The Madison Conservative Platform - Part 3

The continuation of the Madison Conservative platform now turns it attention to those for whom the platform is being constructed. Previous blog posts have discussed the need for campaign finance reform and the debate on term limits. It is now time to thrash out who will be able to utilize these particular reforms.

There has been much bluster and blather centering on what is cynically referred to by the full political spectrum as ‘voters’ rights’. In the wake of President Obama’s choice to circumvent the Constitution and Congress by unilaterally deciding to legislate by executive fiat, the need to clarify voting eligibility is more critical than ever, given the need to flex democratic self-rule muscle in the voting booth before such freedoms are expunged by a singular political will.

{It is critical to note that is was during the 2010 election cycle that a democratic governor (Beverly Perdue, D-NC) suggested bypassing elections so that the congress could act and vote without fear of electoral consequence.}

The question thus becomes clear – who may vote and how, and what, if any, identification should be considered viable for entering the voting booth.

The important distinction is that this particular plank of the platform will only encompass federal elections; the rights for individual states to regulate their own electoral processes must be respected under the tenth amendment.

First, the constitution stipulates that only those citizens who have attained the age of eighteen may vote.

The intriguing question then becomes what constitutes a ‘citizen’. Felons may not vote; their convictions make them ineligible The Constitution is absent a description on this point, and the Articles of Confederation speak only of ‘free citizens’, excepting ‘vagabonds, paupers and felons’.

It thus then falls to the electorate as a whole by way of our elected officials to make the determination in a country of over 300 million inhabitants who may be classified a citizen eligible to vote, and who does not hold that specific status.

We may look to elective office requirements as a guide, but it must be remembered that the Constitution provides that only natural born citizens may hold the office of President, yet naturalized citizens may still vote.

It is with an eye to that particular ambiguity that the Madison Conservative proposes specific legislation to address this murky issue. It may be attained solely through legislation; a constitutional amendment is not a thoughtful option for this issue.

The law would proceed with language somewhat as follows:

Any individual who has attained the age of eighteen and has not been convicted of a felony is hereby eligible to vote in any and all federal elections. Furthermore, any individual who would be qualified to attain United States citizenship may be considered eligible to vote in any and all federal elections.

That would address the specifics of who is eligible to vote.

The next concern is how to maintain the integrity of Election Day itself. The political parties have in essence conspired to help muddy the basic electoral process by promoting various and sundry electoral schemes. Early elections, mail –in elections, same day registrations and their ilk have done nothing but to distill the inherent responsibility of every citizen to have their voice heard. By diminishing the solemnity of the vote, it has lost much of its significance and allowed mischievous political theater. Many need only to recall the imbecility and outright stupidity of American election officials attempting to discern the intent of any given voter by the interpretations of ‘chads’.

The American example of democratic self-rule should never be subjected to such folly ever again. The Madison Conservative thus believes that there should be an encompassing national methodology for casting federal election votes, even it be nothing more than putting an “X” in a box.

The most sensitive point in this particular debate centers on the legality of requiring photo identification in order to vote.

The voices against such a requirement point out correctly that the right to vote is a constitutional right and the only specifically delineated constitutional right that would require such a manner of photo identification in order to authenticate the identity of the voter; in other words it would be the only right that mandates identification. The claim is made that on that point alone requiring a photo ID is somehow an infringement and an unnecessary burden on the voter.

The specious nature of that argument is clear to those on the opposing side. There is little activity that today does not require a valid photo ID, be it to board an aircraft, cash a check or gain admittance to an arena hosting a speech by the President. The omnipotent nature of ID’s makes the burden argument fallacious on its face. The maxim held that it would be better for one hundred guilty men go free than for one innocent man be wrongly imprisoned.

This is the hard fact of voting in the twenty-first century. The ability for political mischief when a simple photo ID can solve much of the potential problems is a requirement in an era when voting has been made more accessible, albeit more so in a manner that almost mandates a security back up.

In other words, it would be better to inconvenience one hundred voters to produce an ID than for one voter to have his vote negated by any manner or cause.

It is that simple.

The Madison Conservative Platform - part 2

The founders and the framers were wary of providing a default governing class when they designed the Constitution as the governing document of their fledgling new democratic republic.

The specifically delineated the duration of each elected term of office for each member of the trilateral government they were espousing. The president, congressmen, senators and jurists all have clearly defined terms of office.

In a previous post, the Madison Conservative discussed the need to amend the Constitution to address the pervasive, corrupting influence of unregulated financial support for the entire spectrum of the political class. That post was presented as the first plank in the Madison Conservative platform because the need to return the electoral process to the American voter is paramount to the successful growth of democratic self-rule.

The subsequent point that needs to be addressed then is the re-clarification of the terms of office for our elected officials.

Many voices in the public debate on cleaning up the governmental process genuinely believe that the Constitution must be amended to include term limits on our elected leaders. The opposing voices claim with equal earnest that such restrictions should be implemented only at the state level.

Before espousing its position, the Madison Conservative believes a quick recap of the history on the constitutional construct on terms of office is in order.

There were no term limits written into the Constitution. The reasoning was simple; the framers believed that the American people would make the necessary choices with respect to choosing their elected leaders.

President Washington, in his wisdom and foresight decided that two terms was sufficient; in addition to being tired, he genuinely believed that serving any longer would set the precedent of a default monarchy, with a president for life serving in place of an outright king. Subsequent presidents did not see a need to break with that precedent, and those who tried, i.e. Theodore Roosevelt, were soundly defeated by the electorate who felt that George Washington had it right.

