Posted on Aug 10, 2019
Is it time for a 28th amendment to the constitution?
1.29K
60
39
6
6
0
I'd like to hear opinions on if a 28th amendment is needed and thoughts as to what it would include.
Posted in these groups: 
Constitution
Government
Constitution Government
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 10
7
7
0
Term limits
Balanced budget and debt reduction
All of government on the same system as "common folks" (insurance especially)
No insider trading
No money from lobbyists
Balanced budget and debt reduction
All of government on the same system as "common folks" (insurance especially)
No insider trading
No money from lobbyists
(7)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett - During the original Constitutional Convention, there was no Constitution. That is why they were there. Anything done today to change the ratification process would itself need to be ratified first. Not gonna happen.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett - "There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: "A republic, if you can keep it." The brevity of that response should not cause us to under-value its essential meaning: democratic republics are not merely founded upon the consent of the people, they are also absolutely dependent upon the active and informed involvement of the people for their continued good health."
The Constitution is our bedrock - sure. But, as a lawyer, you can see where the law makers have skewed the meaning so many times that no case can be decided 100% anymore. And to stand here, as a lawyer, and tell us our opinion is worth less than yours - because you are a lawyer - is one of the reasons *I* see for this country being so screwed up.
Congress was supposed to be a part time thing. Set the plow share aside, serve your country for one or two terms, then go pick up the plow again. But Congress found out how to turn being in Congress into a career, setting themselves apart, and above, We The People.
So don't come here and tell me because you are a lawyer you know better and we, implied, should just shut up. No sir! I will not shut up. I will not cow-tow to this type of demand. I choose to fight to keep the Republic we have, and fight to put more safeguards in place to make this a better nation. And if we face a possible catastrophe, I have to believe enough safe-guards are in place to now allow it to happen.
While today we marvel at the extraordinary accomplishment of our Founding Fathers, their own reaction to the US Constitution when it was presented to them for their signatures was considerably less enthusiastic. Benjamin Franklin, ever the optimist even at the age of 81, gave what was for him a remarkably restrained assessment in his final speech before the Constitutional Convention: "…when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views." He thought it impossible to expect a "perfect production" from such a gathering, but he believed that the Constitution they had just drafted, "with all its faults," was better than any alternative that was likely to emerge. (https://constitutioncenter.org/learn/educational-resources/historical-documents/perspectives-on-the-constitution-a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it)
The Constitution is our bedrock - sure. But, as a lawyer, you can see where the law makers have skewed the meaning so many times that no case can be decided 100% anymore. And to stand here, as a lawyer, and tell us our opinion is worth less than yours - because you are a lawyer - is one of the reasons *I* see for this country being so screwed up.
Congress was supposed to be a part time thing. Set the plow share aside, serve your country for one or two terms, then go pick up the plow again. But Congress found out how to turn being in Congress into a career, setting themselves apart, and above, We The People.
So don't come here and tell me because you are a lawyer you know better and we, implied, should just shut up. No sir! I will not shut up. I will not cow-tow to this type of demand. I choose to fight to keep the Republic we have, and fight to put more safeguards in place to make this a better nation. And if we face a possible catastrophe, I have to believe enough safe-guards are in place to now allow it to happen.
While today we marvel at the extraordinary accomplishment of our Founding Fathers, their own reaction to the US Constitution when it was presented to them for their signatures was considerably less enthusiastic. Benjamin Franklin, ever the optimist even at the age of 81, gave what was for him a remarkably restrained assessment in his final speech before the Constitutional Convention: "…when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views." He thought it impossible to expect a "perfect production" from such a gathering, but he believed that the Constitution they had just drafted, "with all its faults," was better than any alternative that was likely to emerge. (https://constitutioncenter.org/learn/educational-resources/historical-documents/perspectives-on-the-constitution-a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it)
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett - "lashing out with other issues having nothing to do with the subject at hand". Huh?
