Term Limits

[Gaffer]

Sorry to have to break this to you all but nothings going to be changed through legislature at all. The elites have all the power and will never allow themselves to be voted out or their power taken from them. The states will have to all pull together to get a constitutional amendment written and remove the elites from power. I don't think that will happen without blood shed. And there's only a small window of opportunity.

[aboutime]

No worries there, because a Con-con is representatives of the states, not the bozos that currently hold federal offices. Remember, we are the united STATES of America.

Glockmail. I totally agree with you. However. The powers that be...now in congress, and the W/H would, and have ignored STATES RIGHTS since Obama was first elected.
Prior to the Obama election.
Do you remember, or can you count the number of states SUED by any President, or his A.G.?

Begin with Florida...and the 2000 Vote count, and proceed from there to Obama suing Arizona.

If they have the opportunity to get a CON CON started, and in place. Only GOD knows how much damage they would INTENTIONALLY do to our Constitution, and it's amendments...using the same IGNORANT, STUPID, nearly ILLITERATE Americans who voted for Obama TWICE?????

[glockmail]

Section 1. The governors of each state shall appoint two people who have never held elected office, one for the national impeachment committee and the second for the national ruling committee. The impeachment committee's sole purpose is to select at least two members of Congress or the Supreme Court per year who have demonstrated poor performance or behavior, investigate and interview witnesses, and write articles of impeachment. The ruling committee's sole purpose is to rule on the impeachment.

Section 2. Members of the House shall serve no more than eight years. Members of the Senate shall serve no more than twelve years. Officers of the Courts shall serve no longer than thirteen years.

Section 3. Article One Section 8 shall be interpreted as 18 enumerated powers, with general welfare meaning the welfare of the States, not the People. All laws passed by Congress shall specify which enumerated power the act is authorized under. All laws passed prior to this amendment shall be null and void within five years, unless reauthorized within the confines of the section. No law shall remain in effect for more than three years.

Section 4. The United States shall maintain a separate military Department, in addition to the Army and Navy, for the purpose of defending air and space of interest to the States.

Section 5. The United States Government shall not carry a budget deficit in any one year, unless a declaration of war is made, and if so all federal departments except the three military departments shall have a 10% budget reduction until the Act of war is rescinded.

Section 6. If the United States Government carries debt, it shall be reduced by reducing the budget by 1% for every 10% of the ratio of debt to gross domestic product, until such time that it is zero.

Section 7. No person shall receive compensation from the United States for any reason except labor, payments to injured veterans, earned pensions to employees, and as payments made for prior social security taxes. Indigent farms shall be maintained in each county, with separate barracks for adult males; males ages ten to eighteen; and females and children. Two meals will be served per day. A third meal will be served for indigents who have worked at east a four hour day. Meals and housing shall be similar to those provided by the Army for its enlisted soldiers. Indigent farms will be paid for by the United States Department of the Indigent and maintained by each State.

[glockmail]

Glockmail. I totally agree with you. However. The powers that be...now in congress, and the W/H would, and have ignored STATES RIGHTS since Obama was first elected.
Prior to the Obama election.
Do you remember, or can you count the number of states SUED by any President, or his A.G.?

Begin with Florida...and the 2000 Vote count, and proceed from there to Obama suing Arizona.

If they have the opportunity to get a CON CON started, and in place. Only GOD knows how much damage they would INTENTIONALLY do to our Constitution, and it's amendments...using the same IGNORANT, STUPID, nearly ILLITERATE Americans who voted for Obama TWICE?????

Article V:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress...

Therefore the states carry out the convention and the states or the congress ratifies the Amendment.

[fj1200]

I don't want entitlements either but many do so in order to be legal thaey need to be codified in an amendment. The beauty of that idea is that a super majority is required to pass it so it has to be written simply and with enough flexibility that both libs and conservatives want it.

I think the way to restrict GovCo to enumerated powers is to use language that destroys the arguments that there are no enumerated powers. Although I don't buy the lib argument for one bit, in fact the Federalist papers mocks that argument, the language has to be stronger than it is now. That is it needs to say no, no way, no how, these are what GovCo may do and nothing more unless this article is amended, and if legislators propose acts which ignore this it is an impeachable offense.

That's the other area of the Constitution that has to be addressed: impeachment. The legislature is loath to remove one of its own. We need to have a citizen body that likes to do it.

Um, entitlements are already legal. The very bad idea is that codifying an entitlement in the Constitution is that it gives people like BO what he wants in his stated position that the document should have "positive rights" and not just the "negative rights" that are there now.

