Should we support a 28th Amendment to the Constitution? 92% agree

Examiner.com ^ | Dec. 8, 2009 | Réne Girard

[RGirard]

An article published yesterday, December 7, 2009 ... asks readers if they would support a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ... 92% either agree or strongly agree with supporting such a concept.

The article presented information regarding the Constitution of the United States ... It then goes on to present a possible 28th Amendment which could read:

AMENDMENT XXVIII "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to United States Senators and those of the House of Representatives; likewise, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."

A practical application is presented in regards to Government-run healthcare. The reader is then presented with a multiple-choice type Poll which asks whether he/she would support this type of Amendment.

With 200 individual votes tallied so far, the results are: Strongly Agree - 85% (170 votes) Agree - 7% (13 votes) Undecided - 1% (2 votes) Disagree - 3% (6 votes) Strongly Disagree - 5% (9 votes)

[RGirard]

If you have not voted, please do so and give your 2 cents worth. The poll is still open.

[K-oneTexas]

It’s common sense. That’s why Congress hasn’t though of it.

Either that or their haughty we know better than you attitude.

[knarf]

I’m no Constitutional scholar .. I rely on others .. and I’ve read that a Constitutional convention at this point in our history would open up a Pandora’s box of worms, and that the Constitution should be left alone .. as it stands .. and enforced.

[Dem Guard]

So why would anyone oppose this?

[RGirard]

here is the article above in full:

http://www.examiner.com/x-20681-San-Diego-Christianity—Culture-Examiner~y2009m12d8-Should-we-support-a-28th-Amendment-to-the-Constitution—92-agree

here is the original article with poll:

http://www.examiner.com/x-25060-Fort-Worth-Christianity—Culture-Examiner~y2009m12d7-Poll—Is-it-time-to-pass-a-28th-Amendment-to-the-U-S-Constitution

[GraceG]

>> I’m no Constitutional scholar .. I rely on others .. and I’ve read that a Constitutional convention at this point in our history would open up a Pandora’s box of worms, and that the Constitution should be left alone .. as it stands .. and enforced. <<

Agreed, The last time we let well meaning progressives fiddle with the Constitution we ended up having to reverse it some years later. Prohibition is a good example of progressive meddling.

[Gaffer]

Right now, I don’t want this country anywhere near a constituional convention. The machine is aligned against us.

[crusty old prospector]

I'd vote for a 29th Amendment. Term limits.

[Secret Agent Man]

I’d word it a little differently but yes.

28th: Congress (House and Senate) does not have the power to exempt itself, the Executive Branch, or the Judiciary Branch, from ANY laws it passes. All laws will apply equally to all branches of government, its agencies and offices, courts, just like those laws apply to US citizens.

29th: Term Limits: No member shall serve in the House for more than six (6) terms as a Representative, regardless of continuity. No member shall serve in the Senate for more than two (2) terms as a Senator, regardless of continuity.

30th: Recall of Elected Representatives: Establishing a mechanism for the people to have recourse to remove their federal representatives and senators when said member of Congress is not representing them. The people have a right to elect their representatives and senators directly, and if such disatisfaction occurs because a large enouhg percentage of voters feel disenfranchised and can organize enough signatures for recall, then a recall shall be held. (Still thinking about the details on this one, this is just outlaying the general principle.)

[doublecansiter]

Adding an amendment does not require a convention.

Mike

[Gator113]

While I agree with the premise, I certainly don’t want the constitution opened while the Traitor Party is in power.

Even if the Traitors weren’t in power, I see opening the constitution as being very dangerous.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Actually, I do not support this amendment by itself. This is because, in truth, it accomplishes little, and only against a small group of individuals, most of whom are wealthy enough to ignore such an amendment.

Instead, the most pressing business of constitutional amendments, to the effect of restoring the balance of federalism, will not be done by the federal government, but must be done by the individual States.

A constitutional convention, that one generation ago was unthinkable, has become unavoidable, if we are to survive as a nation.

It will entail the repeal of the 16th Amendment, the Income Tax; the 17th Amendment, the Direct Election of US Senators; the creation of a Balanced Budget Amendment, and a Line Item Veto for the president of the United States.

There are also many administrative changes to be made to the US constitution, changes to the judiciary, and likely the establishment of a framework by which the Indian treaties can be renegotiated.

Then comes the task of dismantling those parts of the federal government not authorized by the previous constitution, unless 3/4ths of the individual States agree that they should be retained.

Finally, after all that is done, will rules such as this “28th Amendment” be considered. And likely they will be far more restrictive than what is suggested as well.

[Secret Agent Man]

I’d have to put a certain exception in to the 29th Amendment for Term Limits for Senators. That would be in the case a senator served two terms in the senate and then became Vice President, that that person would be allowed to still be President of the Senate as Vice-President.

[RGirard]

excellent ... we should put you to work for the good of our country

[Michael Barnes]

I could care less if it does nor not. The real question is, does anyone REALLY want the current crop of congress-critters tampering with the Constitution AT ALL??

[ryan71]

I would if it implemented TERM LIMITS.

[hellbender]

Another bad amendment was the one providing for direct popular election of Senators. The House of Rep's. was to be directly elected and represent the people, while the Senate was to represent the respective States.

Considering the way most of them vote, one could make a case that the Amendment providing the vote for women was a mistake also. (Ducking and running for fallout shelter)

[pnh102]

I’d like an amendment that restricts the types of riders that could be attached to bills. A bill should deal with only one subject at a time.

[GraceG]

How about one saying that any new legislation to be voted upon must be less than X words in length, any additional legislation will need to be put in a separate bill that would have to voted upon separately?

Or one how about one that bans adding any extra crap (ryders, ear marks) on it when it moves from the house to the senate and vice versa?

[EricT.]

I say string ‘em up and start with a new batch that might follow the rules we’ve already got.