Posted on 12/09/2021 6:09:27 AM PST by Red Badger
ADMONITION
“The hour has come. Now we need a U.S. Senator or Representative to get the ball rolling on this urgent 28th Amendment.”
This needs to become a major campaign issue for conservative candidates running to replace incumbents who are unwilling to limit their own terms of office. This template is yours to adopt or adapt without attribution.
Section 1
A Senator may serve only two six-year terms. A member of the House of Representatives may serve only six two-year terms. This applies only to terms to which he or she was elected, but not those to which appointed to fill a vacancy. Incumbent Senators and Representatives at the time this amendment is ratified will be included in this limitation.
Section 2
The Speaker of the House of Representatives may serve no more than four years total in that capacity, whether or not consecutively. This provision applies to the incumbent at the time this amendment is ratified and is effective immediately thereupon.
Section 3
No President, Vice President, Senator, or Member of the House of Representatives may begin any new term after age 80. A term begun before age 80 may be completed. Anyone whose term would not begin before age 80 shall not be eligible to run for election to President, Vice President, Senator or Representative.
Section 4
Every Justice of the Supreme Court, including the Chief Justice, shall be required to retire at age 80. This shall apply only to new Justices appointed after the ratification of this amendment. The President may nominate a candidate, for the advice and consent of the Senate, prior to such mandatory retirement of a Justice which shall become effective with Senate confirmation only after the Justice retires.
Section 5
This amendment is effective in all provisions immediately upon ratification, however those at the time of the ratification who are serving as President, Vice President, Senator or Representative in a term that began after age 80 may complete that term. The limitation on Speaker of the House becomes effective immediately upon ratification. Supreme Court Justices serving prior to ratification shall not be subject to mandatory retirement.
THIS 28TH AMENDMENT NEEDS TO BE INTRODUCED IMMEDIATELY
The first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, were ratified in 1791. In the 230 years since then, there have been only 17 additional amendments. Following are the amendments and the years of their ratification.
1st, 1791, Rights to Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, Petition
2nd, 1791, Right to Bear Arms
3rd, 1791, Quartering of Soldiers
4th, 1791, Search and Seizure
5th, 1791, Grand Jury, Double Jeopardy, Self-Incrimination, Due Process
6th, 1791, Rights of Accused in Criminal Prosecutions: Rights to Jury Trial, to Confront Opposing Witnesses and to Counsel
7th, 1791, Jury Trial
8th, 1791, Protections against Excessive Bail, Cruel and Unusual Punishment
9th, 1791, Non-Enumerated Rights
10th, 1791, Rights Reserved to States
11th, 1795, Suits Against a State
12th, 1804, Election of President and Vice-President
13th, 1865, Abolition of Slavery and Involuntary Servitude
14th, 1868, Protects rights against state infringements, defines citizenship, prohibits states from interfering with privileges and immunities, requires due process and equal protection, punishes states for denying vote, and disqualifies Confederate officials and debts
15th, 1870, Voting Rights
16th, 1913, Federal Income Tax
17th, 1913, Popular Election of Senators
18th, 1919, Prohibition
19th, 1920, Women’s Right to Vote
20th, 1933, Commencement of Presidential Term and Succession
21st, 1933, Repeal of 18th Amendment (Prohibition)
22nd, 1951, Two-Term Limitation on President
23rd, 1961, District of Columbia Presidential Vote
24th, 1964, Abolition of Poll Tax Requirement in Federal Elections
25th, 1967, Presidential Vacancy, Disability and Inability
26th, 1971, Right to Vote at Age 18
27th, 1992, Congressional Compensation
LIFE EXPECTANCY
At the time that our U.S. Constitution was written, men and women did not live nearly as long as they do today. Our Founders saw the necessity to establish a minimum age of 35 to serve as President, 30 as Senator and 25 as Representative. They did not, however, foresee the need to limit these offices to a maximum age.
Today it is abundantly clear to impartial citizens that those currently serving in these capacities have exceeded in years the ability to effectively fulfill the duties of their elected roles. Likewise, our Founders did not intend public service to be a lifetime career for anyone. After President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected to four terms during the World War II-era, dying early in his final term, it became necessary to amend the U.S. Constitution to limit a President to two terms.
Now it has become necessary to prevent career politicians who have never had any life outside of government from making life-or-death decisions on behalf of the American public. For a very long time, I personally opposed Congressional term limits until I realized that no one is capable of withstanding the negative effects of prolonged power without commensurate accountability.