"I pointed out that you were trying to educate a lawyer on the law, which is akin to telling a doctor about how to treat an illness, or telling a master carpenter how to join pieces of wood, etc." And a double huh? Having gone through 3 years of fighting custody for my kids I discovered that not all lawyers are created equal. I ended up having to fire 2 lawyers over that course of time. My wife and I spent scores of hours in the Law Library looking up precedent, outcomes, strategies and more. When brought to our lawyers as "have you thought about" requests we were told point blank that they were the lawyers and how dare I presume to educate them on the law. One of my life coaches for the last 18 years is a retired doc. He is the first to tell me that docs go through the same thing. A family GP is not the same as a brain surgeon, is not the same as a foot surgeon, is not the same as an orthopedist. My wife, having been through 25 surgeries over the last 29 years can attest to this. It was not until a period of time between surgery #23 and #24 that a GP twigged to the possibility of a syndrome that falls within a narrow specialty. Since then, we have had to educate every doc, nurse and PT we've come in contact with. And you my friend are not a Constitutional Lawyer. I don't remember your area of practice but I am fairly certain it was not Constitutional Law. I have no reason to "get all butt-hurt, and react like a snowflake".
"when I point out the problem with what you proposed and posted a response". A third huh. You did not point out the problem (are problems insurmountable?) but instead pointed out 3 references as to your (internal) reasoning it would never work. And, might I add, left no links to find said references. And having scanned through them they are opinion pieces. So feel free to cherry pick some opinions and wrap them in law jargon and hope we don't actually go read them.
And the 3rd reference you gave is a letter to a colleague and even states "I do have some thoughts, albeit very incomplete ones." And like a lawyer that knows "The tool of lawyers is language, and words have meaning", try to make the case that if the law is followed, it is not followed. In other words, a way to nullify the Article V right for the States to call a Convention. Yes, words have meanings and lawyers are in the business of crafting words to take on overtone of other meanings if not outright opposite meanings. And again I tell you sir, **this is a HUGE problem** and is the tool of those who wish to see the language of the Constitution as complex instead of forthright..
"I pointed out that you were trying to educate a lawyer on the law, which is akin to telling a doctor about how to treat an illness, or telling a master carpenter how to join pieces of wood, etc." And a double huh? Having gone through 3 years of fighting custody for my kids I discovered that not all lawyers are created equal. I ended up having to fire 2 lawyers over that course of time. My wife and I spent scores of hours in the Law Library looking up precedent, outcomes, strategies and more. When brought to our lawyers as "have you thought about" requests we were told point blank that they were the lawyers and how dare I presume to educate them on the law. One of my life coaches for the last 18 years is a retired doc. He is the first to tell me that docs go through the same thing. A family GP is not the same as a brain surgeon, is not the same as a foot surgeon, is not the same as an orthopedist. My wife, having been through 25 surgeries over the last 29 years can attest to this. It was not until a period of time between surgery #23 and #24 that a GP twigged to the possibility of a syndrome that falls within a narrow specialty. Since then, we have had to educate every doc, nurse and PT we've come in contact with. And you my friend are not a Constitutional Lawyer. I don't remember your area of practice but I am fairly certain it was not Constitutional Law. I have no reason to "get all butt-hurt, and react like a snowflake".
"when I point out the problem with what you proposed and posted a response". A third huh. You did not point out the problem (are problems insurmountable?) but instead pointed out 3 references as to your (internal) reasoning it would never work. And, might I add, left no links to find said references. And having scanned through them they are opinion pieces. So feel free to cherry pick some opinions and wrap them in law jargon and hope we don't actually go read them.
And the 3rd reference you gave is a letter to a colleague and even states "I do have some thoughts, albeit very incomplete ones." And like a lawyer that knows "The tool of lawyers is language, and words have meaning", try to make the case that if the law is followed, it is not followed. In other words, a way to nullify the Article V right for the States to call a Convention. Yes, words have meanings and lawyers are in the business of crafting words to take on overtone of other meanings if not outright opposite meanings. And again I tell you sir, **this is a HUGE problem** and is the tool of those who wish to see the language of the Constitution as complex instead of forthright..
