful news! Paul Whelan, Evan Gershkovich, and Alsu Kurmasheva are now on their way back to the United States from Russia.
Happy Day!
Now if only we didn’t have the humiliation of an American citizen fleeing to Russia and asking for political asylum for protection after being hounded, threatened and intimidated for refusing to back down on her accusations of being sexually molested by Joe Biden. It is definitely odd to see the nation of Stalin seen as a refuge from Stalinist tactics.
Also: we’ve yet to find out what we paid for this.
Trump got dozens of our people back and never paid a dime.
I’m still surprised how quickly the Biden regime got Russia to release a black trans athlete. All about priorities I guess.
It is simple: they hate us. Those they love, get help.
The new acting director of the Secret Service is off to a rocky start. Looks like he’s lied under oath at least twice in his testimony before Congress. Think he’ll be prosecuted? Only if he changes his last name to Trump.
People in the deep state are interchangeable
In an admittedly fake comic interview with Kamala Harris a comment was made that, in all seriousness, is quite true:
Brilliant. Here’s a reminder of who Kamala is … I guess no joy in Mudville until all the illegal immigrant children are happy.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/08/how-dare-we-speak-merry-christmas-kamala-harris/
In principal, I agree with everything you have said, Mark. In actual practice or just practice for the grammar nazis out there, new laws won’t work unless the people who are supposed to obey them want.
I do not see that happening. Do you? How do you force people who are determined to get around or bend the law to obey it instead?
Go back to 1783 and see how long it took for some politicians to start angling around the Constitution.
Hint: It was not at all.
Minimalism and people willing to back it up with violence if needed.
My 1.598 cents. *
*Inflation, you big prog dummy.
Go back to 1783 and see how long it took for some politicians to start angling around the Constitution. …. yet it hung in there essentially unchanged and for the most part governing the country for almost150 years, till the Dems realized no crisis should go unwasted and took the 1928 stock market crash as an excuse to do the first real damage to the Constitution. And even after that attack, it has struggled on, limping sometimes and being attacked on a regular basis, and remains essentially intact though too often just ignored.
The wisdom of the Founders is illustrated over and over again—in this case, in their making the Constitution capable of being altered, but not easily. Its main problem is that it has so few stalwart defenders, citing the 10th Amendment and fighting off erosion and distortion.
I have yet to hear the whole “make D.C a state” howl addressed with the citing of its establishment IN THE CONSTITUTION: People, including top Dems, keep acting like all it would take would be a vote, by Congress or maybe a national vote, to make D.C. a state. No one ever seems to point out that this would not only call for a Constitutional amendment to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, which established a federal district that is not a state for the reason explained by James Madison—that a separate federal district would prevent any state from holding too much power by being home to the national government— it would probably call for creating a different federal district somewhere else, or just abandoning the whole concept, which puts Central Authority right back in the spotlight again.
Every now and then someone points out that it is unconstitutional to have a federal law about abortion—that is, much the same argument that resulted in overturning Roe V Wade. But we still hear some Republican leaders muttering about doing this. It’s infuriating.
So far the only “defense” I have heard of Project 2025 is, when some nut claims it says something outrageous, a denial that it does. How about an explanation that its intent is to return the nation, at least as much as possible, to its Constitutional roots of governance?
Take this egregious lie from the AP (no surprise there) which insists The 922-page plan proposes a dramatic expansion of presidential power and a plan to fire as many as 50,000 government workers to replace them with former President Donald Trump loyalists who will carry out a hard-right agenda without complaint ….. OK, it was stupid to be so specific about a possible outcome of loosening the rules on the ability to fire bureaucrats, but this canard just sits there, ripening as it goes unchallenged.
Sites that posture as independent and objective analysts of Project 2025, likr “Verify”, are actually inserting personal commentary, “explaining” things from a partisan point of view. For example, while it doesn’t repeat the claim that there “is a plan to fire as many as 50,000 government workers” it does editorialize when it says that many of those fired under the changing standards would be replaced with people vetted for their “conservative” views. This is very sneaky, because they carefully avoid reminding people that to many if not most people these days “conservative” has a purely political connotation, and is not simply allegiance to Constitutional governance. With that as a criterion the whole thing changes to hiring people who do not see their positions as unelected appointees as giving them the authority to legislate through fiat, merely by passing regulations and rules.
It’s this flaccid and tepid defense of attacks on the Constitution and efforts to govern accordingly that leads to so many problems. The poor writing of the document doesn’t help. The best site I have found for addressing the lies is this one:
I’m just spitballin’ here, but it seems to me in light recent revelations of federal law enforcement agencies deleting texts and emails, and DHS refusing to turn over subpoenaed information to Congress, that we need a Constitutional amendment to provide Congress with its own independent, armed enforcement group for when those empowered to enforce the nations laws are themselves the lawbreakers.
That would be a fun debate. Kind of a Congressional Marshal Service? Could we just do it via legislation? Call it the CLEAN Act—Congressional Law Enforcement Authority Now
The Clean Act – has a nice ring to it.