Posted on 08/25/2013 2:36:07 PM PDT by Jacquerie
Amendment to establish congressional term limits. No more than twelve total years combined in house and senate.
Amendment to repeal the 17th Amendment. Governors may fill vacancies to fill out remainder of terms. Upon two thirds vote, state legislatures may remove their senators.
Amendment to establish twelve year term limits on scotus. On three-fifths vote, and within twenty four months of a ruling, congress or the states may override scotus decisions. These overrides are not subject to judicial review.
Congress shall submit preliminary budget to president by first Monday in May for the next fiscal year. Should congress/president not adopt a budget by October 1st, the budget shall be set at 5% less than the last year’s budget. Outlays no greater than receipts and no greater than 17.5% of previous year’s GDP. Congress may suspend the 17.5% limit for one year on a roll call vote of 3/5 of members. National debt to require 3/5 roll call vote. Maximum limit of 15% income tax. Deadline for filing tax returns shall be the day before elections to federal office. Ban on tax of decedent’s estate.
All federal departments expire unless individually reauthorized in stand-alone legislation every three years. A joint committee of congress shall review and approve all executive branch regulations that exceed $100 million in economic burden. There is a six month window. If the committee does not approve within that time, the regulation dies.
Congressional power to regulate commerce does not extend to activity within a state, regardless of effect on interstate commerce. No entity may be compelled to participate in trade or commerce.
Property owners shall be compensated for actual seizure or when a market value reduction of $10,000 or more occurs through regulation, interference, financial loss caused by any governmental entity.
State legislatures, on two-thirds vote, may amend the constitution. Six year limit from first state to ratify. No state may rescind or ratify during the six year limit.
All congressional bills shall be placed on the public record for a minimum of thirty days before final votes. Two-thirds of congress may override. Three-fifths vote of state legislatures may nullify/repeal a federal statute or executive branch regulation that exceeds $100 million in economic burden. Nullification is not subject to any court review. States have two years to exercise this authority.
Photo ID required to register and vote. States will provide them at no cost if necessary. Excepting military personnel, there shall be no early voting more than thirty days prior to the date of the election. More restrictions to reduce third party registration and voting fraud.
Restoring the American Republic ping!
I’m on board.
We should all be contacting our state representatives and educating them about this.
It may be our last best chance to change things.
Thanks
Levin’s discussions on the Constitution are as quaint as discussing Shakespeare or poems by Robert Frost.
The founders made their arguments and backed each one up with musket.
No state may rescind or modify it during the six year limit.
Holy crap. I agree with every one of these.
Why change the number of legislatures required to ratify any amendment though? It’s 3/5 now, no?
Proposal:
There are two ways to propose an amendment to the Constitution.
Article V gives Congress and an Amendments Convention exactly the same power to propose amendments, no more and no less.
Disposal:
Once Congress, or an Amendments Convention, proposes amendments, Congress must decide whether the states will ratify by the:
The State Ratifying Convention Method has only been used twice: once to ratify the Constitution, and once to ratify the 21st Amendment repealing Prohibition.
Ratification:
Depending upon which ratification method is chosen by Congress, either the state legislatures vote up-or-down on the proposed amendment, or the voters elect a state ratifying convention to vote up-or-down. If three-quarters of the states vote to ratify, the amendment becomes part of the Constitution.
That is how we achieved independence. As opposed to Magna Charta and the English Bill of Rights which were extracted from unwilling princes, we formed a government in an unusual way . . . through peaceful deliberation.
Need to add that all members of congress are subject to the laws they pass. No exclusion or special privilege allowed
Term limits! The Founders never intended Congress to be a lifetime position.
Mark may have something designed for this, as well, but this is great. Thank you!
No congressional or scotus involvement necessary or possible.
It is federalism at its best.
Sounds like anti-Federalism, no?
The statists in DC who profit so much from the system they corrupted are incapable of reform.
Number three stinks badly. No matter how attractive it might look on its surface, it actually embeds judicial supremacy, which is the opposite of the constitutional form of representative self-government given to us by the founders. Bad court opinions, and bad laws, are already null and void, according to the fundamental natural law principles laid down by men like Cicero, and Aquinas, and Blackstone, and Hamilton.
Glaringly missing from his list is any amendment to protect marriage, or innocent human life in the womb. A pretty big oversight, considering where the country is right now.
In any case, the calling of a constitutional convention at a time when our political class is rank with those who won’t even keep their oaths to support and defend the Constitution we’ve already got, and who lack the most basic principles upon which our Constitution is premised, is a supremely bad idea.
JUST SAY “NO, NO” TO THE CONCON!
While an excellent argument can be made for term limits (which, along with elimination of the fat pensions, perks and LAME DUCK SESSIONS, I favor), I would offer that, currently, our chances of getting them are somewhere between slim and none.