PROPOSED 28TH AMENDMENT
It has been nearly three decades since the ratification of the 27th Amendment. Rather than just making a nebulous suggestion that something needs to be done about Congressional term limits and age limits for President, Vice President, Congress and Supreme Court, I have provided a template for our 28th Amendment. Some incumbents on Capitol Hill have voluntarily indicated that they will abide by self-imposed term limits, including Senator Ted Cruz of Texas.
What we need now is to quit just talking about it and actually do something about it. The amendment herewith recommended will not solve all of our problems but it is a very positive step in the right direction. America needs men and women willing to take a portion of time out of their life for public service, not politicians from so-called “safe districts”, who act without constraint because they know they will not be held accountable for their actions. Nor can we afford Supreme Court Justices with lifetime tenure whose decisions are beyond appeal.
JAMES MADISON, FEDERALIST 51
“It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”
WHO WILL BE THE MAN OR WOMAN OF THE HOUR?
The hour has come. Now we need a U.S. Senator or Representative to get the ball rolling on this urgent 28th Amendment. The names of most Members of Congress will be virtually forgotten 100 years from now, whether you serve 50 years or just 12 years. But, this can be your legacy which will live on for posterity. This is just a template, but you can put your own imprint on American history.
James Madison has lived in the annals of good governance well beyond his time on earth, will you?
Here’s a much simpler 28th dealing with much the same and more:
********************************************
AMENDMENT XXVIII
To redress the balance of powers between the federal government and the States and to restore effective suffrage of State Legislatures to Congress, the following amendment is proposed:
********************************************
Section 1.
A Member of Congress shall be subject to recall by their respective state legislature or by voter referendum in their respective state.
Section 2.
The maximum number of terms served by a Member of Congress shall be set by vote in their respective state legislature but in no case shall exceed three full terms.
Section 3.
Upon a majority vote in three-fifths of state legislatures, specific federal statutes, federal court decisions and executive directives of any form shall be repealed and made void.
Section 4.
The seventeenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.
*******************************************
A separate amendment for repealing the 16th exists that is simpler but it awaits for a time that is ripe for a return to the gold standard.
Requirement, of every voter and candidate for elected office, to (1) pay net positive income taxes into the Federal coffers; and (2) pay net positive income taxes into the coffers of the State, if the State has an income tax, in which the voter/candidate resides.
Note this is NOT a poll tax. Money is not exchanged in order to vote. This may require a partial repeal of the 24th Amendment.
The requirement above is applied to each individual, or in the case of a married couple filling jointly, to both individuals equally. Further, voting and running for office is strictly the exclusive right of citizens of the United States of America 18 years of age or older.
Any individual or couple, including students, without taxable income would not be franchised. Individuals or couples who receive welfare or tax credits will have the amounts so received subtracted from their tax paid. Social Security benefits, unemployment benefits, tax-exempt gifts, and trust fund distributions, would not be counted against the amount of taxes paid. (Note: some trust fund distributions may be taxable.) Any tax on purchases (sales and excise taxes) are not included in the amount of tax paid unless both (1) if there is no income tax collected in the State, and (2) if the 16th Amendment is repealed.
(There may need to be provision for citizens who donate sufficient funds to State and Federal coffers such as their net contributions meet the amount required for franchise.)
(Some people might argue that paying any net tax is sufficient. I would propose that taxable income meet or exceed a threshold, resulting in a net positive tax. The actual threshold would be set by Congress, and not stipulated directly in any Amendment. Suggested is the tax paid by a person earning Federal minimum wage.)
My personal rule is to not vote for anyone who will be over 80 at the end of their term(s.)
The second thing I would do is eliminate retirement packages for Congress members. Getting a decent pension after a couple of years just seems silly.
The third thing I would do is establish a “cooling” off period where you are not able to work for a government contractor within 5 years of retirement from a federal job. This includes Military folks as well.
The fact that our Federal employment is 2.9 million people—and people working for federal contractors amounts to 25% of the overall workforce is proof that we are indeed a socialist country.
But, none of these things will happen. Whisper about cutting defense spending around here and people freak out. Cut government contracts and people freak out. Cut social programs and the left cries out.
I will just go Galt.
IIRC reading about a conversation Madison had at the constitutional convention about setting the sessions for Congress. He argued that some years that may be no business for them to meet.
I honestly don’t think the term-limits are going to change much, except for the life-long fixtures that we sometimes get because of incumbent advantage.
The term limits here don’t go far enough because House reps will run for Senate after their terms are done, and vice versa. They’ll still stay in Washington. Also, the ones who don’t will still get their cushy board positions in the silicon valley or wall street corporations whom they benefited while they were in office.
I’m not against term limits. Don’t get me wrong. I’m just far too cynical to think it will change the corruption in DC
No and No.
