A convention!
At all costs.
First the website link.
conventionofstates.com
I don't work for the above mentioned group. I do support their cause. They advocate for what most sane people would. Check them out. There are many "conservatives" who are terrified of a convention for amendments. If you aren't familiar, just a brief lesson.
Article V of the Constitution allows for Amendments to be added to the Constitution, which that alone puts to a lie the idea of a living Constitution, as it allows for change. How are amendments added? Two ways.
1. 2/3rds of the House, and 2/3rds of the Senate vote for an amendment, it is then sent out to the state legislatures for ratification. 3/4ths of the states must ratify the amendment for it to be added to the Constitution. That number today would be 38 states.
2. 2/3rds of the state legislatures call for a convention (34 states). Once the requisite number of legislatures pass such resolutions, Congress must call a convention. After the convention, for a proposed amendment to pass requires 3/4ths of the states to ratify it.
Of course, the establishment types, whenever this idea is mentioned, propose all sorts of doom and gloom red meat to conservatives to scare them away. They talk about the 2nd Amendment being eliminated (they would like that, but know it is a way to agitate the grass roots) They mention all sorts of freedoms at risk. Of course it is the 3/4ths bar that really stops that. But they don't mention it. After all, as an example, a proposal to eliminate the electoral college could theoretically be passed and sent out for ratification, but what is the likelihood of the states, which matter because of the college, vote to get rid of it? And if they did, we are doomed anyway. That is the safeguard. So what am I proposing?
Many of the amendments that you can read about at the website linked above, but here, I am focused on one.
Term Limits
States cannot pass laws, or amendments to the state constitutions limiting terms for the US Congress. But an amendment to the Constitution is Constitutional, and if an amendment were passed, it would be law. Of course, no one would expect Congress to willingly pass an amendment limiting their time there. But a convention could, and should. Most people would agree, I think, and would be fairly popular. But the limits have to be effective. Otherwise, what is the point?
For the Senate: One Term. Period. Because a term spans over 3 Congresses, a sitting Senator would ultimately get into leadership during that time, if they wanted.
For the House: One Term. But, as the House has elections every two years, I would accept Three Terms, the same six years in the Senate..
I have always felt term limits were treating the symptom of apathy in the voting pool. That because people didn't want to get engaged, they felt that term limits would solve any problems.
Now, I think that term limits force citizen legislators to have to be fully aware of what their actions in DC do to the public. It would also eliminate the constant election campaigns that begin the day after the election. Another benefit would be a limit on the ability of lobbyists and special interests.
Maybe as a bonus to the amendment, mandate that there must be 1 House District for each (x,000) persons in the state. For example: When the 435 was created in 1911, there was 1 representative for every 211,000 citizens. That ratio today would add an additional 1,095 members to Congress. I like that number. Maybe even more Congressmen?
For those that tout experience in the congress, and how bad losing that is, I ask, "Is what we now have working?" No yeahbuts can answer that question in the affirmative.
First the website link.
conventionofstates.com
I don't work for the above mentioned group. I do support their cause. They advocate for what most sane people would. Check them out. There are many "conservatives" who are terrified of a convention for amendments. If you aren't familiar, just a brief lesson.
Article V of the Constitution allows for Amendments to be added to the Constitution, which that alone puts to a lie the idea of a living Constitution, as it allows for change. How are amendments added? Two ways.
1. 2/3rds of the House, and 2/3rds of the Senate vote for an amendment, it is then sent out to the state legislatures for ratification. 3/4ths of the states must ratify the amendment for it to be added to the Constitution. That number today would be 38 states.
2. 2/3rds of the state legislatures call for a convention (34 states). Once the requisite number of legislatures pass such resolutions, Congress must call a convention. After the convention, for a proposed amendment to pass requires 3/4ths of the states to ratify it.
Of course, the establishment types, whenever this idea is mentioned, propose all sorts of doom and gloom red meat to conservatives to scare them away. They talk about the 2nd Amendment being eliminated (they would like that, but know it is a way to agitate the grass roots) They mention all sorts of freedoms at risk. Of course it is the 3/4ths bar that really stops that. But they don't mention it. After all, as an example, a proposal to eliminate the electoral college could theoretically be passed and sent out for ratification, but what is the likelihood of the states, which matter because of the college, vote to get rid of it? And if they did, we are doomed anyway. That is the safeguard. So what am I proposing?
Many of the amendments that you can read about at the website linked above, but here, I am focused on one.
Term Limits
States cannot pass laws, or amendments to the state constitutions limiting terms for the US Congress. But an amendment to the Constitution is Constitutional, and if an amendment were passed, it would be law. Of course, no one would expect Congress to willingly pass an amendment limiting their time there. But a convention could, and should. Most people would agree, I think, and would be fairly popular. But the limits have to be effective. Otherwise, what is the point?
For the Senate: One Term. Period. Because a term spans over 3 Congresses, a sitting Senator would ultimately get into leadership during that time, if they wanted.
For the House: One Term. But, as the House has elections every two years, I would accept Three Terms, the same six years in the Senate..
I have always felt term limits were treating the symptom of apathy in the voting pool. That because people didn't want to get engaged, they felt that term limits would solve any problems.
Now, I think that term limits force citizen legislators to have to be fully aware of what their actions in DC do to the public. It would also eliminate the constant election campaigns that begin the day after the election. Another benefit would be a limit on the ability of lobbyists and special interests.
Maybe as a bonus to the amendment, mandate that there must be 1 House District for each (x,000) persons in the state. For example: When the 435 was created in 1911, there was 1 representative for every 211,000 citizens. That ratio today would add an additional 1,095 members to Congress. I like that number. Maybe even more Congressmen?
For those that tout experience in the congress, and how bad losing that is, I ask, "Is what we now have working?" No yeahbuts can answer that question in the affirmative.
Comments
Post a Comment