Posted on 12/25/2008 7:30:40 AM PST by thatjoeguy
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.
Here goes but please don't shoot me :)
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.
And since I'm on a role how about adding this one too:
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.
Hmm, wonder what headache this one would eliminate?
JB
We could have term limits with the very next primary election. I say primary because in a general election I don’t want to vote for a liberal.
So you have to impose term limits in a primary election.
I would love to see term limitations but don’t think it’s gonna happen any time soon. But voters can do it anyway.
Sad part is, about 98% of the incumbents get re-elected. Even if they’ve been convicted of a crime (usually) and even if they’re dead (because if they’re elected, the governor has the right to appoint someone from the same party.
While we’re at fixing things, we ought to ban electing people who are convicted felons, or who are dead.
Agree with you completely! Where do I sign?
Sarah Palin makes $125,000 a year and just turned down a $25,000 raise. We need more like her in congress and in the White House!
We are a nation of too many laws. Every law is trying to fix something. More laws probably won’t work.
It says that the Federal Constitution, and the laws derived from it along with treaties supercede all state laws and constitutions. IOW this is a republic formed of states and not a confederation which it replaced. The ninth and tenth amendments have reasons for being, but we seem to have forgotten them.
if you receive any form of government assistance becasue you refuse to work, you cannot vote due to conflict of interest...
Add to the above, if you do not pay income tax, you may not vote due to conflict of interest. b
That's a load. Besides the fact that an income tax is as confiscatory as any tax enforced by the Sheriff of Nottingham, many people avoid taxes through tax shelters. Add to that the fact that sales taxes, excise taxes, and use taxes are paid by everyone, and it becomes apparent the "elite" nature of your statement. It is the right of every citizen to vote irrespective of their social position. That said, it is not the responsibility of a people to provide for those who won't work, and a measure of a people their reluctance to provide for those who can't work.
Speaking of loads, you seem willing to allow those with no stake in the nation to gleefully vote you out of existence because you support them with your taxes and they will vote to insure you continue to support them with your taxes while they enjoy the free ride.
In other words IMHO no one should be exempt from the Federal Income Tax, which should put everyone on level playing field. That way a certain non paying portion (at present 40%) of the population will not be vying for the exact opposite of the paying portion of the population.
Income taxes are just one of many taxes as you point out, but they are the one tax that supports the federal government and regardless of the inference that it is theft, if you are being thieved by the government and there are others benefiting from the thievery at your expense, you still think it is a good idea to allow them the vote? Eventually the beneficiaries are going to out number the contributors.
PS, there is no constitutional right to vote in a presidential election. IMHO no one receiving money or benefits from government, like no tax liability, ought to be in competition with the producers and contributors. Common sense says it is a contrived battle between the contributors and the recipients.
Please watch the profanity
Well, if it is a load, it belongs to you since I stated nor implied any such thing.
PS, there is no constitutional right to vote in a presidential election.
Did you just now read the constitution? Of course there isn't. We vote for electors and they vote for presidents. Nonetheless you deem it proper to rob a citizen of his most important right. The right to vote. A citizen has a right to vote period. He does not have a right to expect me to support him. That is a distinction that should be readily apparent. We have a Constitution which states "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." somehow our leaders choose to interpret private property in their own way such that they believe redistribution of wealth escapes this clause.
I would tend to disagree. We’re still talking years of service here not months and I don’t think it would take much for the average reader/poster here on this site long to come to a decision whether a bill is for the good of the people or not.
JB
Speaking from experience, candidates run on hot button issues. I have seen County government contenders say that they are going to cut social services and give the money to cops, that they are going to get better education in the schools. Then they are voted in. They discover that they have no jurisdiction over schools. That the Sheriff, DA, Treasurer and Auditor are also elected officials with their own authorities over which they have little control. They discover that all those onerous codes the County has in building and planning are the state minimum and can’t be thrown out. They find out that social service programs are state and federally funded and there is little discretion over their budget. They discover that they need a majority of the Board to vote the way they want to make change.
Then they find out that they are expected to be experts enough to make decisions on many other things: natural resources and land use management, investment of reserve funds, reinsurance and finance, bond issuance, domestic violence, facilities building, jail management, disaster response, economic development, aging, air quality, genetic manipulation of seed, culvert sizes, dam relicensing and on and on.
For the first year new electeds are in shock. The second and third year they begin to know some of the vocabulary and perhaps understand one or two issues. It takes about six years to get their feet under them. Then they start forming alliances and networking with other county electeds. I can imagine it is only worse at the state and federal level in complexity.
Among other things, I would take issue with this, “The right to vote. A citizen has a right to vote period”. In the strict sense of the word right, based on natural law, voting is about as far from a right as lets say Abortion.
You see stuck on something that did not appear in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights, but only later, long after, someone decided that legislated rights needed to be added to the ones deemed originally important by the founding fathers. Voting was not one of them and that is sufficient for me.
Frankly, all of the amendments after number 10 have done nothing but muddy the water and given the Supreme court added ammunition against the people. JMHO expressed long before this.
What natural law? Voting is a right in a republic or a democratic government that uses the word, people as in "We the people...". I repeat a citizen has a right to vote. Read the constitution ...
Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states,
That process is known as voting.
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--
Voting is a right of citizens.
I’m only talking at the federal level and even if things are such that nothing gets done that wouldn’t bother me at all. :)
Things are only confusing/complex because they can be (because of the current long terms in office), by that I mean if work can’t get done because of certain rules and due to the shorter terms then the rules will get changed (by the new people coming in) so that work can get done.
Right now we have an elite group of people that have been living and breathing government ever since they got out of college, never having worked a day in the private sector for anything. The point of the amendment was that after two terms go by from the time its enacted we have a whole new group of congress men and women in office. Some will take it seriously some will be corrupt just like those that are in it. But over time with new ones coming in with all those big ideas and the two term’ers out forever (not even as lobbyists) then maybe, just maybe things will get a little better and we’ll have a better representative government.
Plus you have those going out suddenly realizing that working in the government isn’t a lifetime’s work. They get no retirement, no medical, no perks (being hired by any company that works for the government) so they have to make it in the real world just like everyone else. Its not perfect but its better then what we have now.
JB
Good point.
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.