Posted on 12/08/2009 3:20:38 PM PST by 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)
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
-PJ
NO MORE LAWS; THE ONLY POLICE SHOULD BE ELECTED LOCAL SHERRIFF’S;
LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE>
>> 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) <<
Agreed, the Senators should be elected by the state representatives and representing the states.
>> 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. <<
Agreed when they tie on all the other crap to a bill it defeats the purpose of voting on a single issue and turns it into a pander fest which allows nonsense legislation to be passed.
"The method of proposal by Congress requires a supermajority of two-thirds of both houses; this means two-thirds of those members voting in each house—assuming that a quorum exists when the vote is cast—and not necessarily two-thirds of the entire membership. Amendment proposals generally contain a deadline before which the ratification by states must be completed, but the legal status of such a deadline remains unsettled. To become valid, an amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states, that is, by 38 states, either by their legislatures or by ratifying conventions."
Of course, therein lies the problem. No Congress is going to vote themselves into becoming commoners like the rest of us.
Ann Coulter said that years ago.
>> Of course, therein lies the problem. No Congress is going to vote themselves into becoming commoners like the rest of us. <<
Unless we show up with pitchforks and torches and force them to do so.
They do it every day. TARP, clunkers, healthcare...all unconstitutional from the get go. At least with a proposed amendment, 38 states would have to ratify it. You couldn't get 38 state legislatures to agree on the color of the sky these days.
It may come to that.
There were good reasons for the amendment. Basically the senate was in the hands of the various states' political machines. There were a number of bribery scandals--it's easy to buy a senate seat when you only need to swing a handful of votes in a state house. And by the time the amendment passed, the majority of states, on their own, had already gone to some form of a direct election system.
Now....who the heck is listening???
Firing most of the libs next Nov won't get this done.
I'm not sure anything will.
I rather imagine that most people would be opposed to a Constitutional convention because there would be no practical way to control the agenda of the convention. The result would be attempts to make wholesale changes to the existing Constitution and current Amendments (2nd, 10th, etc.) to suit the leftist, socialist agenda for the future.
Oppose this particular notion of laws applying equally to the Congress as the people? Nope. Oppose a CC to get it passed? Yep.
We can vote them out as the election cycles roll around, if we have the stomach for the fight. It won’t be any easier with a Constitutional convention.
See my post # 25.
Ann Coulter said that years ago.
My wife agrees. She's said she would gladly give up the right to vote to return to a more sane world.
What about those congressional health and retirement plans? Are those included?
Since we are all noodling some necessary changes, here’s my list:
1. “Qualified Elector” should be any US Citizen, over the age of 18 who is NOT on the public dole at any level, with the exception of Social Security.
2. Term Limits on ALL elected Federal offices; THREE terms for Representatives and ONE term for Senators. No cushy benefits, no imperial congress, no retirement plan.
3. Line Item veto for the POTUS
4. Rule Change in the Congress to restrict each bill to a SINGLE issue; no more piling on amendments with no bearing just to get support. Each bill should stand on its own merits.
5. ALL bills that involve the expenditure of funds should require 60% votes in both the House and Senate.
6. Election of Senators should be returned to the various State Legislatures. Reps should be the voice of the PEOPLE, and Senators should be the voice of the STATE, just as was originally planned.
7. Scrap the Income Tax and the IRS in favor of a flat tax, or (better yet) a consumption tax to fund government.
8. Constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget at the Federal level.
Why even have 2 legislative bodies if both a popularly elected? The Founders knew what they were doing. The U.S. was to be a federation of sovereign States. That's why they gave tiny States 2 Senators, the same as much more populous States. Indirect election was an important part of Federalism (now almost dead), and part of the reason we had a republic, not a democracy.
#4 negates the need for #3.
I would add that all bills cannot exceed 50 pages in length.
My amendment:
Section One: No act, bill or resolution of the Congress shall become law until and unless each Senator and Representative voting affirmatively for said act, bill or resolution shall swear or affirm by affidavit, under penalty of perjury, that he or she has read the legislation in question and understands every provision of same.
Section Two: The limitations and requirements of Section One shall not apply to the vote of any Senator or Representative who votes against any act, bill or resolution.
Section Three: No act, bill or resolution before the Congress shall exceed ten thousand words in total length; nor may the Congress vote upon any act, bill or resolution that exceeds ten thousand words in total length; nor shall any act, bill or resolution passed by the Congress have the force of law if said act, bill or resolution exceeds ten thousand words in total length.
Hey. I’m in.
This could get on local ballots......
I would go door to door.
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.