Tech Support Guy banner
1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Retired Moderator
Joined
·
16,301 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
With all the recent amendment discussions..I looked to see what else can be expected along those lines. Here is what I've found:

First up...the 22nd
AMENDMENT XXII said:
Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951.

Section 1.
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

Section 2.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.
Democrat Steny H. Hoyer of MD has introduced the following:
H. J. RES. 24 said:
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution .

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 17, 2005

Mr. HOYER (for himself, Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SABO, and Mr. PALLONE) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution .

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article --

`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is repealed.'.
Current status:
Left the committee on the judiciary. and referred to the subcommittee on the Constitution.
............................................................
Next up from Democrat Jesse Louis Jackson of IL:
H. J. RES. 28 said:
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right to vote.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 2, 2005

Mr. JACKSON of Illinois (for himself, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, Ms. CARSON, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. CLAY, Mr. CLYBURN, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. FORD, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. HINCHEY , Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. JEFFERSON, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Mr. KUCINICH, Ms. LEE, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. MEEK of Florida, Mr. MEEKS of New York , Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Ms. NORTON, Mr. OWENS, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. RUSH, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. SERRANO, Mr. STARK, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mr. TOWNS, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Ms. WATERS, Ms. WATSON, Mr. WATT, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. WYNN, Ms. MCKINNEY, Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Mr. HOLT, and Mr. DAVIS of Alabama) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right to vote.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

`Article --

`SECTION 1. All citizens of the United States who are eighteen years of age or older shall have the right to vote in any public election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides. The right to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, any State, or any other public or private person or entity, except that the United States or any State may establish regulations narrowly tailored to produce efficient and honest elections.

`SECTION 2. Each State shall administer public elections in the State in accordance with election performance standards established by the Congress. The Congress shall reconsider such election performance standards at least once every four years to determine if higher standards should be established to reflect improvements in methods and practices regarding the administration of elections.

`SECTION 3. Each State shall provide any eligible voter the opportunity to register and vote on the day of any public election.

`SECTION 4. The Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.'.
What stands out to me in this is section 3 -- where states would be forced to allow a person to vote without addiquate time to verify eligible voting status.
....................................................................
Next up, Democrat Carolyn B. Maloney of NY:
H. J. RES. 37 said:
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 15, 2005

Mrs. MALONEY (for herself, Mr. LEACH, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. TOWNS, Ms. SOLIS, Mr. NADLER, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. CASE, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. DINGELL, Mr. HOLDEN, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr. HOLT, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. CLAY, Mr. KOLBE, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Mr. BOSWELL, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota, Ms. LEE, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. SABO, Mr. ROTHMAN, Ms. BALDWIN, Mrs. CAPPS, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. OWENS, Mr. WU, Mr. DICKS, Ms. NORTON, Mr. WAXMAN, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. EVANS, Mr. SMITH of Washington, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. PALLONE, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. HINCHEY , Mr. MOORE of Kansas, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. WEINER, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. CARDOZA, Ms. HARMAN, Mrs. MCCARTHY, Mr. FARR, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. BOYD, Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. HALL, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. STRICKLAND, Mr. JEFFERSON, Mr. OLVER, Ms. HERSETH, Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN, Ms. WATERS, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. COSTA, Mr. FILNER, Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. STARK, Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Mr. PASTOR, Ms. ESHOO, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. DOYLE, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. KIRK, Mr. KIND, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. CONYERS, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Mr. WEXLER, Ms. WATSON, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. BACA, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. SERRANO, Mrs. CHRISTENSEN, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. LARSEN of Washington, Mr. MEEKS of New York , Mr. RUSH, Mr. BOEHLERT, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. HINOJOSA, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Mr. BASS, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. CASTLE, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. CARNAHAN, Ms. ZOE LOFGREN of California, Mr. INSLEE, Ms. PELOSI, Mr. BAIRD, Mr. EMANUEL, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. HOYER, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. ISRAEL, Ms. BORDALLO, Mr. WYNN, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. ALLEN, Mr. BOUCHER, Mr. MILLER of North Carolina, Mr. BECERRA, Mr. HONDA, Mr. WATT, Mr. ACKERMAN, Mr. LARSON of Connecticut, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. DAVIS of Florida, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. ORTIZ, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Ms. DEGETTE, Ms. MCKINNEY, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. MEEK of Florida, and Mr. TAYLOR of Mississippi) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article --

`SECTION 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

`SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

`SECTION 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.'.
Is it just me...or is this the answer to the marriage amendment?
.......................................................