But I'm glad your enumerated powers ploy boils down to, "we mean it this time."

So you want to have an impeachment committee that's sole job is to impeach; I see nothing wrong there. Besides, we already have those elected committees especially the one that should have the role of conviction: Repeal the 17th.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Um, entitlements are already legal. The very bad idea is that codifying an entitlement in the Constitution is that it gives people like BO what he wants in his stated position that the document should have "positive rights" and not just the "negative rights" that are there now.

But I'm glad your enumerated powers ploy boils down to, "we mean it this time."

So you want to have an impeachment committee that's sole job is to impeach; I see nothing wrong there. Besides, we already have those elected committees especially the one that should have the role of conviction: Repeal the 17th.

^^^ Obviously typed with a smirk as you continue your attack on those of us that have relentlessly demanded Obama's impeachment. Where you shot down every reason we put forth including the damn known scandals!!! --Tyr

[fj1200]

^^^ Obviously typed with a smirk as you continue your attack on those of us that have relentlessly demanded Obama's impeachment. Where you shot down every reason we put forth including the damn known scandals!!! --Tyr

No I haven't. You must only be remembering the "petty" ones. Nevertheless, no smirk, I just don't think we should go amendin' and stuff based on the current idiot.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

No I haven't. You must only be remembering the "petty" ones. Nevertheless, no smirk, I just don't think we should go amendin' and stuff based on the current idiot.

I just don't think we should go amendin' and stuff based on the current idiot.

I agree with that. I also think there is no reason the change anything about the Constitution when all we need to do is go back to believing in and accurately interpreting and sticking with it. The last thirty years we have steadily increased moving away from it and that's by designed not happenstance.--Tyr

[fj1200]

I agree with that. I also think there is no reason the change anything about the Constitution when all we need to do is go back to believing in and accurately interpreting and sticking with it. The last thirty years we have steadily increased moving away from it and that's by designed not happenstance.--Tyr

Not saying we couldn't use an amendment to clean things up but the above listing seems to be too far along the lines of legislation by amendment and last I checked Prohibition didn't work out to well. I'd start with repealing the 17th and require the legislatures to appoint Senators to fill terms, require run-off elections for all Federal elections that don't result in 50% + 1 including POTUS electors, and Congressional term limits to 12 years.

Oh yeah, and weed; can't forget the weed.

[glockmail]

Um, entitlements are already legal. ...

No they are not.

[glockmail]

Oh yeah, and weed; can't forget the weed.

Since old laws become null and new ones have to be within the confines of the enumerated powers there would no longer be a DEA or laws against drug use. If you want to steep your brains in meth than knock yourself out. You'll end up on an indigent farm, sleeping in barracks with the rest of your male counterparts.

[fj1200]

No they are not.

Would you care to check your tax returns??? Or relevant SCOTUS decisions??? Or would you require looking at some big building in our nation's capitol???

Since old laws become null and new ones have to be within the confines of the enumerated powers there would no longer be a DEA or laws against drug use. If you want to steep your brains in meth than knock yourself out. You'll end up on an indigent farm, sleeping in barracks with the rest of your male counterparts.

I didn't say meth, I said weed. Can't forget the weed.

[glockmail]

Would you care to check your tax returns??? Or relevant SCOTUS decisions??? Or would you require looking at some big building in our nation's capitol???

Congress overstepped its authority, and when challenged, SCOTUS wimped out and decided it doesn't want to overrule Congress. It's still ALL unconstitutional.

[fj1200]

Congress overstepped its authority, and when challenged, SCOTUS wimped out and decided it doesn't want to overrule Congress. It's still ALL unconstitutional.

Yeah, hang on to that. Nevertheless, your idea is to fight an "illegal" entitlement by codifying it in the Constitution; Not so much a good idea IMO.

Um, entitlements are already legal. The very bad idea is that codifying an entitlement in the Constitution is that it gives people like BO what he wants in his stated position that the document should have "positive rights" and not just the "negative rights" that are there now.

[glockmail]

Yeah, hang on to that. Nevertheless, your idea is to fight an "illegal" entitlement by codifying it in the Constitution; Not so much a good idea IMO.

I will hang on to that since it is a fact.

Once an illegal act is codified as an Amendment it becomes legal, same for entitlements. Perhaps you misunderstood section 3:

...All laws passed prior to this amendment shall be null and void within five years...

...meaning social security gets gone, except for those who have already paid:

...No person shall receive compensation from the United States for any reason except ... as payments made for prior social security taxes. ...

The only other entitlement written into this proposal is the indigent farms, which provide a low safety net, not the luxurious welfare state that we now endure.