Either the People of the United States, acting through their state legislatures, or Congress itself have the power to amend the Constitution of the United States. The process is complex, but not impossible. There are two ways to propose an amendment: two thirds of both houses must concur on the proposed amendment, and then three-fourths of the states must ratify the amendment, or, in the alternative, two-thirds of the legislatures of the several states may call for a Constitutional Convention, which will then propose amendments to the Constitution. Three fourths of the states would then be required to enact those amendments into law. For the purposes of this article, we will have to assume that these proposed amendments would have to be made by Constitutional Convention. Its clear that Congress itself would never agree to these amendments to limit their own power and terms.
Amendment:
Section A. (To the provisions for the House of Representatives)
1) Members of the House of Representatives shall be elected every 4 years, commencing with the first general election following the approval of this amendment and its enactment.
2) No person shall serve more than 1 term in the House of Representatives.
3) Congress may stagger the application of this provision to provide that one-half of the members of the House of Representatives shall be elected every two years.
4) This amendment shall be in force and in effect upon ratification by three-fourths of the conventions to be held in every state within two years of the passage of this amendment.
Section B. (To the provisions for the Senate of the United States)
1) Members of the Senate of the United States shall be elected every 6 years, commencing with the first general election following the approval of this amendment and its enactment.
2) No person shall serve more than 1 term in the Senate of the United States.
3) Congress may stagger the application of this provision to provide that one-third of the member of the Senate of the United States shall be elected every two years.
4) This amendment shall be in force and in effect upon ratification by three-fourths of the conventions to be held in every state within 2 years of the passage of this amendment.
Section C. (To the Recall of Members of Congress)
1) A member of the House of Representatives or of the Senate may be recalled from his or her office upon the certification by the Secretary of State of that state that at least ten percent of the persons who voted in the past general election have signed a petition to that effect. Upon such certification, a special election shall be held which shall ask the question "Shall _______ be retained as a member of the appropriate house?". If the answer of a simple majority of the voters of the district or state shall be no, then the member of the House of Representatives or of the United States Senate shall be removed from office, and shall not be eligible to again serve as a member of the Congress of the United States.
2) The complete membership of Congress, both House and Senate, may be recalled from his or her office upon the certification by the Secretary of State of the United States that a petition has been presented signed by at least fifteen percent of the persons who voted in the last general election for congress. Upon such certification, a special election shall be held throughout the United States asking "Shall the Congress of the United States be recalled from office?" If the answer of a simple majority of the votes cast is in the affirmative, then all members of Congress, both House and Senate, shall be removed from office, and shall never again be eligible to serve in the United States Congress.
Section D. Compensation and Pension.
1) Congress shall not have the authority to grant to itself or its members any privileges not specifically granted in this Constitution, and specifically, shall not have the authority to grant to themselves a pension for service in the Congress of the United States.
These are somewhat drastic. However, given that neither party is interested in the welfare of the people of the United States any more, isn't it time that we throw them all out, make sure that the people in Washington are people like you and me, and that we are truly a representative democracy rather than a nation governed by business interests?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Well the first half of that is a good idea. I think the recall is unnecessary if you limit them to 4 and 6 yrs and it would cause constant problems. You have to remember that at least 10% of the voters in an election are very conservative and 10% are very liberal, and not like you and I but very politically involved also. That would mean a liberal in a liberal district doing what 80% of his district wants could face a recall election. Elections are expensive to both the state and the candidate and the recall clause would trigger endless elections in some places. As far as the pensions, those are such a small part of the deficit I have no problem with them. If someone can only serve 4 yrs though maybe a pension of 1/3 salary. Right now roughly half the house and 2/3 of the Senate are millionaires. If you ask someone to give up their job to go to Congress for 4 yrs and then try to pick their career back up you will either end up with more millionaires or more crooks wanting to become millionaires. Of course both of those are minor things that can be worked out. I also like the amendment someone proposed that the House and the Senate are subject to every law they pass. No more congressional health plan if you pass a health care bill you participate in it.