I don't have the time or space to post and comment on them all....here's a list:
1 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.24.IH]
2 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.16.IH]
3 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual... (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.9.IH]
4 . Providing for consideration of the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 10) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical... (Reported in House)[H.RES.330.RH]
5 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to marriage. (Introduced in Senate)[S.J.RES.13.IS]
6 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting the right to a home. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.40.IH]
7 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to school prayer. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.21.IH]
8 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. (Engrossed as Agreed to or Passed by House)[H.J.RES.10.EH]
9 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to taxing the people of the United States progressively. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.34.IH]
10 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting the right to a clean, safe, and sustainable environment. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.33.IH]
11 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting the right to decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.32.IH]
12 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to voluntary school prayer. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.7.IH]
13 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States... (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.2.IH]
14 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding regulations on the amounts of expenditures of personal funds made by candidates for election for public office. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.13.IH]
15 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to equality of rights and reproductive rights. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.31.IH]
16 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress and the States to prohibit the act of desecration of the flag of the United States and to set... (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.5.IH]
17 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for a balanced budget for the United States Government and for greater accountability in the enactment of tax legislation. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.6.IH]
18 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding presidential election voting rights for residents of all United States territories and commonwealths. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.1.IH]
19 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide that Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers,... (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.53.IH]
20 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to establish English as the official language of the United States. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.43.IH]
21 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States respecting the right to full employment and balanced growth. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.35.IH]
22 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women. (Introduced in Senate)[S.J.RES.7.IS]
23 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to make eligible for the Office of President a person who is not a natural born citizen of the United States but has... (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.15.IH]
24 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States... (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.42.IH]
25 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to allow debate to be closed on any measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate only by unanimous consent... (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.51.IH]
26 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit the number of consecutive terms that a Member of Congress may serve. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.11.IH]
27 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States with respect to the right to life. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.4.IH]
28 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to deny United States citizenship to individuals born in the United States to parents who are neither United States citizens... (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.46.IH]
29 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. (Introduced in Senate)[S.J.RES.1.IS]
30 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.39.IH]
31 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to ensure continuity of congressional operations and the avoidance of martial law in the event of mass incapacitations... (Introduced in Senate)[S.J.RES.6.IS]
32 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide that no person born in the United States will be a United States citizen unless a parent is a United States... (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.41.IH]
33 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the Electoral College and provide for the direct election of the President and Vice President by the popular... (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.36.IH]
34 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the appointment of individuals to serve as Members of the House of Representatives when, in a national emergency,... (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.49.IH]
35 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging... (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.14.IH]
36 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right of citizens of the United States to health care of equal high quality. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.30.IH]
37 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve. (Introduced in Senate)[S.J.RES.3.IS]
38 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right of all citizens of the United States to a public education of equal high quality. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.29.IH]
39 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. (Introduced in Senate)[S.J.RES.12.IS]
40 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the maintenance of a system of social insurance that provides social security for its citizens. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.25.IH]
41 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing the Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.10.IH]
42 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the Electoral College and to provide for the direct election of the President and Vice President of the United... (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.50.IH]
43 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to abolish the electoral college and to provide for the direct popular election of the President and Vice President of... (Introduced in Senate)[S.J.RES.11.IS]
44 . Right to Life Act (Introduced in House)[H.R.552.IH]
45 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States which requires (except during time of war and subject to suspension by Congress) that the total amount of money expended... (Introduced in Senate)[S.J.RES.10.IS]
46 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to provide for the direct election of the President and Vice President by the popular vote of the citizens of the United... (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.17.IH]
47 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to require a balanced budget and protect Social Security surpluses. (Introduced in Senate)[S.J.RES.2.IS]
48 . Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States regarding the right to vote. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.28.IH]
49 . Whereas the chamber of the House of Representatives is framed by `In God We Trust' etched in stone above the Speaker's head and directly across from the Speaker is the figure of Moses... (Introduced in House)[H.RES.214.IH]
50 . Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States. (Introduced in House)[H.J.RES.22.IH]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,816 Posts
Ciberblade said:
JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to equal rights for men and women.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article --