The sad fact that we are even discussing them is a manifestation of the even sadder fact that, until recently, Americans have grown complacently inattentive to the actions of and abuses by government at all levels. The phrase “Let George do it” springs to mind. More folks know the names of the characters on “Lost” and “Dancing With The Stars” than know who allegedly “represents” them in the House.
Having said that, I must respectfully disagree with calls for a Constitutional Convention. I do so for the same reasons I joined with others to repel the push for a ConCon during the Carter maladministration.
Please recall that the FIRST ConCon was convened to REVISE the Articles of Confederation and, while it produced a radically different – and arguably superior – national charter, the problem to which I referred at the top would almost certainly lead to a loss of even more of the freedoms too many of us now take for granted.
A second ConCon would be populated by current STATE political elites who have been selected BY their fellow STATE political elites. Think Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, John Kerry, Fortney “Pete” Stark, Maxine Waters or their philosophical clones etc. and be afraid. Be VERY AFRAID!
Unfortunately for us and our liberties, General Washington, Messers. Madison, Franklin, Adams, Sherman and the others will not be there this time. Once in session, THERE WOULD BE NO PRACTICAL WAY TO CONTROL THE NEW CAST OF CHARACTERS.
But, say you, the PEOPLE would have to ratify any such actions. Please recall that, today, these would be the same people who gave us Barrack Obama and hundreds of “progressives” on Capitol Hill in 2008.
Yes, so far 2010 appears to have been a SLIGHT course change and, no, I’m not giving up on the people. In our system, they should, within Constitutional constraints, have the last word.
Mr. Jefferson’s advice in that area comes to mind:
“I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.”
Those of us who wish to save this nation and return it to a condition the Founders would again recognize must continue to “…inform their discretion.”
Check out GOOOH as a better way to get this country back on the rails (and run most of these incumbent bums out of town on one). WWW.GOOOH.COM.
What's this?
I don’t agree with the amendment allowing Congress to override the Supreme Court. If a party gets enough seats, they could do anything they want, including effectively nullifying one of the first 10 amendments.
I will let you guess the first one that would fall.
“...If a party gets enough seats,
hey could do anything they want,
including effectively nullifying
one of the first 10 amendments...”
-
That is already true today.
BTW, the Democrats were only 4 seats short of 3/5ths in the House, and had effective control of 60 seats in the Senate in 2009.
Can you imagine what they would have done if they knew they could override the Supreme Court?
...reduce third party registration...”
-
It is not talking about you registering to be a member of a third party.
It is talking about how third party groups such as ACORN and ACLU etc. organize and register voters.
Stand by Dicky boy, you are about to get flamed like I did last night.
Oh, I agree with you 100%. You are correct, but that won’t matter.
You, with your post, have “embarrassed” yourself. Chowderhead!
Open your mail tomorrow, you will see what I mean.
Keep a stiff upper lip!
Much of the damage scotus has inflicted these past 80 years was at the expense of those powers not granted to the federal government, i.e. those reserved to the states.
A senate of the states will be far different from the one that is currently populated by demagogic buffoons.
I hoped so. Thanks for the clarification.
"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." - Chief Justice John Roberts
Their biggest mistake in 2009,
when they had full control of the house, the senate, the presidency, and the media,
was that they did not appoint 10 new supreme court justices.
There was nothing that could have stopped them from doing it.
You can’t repeal that what was never passed.
If you try to have a limited Con-Con once opened then they can do anything they want.
See Dr. Edwin Vieria and his books and articles on the subject. He nails it.
If you have the Con-Con who will be the delegates? Any one you trust in politics today?
Sounds like anti-Federalism, no?
Read the book by that title. ( The Anti-Federalists) Not everyone agreed with the federalists for good reason. Reads like a prophecy book.
BookMark
These are great, but since The Constitution and Amendments we already have are being violated with impunity every day, it's a bit like tilting at windmills to propose more.
No on Schumer, yes on Frank, no on Pelosi, no on Reid, yes on Kerry, yes on Stark, no on Waters, yes on philosophical clones.
Article I Section 6.
-PJ
Concerning how delegates to an Amendments Convention would be chosen and how it would conduct business, I have two reference works. I respectfully suggest you print them off and study them because they have two completely different visions as to how it would work.
The first is from the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative pro-business group. That makes me believe they just might be the good guys. I like the conclusions to which the author arrived. This document has been sent to every state legislator in the country.
Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States: A Handbook for State Lawmakers
The second is a 1973 report from the American Bar Association, a lobbying group, attempting to identify gray areas in the amendatory process to include an Amendments Convention. It represents the view of the ruling class of 40 years ago. I don't like some of their conclusions, but they have laid out the precedents that may justify those conclusions. What I respect is the comprehensive job they did in locating all the gray areas. The even identified in 1973 a gray area that didn't pop up until the Equal Rights Amendment crashed and burned in 1982. Even if you find yourself in disagreement with their vision, it's worth a read to see how and why the ruling class will try to take over and run an Amendments Convention. (For the record, I am not on their side.)
