PDA

View Full Version : Constitutional Amendment whose time has come?



Madisonian
07-23-2011, 09:44 PM
Talking on the phone Friday night with another member, the topic of the 2012 campaign came up.
During the discussion, I mentioned something that ticks me off to no end and we thought it might make a good discussion topic.

Here is the gripe.

I think there should be a Constitutional Amendment (the only way it could happen) that would require any person on the Federal payroll, regardless of position, to resign the current position prior to running for any other Federal elected position other than the one they currently hold.

If Congress member, Cabinet member, or whatever other federally paid position they hold person X is running for whatever elected position and running around the country campaigning or fund raising, first of all they are not doing the job they are sucking money from the government to do.

Secondly, if that person has the determination to run for an elected office (other than one they currently hold), then they should have the backbone to do it without having a still waiting job should they fail.

If a person is running for re-election to the same position, then their compensation should be pro rata reduced by the amount of time seeking re-election and their should be a time limitation (4 to 6 months) that they cannot raise funds or actively campaign before the general election.

The reasons for this should be obvious.
Any of us regular working stiffs could not go to our bosses and say we want to be paid and retain our job while taking 6 months to a year or more to seek another. Why should our elected or wish to be elected employees be any different?
As I also mentioned, whether it be John Kerry, John McCain, Michelle Bachmann, Hillary Clinton or whoever else, if you are going to run for President, Senator or House member, then quit your current job and let it be given to someone that will fill out the term. Otherwise they are short changing their constituents, bilking all the taxpayers and not doing the job they are being paid rather handsomely (by most of our standards) to do.

So what are your thoughts and what would you add or subtract if this were proposed as an Amendment?

Rockntractor
07-23-2011, 10:19 PM
Talking on the phone Friday night with another member, the topic of the 2012 campaign came up.
During the discussion, I mentioned something that ticks me off to no end and we thought it might make a good discussion topic.

Here is the gripe.

I think there should be a Constitutional Amendment (the only way it could happen) that would require any person on the Federal payroll, regardless of position, to resign the current position prior to running for any other Federal elected position other than the one they currently hold.

If Congress member, Cabinet member, or whatever other federally paid position they hold person X is running for whatever elected position and running around the country campaigning or fund raising, first of all they are not doing the job they are sucking money from the government to do.

Secondly, if that person has the determination to run for an elected office (other than one they currently hold), then they should have the backbone to do it without having a still waiting job should they fail.

If a person is running for re-election to the same position, then their compensation should be pro rata reduced by the amount of time seeking re-election and their should be a time limitation (4 to 6 months) that they cannot raise funds or actively campaign before the general election.

The reasons for this should be obvious.
Any of us regular working stiffs could not go to our bosses and say we want to be paid and retain our job while taking 6 months to a year or more to seek another. Why should our elected or wish to be elected employees be any different?
As I also mentioned, whether it be John Kerry, John McCain, Michelle Bachmann, Hillary Clinton or whoever else, if you are going to run for President, Senator or House member, then quit your current job and let it be given to someone that will fill out the term. Otherwise they are short changing their constituents, bilking all the taxpayers and not doing the job they are being paid rather handsomely (by most of our standards) to do.

So what are your thoughts and what would you add or subtract if this were proposed as an Amendment?

I agree, but it is small potatoes compared to some of the stuff that goes on, like the redistricting, gerrymandering.
There is a whole laundry list of things we could use amendments for.

NJCardFan
07-23-2011, 10:26 PM
A Constitutional Amendment who's time has come? That's easy. Amendment XVI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitut ion).

Madisonian
07-23-2011, 10:30 PM
No doubt about that.
It just bugs me that when Kerry or McCain ran for the top spot, they had all to gain and nothing to lose.
They were still Senators the night after the election.
On top of that they boondoggle off to "fact finding missions" or whatever other bloviated bullshit they call it on our dime while in reality they are campaigning or fund raising.
To me its called courage of your convictions.
If I were a Representative or Senator, I know there is no way in Hell that I could do the job I was holding and elected to do with the passion and determination required and run for President at the same time.
And I have seen and heard enough from these people to know that a super majority of them are certainly no smarter than I am.

jnkbortka
07-23-2011, 11:03 PM
term limits for senators and representatives, anyone?

Rockntractor
07-23-2011, 11:29 PM
term limits for senators and representatives, anyone?

Yeah, add it to the list.

lacarnut
07-24-2011, 12:20 AM
No doubt about that.

And I have seen and heard enough from these people to know that a super majority of them are certainly no smarter than I am.

Most of them are lawyers too that do not enough common sense that God gave a jackass. .

Odysseus
07-24-2011, 12:31 AM
term limits for senators and representatives, anyone?

Absolutely. And repeal term limits for presidents. I'd much rather have term limits for legislators than executives. The logic is this: A legislator can spend years hiding in the anonymity of the house or senate, without any accomplishments, and unless his/her conduct is so egregious that their own party ditches them, or they are convicted of a felony, it's almost impossible to get rid of them. A president, OTOH, is held responsible for everything that happens on his watch, right or wrong. By way of example, in the last 50 years, LBJ, Ford, Carter and GHW Bush failed to secure second terms on their own, and Obama is looking increasingly like a one-termer.

fettpett
07-24-2011, 08:45 AM
term limits for senators and representatives, anyone?

that could/should be added to the OP.


@Madison I've thought that for years. It pisses me off that these hacks can run for higher office and their current office at the same time, while neglecting their duties in their current position.

