Conservatives vs the Swamp

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Scroll Down for Audio Version

One of the claims that President Trump hailed during the campaign was that he wanted to “Drain the Swamp” in D.C. We heard many times from him and his surrogates about going to Washington to drain the swamp. Those at his rallies could even be heard chanting, “Drain the Swamp.”

It played great to the masses, but is it really possible? If all things remain equal, is this possible?

Well no – no it is not. First, without getting into detail, some of Trump’s cabinet picks belie his promise – although he never actually stated that, “I promise to Drain the Swamp.”

His choices of Sessions as Attorney General, Scott Pruitt at EPA, Tom Price at HHS, and certainly (we hope) the new supreme Court justice Gorsuch appear at first blush to be swamp drainers. But Reince Preibus, Steve Mnuchin at Treasury and Secretary of State Tillerson seem at best to be status quo swampists.

But it of course can’t all be left to Trump. There is no president who is capable of doing all the heavy lifting when it comes to this monumental and possibly insurmountable task. He must get help from the legislative branch. read more

Throw Them All Out

Polls indicate that the public is so disgusted with Washington politicians of both parties that a surprisingly large proportion of the people would like to get rid of the whole lot of them.

It is certainly understandable that the voters would like to “throw the rascals out.” But there is no point in throwing the rascals out, if we are just going to get a new set of rascals to replace them.

In other words, we need to think about what there is about current political practices that repeatedly bring to power such a counterproductive set of people. Those we call “public servants” have in fact become public masters. And they act like it. read more

A Confused Electorate

Americans Call for Term Limits and End to Electoral College

from: MinuteMen News.com

Even after the 2012 election in which Americans re-elected most of the sitting members of the U.S. House and Senate — as is typical in national elections — three-quarters of Americans say that, given the opportunity, they would vote “for” term limits for members of both houses of Congress.

Americans' Support for Establishing Term Limits for Federal Lawmakers, January 2013

Republicans and independents are slightly more likely than Democrats to favor term limits; nevertheless, the vast majority of all party groups agree on the issue. Further, Gallup finds no generational differences in support for the proposal.

These findings, from Gallup Daily tracking conducted Jan. 8-9, are similar to those from 1994 to 1996 Gallup polls, in which between two-thirds and three-quarters of Americans said they would vote for a constitutional amendment to limit the number of terms that members of Congress and the U.S. Senate can serve.

More Than Six in 10 Would Abolish Electoral College

Americans are nearly as open to major electoral reform when it comes to doing away with the Electoral College. Sixty-three percent would abolish this unique, but sometimes controversial, mechanism for electing presidents that was devised by the framers of the Constitution. While constitutional and statutory revisions have been made to the Electoral College since the nation’s founding, numerous efforts to abolish it over the last 200+ years have met with little success.

There is even less partisan variation in support for this proposal than there is for term limits, with between 61% and 66% of all major party groups saying they would vote to do away with the Electoral College if they could. Similarly, between 60% and 69% of all major age groups take this position.

The Common Constitutionalist adds: This is what Rush Limbaugh means by the “Low Information Voter”. I agree wholeheartedly with term limits. This is not what the founders meant by a citizen legislature; get elected, go to Washington for a term or two or three and then go home. No one should spend 20, 30, 40 years in that cesspool. Given enough time in DC, insulated from the real world, even Jesus could be corrupted.

The Electoral College, however, is  absolutely essential. Without the balance of the Electoral College system, all would have been lost decades ago. We would already be full-blown socialist, rapidly approaching despotisim. A candidate (democrat) would only have to campaign in about 12 major urban areas in the country to win a landslide victory. Any state without a major city would be avoided and the candidate need only to concentrate his or her efforts on major population centers. It would effectively lock out all small states, the midwest, the south (save a few states) and the mountain west. In other words, the northeast, the DC hub and the west coast would decide every election. Not a good plan, unless you are a radical leftist.

Term Limits

Although Chuck is focused on California, his home state, it’s instructive none the less. I have seen many deceptive ballot initiatives in my state. The way the ballot is written, you think you’re voting yes for something when you’re really voting no. Make sure you fully understand what you’re voting for or against ahead of time. There is nothing scarier to a politician than an informed electorate.