Political ideas that will keep me from ever being elected

[mikekn]

If elected I will push for the following:
1. $1-2 per gallon gas tax (in addition to all current gas taxes), collected money to be used for alternate energy research.
2. Federal law making smoking illegal in all public spaces (especially bars, restaurants, casinos and sidewalks).
3. $1-2 per pack cigarette tax (in addition to all current taxes), collected money to be used for Medicare (or some other heath care program that needs it).
4. Impose an export tariff on all tobacco products.
5. Legalize marijuana, and make it subject to all of the taxes and restrictions imposed on cigarettes.
6. Term limits on congress.
7. Line item veto for the president.
8. Constitutional amendments supporting same-sex marriages and abortion. And one making the death penalty illegal.

There are probably more, but I think those will do the job.

Comments

[jducoeur]

I actually disagree with a few of these:

4. Impose an export tariff on all tobacco products.

Why? Export tariffs rarely serve much useful purpose: they shove supply around a bit, but they usually don't achieve all that much meaningful. I see no likely effect save to cause other countries to buy their tobacco elsewhere.

6. Term limits on congress.

Mixed feelings here. The incumbency effect is an unfortunate one, and I'd like to combat it, but I generally dislike term limits.

Writing good legislation is hard work, and takes a long time to learn: some of the more senior legislators are also conspicuously among the best at making the hard choices and compromises that make government work. So I tend to view term limits as throwing out the baby with the bathwater: I'd rather look for other ways to fight the incumbency advantage.

8. Constitutional amendments supporting same-sex marriages and abortion. And one making the death penalty illegal.

Absolutely not as stated. I'm opposed to amendments supporting the first two for much the same reason I'm opposed to amendments banning them -- these are matters of *law*, and don't belong in the constitution, which is about higher-level philosophy (and governmental structure).

The closest that would possibly be appropriate IMO would be higher-level (and more difficult) statements of philosophy. The first isn't about marriage, it's about *equality*. If you're going to make a statement, it shouldn't be a narrow statement about marriage (which belongs in law), it should be essentially an equal-rights amendment. That would, frankly, be a much harder fight, but it's the only correct one. (And it should be about more than sexual orientation -- it's really all about what the government's rights are to discriminate among its citizens, and what its responsibilities are to prevent discrimination. That's a broad, difficult, and important topic.)

The second is harder yet, because it's legally messing in philosophical and religious territory. Unfortunately, most people in the pro-choice camp are unwilling to viscerally admit that this is really a debate about how you define a "person" -- at what age a lump of cells becomes a citizen. There is, in all likelihood, no objective measure that actually works for this. The pro-choice view is one way of slicing that decision -- giving the mother the decision -- but that's not really any more philosophically valid than the pro-life view, which gives the state that decision.

Putting this whole mess together, I honestly don't think the constitution is the right place to put it. We have to decide these issues as a society before it's appropriate to codify it at that level: otherwise, we're just as guilty of politicizing the constitution as the right wing.

As for the death penalty, I'm actually a little more sympathetic to that one, but again I'm suspicious that we're not ready for it as a society. That one is code for the more fundamental debate about whether we are focusing on retribution or healing in our judicial system -- one of many related problems. The only reason I'm sympathetic to it is in a variant form: "The State does not have the right to kill its citizens". That one I actually like philosophically, but it's not at all the same statement...

[mikekn]

Excellent :)

Why? Export tariffs rarely serve much useful purpose: they shove supply around a bit, but they usually don't achieve all that much meaningful. I see no likely effect save to cause other countries to buy their tobacco elsewhere.

You pretty much answered that one for me. My only goal is to reduce the tobacco being grown in the US. Someone above suggested paying farmers to grow other crops, but I don't like that method as much.

What are your thoughts on removing the term limit on the president?

As for the constitutional amendments, I believe that eventually they will all be the law of the land. My only reason to put them in the constitution is prevent future legal attacks on them (sure, you could try to repeal the amendment, but that is much harder then filing yet another lawsuit)

[jducoeur]

What are your thoughts on removing the term limit on the president?

Again mixed. The basic principle is the same -- term limits are a fairly clumsy way to fight the incumbency effect. But I'm a bit more sympathetic to it in the case of the President, simply because I suspect that humans are deep-down hard-wired to like Kings, so there's a danger there. Also, the President has a little more power to steer things than any individual legislator.

That said, I'm not really attached to the presidential term limit, and there is excellent reason to believe that it is unnecessary. Given that we got through 150 years before it became a problem, it looks to me like the system is reasonably well-designed to function without them. I mean, it's worth keeping in mind that the term limits were introduced mainly to deal with FDR, one of those examples of a President who might well have been worthwhile to keep around had he lived. Signs are that the system works, terms limits or no. History indicates that it requires a truly extraordinary person to get elected President more than twice in the face of a fickle electorate.

My only reason to put them in the constitution is prevent future legal attacks on them (sure, you could try to repeal the amendment, but that is much harder then filing yet another lawsuit)

I understand, but that's not what the constitution is really for. It's about stating the underlying philosophical principles that the laws are based on, not a way to make "harder" laws. It's notable that good constitutional amendments (such as the Bill of Rights) are generally broad, sweeping, and require thought and interpretation. Bad ones (such as Prohibition) are precisely these issue-of-the-moment attempts to write "big law".

(The sections of the constitution about election mechanisms are conspicuous precisely in that they are an exception to this principle. That's because you have to have the *system* pretty carefully locked-down, or it's too easy to abuse it. It's a remarkably insightful design, really.)

If you use the constitution as simply another law book, you cheapen it, and turn it into a political football. I despise it when the right tries to do that, and just as much so when the left does...