Posted on 01/20/2022 5:22:38 AM PST by EBH
About time!!!
You cannot overcome the nature of man with more laws. Term limit just changes the corruption, not eliminate it.
Our founding fathers equipped us with very good alternatives already.
You bet. He’s a “special one” that deserves much more than loss of employment, much more, repeatedly.
Do away wiht the House of Rpreesenttives and move to a unicameral legislature composed of two senators from each state.
You get everything backwards? If you want unicameral get rid of the Senate and keep the HOR.
Unicameral means “one chamber”
If we’re going to have one chamber then it is better to keep the Senate. This might be worse for high population states like New York and California but better for America.
Better to keep the HOR and ditch the Senate.
There is a move in the Ohio Legislature to join the COS movement, both with Georgia’s application language and the separate balanced budget amendment movement.
The first of many we need to pass.
I’ve been preaching term limits for thirty or so years now.
Two terms at each level (house and senate) then out to live under the laws you helped to pass.
And I suggest adding that all political donations must be ANONYMOUS. You can’t sell influence if you don’t know who is buying. Americans should be allowed to donate any amount they wish, to any candidate or party they choose; that’s FREEDOM. But to purchase an outcome for a donation reduces it to BRIBERY and makes it a CRIME.
These changes would eliminate the career politician by removing the possibility of becoming fabulously wealthy, leaving those dedicated to public SERVICE. Public servants have long since morphed into MASTERS...let’s get rid of them.
I wonder if I could get all that on a ballcap...
Maybe "Convention of States" would be easier...
Well put.! :)
I really do believe that repealing the 17th. would solve a lot of the grief we are experiencing nowadays. But, reducing the jurisdiction of the federal government would be grand. And a balanced budget would certainly be a worthy goal....I think.
Term limits and a balanced budget are not the main problems with the post-17th Amendment ratification, alleged election-stealing, elite Democratic-pirated Congress imo.
From related threads...
More specifically, term limits and balanced budget arguments are arguably election year, political smoke-and-mirrors that ignores that corrupt Congress continually blatantly ignores its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers, especially Congress's Supreme Court-clarified limited power to appropriate taxes.
"10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
In fact, the congressional records shows that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had clarified that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had left the care of the people with the states, not the federal government.
”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
Justice Louis Brandeis later reflected on Bingham's words when Brandeis introduced his "laboratories of democracy" metaphor to emphasize the 10th Amendment-protected powers of the sovereign states, ultimately depending on the kind of state social spending programs the legal majority citizen voters of a given state want.
"[...] a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country." —Justice Louis Brandeis, Laboratories of Democracy.
The situation now is that state lawmakers who probably don't know the federal government's constitutionally limited powers any better than the voters who elected them probably do, regularly beg for so-called “federal” funding to supplement tight state budgets.
The problem is that state lawmakers never seem to make the connection that "federal" funds are arguably state revenues stolen from the states by corrupt Congress by means of unconstitutional federal taxes according to the Gibbons v. Ogden excerpt above.
In other words, the states would be taking care of their own infrastructure, as the founders had intended for the states to do, if the states wised up and put a stop to unconstitutional federal taxes and associated infamous, unaccountable federal spending.
The “simple” (imo) approach to peacefully putting Congress back into its Section 8-limited power “cage” is for the states to ratify a new amendment to the Constitution that does nothing more than repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments, relatively little or no discussion required imo.
Insights welcome.
States will send delegates/commissioners with detailed limits to their authority. They won’t send representatives. Big diff.
Now, if you don’t want to understand the difference, just keep voting. As if it matters.
You really want California to amend the Constitution? You’re deluded if you think it will go well.
I really want to watch the frustration of California when it casts a single vote, just like Wyoming.
This is wrong because it is only proposed amendments that the convention would consider. Those agreed by the Convention of States would require 38 state legislatures to agree to them in order to change add the amendment to the constitution. No 38 states, no new changes or amendments 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.