How about this as a new Constitutional Amendment?

Now I'm not a Constitutional Lawyer, nor did I play one on TV (I did stay at a Holiday Inn once though) but I've got this crazy idea that we can save ourselves some headaches with one simple addition to our beloved Constitution.

No member of Congress shall serve more then two terms in any single capacity as a member or more then four terms total if elected for another public office. No member of Congress shall receive any compensation of any sort from any government entity other then while serving in office except those members of Congress that have also served as the President of the United States or as a member of the Supreme Court. No member of Congress, their siblings, immediate descendants, or immediate relations of any sort thereof shall assist in any way or receive any compensation from any entity or association of said entity, whether direct or indirect, which receives any public funds or is seeking such funds from any public entity for at least 10 years following their last day served.

This I think could solve 3 problems: Get ride of the career politicians. Eliminate their cozy retirement/health care packages (forcing them to get real jobs). And also eliminating their 'cashing in' on any government work they do by obtaining any posh jobs for them or their family members while in office or within 10 years after.

Any person seeking any public office, prior to being accepted/placed on any ballot in any state, must first show legal documentation to each State's Attorney in which state they intend to seek office, his or her qualifications to said office.

I don’t know about that. My State Senator was a dental surgeon. My former Assemblyman is a farmer. My Congressman was a dairy farmer. Not a lawyer among them. My Assemblyman termed out. It is a shame, just when he got really informed about our local issues, term limits put him on the bench and we get a carpetbagger to replace him.

"Term limits result in an uninformed legislature. Most of these issues take years to gain some expertise in order to understand the vocabulary and programs involved. I want someone who has been through more than a few briefings and hearings on a topic to be making decisions about what goes into a bill.
Term limits ends up with uninformed decisions or the legislator being told by lobbyists or his/her staff how to vote on issues. Un-elected “handlers” would acquire more and more power as the bureaucrats.

We have seen it in the State legislature.

Sorry but if you think the dolts in Congress are in any measure "informed" on what they are voting on you are as sadly mistaken. They vote the way their lobbyist's tell them.

Term Limits now and forever!

And the fifteenth amendment

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude—

My point precisely.

Number one, it is the fifteenth amendment. Two, there are numerous reasons for states to deny the vote to any number of people outside the mandated race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Crooks, morons, children, unregistered, wrong district, no picture ID, and women to name another controversial addition to the amendment list above and beyond the first ten.

The list goes on, and states do indeed reduce the number of voters. All is fine as long as they don’t refuse based on the mandated race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The narrower the list of authorized voters the easier it is to track dishonest or manipulative schemes to skew the results, and the better I like it.

Number one, it is the fifteenth amendment.

Yes and made to include people who were not citizens at the time of the civil war. Crooks, etc, have rights removed from them due to punishment established through due process.

And your support of schemes to reduce the number of voters is, as I stated previously an elitist position. The ultimate result would be an oligarchy. Our forefathers did not establish such a form of government for us. The republican form of government is supposed to assure you, since it is a few individuals that actually produce the laws which govern. If you want blame, cast it upon the few that have passed the laws which take from one to give to another. It is not the people themselves that vote to take from others. And even if they did, it should be unconstitutional, however, the few decide that it isn't. We have examples of the people being right and their leaders thumbing their noses in the people's face. Proposition 8 in California is an example.

The ultimate result would be an oligarchy. Our forefathers did not establish such a form of government for us.

Give me a list of who had the vote in the days of the founders and I might be in agreement, however my only issue is the elitist crap. It isn’t elitist to desire to protect yourself from those you know are willing and capable of causing you and the country irreparable harm.

It is no more or less than the desire of the leftist, socialist, elitist, communist, liberals to produce the country they want from the country the founders gave us. As you so state above, “our forefathers did not establish such a form of government”.

all it did was hinder the work of the legislature because of the inexperience of the new legislators

This is a certain indication that government has become way too complicated. IF an informed elected official cannot make a right and wrong decision with a support staff to do the leg work, then things are out of whack something seriously. There is absolutely no reason an individual would need any kind of government experience in order to serve as a Congressman.

It isn’t elitist to desire to protect yourself from those you know are willing and capable of causing you and the country irreparable harm.

No it isn't, but your solution is. Among what I consider proper solutions would be term limits, no personal income tax and a judiciary this is under some sort of control. Legislation from the bench is not a republican form of government.

As suspected, we agree on all counts. This isn’t my solution to anything, it is my belief and opinion. It is not in being, but I would be most happy to go back in time and utilize the list of those allowed to vote in the time of the founders. A list I’m quite sure you would label elitist, and I take extreme issue with the label, not you.

IF an informed elected official cannot make a right and wrong decision with a support staff to do the leg work, then things are out of whack something seriously.

You bet they are out of whack. There are way to many staffers and not enough informed legislators, which is why things are out of whack.

You haven’t heard my opinion on the subject. One secretary, one chief of staff is the allowable staff for elected representatives.

All bills before congress, one page or less, written and read by all elected representatives, not staff. Staff duties are strictly constituent related, not legislation related in any way.

If the above were adhered to, I would not have a big issue with additional staff, but to put staffers in the legislative arena, is responsible for much of the out of whack system that exists today, JMHO.

The may seem extreme, but young, minds full of mush, leftists, responsible for the laws I am to live by, is not what the founders had in mind

Ok, but I really think term limits are the antidote for our problems. I truly believe that our forefathers did not want a permanent leadership class, but I may be wrong. I believe that citizen-soldier and citizen-politician is the bulwark against tyranny. Plus adhering to the Constitution.

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.