DAVID B. TIMMINS APO AE 09213-1315 April 14, 1995 Mr. Ross Perot c/o United We Stand 12377 Merit Drive, Suite 1700 Dallas, TX 75251 Dear Mr. Perot: I wrote you on November 11, 1991 after listening to the PBS broadcast of your rousing presentation at the 1991 Convention of the Movement for Constitutional Reform, directed at getting American government back on the track, being caught up in the emotion and vision of national salvation you set forth, expressing the hope you'd not be induced to run for office, but rather devote your time, talent, and resources to the more important work of achieving the kind of constitutional reform essential to resolve the nation's mounting social, political, and economic problems. Regrettably (as I see it) you allowed yourself to be seduced by the thought that a determined man could overcome the inertia of American history and Supreme Court precedents. I wrote again following the election, in which you showed you possessed a more powerful grip on the American psyche than most had imagined possible -- but with the unfortunate result of throwing the election to Mr. Clinton -- again expressing the hope that you'd follow through your initiative by throwing your support behind the movement for Constitutional reform. I'm writing for a third time, hoping you'll now agree that Mr. Clinton, with all his good intentions, has shown the inability of even a President with the best intentions to reverse bureaucratic inertia and the rulings of the Supreme Court over the past 150 years which have consistently ignored the IX and X Articles of the Bill of Rights in favor of contorted readings of the XIVth Amendment, with the result of shifting power away from the states and to Washington. I now read in the media that you are again considering running for President in 1996 -- perhaps as head of a new Third Party. May I plead with you to read the rest of this letter and reconsider. At the time of the PBS broadcast you said that anyone in the audience could probably come up with supplementary ideas as good as yours. This I doubt. To be sure, many citizens have considered limitations on campaign contributions and most of us are of the opinion that Congress has been too good to itself in terms of vote-getting social welfare expenditures, staff growth, pocketed campaign contributions, unmerited salary increases, and overly generous retirement benefits. And when it comes to concrete remedies, you put forward solutions which to tell the truth, even as a Political Scientist who's given some thought to the issues, had never occurred to me and which I've never heard expressed elsewhere. Which brings us to the question you didn't examine -- and to which you still appear to have given insufficient attention, i.e. how these reforms are to be brought about -- a task yet to be accomplished since, even as the most successful Third Party candidate in U.S. history, you lost the race. Let me say again, I doubt that even if you'd won you could have achieved the type of thoroughgoing reform necessary, given Congressional inertia and an accumulation of adverse Supreme Court precedents. In both of my earlier letters I implored you to take this reality into account and put your money and talent behind an effort to convene a Second Constitutional Convention to put the Grand Old Document in shape to enable the nation to endure into its third century. Newt Gingrich, most will admit, has made a considerable effort to head us in the right direction. But as with California's Proposition 187, I suspect that based on previous Court holdings, we'll soon see the Court overturning many, if not all, of the new welfare, House voting requirements, and other reform legislation. And the Senate failure to pass the Balanced Budget Amendment again shows the wisdom of the Founding Fathers in providing another method for proposing amendments to the states for ratification. Four and a half years down the pike, I think it timely to repeat the view expressed in my letter to you of November 11, 1991, which I think still has more merit than any I heard during the post-Convention events, during the electoral campaign, or since: I doubt there's much you or any President can do to remedy the situation under the provisions of our present Constitution as it has come to be interpreted by the Court over two centuries. A minor example of what I am saying is what economists call "tax erosion", i.e. that there can be no "perfect tax" in the long run, because taxpayers become so shrewd over time at exploiting and enlarging tax loopholes that a thorough revision of the tax code must be undertaken every ten or fifteen years to avoid losing the government's revenue base. By the same token, the Constitution of 1789, even as amended, has been so unwisely interpreted by the Court, and so exploited by Congress in its own interests during the past 200 years, that it is virtually impossible for a President -- even one with a majority of his own party in Congress -- to extricate American society from its predicament. A President cannot not take away Congress's power to impose taxes, or give final shape to the budget, or veto a Congressional "override". Nor, as I think Mr. Gingrich will soon discover, can he reverse Supreme Court decisions regarding the right to state welfare and free education to illegal immigrants. Or, despite your statement about cracking heads to suppress street crime and the drug traffic, could you have overcome Supreme Court decisions limiting police powers and assuring access to a government paid public defender, at least not without wrecking our Constitutional system. You might have activated a line item veto (which the Wall Street Journal some four years ago suggested is a Presidential prerogative unused since Colonial times, and which is still in his arsenal of unused weapons -- and which I and others suggested without avail that President Bush try on for size). The worst that could have happened would have been for this to have been overruled by the Supreme Court. But Mr. Bush was curiously reluctant to try marking out this new ground, as has been President Clinton. We'll now see whether this modification of the Constitutional provision for Presidential veto can be accomplished by legislation, as Congress has attempted. Any President could cut back the size of the White