Posted on 09/29/2008 10:16:14 PM PDT by Marie
We need a Constitutional Amendment for Term Limits ASAP.
As I understand it, there are two methods to amend the Constitution:
(From http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html)
The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).
The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.
Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.
The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:
* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
* Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
* Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)
It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 USC 378 [1798]):
The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.
"Informal Amendment"
Another way the Constitution's meaning is changed is often referred to as "informal amendment." This phrase is a misnomer, because there is no way to informally amend the Constitution, only the formal way. However, the meaning of the Constitution, or the interpretation, can change over time.
There are two main ways that the interpretation of the Constitution changes, and hence its meaning. The first is simply that circumstances can change. One prime example is the extension of the vote. In the times of the Constitutional Convention, the vote was often granted only to monied land holders. Over time, this changed and the vote was extended to more and more groups. Finally, the vote was extended to all males, then all persons 21 and older, and then to all persons 18 and older. The informal status quo became law, a part of the Constitution, because that was the direction the culture was headed. Another example is the political process that has evolved in the United States: political parties, and their trappings (such as primaries and conventions) are not mentioned or contemplated in the Constitution, but they are fundamental to our political system.
The second major way the meaning of the Constitution changes is through the judiciary. As the ultimate arbiter of how the Constitution is interpreted, the judiciary wields more actual power than the Constitution alludes to. For example, before the Privacy Cases, it was perfectly constitutional for a state to forbid married couples from using contraception; for a state to forbid blacks and whites to marry; to abolish abortion. Because of judicial changes in the interpretation of the Constitution, the nation's outlook on these issues changed.
In neither of these cases was the Constitution changed. Rather, the way we looked at the Constitution changed, and these changes had a far-reaching effect. These changes in meaning are significant because they can happen by a simple judge's ruling and they are not a part of the Constitution and so they can be changed later.
Obviously we'd have to use the second method as congress will *never* vote to limit their own power.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
The House Republicans have been working hard to get Term Limits passed since the Contract with America in 1994.
Well ... there is the methods the Founding Fathers used ... BEFORE the Constitution was written... /s
The informal status quo became law, a part of the Constitution, because that was the direction the culture was headed.
That is one scary thought.
Second, and not so frivolous. It is my understanding that a Constitutional Convention throws all aspects of the Constitution open to reinterpretation. In todays poisonous atmosphere, politically speaking, I ain't so sure that is a good idea.
We have term limits now....
Vote them out.
Good luck convincing the nitwits who get bought off with a bunch of earmarks and gimme gimmicks.
It’s always someone elses Congressperson and not their own.
Not to nitpick, but voting rights were extended via constitutional amendment to give freed slaves the right to vote (though in practice the Jim Crow laws of the South kept blacks from voting in big numbers).
Also, the constitution was amended to give women the right to vote (at a time when only a few states had allowed women’s suffrage).
Finally, the right of 18 year olds to vote was granted by the 26th amendment. (at a time when only a few states allowed people under 21 that right). So it wasn’t simply a matter of changing interpretation of the constitution, these cases were handled by actually amending the constitution.
First they would get rid of the 2nd amendment. They might even get rid of the 1st amendment. No I don’t want a constitutional convention to re-open everything in today’s politically correct world.
Amen.
If you don’t like your Congressman, vote him/her out. We are supposed to be a representative Republic. As such, we get the government we deserve.
Term limits just mean that lobbyists will work twice as fast, act twice as annoying and be twice as dangerous.
I don’t have a problem with a Constitutional convention. If it was good enough for our founders, it’s good enough for us. There are a lot of things in the Constitution in addition to term limits that need to be changed.
1. state explicitly there is No separation of Church and State
2. recognize the increased power of the President, including the right to declare war and executive privilege
3. rein in the MSM, allow something like the Sedition Act passed by the Federalists
4. clarification of 2nd Amendment rights, that any citizen shall have no restriction on his right to bear arms
5. right to life amendment, prohibition of gay marriage
I am sure there are many more changes/clarifications that could be made to return America to our traditional rights and values.
I like your idea with the exception of the plural on limits. I like Term Limit better. If one term isn’t enough to help correct our government then run for a higher office and try again. Two years as a Representative, four years in the senate and 6 years as president or/and vp in any order. If you manage to become all three, then and only then do you receive the retirement benefit. After your term, go back to the farm, your business or your job. Being a “career” politician is no way to go through life, neither is being a life time “staffer” for a politician.
I was going to sleep on this, but I realized that I've thought about it enough times to know how I feel. The Congress-created "financial crisis" brings it all into sharp focus.
Term limits is a good first step towards the goal of reverting to the original intent of the unique "American Experiment."
The difference between an aristocracy and a meritocracy is that no hereditary succession is implied.
Then there's democracy which in theory, at least when the Republic was founded, implied an understood, taken for granted, set of prerequisites that presumed all the benefits of the aristocracy without the fatal baggage of heredity.
All systems degenerate, given the opportunity; the natural tendency of entropy, apparently as relentless in human systems as it is in the physical world. Democracy is no exception. The demonstrable change from a system of balanced rights and responsibilities as a foundation for Democracy degenerated to all rights and no responsibilities whatsoever.
The result of that is that in a system where "anyone" could become president (or a congressperson) what was originally unthinkable became literally true, without any qualifications whatsoever, real or implied.
We have been stuck in the quagmire of the inevitable consequences for the last twenty years.
A portion of our Congress, in any other context would be considered incompetent. A good portion of the remainder is more interested in the "perks" of the office where, if they are clever enough, can spend a lifetime going through the motions and retiring as rich people. The very few honest and truly qualified burn out in despair, and retire to a useful life.
The system is broken, truly so, when babble passes for statesmanship and leadership, and the tiny circumscribed mind of a small person can achieve speakership of the House.
I vote for both a Meritocracy and term limits.
The benefactors of lifelong employment with benefits and security, with minimal allegiance to their home state, bestowed upon them by the 17th amendment, coupled with a braindead and lazy voting public, will never agree to term limits, unless its a 10 term limit.
SO before we add an amendment, we will have to remove one!
Repeal the 17th
Actually the way to get this done is for the states to call for a Constitution Convention. Congress is afraid of a convention and will reluctantly pass a amendment to squash the convention.
I’m all for term limits. But I think we have to think this through before we set the guidelines. Back in 1994 it was 3 terms for Congress and 2 for Senate (I think). Three terms for congress would mean that the entire body would be rolled-over every three years. It’s unrealistic for our national governing body.
I think a better proposal would be 6 terms maximum for congress (12 years!), and 2 terms for the Senate (12 years). That means that no one could be in Washington D.C. as a legislator for more than 24 years. So, a really good congressman or woman could conceivably run for the U.S. Senate and extend their service to 24 years.
That ought to be more realistic and yet manage to clean out the place on a regular basis.
What do you think??
As far as that list that was posted about other amendments, let's not forget doing something to overturn that damn Kelo case to protect property rights.
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.