My purpose for a recall is to make the people in Congress always having to look over their shoulder and living in fear of one. Perhaps it should be more difficult... i.e. perhaps it should require 20% or 25% to start a recall election for an individual, and perhaps it should require 30% of the nation to initiate a recall of the entire congress. But, I want them to remember that Congress serves at the pleasure of WE, The People, and not by divine right. Too many in Congress think they serve by Divine Right.
Its not about the budget. Its about the principle. Congress could pass its own version of a 401(k), to which they would contribute out of their salary, and I'd be fine with that. It could even be matched by the government. I'd be fine with that also. But, the point is we shouldn't have congress with a better pension program than 99% of the nation.
Three cheers for this proposal!
Politics has always been messy and partisan. Anyone saying that politics has only been so in recent memory is wrong. Dead wrong. Lets not forget the presidential election between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson or the one between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson. These arguably especially the latter is one of the most provacative and partisan elections in presidential election history. Even so it is about time that the American public say enough is enough once in for all. We are sick of the petty bickering just to spite one another.
Lets not forget that the Founding Fathers intended federal legislators to be "citizen-legislators" meaning once would due one's duty then after serving in congress or the presidency return to private life and continue on like nothing happened. We do not have such a system. For many decades the United States has experienced "profesional politicans" who care nothing more than to get reelected. They do not want to give up a job that pays way more than the average salary of a typical American, or their exceptional healthcare system. When Republicans and some Democrats praised that America has the best healthcare in the world they must have been thinking of their own healthcare plans and not everone else.
The reality is legislators have become entrenched and they do not care about the problems average Americans face. Afterall they have it a lot cushier than most Americans. The United States truly needs an amendment such as this!
I wouldn't mind this with two changes, first, I suggest a term of two elections. Second, you should not recall the entire body if 25% of them (or 75% of them) fail to act properly, because the other 25% aren't responsbile for the conduct of the 75%. That's group punishment, and it's always unethical.
The easier solution to all of this, however, is to publicly fund elections so long as the candidate can show they are supported by a certain number of petitioners. That will make the candidate FAR more responsive to constituents than either party or corporate benefactor.
Nice to see you commenting, Penigma!
I could live with 2 terms, at least in the House of Representatives. I don't know that I can accept two terms in the Senate. This would result in more career politicians, who spend 20 years in Congress. Politicians of either party who spend that long in Congress are not interested in representing their constituents, but instead, lining their pockets from the corporate feed trough.
The point of recalling the entire congress is that its a drastic step, not unlike dissolving parliament. A congress that becomes so dysfunctional that it cannot carry out its functions needs to be dissolved, and a completely new congress needs to be elected. I seriously doubt that it would ever come to pass that it was necessary to recall the entire congress. Just the knowledge that it could be done would be sufficient to keep Congress doing its job, and not the petty bickering that they indulge in today.
In other words, I want them to be scared. I want them to continuously look over their shoulder, in fear that they may be booted out of their cushy jobs with health care and pensions that most Americans only dream about. After they have served their term, I want them to go back home, and to resume their careers.
Tucker pointed out something valid though, I think. I would have no objection to a reasonable and very, very temporary pension for a member who has served 4 or 6 years. That way, they can have some funds incoming to pick up their former career, and become the citizens that they are again, instead of the Lords that they thought they were in Washington.
I think instead of publicly funded elections we should instead have a database. A website you can go to with each candidate for office and a complete list of who gave them money, how much, and when. Once they are in office you could add to the page a list of bills they voted on and how they voted. Something like 80% of the country has access to the internet and the FEC and Congressional Record already collect most of the data you would need. I think it would take a few yrs but once people start seeing things like their senator voting for something that benefits company X or individual X shortly before or after that company made a large campaign donation they would put 2 and 2 together and start looking for Congressmen who weren't for sale.
Without publically funded elections and/or term limits to bring back the true citizen legislator, all members of congress are for sale. Elections today cost millions of dollars. All except the very wealthy do not have the resources to fund such an enterprise, and I don't want to be governed by the top 1% of america, the very wealthy. I want to be governed by the guy down the street, who happens to be bright and have good ideas about how to make this nation better. Without being either (a) for sale or (b) having publically funded elections or (c) having only 1 or (maybe) 2 terms so everyone doesn't want to be elected to the throne, it won't change.
Post a Comment