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett - Maybe you should clarify what your issues are? I read the 3 references you gave and they are opinion briefs, not laws that have been passed. Therefore, in my mind, they are non-issues. Of course, someone *will* make an issue of all of those points and it will eventually end up in court where a ruling will finally happen.
Article V gives the States the right to call for a Convention. It says how many states must call for the Convention. It does not address your issues - on purpose. They aren't issues until someone wants to call a foul and make it an issue. Again - a huge problem in today's political landscape.
For different words: If 40 states call for a convention and the topics are the same or similar it is not 40 calls for a convention. It is ONE call for a convention by 40 states. At that point, the topics are brought together and solidified into the agenda. Congress does not have the power, or right, to deny it from happening. That too is clear in Article V. And now that we have an agenda the states agree to a timeline and we are off. Once an agreement is met then it is put before the 50 State Congess, both houses, to say yea or nay.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomlindsay/2016/02/23/debunking-the-myths-surrounding-an-article-v-convention-to-propose-constitutional-amendments/#5cee9df9384d sums up my thoughts pretty well - and accurately on all the "issues" you proposed would be bad.
Article V gives the States the right to call for a Convention. It says how many states must call for the Convention. It does not address your issues - on purpose. They aren't issues until someone wants to call a foul and make it an issue. Again - a huge problem in today's political landscape.
For different words: If 40 states call for a convention and the topics are the same or similar it is not 40 calls for a convention. It is ONE call for a convention by 40 states. At that point, the topics are brought together and solidified into the agenda. Congress does not have the power, or right, to deny it from happening. That too is clear in Article V. And now that we have an agenda the states agree to a timeline and we are off. Once an agreement is met then it is put before the 50 State Congess, both houses, to say yea or nay.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomlindsay/2016/02/23/debunking-the-myths-surrounding-an-article-v-convention-to-propose-constitutional-amendments/#5cee9df9384d sums up my thoughts pretty well - and accurately on all the "issues" you proposed would be bad.
Debunking The Myths Surrounding An Article V Convention To Propose Constitutional Amendments
Our profligate federal government has not only burdened this generation with catastrophic debt, but also our children and grandchildren
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
28th Amendment - Term Limits for Senate and House members. Maximum total of 12 years total in any federal office, House, Senate, or POTUS/VP.
29th Amendment - 2-year probationary term for Supreme Court Justices. It shouldn't be that a justice portray themselves one way, then give us something completely different once safely established in a lifetime appointment. This would allow the Senate to reconsider (after an election cycle) whether or not a justice stay on the Supreme Court for life. Mandatory retirement age of 85 (give or take).
30th Amendment - Balanced budget. Exception for declared wars
31st Amendment - Campaign finance reform. Basically, outlaw PACs, campaign contributions from corporations, unions, and lobbyists, and limit individual contribution (including the candidate themselves) to a specific, inflation-adjusted amount.
32nd Amendment - clarify at the federal level who may vote in federal elections, and how a person can gain and lose this right. Specifically, naturalized citizens, felons, or any other reasonable category.
33rd Amendment - sunset clause on every spending law to ensure that "continuing resolutions" go away. Every year, Congress would have to reauthorize all taxing and spending items, by agency.
34th Amendment - Every regulation and executive order needs to be codified into law by the Congress or it lapses one year after being established.
35th Amendment - all judicial decisions are subject to review by Congress and can be overridden by a 2/3 vote.
29th Amendment - 2-year probationary term for Supreme Court Justices. It shouldn't be that a justice portray themselves one way, then give us something completely different once safely established in a lifetime appointment. This would allow the Senate to reconsider (after an election cycle) whether or not a justice stay on the Supreme Court for life. Mandatory retirement age of 85 (give or take).
30th Amendment - Balanced budget. Exception for declared wars
31st Amendment - Campaign finance reform. Basically, outlaw PACs, campaign contributions from corporations, unions, and lobbyists, and limit individual contribution (including the candidate themselves) to a specific, inflation-adjusted amount.