`SECTION 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

`SECTION 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

`SECTION 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.'.
By the signatures of the co-sponsors I would say it is an answer to the fake ammendment that Bush pushed in order to assure that the radical right wing religious base would vote for him. Wonder how that ammendment is going? Also, wondering about that Mars space program he announced right before the election? (Lots of NASA employees in Florida). I think that many of these buffoons propose ammendments for the purpose of making it appear as if they are actually doing something, when the vast majority of these ammendments probably never even reach the floor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,148 Posts
Do these proposals surprise you Blade? Don't you think it's necessary that the fed spend millions of dollars debating what the definition of marriage is?

I don't either.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,286 Posts
with all the talk of amendments and slippery slopes, etc., a radio talk show yesterday that was talking about something like 5 bills on the floor of the CA legislature dealing with what people can and can't do when they're driving cars (cell phones, seat belts) got me to thinking that it was never the intention in this country that politics become a career.....

it's certainly not a relavatory idea....been bantied about here on and off many times....

but for me, at least, it suddenly became a profound reason why the fan is looking so dirty nowadays. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,148 Posts
True about who pays, lins, but it doesn't take a cell phone to get distracted.

Have you never missed your exit, while doing nothing more that thinking about the next report due for work?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,286 Posts
but back to my point :rolleyes:

in some ways, all this legislation is nothing more than all these people trying to earn a living, keeping their jobs, and....well....justifying themselves
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,008 Posts
iltos said:
but back to my point :rolleyes:

in some ways, all this legislation is nothing more than all these people trying to earn a living, keeping their jobs, and....well....justifying themselves
:eek: :eek: :eek: Ya think!!! :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,286 Posts
Wino said:
:eek: :eek: :eek: Ya think!!! :p
well, gee wilikers, wino.....now that ya mention it ;)

give ya any ideas for ANOTHER constitutional amendment.....

like we the people have got THAT big a voice :rolleyes:

seriously, tho, what the heck ever happened to "rugged individualism" (that whole personal responsibility thing)....are we so dang incapable of taking care of ourselves that we'd just as soon let the gov dictate more and more of our behaviour? :eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,008 Posts
iltos said:
well, gee wilikers, wino.....now that ya mention it ;)

give ya any ideas for ANOTHER constitutional amendment.....

like we the people have got THAT big a voice :rolleyes:

seriously, tho, what the heck ever happened to "rugged individualism" (that whole personal responsibility thing)....are we so dang incapable of taking care of ourselves that we'd just as soon let the gov dictate more and more of our behaviour? :eek:
Term limits for House & Senate (8 years max. for both) would be nice. In the mean time, eliminating their salary, retirement benefits and medical, and paying them $50 per diem when present & in session; housing them in military style barracks; cutting sessions to 90 Days a year (how they earn money the rest of the year is no concern). This country would be stable in no time at all. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,148 Posts
Wino said:
Term limits for House & Senate (8 years max. for both) would be nice. In the mean time, eliminating their salary, retirement benefits and medical, and paying them $50 per diem when present & in session; housing them in military style barracks; cutting sessions to 90 Days a year (how they earn money the rest of the year is no concern). This country would be stable in no time at all. :D
I agree wholeheartedly, Wino, but let us be realistic...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,286 Posts
TRS-80 vet said:
I agree wholeheartedly, Wino, but let us be realistic...
maybe a few of the details need adjustment, but this is much closer to the truth as envisioned by our founding fathers than what has evolved....

if by realistic you mean you'd have a tough time fielding anybody to do the job....well, it was always supposed to be more of a community service thing anyway, and so i disagree.....you'd end up with people more dedicated to serving their constituents, more capable of true compromise, and less willing to be paid for by lobbyists.

