CDZ Name One Constitutional Amendment you would support & why

[jwoodie]

OK I will start:

Change the President's tenure to one six year term.

Hopefully, this would spare us all the political machinations that go on regarding a reelection campaign. Everyone (including foreign leaders) would know who they are dealing with and would not as tempted to stall things until the next election. Besides, most administrations seem to run out of steam after six years anyway.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

OK I will start:

Change the President's tenure to one six year term.

Hopefully, this would spare us all the political machinations that go on regarding a reelection campaign. Everyone (including foreign leaders) would know who they are dealing with and would not as tempted to stall things until the next election. Besides, most administrations seem to run out of steam after six years anyway.

2nd amendment , why, when bat chit crazy liberals start burning cities and punching women, it will be like the Mariana Turkey shoot. And I do mean turkeys..


By they way, what you are saying is not supporting the Constitutional amendment but changing it.

Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

 

[Dick Foster]

Is this for our proposed amendments or existing amendments?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

I don't want our current crop of politicians on either side to get their excrement-encrusted fingers anywhere near the Constitution.

 

[Dekster]

Dissolve the Union.

 

[Foxfyre]

OK I will start:

Change the President's tenure to one six year term.

Hopefully, this would spare us all the political machinations that go on regarding a reelection campaign. Everyone (including foreign leaders) would know who they are dealing with and would not as tempted to stall things until the next election. Besides, most administrations seem to run out of steam after six years anyway.

Make it a single 8-year term and I'm with you. However, realistically, that only ramps up those who won't accept the results of a constitutional election and they will almost certainly redouble their efforts to un-do it.

For my single constitutional amendment, I am torn between two:

1. Except for general appropriations bills necessary to run day to day operations of each department of government, every bill introduced in either chamber of Congress will be a stand alone bill to be voted up and down on its own merits. Further those in Congress cannot revise and extend their remarks after the debate is closed, and cannot change their vote once the vote is final. No legislation that utilizes the people's money in any regard, requires action by any person or department of government, or that attaches legal requirements to any person will be passed by voice vote alone. Every elected official must be on the record when he/she votes or fails to vote, and all votes will be issued to the media and made public to any private citizen who wishes to see the passed legislation and who voted for it at the end of each week or month.

- or -

2. Congress shall pass no rule, regulation, or law that provides any benefit to any person, group, demographic, or entity that does not provide that benefit to all, and will authorize no grants, benevolence, benefit, or charity to any person, group, demographic, or entity that is not authorized for all. All contracts issued will be put out for bid and issued to the bidder that offers the government and therefore the American people the best deal. Those in Congress will contribute to their private 401ks from their salaries, will buy health insurance on the open market like everybody else does, and will not receive retirement benefits when they leave. In other words, take away the ability of Congress to legislate, buy, bribe, or coerce benefits for itself at the people's expense.

 

[jwoodie]

By they way, what you are saying is not supporting the Constitutional amendment but changing it.

I was referring to a new Constitutional amendment.

P.S. You can't change a Constitutional amendment except by passing a new amendment (e.g., prohibition).

 

[Oddball]

I'd add nothing.

Repeal the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments.

 

[Mac1958]

Congressional and Supreme Court Term Limits.

Our political system is controlled by big money, and the main reason for that is that these people are desperate for re-election. They wouldn't be so terrified of this party-over-country "play to the base" game if their time is limited.

And the "elections are term limits" crap is BS. Incumbents have a significant advantage as they build their power base over time, and everyone knows it. See below.

There's nothing special about these people. Get in, do something, then get out.

Do Members of Congress Ever Lose Re-Election?

Incumbent members of the House seeking re-election are all but assured re-election. The re-election rate among all 435 members of the House has been as high as 98 percent in modern history, and it's rarely dipped below 90 percent.

The late Washington Post political columnist David Broder referred to this phenomenon as "incumbent lock" and blamed gerrymandered congressional districts for eliminating any notion of competition in general elections.

But there are other reasons the re-election rate for members of Congress is so high. "With wide name recognition, and usually an insurmountable advantage in campaign cash, House incumbents typically have little trouble holding onto their seats," explains the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan watchdog group in Washington, D.C.

In addition, there are other built-in protections for congressional incumbents: the ability to regularly mail flattering newsletters to constituents at taxpayer expense under the guise of "constituent outreach" and to earmark money for pet projects in their districts. Members of Congress who raise money for their colleagues are also rewarded with large amounts of campaign money for their own campaigns, making even more difficult to unseat incumbents.
.

 

[jwoodie]

Congressional and Supreme Court Term Limits.

I would like to see 20 year term limits for SCOTUS, with two Justices (o the Chief Justice) appointed every four year Presidential term.

 

[toobfreak]

OK I will start:

Change the President's tenure to one six year term.

Hopefully, this would spare us all the political machinations that go on regarding a reelection campaign. Everyone (including foreign leaders) would know who they are dealing with and would not as tempted to stall things until the next election. Besides, most administrations seem to run out of steam after six years anyway.

First, create a public political oversight committee made up of private citizens. Make all politicians subject to public review. Create an independent panel to chart politicians actual record of activities so we can eliminate political advertisements and each get mailed actual records on just what to vote for and why on candidates rather than spin and lies. Create higher criminal penalties for politicians who commit crimes, don't pay taxes or make demonstrably false statements, up to removal from office. Put term limits on all offices. No more than two terms.

Finally, make all congressional salaries and pay raises (or cuts) subject to public vote based on actual performance.

I believe such things will restore integrity and honest and make Washington work, because it will again put the private citizen ultimately ahead of politicians rather than leaving themselves in charge of themselves. WHERE ELSE is such a thing done where the body under review is in charge of its own policing? And I believe it is the lack of which I think why we have nothing but corruption and inaction in the Capitol.