JB
07-24-2011, 10:35 AM
Absolutely. Especially in these long election cycles we have now. These aholes are on the campaign trail for a year or more.

Either that or look for your new job the way the rest of us do...lie to your boss about why you need to leave three hours early today.

Apache
07-24-2011, 01:15 PM
Absolutely. And repeal term limits for presidents. ....

I can't believe I disagree with you on something :(

CaughtintheMiddle1990
07-24-2011, 09:00 PM
I can't believe I disagree with you on something :(

Reagan felt the 22nd Amendment should be repealed too. By the way, did you know Reagan also was in favor of the Brady Bill?
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html

Odysseus
07-24-2011, 09:21 PM
I can't believe I disagree with you on something :(
Nobody's perfect. :D

The 22nd Amendment was a reaction to Roosevelt, and it was the wrong one. An originalist interpretation of the Constitution would have eviscerated the New Deal (as it did with the National Recovery Act), but the elites failed to enforce the standards of the Constitution. Instead, they amended it in order to prevent what the document already would have prevented, had they just had the courage and integrity to pursue it. Creating a bad law to fix the errors caused by not enforcing a good law is typical of those who only pretend to govern.

Reagan felt the 22nd Amendment should be repealed too. By the way, did you know Reagan also was in favor of the Brady Bill?
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/opinion/why-i-m-for-the-brady-bill.html

Reagan was right about so many things that we can forgive him his occasional error, and in this case, even though I disagree with him, much of his logic was sound. Reagan favored the waiting period provision because he favored background checks. Once those checks became instantaneous, the waiting period became pointless. His concerns about "heat of the moment" purchases have proven to be wrong, as most guns used in crimes are purchased well in advance of the crime (including John Hinkley's). Finally, the proposition that the feds have the standing to dictate sales of firearms within the states is of such dubious constitutionality that it's shocking that Reagan would have agreed with it, but given his deeply personal involvement with the circumstances surrounding the bill, it is understandable that his judgement in this one area was not as clear as it might have been.

megimoo
07-24-2011, 10:18 PM
Absolutely. And repeal term limits for presidents. I'd much rather have term limits for legislators than executives. The logic is this: A legislator can spend years hiding in the anonymity of the house or senate, without any accomplishments, and unless his/her conduct is so egregious that their own party ditches them, or they are convicted of a felony, it's almost impossible to get rid of them. A president, OTOH, is held responsible for everything that happens on his watch, right or wrong. By way of example, in the last 50 years, LBJ, Ford, Carter and GHW Bush failed to secure second terms on their own, and Obama is looking increasingly like a one-termer.
For one thing term limits will never happen while the legislature gets to vote on it.Why should they cut their own throats when they can vote it down.As for presidential term limits the congress doesn't want a sitting president to stay in office for too long .The memory of FDR in office for over twelve years and limiting their possible runs will gall most of the egotistical congresses presendential contenders.

Articulate_Ape
07-24-2011, 10:45 PM
term limits for senators and representatives, anyone?

A bad idea. While attractive on the surface, the unintended consequences would be ugly and painful enough to demand an uncertain repeal.

Odysseus
07-25-2011, 10:18 AM
A bad idea. While attractive on the surface, the unintended consequences would be ugly and painful enough to demand an uncertain repeal.

If the results in NYC (the City Council is term-limited) are any indication, it would actually be a good idea. The pols hate it, and the constant turnover demands that the public evaluate new candidates on a regular basis. It hasn't made the NYC Council any less liberal, but it has cut down on the graft and corruption, as they don't have the time to get entrenched.

noonwitch
07-25-2011, 03:08 PM
term limits for senators and representatives, anyone?


The courts have ruled against it for senators and representatives in the federal system. Michigan has term limits on governors and legislators. When that law was passed, it also included limits on US Congressional reps and Senators. I don't know which court struck down that part of the law (which was a ballot initiative), but it was struck.

It really sucked for those guys who were trying to get rid of Senator Levin with the law. That law might have been passed in 1990 (I'm not sure, but it was a big year for voter initiatives) , so they have had to suffer under 20 more years of oppression by a liberal Senator that the vast majority of voters have chosen to return to office several more times.

Odysseus
07-25-2011, 03:41 PM
The courts have ruled against it for senators and representatives in the federal system. Michigan has term limits on governors and legislators. When that law was passed, it also included limits on US Congressional reps and Senators. I don't know which court struck down that part of the law (which was a ballot initiative), but it was struck.

It really sucked for those guys who were trying to get rid of Senator Levin with the law. That law might have been passed in 1990 (I'm not sure, but it was a big year for voter initiatives) , so they have had to suffer under 20 more years of oppression by a liberal Senator that the vast majority of voters have chosen to return to office several more times.

Actually, the courts have ruled against it being imposed by the states in the federal system. There is no reason that it cannot be imposed by amendment or even legislation at the federal level, not that this would happen. It would have to originate in the states as an amendment.

BTW, the best argument for term limits is that it limits the amount of times that a state can impose a Carl Levin on the rest of us, no matter how popular he is among his own. Even if you like Levin, you have to admit that there are members who have long outlived their usefulness (if they ever had any in the first place) and who would benefit from having to hold a real job for a change. Think Charlie Rangel, for example.

Another idea is that any member who exceeds a certain number of terms must be barred from the ballot, but can be voted for on a write-in vote, or that after so many years, they must win an up/down vote to be put on the ballot. That way, the party bosses have limited control over keeping incumbents in place.