What should the 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution address?

[Dancing David]

Every president shall be executed immediately on leaving office. This will prevent them from attempting to use their office for personal gain, and also discourage frivolous candidates from running.

I think a little ritual torture at the inauguration as well...

 

[elbe]

I'm torn between having everyone (US Houses and President) limited to one term, possibly extending that one term as well, and removing all term limits.

 

[quadraginta]

I'm torn between having everyone (US Houses and President) limited to one term, possibly extending that one term as well, and removing all term limits.

Term limits have never made any sense to me.

If a business were to spend the time and money to train someone for a job, and then promptly fire them as soon as they had an opportunity to become familiar with it we would question that business's sanity.

If the voters cannot be depended upon to exercise good judgment about someone's demonstrated performance in office, how can they be expected to make any useful judgment about someone else who hasn't done it at all?

 

[elbe]

Term limits have never made any sense to me.

If a business were to spend the time and money to train someone for a job, and then promptly fire them as soon as they had an opportunity to become familiar with it we would question that business's sanity.

If the voters cannot be depended upon to exercise good judgment about someone's demonstrated performance in office, how can they be expected to make any useful judgment about someone else who hasn't done it at all?

I think the benefit of having one term is that they won't spend half their term running for reelection, which I think is a waste.

 

[Trakar]

...If the voters cannot be depended upon to exercise good judgment about someone's demonstrated performance in office, how can they be expected to make any useful judgment about someone else who hasn't done it at all?

And this is the primary fault around which all US politics revolves! How to insure that all the other dunderheads voting do so objectively and reasonably based upon extensive knowledge of economics, international affairs, legislative procedure and judicial precedence!

 

[quadraginta]

And this is the primary fault around which all US politics revolves! How to insure that all the other dunderheads voting do so objectively and reasonably based upon extensive knowledge of economics, international affairs, legislative procedure and judicial precedence!

Well, it is one of the drawbacks of participatory government. That's where the first part of that "... except for all the others." Churchill quote comes from.

 

[IchabodPlain]

I'd restate the bloody obvious: the commerce clause is not, and never was, intended to be a grant of power to regulate anything under the sun as long as some tenuous nexus can be invented to show that commerce across state lines could possibly be affected, and is instead a grant of power to the federal government to strike down state laws that impede interstate commerce.

The bolded bits are saying relatively the same thing. Impeding is affecting, and I can't think of a single issue where the federal government promotes restricting trade between states.

Take health care for instance, using the wording of both, the federal government can strike down state restrictions on health care insurers and set a national standard. The federal government can also require citizens in each state to purchase health care, which also facilitates interstate commerce.

It's kind of ridiculous to have to restate something that should be as plain as day to anyone with more than one functioning brain cell, but it seems some people need this spelled out for them. We should probably use small words so they can understand what the amendment says, too.

Sure, as long as the right small words are used.

 

[Dancing David]

I think the benefit of having one term is that they won't spend half their term running for reelection, which I think is a waste.

Limiting all campaign spending wuold solve that problem. term limits for Congress are silly, if you keep your constituents happy then they can vote for you, if not then they vote against you.

 

[Trakar]

Limiting all campaign spending wuold solve that problem. term limits for Congress are silly, if you keep your constituents happy then they can vote for you, if not then they vote against you.

I would prefer both. but it only makes sense if it is universally applied, some states with limits and other states with no limits is not reasonable.

 

[quadraginta]

I would prefer both. but it only makes sense if it is universally applied, some states with limits and other states with no limits is not reasonable.

If the voters of any particular state decide, as a group, to confirm by statute their inability to evaluate their representatives based on performance, and vote accordingly I would not want to stand in their way.

I have harbored such suspicions about some states for many years. Living as I do in a state which kept Jesse Helms in the Senate for thirty years, that suspicion approaches near certainty.

Living next door to a state which kept Strom Thurmond there for forty seven doesn't help much, either.

 

[Trakar]

If the voters of any particular state decide, as a group, to confirm by statute their inability to evaluate their representatives based on performance, and vote accordingly I would not want to stand in their way.

I have harbored such suspicions about some states for many years. Living as I do in a state which kept Jesse Helms in the Senate for thirty years, that suspicion approaches near certainty.

Living next door to a state which kept Strom Thurmond there for forty seven doesn't help much, either.

I think part of the problem is seperating the "good governance" and reflecting my district's political views from the "I brought home the federal loot for twenty years" - perhaps some form of Bacon Recusement rule where if a law or bill involves significant financial gain for your particular district the effected representative is automatically recused from voting on the issue and is not counted in either the vote or the vote total for that bill.

 

[quadraginta]

I think part of the problem is seperating the "good governance" and reflecting my district's political views from the "I brought home the federal loot for twenty years" - perhaps some form of Bacon Recusement rule where if a law or bill involves significant financial gain for your particular district the effected representative is automatically recused from voting on the issue and is not counted in either the vote or the vote total for that bill.