32nd Amendment - clarify at the federal level who may vote in federal elections, and how a person can gain and lose this right. Specifically, naturalized citizens, felons, or any other reasonable category.
33rd Amendment - sunset clause on every spending law to ensure that "continuing resolutions" go away. Every year, Congress would have to reauthorize all taxing and spending items, by agency.
34th Amendment - Every regulation and executive order needs to be codified into law by the Congress or it lapses one year after being established.
35th Amendment - all judicial decisions are subject to review by Congress and can be overridden by a 2/3 vote.
(5)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett - Can you elaborate beyond "nope". I will explain my logic.
28th (term limits) eliminates career politicians, at least federal ones. I think this would solve much of what is wrong with Washington.
29th (Probationary SCOTUS justices) - aimed at situations like what he had with Kavanaugh (narrowly approved after much nonsense), Gorsuch ("stolen" seat), and Breyer (liberal in Conservative clothing). I think the Gorsuch case is particularly glaring. Basically, a justice would have to be confirmed by two different Senates, and would get rid of nonsense like "holding" a nominee for several months in advance of a Presidential election and gives the electorate a chance to go another way if a more extreme SCOTUS justice gets approved by a partisan vote.
30th (Balanced Budget) - Self explanatory. I'd be ok with a 2/3 vote for running a deficit in a Declared War, but I think Congress already weighed in on that by issuing the Declaration in the first place. Definitely not for AUMF. Go big or go home.
31st (Campaign Finance) - I would agree with you on statute, except we had the SCOTUS weigh in on this already with Citizens United V FEC. Now it will take more than statute to affect the change I'm looking for there.
32d (Voters Rights) - bottom line for what I'm trying to accomplish is to specifically state that only citizens have a right to vote (not aliens, not people on a Green Card, definitely not illegal aliens) codify in the Constitution how Naturalization occurs and that they have citizenship conferred (along with right to vote) at that point, and whether and how a citizen can be deprived of the right to vote (felons is what I had in mind, but I suppose other situations might apply). I had not considered Native Americans, but in my book they should be able to vote. No way would an amnesty confer citizenship. They can take the test and jump through the hoops, even if our elected leaders choose amnesty again.
33d (sunset clause for tax and spending) - I can't fathom what one might have an issue with on this. It might be a formality in some cases, but they should have to vote on spending money on shrimp on treadmills every year. Likewise continuing resolutions are bullshit, and Congress can do their damn job and actually formulate a budget and conduct oversight. The way it is now, no program ever goes away no matter whether it is effective or not.
34th (EOs and regulation required to be codified into statute or they lapse) - a President should not rule by fiat. Nor should an unelected bureaucrat make rules and regulations that affect everyone without confirmation by elected officials. This would give much-needed oversight in the regulation realm, and reign in rampant executive overstepping.
35th - (Judicial review by Congress) - No? My logic here would be that if a sweeping decision is made, Congress get a Check and Balance. For example, Roe v Wade is overturned. Everybody flips out. We shouldn't have to wait for someone on the SCOTUS to die for a review of that decision. if 2/3 of Congress disagrees, then it might have been a bad decision. Recent examples would include Heller, Roe, Citizens United, strike down of DOMA. I would set a time limit of six months or so, so that this isn't something that festers or dominates an election.
28th (term limits) eliminates career politicians, at least federal ones. I think this would solve much of what is wrong with Washington.
29th (Probationary SCOTUS justices) - aimed at situations like what he had with Kavanaugh (narrowly approved after much nonsense), Gorsuch ("stolen" seat), and Breyer (liberal in Conservative clothing). I think the Gorsuch case is particularly glaring. Basically, a justice would have to be confirmed by two different Senates, and would get rid of nonsense like "holding" a nominee for several months in advance of a Presidential election and gives the electorate a chance to go another way if a more extreme SCOTUS justice gets approved by a partisan vote.
30th (Balanced Budget) - Self explanatory. I'd be ok with a 2/3 vote for running a deficit in a Declared War, but I think Congress already weighed in on that by issuing the Declaration in the first place. Definitely not for AUMF. Go big or go home.