House Office (as Mr. Clinton initially tried, only to run into a media buzzsaw -- eventually discovering that he needed pretty well everyone in place to function anyway). And he could reduce both his own and Congressional use of military airplanes -- but such economies are peanuts, and can in any event last only for the term of one's Presidency. To be sure Presidents can play less golf and fish less often. But they can't do a thing about the size of Congressional staffs or Committees. Or Congressional free haircuts, or lunches, or multiple offices. Or require voter approval for salary increases. Nor without Constitutional Amendment can a President unilaterally impose an annually balanced budget. Just observe how limited has been our success in trying to do this by legislation (Gramm-Rudman-Hollings) and the fate of the proposed Balanced Budget Amendment in the Senate.. Since electing even a determined President won't allow solutions, this leaves us with just two options: We might try to get accepted a series of Amendments, (as the current Republican Congress is attempting, without notable success to do). Or we might call a Constitutional Convention as provided in Article V. A SECOND CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION THE ONLY SOLUTION As noted above, the media are suggesting that you are again considering running for President in 1996 -- perhaps forming a third party to do so. May I again plead with all the persuasive power at my command, that you and your Organization -- perhaps joining with the Movement for Constitutional Reform -- use your influence to back (and perhaps provide the initial framework) for a Movement for a Constitutional Convention. If Congress proves obdurate, I think you have the clout and charisma, demonstrated by the size of vote you drew in 1992 to work through State legislatures, which also have the Constitutional right to call a Convention. One would naturally try to limit the terms of reference to considering a specific list of Amendments, which would, one hopes, include but not be limited to the items mentioned in your address before the Movement for Constitutional Reform, plus a few more suggested below. I believe most would agree that the nation's deteriorating social and economic situation warrants the risk of a Convention's perhaps ranging even more widely should other needful amendments be brought before it for consideration. It will be an important part of strategy that as much of the original language as possible of the present Constitution be left unchanged to maintain the sense of awe most Americans have for the existing document enshrined in the National Archives, and above all to preserve a sense of continuity and stability in what is, after all, the oldest essentially unaltered form of government on earth. We do not want just another new organic law, as so many other nations seem to generate ever twenty-five years. We want, essentially, an up-dated version of what has served us so well for such a long period of time. I, for one, would like to see the Convention consider including the following provisions in a redrafted version of the Constitution: 1) A limitation on the terms of Congressional service to avoid the type of pandering to public spending which has entrenched in office the biggest spenders and led to the defeat of those giving more attention to balance between social programs and our resource base. 2) A balanced budget requirement except in times of clear national danger, at which times this provision could be overridden by a 2/3 majority in both House and Senate. It might also be provident to include in this new provision a limitation on the annual proportion of income which could be demanded in taxes and a limitation on the share of property which can be appropriated as an inheritance tax. When the Income Tax amendment was first adopted, people were told that income taxes would surely never exceed two percent. (It might be wise to enable this provision, too, to be overridden by joint 2/3 majorities in periods of national crises, but for periods not to exceed the duration of the crisis). 3) Clarification that overt acts contrary to law, e.g. flag burning and riotess manifestations are not "free speech". Let those so inclined use their influence through persuasive public discourse and writing to alter the outlook of the majority, and thus the laws, as the Founders understood the purpose of "free speech" to be. The guarantee of Free Speech was never intended to constitute a shield of protection for purveyors of filth, violence, and social discord, but rather to assure rational public discourse as a safeguard of political freedom. 4) Confirmation that the death penalty is not a "cruel and unusual punishment", limiting the review process and emphasizing "speedy trial" as an essential of the justice system. Those who say capital punishment is not a disincentive to crime overlook the hard fact that 80 per cent of criminals are recidivists. Those who've raped, rape again when released. Those who kill, kill again too frequently to justify parole of any killer. Nor should it be overlooked that those who've been executed never commit another crime. That's an undeniable disincentive to criminal activity! And as for cruel punishment, which is crueler: years in prison subject to violent attack and rape and shut off from normal human intercourse, or immediate release from the pains of a misspent life? As for less serious offenses, bi-partisan agreement is emerging that the commission of two (or three?) violent crimes will result in a true lifetime sentence, i.e that such violent recidivists will leave prison only in a box. This should be a doctrine of punishment enshrined in the redrafted Constitution so that soft heads will not soon release other hordes of violent criminals on those who have yielded the right of self-administered justice, in favor of a compact with society at large to be protected from law breakers. 5) Imposition of court and legal fees on the losing initiator of tort cases to discourage contingent fee lawyers from soliciting cases of marginal merit. This could be done by legislation, but let's write it into our basic law so future Congresses won't be tempted by lawyers lobbies to return to the present practice of barratry. 