Report of the ABA Special Constitutional Convention Study Committee
Dear Mr. Justlurking,
Please try “justreading” instead of “justlurking”. The proposed power of Congress to overrule a ruling of the Supreme Court must be exercised within two years of the ruling.
In any case I fail to see how that has anything to do with overruling existing provisions of the Constitution. I could say that you seem confused, but that might be too generous.
Today's senators are putty in Obama’s hands because they are popularly elected. Return the senate to the framers’ design.
Please read the post.
"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."
First question, would the Constitutional convention be a civil office under the authority of the United States? Isn't the reason behind it to keep it separate from the federal government? Second question, don't you think there aren't a ton of Schumer clones and Pelosi clones and Reid and Kerry and Waters clones who would do everything they could to be a convention delegate?
You really think so? Why?
A most excellent question!
On the hundredth anniversary of the horrible 17th Amendment, I posted this.
Dear Mr. Bachert,
There seem to be a number of posters on this subject who fall into one or more of the following categories:
The willfully ignorant
The terminally indolent
The woefully indifferent
The pathologically negative
Let’s go one by one: You repeatedly refer to a Constitutional Convention. Please hear me on this, one and all: There is NO, repeat NO Constitutional provision endorsing or providing for a Constitutional Convention of any sort, nor is one under discussion here. Your insistent use of the term “Con-Con” reveals your willful ignorance.
Your reference to the complacency and inattentiveness of others is sadly reflective of your own complacency and inattentiveness, and reveals your terminal indolence. While you cavil about the abuses of government, it has fallen to me and my like-minded brothers and sisters (Georges and Georgettes) to actually DO something about it. Please enjoy your armchair while you can.
Your equation of the present effort with something that occurred during the Carter years (and IIRC there was an actual proposal for a Constitutional Convention floating around back then) is stunningly disingenuous, and reveals your woeful indifference, in this case an indifference to the truth.
Finally, I note that you argue that the present effort’s chance of success lies somewhere between slim and none, as if the success of a venture must be determined before the process is engaged. That attitude reveals your pathological negativity.
It is obvious to me from the number of people making posts such as yours that many people are suffering from one or more of the maladies mentioned. I chalk that up to years of living under the statist yoke. I hope that these folks will be encouraged by the coming debate and process - maybe even you.
On the other hand these posts could be plants by DU types terrified that true Americans might just actually succeed in taking the country back, and are trying to spread FUD.
I’m not sure which you are.
An excellent response.
PLEASE, please everyone, cease and desist referring to a “Constitutional Convention”. This is misleading too many people into false thoughts - it’s so lazy, inaccurate and dangerously deceitful that I have concluded that its usage here is probably a statist tactic to divert and derail the debate.
Please call it a “Convention of the States” or a “Convention for Proposing Amendments to the Constitution”. Anything but what it is not.
And what is it not? It is NOT NOT NOT a Constitutional Convention, nothing like it at all.
As for the first ten amendments, how many are respected and enforced today?
Most of the first, fourth, fifth, ninth and tenth amendments are in various stages of decay or practical nonexistence.
The ones that are at least somewhat in force, have champions outside the consolidated government to protect them.
Until recently, the press was ready to pounce on any pol who threatened their freedom.
The second amendment is mostly in force only because of gun rights groups.
The sixth to eighth are protected by lawyer groups.
Which of the above are actively secured and protected by congress, by the people sworn to protect the constitution?
Ditto.
I used to use the term "Article V Convention" until somebody asked me what Article V was.
I now use the term "Amendments Convention" because Judge Andrew Napolitano uses it and because it is succinct and to the point.
I don't like the term "Convention of the States" because it is not as clear, but I occasionally use the term "the States Assembled in Convention".
The term "Convention for Proposing Amendments" is right out of the Constitution, but it has too many words.
Check them out.
To be precise in language, "federal government" means Article I legislative offices, Article II executive offices, and Article III judiciary offices, along with Article I-authorized lower courts. Article V conventions derive their authority from the same place as Article I, II, and III office-holders, the United States Constitution.
"Under authority of the United States" also includes the states themselves, since it is the people and the states that ordained and established the Constitution in the first place. I can't imagine a definition of "authority of the United States" that excludes the states themselves from authority. The Constitution has limits on what the federal government can do, and it has limits on what the states can do, but Amendments 9 and 10 made it clear that the states held supreme authority for anything not specifically delegated by them to the federal government.
To the second question, you are correct that there are many clones. So be it. The point is that the currently seated Article I office-holders cannot participate in an Article V convention without first resigning from their Article I offices.
-PJ
Last week, it was stated that Obamacare encroaches on privacy in the home inferred by the 3rd amendment, as it declares that the federal government now has the right to demand inspection of private homes at any time to verify Obamacare health regulations.
Quartering of soldiers during peacetime = agents of the federal government, according to the Supreme Court in past rulings.
-PJ
Thank you.
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.