31st (Campaign Finance) - I would agree with you on statute, except we had the SCOTUS weigh in on this already with Citizens United V FEC. Now it will take more than statute to affect the change I'm looking for there.
32d (Voters Rights) - bottom line for what I'm trying to accomplish is to specifically state that only citizens have a right to vote (not aliens, not people on a Green Card, definitely not illegal aliens) codify in the Constitution how Naturalization occurs and that they have citizenship conferred (along with right to vote) at that point, and whether and how a citizen can be deprived of the right to vote (felons is what I had in mind, but I suppose other situations might apply). I had not considered Native Americans, but in my book they should be able to vote. No way would an amnesty confer citizenship. They can take the test and jump through the hoops, even if our elected leaders choose amnesty again.
33d (sunset clause for tax and spending) - I can't fathom what one might have an issue with on this. It might be a formality in some cases, but they should have to vote on spending money on shrimp on treadmills every year. Likewise continuing resolutions are bullshit, and Congress can do their damn job and actually formulate a budget and conduct oversight. The way it is now, no program ever goes away no matter whether it is effective or not.
34th (EOs and regulation required to be codified into statute or they lapse) - a President should not rule by fiat. Nor should an unelected bureaucrat make rules and regulations that affect everyone without confirmation by elected officials. This would give much-needed oversight in the regulation realm, and reign in rampant executive overstepping.
35th - (Judicial review by Congress) - No? My logic here would be that if a sweeping decision is made, Congress get a Check and Balance. For example, Roe v Wade is overturned. Everybody flips out. We shouldn't have to wait for someone on the SCOTUS to die for a review of that decision. if 2/3 of Congress disagrees, then it might have been a bad decision. Recent examples would include Heller, Roe, Citizens United, strike down of DOMA. I would set a time limit of six months or so, so that this isn't something that festers or dominates an election.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett -
29th - majority vote from the Senate, just like the confirmation vote. If the Senate Changes hands, so what? Plenty of Justices were approved by opposing Senates.
30th - We can throw in other exemptions, like say declared national emergencies. But the idea is busting spending over revenue is hard. $22T in debt is preposterous.
31st - I'd question if buying influence with an official constitutes speech, but the SCOTUS says it is. Ergo, need for an Amendment.
32nd - I don't think it is that hard or wordy. We need some detail on this, because there are issues in this area.
33rd - at issue is that with all these CRs, EVERY good (or not so good) tax, program, or appropriation continues in perpetuity. That is not what the founders intended. Who knew that Congress would stop doing normal budgeting for 13 years running? I think we could go a long way towards obtaining the goal of a balanced budget with this provision alone. Right now inertia just allows failed programs to continue forever.
34th - So many issues with both regulations and EO, regardless of party in power. I don't think Presidents should rule by decree, much less unelected bureaucrats. Have them go up the Hill and tell the right committee why a new regulation is needed and needs to continue. If they agree, fine. If not, convince better or go back to the drawing board.
35th - You can do better than a straw man argument. Do you really think Congress would have overturned desegregation, for example, with a 2/3 vote? I don't. But something like Roe or Janus? Maybe.
29th - majority vote from the Senate, just like the confirmation vote. If the Senate Changes hands, so what? Plenty of Justices were approved by opposing Senates.
30th - We can throw in other exemptions, like say declared national emergencies. But the idea is busting spending over revenue is hard. $22T in debt is preposterous.
31st - I'd question if buying influence with an official constitutes speech, but the SCOTUS says it is. Ergo, need for an Amendment.
32nd - I don't think it is that hard or wordy. We need some detail on this, because there are issues in this area.
33rd - at issue is that with all these CRs, EVERY good (or not so good) tax, program, or appropriation continues in perpetuity. That is not what the founders intended. Who knew that Congress would stop doing normal budgeting for 13 years running? I think we could go a long way towards obtaining the goal of a balanced budget with this provision alone. Right now inertia just allows failed programs to continue forever.