6) Permission for courts to limit pre-trial media coverage, as in Great Britain, of cases bearing on the national security or of great national interest (the Thomas hearings), or trials likely to be of great notoriety (the O.J. Simpson case, where if, as appears likely, we get an initial mistrial, it will be all but impossible to empanel a new jury). 7) Of high importance to the notion of returning power to the States, exclusion from Supreme Court jurisdiction of variant local measures such as those banning pornography from schools, libraries, and public sale (discreet private possession okey when ordered by mail from a more liberal jurisdiction), non-denominational public religious events (e.g. Christmas creches, Hanukkah candles, high school graduation prayers, setting reasonable limits on abortion, etc. In this same connection, such amendment should bar the Court from reviewing reasonable limitations on the right to abortion, once more reflecting the Constitution's respect for the differing local sensitivities the Founders wisely recognized are inevitable in a geographically large and socially diverse nation. After much thought I am persuaded that because these have become such hot contemporary issues, and because of strongly held differing religious views are sure to remain such, a special amendment should be considered in this regard -- though, logically, review of local social legislation of this sort should be covered by amendment recommendation 8, below (and should have been covered since 1789 by Bill of Rights Articles IX and X). If one is upset by the deeply held religious views of the majority of one's neighbors, one should swallow such difference of opinion while glorifying the merits of democracy -- or move to a jurisdiction more in harmony with one's own belief system. (Curiously, many argued for a five day wait to purchase a gun -- which may or not be used to commit a crime -- but are opposed to an overnight wait to weigh a decision on abortion which without question terminates a life. As long as freedom of movement continues to be available, anyone strongly out of harmony with the sentiment of the community in which she has chosen to live can always travel across a state line or two for an operation she cannot get at home). N.B. Such limitations would also resolve the problem of states being compelled by Supreme Court decision to pay for the skyrocketing educational costs of illegal alien children and welfare costs of illegal alien paupers which are busting the budgets of California, Arizona, Texas, and Florida. At present there is an enormous attraction for Mexican parents to slip their children into the U.S. to live with relatives, where they will receive a superior education at no cost at all to the parent. Or to slip across the border, becoming -- though illegal and having paid no taxes -- eligible for Texas, or Arizona, or California welfare assistance at a level well above the salary of many professionals in their home country. And having just come from three years in Mainland China, I know that a large and rapidly growing illegal alien problem is just over the horizon with respect to oriental illegals. (See also item 10, below, for a suggestion regarding the citizenship status of the children of such illegals). 8) Limitation of conciencious objector status in any military draft to those who've held clear, soundly based, demonstrated, and longterm, pacifist beliefs, while requiring public service of equivalent hardship, personal deprivation, and pay for those so excused from military duty (Peace Corps, Military Medical Corpsman, etc.). This has always been a contentious matter, and taking into account the Freedom of Religion provision, should be covered by the Constitution itself, not by evanescent legislation. 9) Deliberate reenactment of the limitation on central power envisioned by the Founding Fathers as expressed in articles IX and X of the Bill of Rights. This should be done in language exactly as now written (if thought desirable, also preserving the existing Bill of Rights provisions so this wording will appear twice in the new Constitution), thus sending an unmistakable signal to the Court how the people of our day expect these articles to be interpreted and in the process reinvigorating the theory of Federalism. 10) Imposing on those born in the United States of alien parents restrictions at least as stringent as those required of children of U.S. parents born abroad regarding the acquisition of citizenship, i.e. that at least the mother be a legal resident at the time of birth and have at least five years residence between the age of 12 and 21 This would remove the incentive for Greek ship captains to bring pregnant wives along on trips to New York in hopes the child will be lucky enough to be born in port or in a U.S. hospital. Or pregnant Mexican women to cross the border as they approach term, either on a temporary admission "mica" or outright illegally, hoping that their child will be born an American citizen. It is my understanding that there is such movement underway in California. 11) A provision limiting any one act of legislation to the specific purpose for which it is drafted, thus eliminating the possibility of future "Christmastree Bills", which open the way for all sorts of add-on spending measures to reward manipulative Congressmen for their support. 12) A requirement that funds raised for any specific purpose, e.g. roads and highways or social security, be spent only for that purpose and no other. 13) A provision specifically subjecting Congress and Congressmen to all aspects of any law they have enacted -- thus eliminating forever Congressional immunity from equal rights and other elements of the law they have exempted themselves from. 14) A ban on Congress subjecting states or local governments to any expenditures unless funding for such mandate is included in the legislation. I doubt the legislation recently enacted will stand up to Supreme Court review. 