Skip to comments.How about this as a new Constitutional Amendment?
Posted on 12/25/2008 7:30:40 AM PST by thatjoeguy
click here to read article
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 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.
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”.
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.
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.
PS, agree except for term limits.
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.