Skip to comments.Repeal the 20th Amendment! (Vanity)
Posted on 11/03/2010 8:43:01 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator
I am of course disappointed that, unlike 1994, the Republican party didn't take both houses of Congress. This was a "bloodbath?" Please! Needless to say I'm also disappointed with the results in Nevada, Alaska, Delaware, and other such places where Dems who were "sure to lose" did not.
However, regardless of who wins Congressional elections, we have the same problem: Congress is in session continually, made up of people who legislate for a living, doing just that. Congress has basically been in session continuously since 1933.
Prior to that time Congress was made up of people who did something else for a living. They spent most of the year at home, Congress meeting for only about three months a year (aside from emergency sessions). But since 1933 all this has changed--at first thanks to an emergency session, but afterward make permanent by the 20th or "Lame Duck" Amendment to the Constitution.
I have read many ideas offered by others to solve our dilemma: repeal the income tax, rein in the courts, restrict the franchise, return to selection of Senators by State legislatures, etc., etc., etc. But it occurs to me that, whatever the merits (or demerits) of all the above, we'd all be a lot safer if the national legislature simply were not in session and making laws continuously.
Granted, Dems could do a lot of damage in three month sessions, but nothing compared to what they do legislating almost 365 days a year.
I suggest repealing the 20th Amendment, abolishing the concept of the "professional legislator," and restricting the time periods during which laws are made.
What do my fellow FReepers think?
What do you think?
I don’t follow this. The 20th amendment changed the start of Congressional and Presidential terms of office to start in January instead of March. Was there also something in there mandating that Congress meets year-round instead of part-time?
I don’t disagree about sending Congress home and having them be in Washington less. But, I’m just unclear what that amendment to the Constitution has to do with that.
First of all, I need to ask “How many more laws does our country need?” I think that if our Congress wants to stay at work in Washington during the next year, do so only to get rid of the thousands of laws we don’t want or need. Then go to a six month session. (Also cut the pay accordingly).
they should repel every law passed since 1935,and pass one more law making it against the law to pass any more laws.that would save a bunch of money.
It was Willis Carrier’s invention of modern air conditioning that lead to a permanent legislature. Prior to that, the humidity in the region impelled the representatives to leave during the warm months.
How about this for an agenda? Instead of raising the debt limit a Trillion dollars at a time, do so monthly. Tie the 100 billion dollar increases to the elimination of govt. If 0bama wants the govt to remain running for say February of 2011, you cut the NEA, or just the part of it that gives money to PBS and NPR. If he refuses to sign it, the govt shuts down, and BE READY to tell the country what is happening. Do this and they should be able to cut 10-12 wasteful programs from the Federal budget slowly, like they were introduced to the country.
What do I think?
I think that if we kick the northeast and west coast states out of the union we’ll be alright.
I think it should be like states like WY or MT, only meet a couple of months and cut pay accordingly ! And impost a 2/3 or better, 3/4 majority to pass new laws and new taxes and a simple majority to repeal laws and reduce taxes.
I dont disagree about sending Congress home and having them be in Washington less. But, Im just unclear what that amendment to the Constitution has to do with that.
It's true that the Amendment moved the beginning of Presidential/Congressional terms from Mar. to Jan. But Congress used to meet from Dec. to Mar. and then dismiss when their terms ended. Although the terms of new members of Congress began officially on 3/4, unless called into emergency session they didn't actually assemble until the following Dec.
I had thought the 20th Amendment had something to do with this. With terms expiring on 3/3 Congress met through the winter months and then adjourned until the following Dec. unless called into emergency session. If the terms remained restricted the mere change of dates wouldn't be that important.
As it is, unelected and faceless regulators have far too much power.
The amendment which TRULY needs repealed is that which gave females the right to vote. Thanks to the brainless “fair sex”, we were given Clinton and Hussein! And last night a MAJORITY of females STILL voted democrat. What a mistake...allowing these creatures to screw up the US and trample on the Constitution.
I think that if we kick the northeast and west coast states out of the union well be alright.
Good thing this isn't 1896!
Shorten Senators’ term to 4 years, or better yet, 2. Shorten representatives terms to 1 year.
Look at it this way (as I posted on a thread last night):
Not only did the Democrats have a 59-41 edge in the U.S. Senate coming into 2010, but they had a huge advantage in the way the six-year Senate terms came up for election in 2010. There were 40 Democratic seats in the U.S. Senate where there was no election this year, while the Republicans only had 23.
Based on that fact alone, this should have been an opportunity for the Democrats to make big gains in the Senate. But that party is in such terrible shape that they've had a hard fight just to hold onto their seats -- while the Republicans successfully defended all of their incumbents and added a few more.
2012 will be a very different story -- and will be a much better opportunity for the GOP to win the Senate. Of the 33 Senate seats up for election in 2012, only 10 are now Republican seats and 21 are held by Democrats (the other 2 are the Democratic-leaning "independents" in Vermont and Connecticut). There are quite a few vulnerable Democrats in 2012 -- and by "vulnerable" I mean Democrats running in states that either supported GOP presidential candidates in at least two of the last three presidential elections or had strong GOP showings in 2010. By my count, these would include:
Bill Nelson (FL)
Claire McCaskill (MO)
Debbie Stabenow (MI)
Jon Tester (MT)
Ben Nelson (NE)
Jeff Bingaman (NM)
Kent Conrad (ND)
Sherrod Brown (OH)
Jim Webb (VA)
Joe Manchin (WV)*
Herb Kohl (WI)
I put an asterisk (*) by Manchin's name because I don't even consider him a Democrat for the sake of this discussion. He's on such a short leash as a Senator for West Virginia over the next two years that he'll probably oppose his fellow Democrats on most policy issues. If Obama goes into the 2012 election cycle with very low popularity ratings, look for Manchin to publicly announce that he's joining the KKK in a desperate attempt to distance himself from the Obama administration.
By my count, the only really vulnerable Senate Republicans in 2012 are Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Olympia Snowe of Maine, with John Ensign of Nevada and Bob Corker of Tennessee also somewhat vulnerable because of scandals and/or close races in their last election bids.
It's November 3, 2010.
I suggest replacing the 20th as it now exists with the start of a new Congress moved to 1st Mon in Dec for the Congress, Tue following for the Electorial College, and then Pres on Thursday following.
Also, there would be no session of the old Congress so a lameduck situation could not occur
We need to remove the A/C from the Capitol and from all Congressional offices in DC. That might have a salubrious effect on legislation...
As it has been posted in so many threads here at FR,
Zero will not be able to run in 2012 primaries or do anything but try to stay out of jail in next 2 years because there are at least 20+ states that will have laws in place to make certain that those states must certify that a candidate for POTUS or any election be a verifiable US citizen and meets ALL requirements for the position in question.
Zero's illegibility will never go away so he is as of now a lameduck illegal officeholder.
“Shorten Senators term to 4 years, or better yet, 2. Shorten representatives terms to 1 year.”
Oh, great, instead of doing anything else, once elected a brand new House member would go to their swearing in ceremony and then return home to start campaigning for their re-election 11 months later.
If anything I would keep all house races to the “off years” - the non-Presidential-election years - and increase the terms to four years - almost insuring the exec and the majority in the legislature will be on opposite sides of the aisle; increasing the chances of both grid-lock and only essential compromise; not bad things to have when what you want is limited government.
Interesting idea. Good to encounter someone else at least willing to think about improvements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.