PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION - Spread this far and wide if you care about saving this country!

NO one votes until 30.

Illegals will be shot upon crossing border.

Kick NATO out of this country.

Problem solved.

That wouldn't fix shit, as long as they are receiving money from lobby groups and other corporate interests they will continue to do their bidding.

FAIL

Given a choice, I wouldn't let this congress call a constitutional convention. Because once they can change it, they will take it apart.

not that a term limit would particularly piss me off but there IS a thing that's called AN ELECTION that limits the terms of people in office.

Don't fuck with the Constitution when the problem is with the apathetic 'People'.

alls well till you let them start screwing around with things.what about the horseshit they want,that you will not find out about till it's to late.

And you REALLY think that the Senate & House would vote 'for' something like this?

Please get real.

As good as it sounds it will never happen.

ah, this is pretty much what is called the Costa Rican plan.

it is a good start.

yes, let's pass it around

Costa Rica has a 2 term limit, and a congress person can not serve those two terms consecutively. they were having a lot of corruption in government, and this is one of the measures that they passed to try and clean up their congress.

if you really want to try to get this to pass, you get your city to sign it and send it to your state reps and ask the state reps to sign it and pass it up to Congress (still would not happen though).

I still think we need a constitutional convention solely for the purpose of nullifying many of the stupid federal laws like The Patriot Act and also putting something in place from the states to limit the power of the federal government to only what is expressed in The Constitution. Unfortunately, Congress will not give the states the authorization for a constitutional convention.

So, the only way I can see something like a constitutional convention happening is to have another Continental Congress, was that what it was called?

Just re-have the founding meetings and nullify a shitload of stuff. I think it would have to legally stand if around 36 or more states did it.

Someone tell me why this would not work.

The states can just re-do the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Limit their pay to minimum wage. No money can be recieved from any source other than a taxpayer (no corps or fictitious business entities) for their campaigns. Weed out the career politician types and money hungry fuckers.

I'm pretty sure the constitution is dead in the water, we no longer have a representative form of government for the people, for the corporations yes, but not for the people. So what's the point of amending it?

People, please stop and think about the constitutional amendment process for a moment. It doesn't matter how awseom and great an ammendment might be, the people in charge of wording it are sitting in congress right now. Do you trust them to ammend our founding law?

Second, once open, a constitutional convention can not be limited to a specific set of purposed changes. A constitutional convention opens the entire constitution for possible change to every last letter. Do you want to give the people in Washington DC that kind of power?

A constitutional convention at this time is a spectacularly bad idea.

Oh and if any of them ever present a bill that is blatantly unconstitutional, they are fired on the spot and we have a public hanging to remind future politicians not to fuck with the people.

then what about a continental congress? Vermont has been talking about that.

How about a 3rd Continental Congress of The States for the signing a new Articles of Confederation that would guarantee all citizens and legal immigrants a Republican form of government and that dissolves The Constitution and the federal government until a 4th Continental Congress is established to work out the next step.

How's that for nullifying some shit.

[link to factcheck.org]

He or she (the author is anonymous, of course) repeats a number of false claims that we have debunked before. The author:

* Demands that members of Congress be forced to "participate in Social Security." But members of Congress already participate, paying Social Security payroll taxes just like nearly every other worker. Once upon a time that wasn’t true, but members of Congress were brought under Social Security way back in 1984. Yet bogus claims like this continue to circulate more than a quarter-century later, despite our best efforts.
* Urges that "Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose." But as we’ve explained before, the idea that Congress has exempted itself from many of its own laws is also somewhat out of date. A law enacted in 1995 applied 13 civil rights, labor, and workplace safety and health laws to Congress, removing the basis for earlier criticisms. It’s true that members of Congress retain a degree of immunity from arrest or prosecution, but changing that require an amendment to the Constitution, which grants that immunity in Article I, Section 6. (The authors of the Constitution didn’t want any president to try what King Charles I of England had done in 1642 — sending troops to arrest his critics in Parliament.) The message is confused, at first mentioning earlier constitutional amendments, but then describing the proposal as an "act," which refers to legislation.
* Recommends that "Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise." But Congress doesn’t do that now. Under current law, pay increases are determined by a cost-of-living formula, and they take effect automatically, unless Congress votes to stop them. And in fact, that’s what has happened for the past two years. Congress denied itself any pay raise in 2010 and in 2011, as we’ve reported.
* Calls for stripping members of Congress of their current health care benefits and forcing them to participate "in the same health care system as the American people." But which "system"? Most Americans are covered either by employer-sponsored health insurance or by various government-sponsored programs, such as Medicare for those age 65 and over or Medicaid for lower-income persons. Currently members of Congress have the same health insurance options as millions of other federal employees and retirees and their families. The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program gives them a wide choice of private insurance plans. And according to the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly 51 million persons in the U.S. had no health insurance at all in 2009 — just under 17 percent of the population. (The author may have been laboring under the false impression that Congress somehow "exempted" itself from the new health care law, a bit of nonsense that was based on a number of misrepresentations that we addressed last year.)
* Urges that members of Congress should "purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do." But that’s also nonsense. Relatively few Americans buy retirement plans entirely out of their own pockets. In fact, just under half of all Americans worked in 2009 for an employer that sponsors a retirement plan, according to the most recent information from the Employee Benefit Research Institute. And among those who worked full time for the entire year, 54 percent actually participated in an employer-sponsored plan. About 12 percent are self-employed, EBRI says, and so may be in a position to buy a retirement plan for themselves. But 27 percent had incomes of under $10,000 that year, too little to be putting much if anything away for retirement.

The author of this message advocates setting 12-year term limits on members of Congress, saying they "should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work." It also calls for voiding "all contracts" with past and present members of Congress, which may be a clumsy way of calling for cutting off all pension and health care benefits even for those who have already retired. (We’re not sure what "contracts" this person was thinking of.) Those are all opinions, with which readers may choose to agree or disagree. We take no position either way. What we do say is that the author argues for these opinions by making factual claims that betray a profound ignorance of the system he or she proposes to "reform."

I got this Email about 3 months ago and posted a thread here detailing the same OP. What I found was the response was to say the least underwhelming. It appears people prefer to bitch rather than bother with possible solutions.

I think we should mine the border. Think of all the people that would be hired by the company that makes Claymore mines.

Same basic argument. Until the people in charge of writing passing and implementing our laws show that they are trustworthy enough to abide by current law, there is absolutely no sane reason to give them to more power to make deeper more fundamental changes.

We can't even trust the Judicial system at this point! The supreme court has recently had cases involving the first and second ammendments before them and in both instances they only sided with our first two ammendments by 5-4 decisions. We are litterally 1 supreme court justice away from losing freedom of speech and the right to keep and bare arms. Just this year, the president directed the head of the justice department not to enforce a law that passed by a large majority of both parties became law and has been in force for over a decade.

Right now, congress can't even agree on a budget that by constitutional law should have been passed by last years congress! It's that bad. Our government is so corrupt we litterally need a miracle.

Last Edited by Resister on 03/30/2011 04:21 PM