It’s common sense. That’s why Congress hasn’t though of it.
Either that or their haughty we know better than you attitude.
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.
So why would anyone oppose this?
here is the article above in full:
here is the original article with poll:
Right now, I don’t want this country anywhere near a constituional convention. The machine is aligned against us.
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.)
Adding an amendment does not require a convention.
Mike
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.
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.
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.
I say string ‘em up and start with a new batch that might follow the rules we’ve already got.
-PJ
NO MORE LAWS; THE ONLY POLICE SHOULD BE ELECTED LOCAL SHERRIFF’S;
LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE>
Now....who the heck is listening???
Firing most of the libs next Nov won't get this done.
I'm not sure anything will.
What about those congressional health and retirement plans? Are those included?
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.
Let the government start following the constitution we have. Otherwise, leave it alone!
Most of our problems stem from people diddling with it.