In the midst of World War II, the American people opted to return Franklin Roosevelt to office for a third and then a fourth term. His death in office was the argument made that the office of the presidency was too strenuous for a man to endure for longer than two terms. The Congress thus amended the Constitution to restrict the term of office for the president to two terms; Harry S. Truman would have been the last man to serve longer than eight years had he opted to do so.

The Congress did not believe its own responsibilities required extensive vigor and so voted only to restrict the term of office for the executive branch; the cowardice involved in hoping for short term political advantage by so amending the Constitution should be of note to the contemporary body politic.

This explains why senators have served for thirty and forty years, apparently believing that their electorate cannot be properly represented by any other qualified citizen.

After careful consideration, the Madison Conservative has decided to incorporate into its platform the wisdom of the founders and the framers. The twenty second amendment to the United States Constitution should be repealed.

The American electorate is much more sophisticated given its access to information in the internet age. The Madison Conservative believes that the recent trends of the 2010 congressional elections and the failed attempt to recall the Wisconsin governor show that the American electorate is more than capable of fulfilling the belief of the founders and framers of getting it right.

The intelligent control of campaign finance coupled with unfettered choices are the best available tools the body politic can employ to insure that democratic self-rule continues to thrive for ourselves and our posterity.

The Madison Conservative Platform - part 1

The primary act required of a citizen in a democracy is to vote, to have their voice heard; to partcipate. The Greeks, who had a particular affinity for democratic self rule, had a term for someone who voluntarily excused themselves from their primary civil duty, who kept themselves separate and apart from the responsibilities of citizenship: ’idios’.

The English term ‘idiot’ is derived from this word.

One who does not vote, therefore, could easily and fairly be called an idiot.

The issue today, however, is that the entrenched  incumbent holders of temporary political power, with the conspiratorial help and often at the behest of their financial backers,  have so warped the sanctity of the vote that many may be forgiven for opting out of electoral politics, the potential for conscious idiocy notwithstanding. There seems today to be little, if any, recognition or outrage that democracy must never be for sale to the highest bidder, as if it were just another commodity to be bought, sold and traded. The lesson needs to be learned by the body politic that the American people will not tolerate such conduct at the price of their freedom and the freedom for her  posterity.

Therefore, the first plank of the Madison Conservative platform will address the current absurdities and corruption of the electoral process on the federal level by the infusion of unregulated and unnamed sources of campaign financing.

The recent Supreme Court decision in what is being called the “Citizens United” case in essence  gave voter status to all entities to promote whatever political candidate or cause they chose without falling under the current, albeit shameful, guidelines in place for specific campaigns. This has allowed the creation of amorphous entities and of so-called ‘super-pacs’ that allow candidates full deniability on the substance of any super-pac ads.  The sheer stupidity of this process should outrage the electorate.

To address this particular issue, we propose a constitutional amendment. This process is not taken lightly, but given the Supreme Court’s decision, it must me done and done by a majority of the state houses; Congress will clearly bury this even before the proposal is fully written. The constitution allows that the states may amend our governing document on their own, given a three-fourths majority approve of the amendment.

The proposed amendment would be written, in its entirety, as follows:

“Any person who by law cannot cast a vote for any federal elective office may not provide any financial support for any federal elective campaign.  Any person who by law can cast a vote for any federal elective office may contribute whatever financial resources they deem appropriate for any federal campaign. All monies donated to any elective campaign must be disclosed as per the laws Congress shall mandate.”

These specific sixty-eight words would restore true electoral democracy to the American people. This amendment would remove nebulous ‘super-pacs’, unions, corporations and all non human influences from the political landscape.

It addresses the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that money is equivalent to speech but would remove the ability for any organization to corrupt the process without definitive accountability.

Follow the Campaign Money Trail

The one common lament amongst our elected officials is their hue and cry of the need to spend so much time fundraising for their campaigns, which they claim draws them away from their truly  important work of the peoples business. They create, (and then immediately circumvent) arcane and pointless rules and regulations collectively known as ‘campaign finance reform’, despairing that their search for employment must, of necessity and ‘transparency’ ultimately be publicly funded by the very people who bestow upon them the sacred honor of public service. There is of course a more principled response to this issue, and one that mandates the direct involvement by the American people, in order to restore the honor and integrity of the democratic republic. The recent Supreme Court ruling that established entities  to have unfettered access to election financing was based upon their reading of the Constitution, and so to properly resolve this issue, the rare but crucially necessary act of amending the Constitution must be undertaken at the state level, as it is improbable and implausible to believe that the Congress will act on itself in this matter. The constitutional amendment needs to be succinctly and specifically worded. It should address the issue is this manner: only those individuals who can enter a voting booth and cast a legal ballot shall be allowed to contribute any amount of their personal wealth as they may choose to the candidate, political party, and cause of their choice. Such allocation of monies may only be disseminated to candidates who are on the donors’ specific district ballot. This wording will insure that the individual may only donate to their specific state assemblyman, United States congressman and senator. It will forbid unions, pacs, lobbyists and their ilk from controlling the agenda by the sheer volume of cash they donate. It will allow people to fund  but one national election- the presidential election. It removes all the stress from our officials to fundraise in all areas of the country, and will force them to stay connected to their own constituents.