I'm not entirely sure I understood that.

I do not condemn Congresscritters for efforts made in support of their immediate constituency. Yes, I realize that there are "greater good" issues which might cause me to prefer that they act in a fashion perhaps not perfectly aligned with the individuals who voted for them, and at times I encourage this, but I also understand that a large part of their responsibilities consist of looking after the interests of their home state or district. "Bringing home the bacon" is part of the job.

I am less enamored of politicians who present a facade of looking out for their particular constituencies while regularly acting contrary to those interests. It is the failure of voters to discern the difference which is troublesome.

My point is that it is not clear that term limits addresses this issue. Rather the contrary, I think. You can't judge someone on a record they don't have.

 

[Trakar]

I'm not entirely sure I understood that.

I do not condemn Congresscritters for efforts made in support of their immediate constituency. Yes, I realize that there are "greater good" issues which might cause me to prefer that they act in a fashion perhaps not perfectly aligned with the individuals who voted for them, and at times I encourage this, but I also understand that a large part of their responsibilities consist of looking after the interests of their home state or district. "Bringing home the bacon" is part of the job.

I am less enamored of politicians who present a facade of looking out for their particular constituencies while regularly acting contrary to those interests. It is the failure of voters to discern the difference which is troublesome.

My point is that it is not clear that term limits addresses this issue. Rather the contrary, I think. You can't judge someone on a record they don't have.

My point was that "bringing home the bacon" is not part of their constitutional duties and should not be allowed. Advocating for the political views and perspectives of those who elected you is a responsibility, getting what you can get from the federal trough is at the root of lobbyist and special interest problems. Removing that element goes a long way toward the reforming the symptoms that term limits and campaign finance reform seek to address.

 

[quadraginta]

My point was that "bringing home the bacon" is not part of their constitutional duties and should not be allowed. Advocating for the political views and perspectives of those who elected you is a responsibility, getting what you can get from the federal trough is at the root of lobbyist and special interest problems. Removing that element goes a long way toward the reforming the symptoms that term limits and campaign finance reform seek to address.

I think you might have trouble defending this assertion. Representing the best interests of their constituents, while perhaps not their only responsibility, is by no means among the least of them, and is in no manner unconstitutional. That's one reason so many of them are called "Representatives". If their geographic background and the different, respective needs were unimportant there would be no reason to select them on the basis of their state. The writers of the Constitution had this very much in mind.

 

[Trakar]

I think you might have trouble defending this assertion. Representing the best interests of their constituents, while perhaps not their only responsibility, is by no means among the least of them, and is in no manner unconstitutional. That's one reason so many of them are called "Representatives". If their geographic background and the different, respective needs were unimportant there would be no reason to select them on the basis of their state. The writers of the Constitution had this very much in mind.

Big difference between representing someone's best interests and looting the federal treasury for the enhancement of some people in your district.

 

[quadraginta]

Big difference between representing someone's best interests and looting the federal treasury for the enhancement of some people in your district.

Yes, there certainly can be. This does not contradict what I said. It reinforces it.

 

[Trakar]

Yes, there certainly can be. This does not contradict what I said. It reinforces it.

Representatives represent peoples voices and opinions, thier role isn't to shovel as much gravy as they can get from the federal treasury and spread it among their friends back home. You seem to be equating a right to be heard with a right to gather largess from the taxpayer cache.

 

[quadraginta]

Representatives represent peoples voices and opinions, thier role isn't to shovel as much gravy as they can get from the federal treasury and spread it among their friends back home. You seem to be equating a right to be heard with a right to gather largess from the taxpayer cache.

The "taxpayer cache" is an accumulation of funds from the same people who select the Congresscritters. Disbursement of those funds is a function of government. Representatives, not least among their duties, are responsible for seeing that such disbursement is equitable to their constituents. It can be said that they are tasked with making it as advantageous as possible for their constituents, but there is no question they bear a responsibility to insure those constituents get a fair share.

You seem to be confusing abuse with use. Misuse of tax money is a problem. You have failed to explain why that problem will be ameliorated in any fashion by the mandatory expulsion of individuals whose behavior is established and replacing them with others whose record is unknown.

 

[Rockingham AH Deist]

I would insert an amendments specifying that:
-citizenship is available only to pure Whites, and the constitutional protections extend only to them
-Abolishing all elements of the welfare state
-Rescinding suffrage for women
-Failure to adhere to the Christian faith be punished by rescinding of citizenship
-Mandating that all members of the Supreme court be picked from pastors of the Christian Identity movement, rather then secular legal backgrounds.

 

[quadraginta]

I would insert an amendments specifying that:
-citizenship is available only to pure Whites, and the constitutional protections extend only to them
-Abolishing all elements of the welfare state
-Rescinding suffrage for women
-Failure to adhere to the Christian faith be punished by rescinding of citizenship
-Mandating that all members of the Supreme court be picked from pastors of the Christian Identity movement, rather then secular legal backgrounds.

Which one?