15) More controversial might be for the Convention to consider making it possible for elected Senators or Representatives to simultaneously serve in Presidential Cabinets as Heads of Departments. Surely this would be found no more burdensome time-wise than serving on or chairing major Committees, particularly if day-to-day operations were left in the hands of a qualified deputy -- as in the British system -- and the Old Executive Office Building were reserved for Cabinet Secretaries and a small (no more than half dozen, senior liaison staff). This borrowing from Parliamentary systems, might bridge the gap between the White House and the Capitol, not always, but sometimes, avoiding stalemate and speeding up the legislative process, especially with opposing parties controlling the White House and the Congress. This is not to suggest wholesale adoption of the Parliamentary system: it is too late in history for that. But surely the mind of man should be able to devise some way to bring the President's views formally before the Congress more frequently than once a year in the State of the Union address. Some form of weekly question and answer period with Heads of Departments simultaneously serving as colleagues in the House of Senate would be helpful. It would also assure familiarity with the governing and budgeting process; and, given the notion of congressional fraternity, would also help grease the skids during the confirmation process and when controversial legislation came before Congress. 16) Granting senatorial status to ex-Presidents, Secretaries of State and Defense (with or without voting rights? for life? for the term immediately following their departure from office?) -- a notion somewhat akin to the British system of granting life lordships to distinguished ex-Ministers and senior civil servants. I personally think this would importantly ease intra-party conflict. Even if Ex Officio senators chose not to attend regularly, they could show up to debate important legislation in areas where their expertise could be influential. And it would marginally bridge the gap (sometimes) where the White House and Senate are controlled by opposing parties. So much for specific amendments. A bit more discussion over the importance of assuring more flexible treatment of local differences over social matters: Some students of politics are of the opinion that not only did the Founding Fathers esteem such issues would never be considered to be matters of national public policy, but thought they'd explicitly provided for their determination by States or local communities. Both Articles IX and X of the Bill of Rights speak directly to this reservation from federal control over not-specifically-delegated powers. As the current wrenching division of views over abortion, drug use, school prayer, and gun control is demonstrating, the Founders were wise to thus restrict Federal authority to limited areas in which difficult-to-achieve national unanimity is essential -- as in so many other aspects of government where their foresight and wisdom are still universally held in awe. Regrettably, both Congress and successive Courts have ignored this wisdom. It would thus, as suggested, not hurt to add a contemporary provision by the Constitutional Convention emphasizing that the sentiment of this generation of Americans supports that of the Founding Fathers in this regard. Such concern has been expressed over ever again calling a Constitutional Convention, primarily out of fear that it could go beyond the immediate need for which it was convened, bringing all sorts of established customs and usages into question. But it can be persuasively argued that the health of the body politic has deteriorated to a point where such an extreme remedy is the only way the nation might be saved. Extreme crises call for extreme remedies. It is widely agreed that the New Deal saved America from either communism or fascism during the '30s. And DeGaulle's new constitution for France's Fifth Republic, while at the time criticized as a personal grab for power by those who saw it going far beyond any previous French models for strong government (since the Revolution of 1789), saved post-Algerian French democracy -- and has proved more remarkably durable and flexible than anyone could have hoped. If a Convention succeeds in approving some form of Balanced Budget Amendment (extending even to ballot referendum as you have suggested); referendum approval of changes in Congressional, Judicial, and Presidential salaries; limitations on government perks; limitations on campaign contributions; prohibition for life of post-term Presidential lobbying (not much sacrifice to make in return for the high honor of having served as President -- and look at the embarrassment caused by former President Reagan's work for Japan); and a five year wait for post-term Congressional and Cabinet lobbying, your efforts could then be shifted to lining up state support to ratify these provisions. State ratification can be carried out either by State Legislatures or State Conventions. Nothing is said in the Constitution about how State Conventions are to be called. One would assume this could be either by State Legislative Act or by Initiative carried on the ballot during state elections. However untried and initially daunting this approach may appear, I think it holds better promise for eventually achieving the major reforms you have outlined than anything that could be accomplished in the White House or by trying to work through the existing Federal Congress, given Congress' inertia and enormous conflicts of interest. As to your role in all this, I would maintain that by limiting yourself to the role of promoter of a Second Constitutional Convention, you would go down in history as more notable than all but a handful of our forty-two Presidents. Indeed, if you could be prevailed upon to foment and then preside over a successful Convention (one certainly would want an "honest broker" from the outside, not a professional politician with his own personal agenda and baggage), you would enter History as an additional Founding Father, counted among the select group of Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and Washington. Evaluated from the perspective of political theory, you might even be viewed in history as a Great Legislator in the pantheon of Hammurabi, Solon, and Moses -- establisher of a new national political framework -- and thus a true "law giver", not a mere tinkerer after the fact with petty rules and regulations, with the relative anonymity of subsequently elected representatives of the people. Sincerely, D. B. Timmins, PhD Professor of Government & Economics