1. Term Limits for Congress
They may serve a total of 12 years in the House, Senate, or a combination of both.
We already have term limits, theyÂ’re called
elections.
The people have the right to elect whomever they wish, for whatever reason, and for however long they wish.
This is motivated only by partisanism, not a desire to ‘restore liberty.’ Conservatives believe that because they’re likely to continue to control a majority of state governments, they’ll enjoy long-term control of the Senate consequently.
Dreadful ideas.
The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy; its citizens are subject only to the rule of law, not men, as men are incapable of ruling justly – Proposition 8 and DOMA are evidence of that. The states do not have the authority to determine who will or will not have his civil liberties, and one’s civil liberties are not determined by popular vote.
Moreover, ‘term limits’ for justices and subjecting decisions by the High Court to simple majority rule will destroy the independent judiciary, vital to maintaining our Republic and retaining the rule of law, as originally intended by the Framers.
This is also motivated by partisanism, by conservatives frustrated with the courts invalidating republican laws and measures designed to promote conservative hate and ignorance, at the expense of liberty for all Americans.
Another dreadful idea.
It’s perfectly appropriate for a First World industrialized nation to fluctuate between surplus and deficit and back to surplus again. Such an amendment would be unworkable with its many ‘exemptions’ and provisions for ‘emergencies,’ and it’s the responsibility of the voters to hold Congress accountable with regard to its fiscal responsibilities, not leave it up to some inane, irresponsible ‘amendment.’
What constitutes ‘limit’?
And of course Congress isn’t going to ‘do it on its own,’ it’s the responsibility of voters to hold Congress accountable.
Again, what constitutes ‘limit’? What constitutes ‘bureaucracy’?
Obviously not.
What constitutes ‘promote’? And ‘promoted’ by whom? This is a meaningless phrase absent context.
And yet again, what constitutes ‘secure’? By whom?
There already exists comprehensive Takings Clause jurisprudence that protects private property rights and ensures appropriate due process with regard to eminent domain.
10. States can amend the Constitution with 2/3rd approval.
Streamlining the process.
The last thing we want to do is ‘streamline’ the amendment process. We do not want the Federal Constitution cluttered with junk ‘amendments’ catering to special interests and rendering the Founding Document useless. There is more than ample Constitutional case law, the wisdom of over 200 years, settled and accepted jurisprudence that can successfully and efficiently address any conflict or controversy that should come before the courts.
In essence what the OP advocates is the destruction of the Republic and replacing it with the tyranny of unfettered democracy.