34th - So many issues with both regulations and EO, regardless of party in power. I don't think Presidents should rule by decree, much less unelected bureaucrats. Have them go up the Hill and tell the right committee why a new regulation is needed and needs to continue. If they agree, fine. If not, convince better or go back to the drawing board.
35th - You can do better than a straw man argument. Do you really think Congress would have overturned desegregation, for example, with a 2/3 vote? I don't. But something like Roe or Janus? Maybe.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett - I think we would have less judicial activism, and that would be my desired outcome.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Capt Daniel Goodman
Not that your question wasn't serious...I got that it was, honest...I just couldn't resist that one, truly....
(1)
(0)
Capt Daniel Goodman
I'll also try to think up something genuinely more germane as well, seriously, OK? It's just that was too good on the spot to my mind to not send, really....
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
28: Term Limits to two in the senate and four in the house. If one served in the House or senate, that term will be considered creditable toward the term limit (so you can't do eight in the house then do twelve in the senate)
29. Protect the electoral college from subversion.
30. Eliminate federal election campaigns. Candidates may leverage the following to be elected:
- three televised debates specific to the duties and authorities of that office, provided on an alternating basis between the major US TV networks
- a website that is on a .gov domain at no cost that must feature your resume, a standardized financial disclosure, and a summary platform, indepth platform
- candidates may have five public speaking engagements in a public venue at no cost; campaign funds, offices of paid and unpaid staff are further prohibited.
- The candidate may have one advisor and one administrative assistant on their own dime.
The intent would Be to eliminate massive political war chests and major coroporate/power broker liens on candidate souls. Think of it as simple anti-trust laws for politics. You run on your own merits, ideas, qualifications, experience and ability to speak. We don't have to endure smear campaigns and endless campaign ads. The PAC issue is more difficult to solve, as they are leveraging 1st amendment rights And more generally the American concept of "its my money and I'll do what I want with it." Most attacks ads and the political mud slinging is funded by the PAC world. If we back out the war chest concept though, how heavy would PACs be?
29. Protect the electoral college from subversion.
30. Eliminate federal election campaigns. Candidates may leverage the following to be elected:
- three televised debates specific to the duties and authorities of that office, provided on an alternating basis between the major US TV networks
- a website that is on a .gov domain at no cost that must feature your resume, a standardized financial disclosure, and a summary platform, indepth platform
- candidates may have five public speaking engagements in a public venue at no cost; campaign funds, offices of paid and unpaid staff are further prohibited.
- The candidate may have one advisor and one administrative assistant on their own dime.
The intent would Be to eliminate massive political war chests and major coroporate/power broker liens on candidate souls. Think of it as simple anti-trust laws for politics. You run on your own merits, ideas, qualifications, experience and ability to speak. We don't have to endure smear campaigns and endless campaign ads. The PAC issue is more difficult to solve, as they are leveraging 1st amendment rights And more generally the American concept of "its my money and I'll do what I want with it." Most attacks ads and the political mud slinging is funded by the PAC world. If we back out the war chest concept though, how heavy would PACs be?
(2)
(0)
LTC Jason Mackay
Capt Gregory Prickett - my comment on the electoral college is due to the cabal of states that are changing their electoral vote allocation process to subvert it to the advantage of their party. In the short term, they are trying to engineer a presidential election win. In the long term, they are forfeiting the power of the state as granted in the constitution. This will eventually result in coastal hegemons and negation of the interior. Something the fore fathers clearly tried to avoid with the electoral college.
What is your objection to the elimination of the shit show that is the contemporary presidential election process?
What is your objection to the elimination of the shit show that is the contemporary presidential election process?
(1)
(0)
LTC Jason Mackay
Capt Gregory Prickett - original post: "protect the electoral college from subversion". I didn't even hint at eliminating it.