Leave it to the voters. If they want to change their person in Congress they can and if a group of a representative’s
constituents want to mount a movement to replace them merely due to age or time in office they are free to. The people do not need a Constitutional amendment LIMITING by age or length of incumbency who they allowed to elect to Congress.
On the other side, I would like to see term limits set for all the top federal bureaucrat positions, whether merely “hired” or appointed. No one should have been kept in Fauci’s office as long as he has been, no matter who they were. Yet that kind of limit would only require legislation and not a Constitutional amendment.
Age limits? Huh? Stupid and unnatural. Let voters decide, fix election process.
Term limits, I’m fine with that.
Maybe an amendment that requires politicians and judges to enforce the law equally and blindly, oh, wait.
I’m a federal employee who has served under every President since Clinton. The work is the same—we implement whatever the White House wants, which changes a bit over the years and depending on the party in power, but not by much.
It’s generally the “my boss’ goals are my goals” mentality like any other employer (I know there were some exceptions and some entire agencies tried to resist Trump’s appointees), but I don’t think the bureaucracy presents as much of a danger as you think. Staff who resist new directives—whether from Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump, or Biden—don’t and won’t get promoted.
Not comprehensive enough.
ALL elected officials 16 years total, no matter what office.
One exception, President 20 yewrs total, including 2 terms as pres.
Mandatory retirement at 70, no exceptions, judges too.
And do something about effective accountability, and booting out non-elected staffers and beaureaucrats.
Yeah, it’s a pipe dream, they will never vote to limit their own time at ghe trough, so it’s time to gamble on a convention of states.
I agree with you except for a couple of things.
First, instead of dictating how long a person can participate in a particular job, I think we should set aside a period of time and let the person decide how they want to spend their time. I think this time period should be either 16 or 20 years, leaning towards 16.
Second, I think 80 to too late. 75 is much more reasonable. No pushing beyond 75. If you’re 73 and get elected to the Senate, for example, you serve 2 years and then retire. No one is allowed to serve beyond age 75.
# Just remember that recent West Point graduate with “communism wins” inside his hat......
# And General Milley.
True. I’d still figure the vast majority of troops are not woketards
I witnessed firsthand in 2018-2019 the embed of a group calling itself “The Resistance” inside the federal government. They were fervently Anti-Trump.
It’s a good bet you missed all that. Given that the federal workforce is in the millions with millions more in closely aligned federal contractors who work alongside federal employees, it could be you’re blinded to undercurrents that hide treasonous schemes to participate in subverting federal departments and agencies.
I was offered a GS-14 to be groomed for a GM-15 position. I turned it down. It was brought to me by people I had worked with who worked with a retiring GM-15. This fellow brought me in to his office, was very friendly and laid it out that he would push for me to take over.
The reason given for my turning it down was politically acceptable explaining that my skill set demanded much more compensation in private markets. This is what you have to say when you turn down a high level job. It gives AFGE and their cousins fightback talk to maneuver for upward adjustments in federal pay scales.
If I had described the real reason for turning down the offer, I would have been branded a pariah never to be considered again. The real reason was cultural. I saw a woke crowd promoting themselves to the top while old school fed employees sat idly by trying to figure out to be seen.
Although it’s true that fed employment is 95% procedures leaving an impression nothing much ever changes, it’s the other 5% that are captured by woke embeds that steer policy. For example, Trump policies were deliberately put on backburners to run out the clock.
Your comments are therefore potential evidence that nothing much changes because the SES and Administrative Directors allow the clocks to run out on new policy directives they don’t like.
You see very little change because people above you will not allow change.
Golly. Why would they be proposing this right before the 2024 election???
Good to know. I’m glad to hear that, and I definitely recognize the need for skilled federal employees. (I’m a patent attorney, so I interact with USPTO patent examiners on a regular basis).
Repealing the 17th will fix a lot of things.
Aye
I’m a GS-14 and a supervisor, but in a regional office and not in DC (but now almost everyone is 100% remote) so yes, maybe that’s why I don’t see all the true behind-the-scenes machinations you describe.
I HAVE observed certain behaviors of either “slowing things down” or “speeding things up” (whichever benefits the Dems at the time of a transition to the GOP) between Nov and Jan of election years, when the parties change. But (and perhaps it’s just the agency I work for) it’s been very minimal. Unless and until regulations change, the work doesn’t change that much (with some exceptions such as Dear Colleague Letters that have the force of regs, such as the one issued by the Dept of Education under Obama that removed due process rights from men in college accused of rape). Policy flows from the regs, and it’s tough to change the regs without Congress on board as well.
This article is unmitigated BS hogwash!
What is needed is the removal of a few anti-originalist-Constitution & anti-Republic Amendments already stinking the country up...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.