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.
If I was running for President this would be one of the cornerstones of my campaign.
Lame duck congressman will have no reason not to buy favors for their future employment. Kind of like they do now. Term limits aren’t the answer. Electing decent people is the answer. Good luck finding some.
The rest of the country requires protection from the likes of Barney Fwanks and his ilk.
No, we don't want that.
Very bad idea.
This is wrong.
I mean your idea is wrong.
Just because we are too stupid to know any better does not make the Supreme Court more powerful, it just means that we (collectively) are too stupid to recognize the mistake.
And we ESPECIALLY don't want a Constitutional Convention!
Particularly not NOW, with all the stupid liberalism, Marxism, DEMOCRACY, and "moderates" in this country.
Just try to imagine what would be left of our Constitution and our rights after they all get a hold of it!
That is possibly the worst idea ever, and we should all fight ardently against it.
We need a number of amendments.
Term limits don't make my list. Term limits, like tax cuts, are an attempt to influence legislator behavior, and, like tax cuts, they don't work. Since we have a government of enumerated powers, why not just use the amendment process to directly attack the problem(s)?
For example: Amendment XXVIII: "No enumerated power of Congress may be delegated to the Executive or Judicial Branch by legislation. No Executive Agency shall make any regulation with the force of law, nor shall any Executive agency or Department conduct a hearing or investigation with the effect of a trial, or the result of nonjudicial penalty or punishment."
Amendment XXIX: "Congress may not impair the value of personal property by legislation without paying just compensation to the affected party or parties".
And so on.
The ones who make the laws are NOT going to cut their own throats.
The only way you are going to get term limits done is by a petition for a public vote in a general election specifying term limits for House and Senate representatives, so THE PEOPLE speak.
Depending on your CongressCritter to do it is doomed to fail.
Yes, I'm sure there are. With every bit the vigor and intensity that you and I might attempt to make the changes you suggest, the "other side" would be trying to make changes that "they" thought right.
A long time ago I learned not to ask important questions unless I knew what the answer was.
Believe me, I know. I was one of them for seven years.
Any term limit proposal would have to deal with this or you end up with a cure that is worse than the disease.
Are you really sure that the cure could be worse than the disease? I don’t know what the answer is, but I’m becoming more and more inclined to believe that a diagnosis of careerpoliticianitis is more viral than the common cold, harder to get rid of than herpes, every bit as nauseating as food poisoning, as costly to live with as cancer treatment and every bit as much of a pain in my behind as a hemorrhoid! Gambling on the cure might just be worth it.
A con-con would result in this:
http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/concon/newstates.htm
And I ABSOLUTELY do not want the President to have the power to declare war or to have increased executive privilege. We are NOT a monarchy nor a dictatorship.
First, you really don't want "term limits". We already have term limits; two years for Congressmen, 6 years for Senators. If you dont' like your Senator, elect someone else.
FYI: look at what has taken place re; the President for the past 4 years. GWB, whether you agree completely with his policies or not, has not had to answer to any polls for the past 4 years. Trust me on this one; you do NOT want "term limits" extended to our Congressmen and Senators.
And to hope to "depend" on your Congressman is a defeatist attitude to begin with. Rather, you should watch his every move and hold his feet to the fire.
Wow! Thanks for the link.
I said don't bet on it happening.
You have better chance of growing boobs on your back that getting a central government term limits amendment in. Spend your time and energy else where.
Thanks for the link!
It is time for Americans of all political persuasions to join forces to clean out the rats nest called DC. It is clear they won’t listen to the people under current conditions, so let’s give them something to ponder. Like a nationwide enthusiasm for term limiting the damage they can do.
I believe voters should continue to choose their fate.
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.