My state's governor and a swath of his legislators sold our electoral votes for a handful of magic beans to go along with popular votes in other states. Short term: get their candidate elected next go-round. Long term consequence: there will Be a populist like Hugo Chavez that will be swept into power by the votes of the coasts. It transcends Hillary and Trump, who I find equally unpalatable. That's just the opening act compared to what's coming, the two dozen Democratic hopefuls are just a portent. Each time the electorate selects a candidate on the fringe of what we find acceptable, it moves that envelop outward to be the new normal. The trajectory leads me to believe we are more likely to get a Dewayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho before we get another JFK, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR or an Ike.
In the 1950s, Bernie Sanders would have been waiting for his turn in front of the Committee on UnAmerican Activities . Now he is a popular presidential candidate.
My state's governor and a swath of his legislators sold our electoral votes for a handful of magic beans to go along with popular votes in other states. Short term: get their candidate elected next go-round. Long term consequence: there will Be a populist like Hugo Chavez that will be swept into power by the votes of the coasts. It transcends Hillary and Trump, who I find equally unpalatable. That's just the opening act compared to what's coming, the two dozen Democratic hopefuls are just a portent. Each time the electorate selects a candidate on the fringe of what we find acceptable, it moves that envelop outward to be the new normal. The trajectory leads me to believe we are more likely to get a Dewayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho before we get another JFK, Teddy Roosevelt, FDR or an Ike.
In the 1950s, Bernie Sanders would have been waiting for his turn in front of the Committee on UnAmerican Activities . Now he is a popular presidential candidate.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
The two I really care about have been echoed here by others:
- Term limits for Congress
- Campaign Finance Reform - get rid of PACs, Corporate donors, lobbyist, individual cap, etc.
I feel these two are a-political and have broad support on the left and the right.
- Term limits for Congress
- Campaign Finance Reform - get rid of PACs, Corporate donors, lobbyist, individual cap, etc.
I feel these two are a-political and have broad support on the left and the right.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
It's time for a convention of states and take back this imaginary power the federal government has created for itself.
(2)
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
LTC (Join to see) - No, I am not saying "let's have an over reaching federal government." I am saying some laws should be standardized. I am especially referring to Federal election laws, Congressional districting, firearm carry laws, health insurance laws, Internet access and security laws, and maybe a few more.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
MSG Stan Hutchison I just want Texas to stay Texas and if California wants to be its brand of special that's cool too. Forcing every state to do the same thing negates the need for reason for states, just get rid of them all together and have the UFA, United federal government of America. That really is the end play with all of this universal law stuff. No stuffy constitution to worry about just a big sweet central government that takes care of us......just like Russia.
(0)
(0)
MSG Stan Hutchison
LTC (Join to see) - You are carrying it to an extreme. That's fine, it is just not what I was advocating.
Thanks for the polite conversation though.
Thanks for the polite conversation though.
(0)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
MSG Stan Hutchison I agree, I'm appreciative for the different points of view and discussing in a respectful manner. We disagree, and that's ok. Thanks for your service MSG
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Something to counteract gerrymandering and/or to grow the size of the House in proportion to the population so that “the Peoples’ House” is more representative of those they actually represent
1
1
0
Looking through the answers, it seems like a no-brainer is term limits. So, let's start there and see what happens!
12 years Federal Elected positions (President and VP excluded). Effective immediately. Anyone over those numbers is automatically ineligible for re-election when their term expires.
12 years Federal Elected positions (President and VP excluded). Effective immediately. Anyone over those numbers is automatically ineligible for re-election when their term expires.
(1)
(0)
-Eliminate campaign donations of any type (to include self-funding and spending by outside groups) and significantly restrict lobbying.
-Independent commissions to draw Congressional districts.
-Term limits (12 years maximum in any elected or appointed position, to include local/State/Federal)
-End lifetime judicial appointments.
-Independent commissions to draw Congressional districts.
-Term limits (12 years maximum in any elected or appointed position, to include local/State/Federal)
-End lifetime judicial appointments.
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
It should be up to the states to set term limits on their officials. Some already do.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
A great question and some very good responses, but I do not believe we can or will ever again come together enough to pass any amendment, period. Perhaps that is a good thing. Just saying,,
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google