granted, it could be argued that the world is far more complex, and therefore needs people with a broad understanding of geopolitical and economic events....but there are a lotta those people around already, and i'd suggest further that people without all that complexity stored in their heads are far better at finding the simple and the elegant

not to mention what it'd to do to the profession of lawyering :D
 

·
Retired Moderator
Joined
·
16,301 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
Wino said:
Term limits for House & Senate (8 years max. for both) would be nice. In the mean time, eliminating their salary, retirement benefits and medical, and paying them $50 per diem when present & in session; housing them in military style barracks; cutting sessions to 90 Days a year (how they earn money the rest of the year is no concern). This country would be stable in no time at all. :D
What do you know...there is an amendment for that
HJ 11 IH said:
109th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. J. RES. 11

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit the number of consecutive terms that a Member of Congress may serve.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

January 25, 2005

Mr. PLATTS introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to limit the number of consecutive terms that a Member of Congress may serve.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within five years after the date of its submission for ratification:

`Article--

`SECTION 1. No person who has been a Senator for two full consecutive terms shall again be a Senator until the date that is one year after the end of such second full consecutive term.

`SECTION 2. No person who has been a Representative for six full consecutive terms shall again be a Representative until the date that is one year after the end of the sixth full consecutive term.

`SECTION 3. For the purposes of this article, any term that began before the date of the ratification of this article shall not be included in determining the number of full consecutive terms that a person has been a Senator or Representative.'.
 

·
Retired Moderator
Joined
·
16,301 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
iltos said:
well, gee wilikers, wino.....now that ya mention it ;)

give ya any ideas for ANOTHER constitutional amendment.....

like we the people have got THAT big a voice :rolleyes:

seriously, tho, what the heck ever happened to "rugged individualism" (that whole personal responsibility thing)....are we so dang incapable of taking care of ourselves that we'd just as soon let the gov dictate more and more of our behaviour? :eek:
I posted this yesterday in another thread:
Ciberblade said:
Yesterday, Republican E. Scott Garrett of New Jersey made a five minute address to the house...this is practically sums up my stance regarding government.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett) is recognized for 5 minutes.

Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, the 10th amendment states: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.''

These historic words, penned by our Founding Fathers, some of the most ingenious political minds the world has ever known, set forth an important principle: the Federal Government may exercise specific powers that are listed in the Constitution, and the States and the people may exercise all remaining powers.

Unfortunately, as the authors of the Constitution have long since passed, so too have many of their ideals for our system of government, from an ever-expanding Federal Government that for decades has crept into many facets of once locally controlled areas, to a Federal judiciary that in many instances completely ignores the intent of federalism, all resulting in a Federal Government that has become wildly inefficient and a hemorrhaging bureaucracy.

In an effort to draw attention to this nationally destructive trend, I have recently founded the Congressional States and Community Rights Caucus, which will be a forum to work to ensure that the Federal Government is operating under the intent of the 10th amendment of our Bill of Rights. I look forward to working with my like-minded colleagues who share the sentiment that the Federal Government has taken authority over too many areas from State governments and are operating them in an inefficient manner.

This is not a new concept. It goes back over some last 10 years and even back further than that. Our Founders were very clear when establishing our system of government. They intended to set up a Republic of sovereign States capable of self-governing with a small central government with clearly defined, limited powers.

Our Constitution must be thought of as a social contract between people and the government. We must think of the most important document as a trade where our forefathers gave up certain specific rights in exchange for limited services specified, most notably, for defense of the people and the Nation.

[Time: 18:15]

When we refer to federalism, we refer to only powers specifically listed in the Constitution are to be administered by the Federal Government. All others are to be left to the States, local government, or to the people themselves. James Madison wrote this in Federal paper No. 45: The powers delegated to the Federal Government are few and defined, he said. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.

Of course, we know we have gone much further than this now. Throughout the last few generations especially, the intent of the 10th amendment of a limited government has been shredding away. Over the years in many areas, national crises and otherwise, many of the government's powers have grown on the Federal level, particularly in social service areas, through a centralized Federal Government.

Limited government was a gift to the American people. More accurately, it was got by blood, sweat, and tears that were shed by our forefathers who sought to break away from their mother country, Great Britain, and also by subsequent generations who worked for this great experiment of personal liberty.

There are those who support a big government, who have no faith in the people whatsoever to care for themselves, who feel a few should provide for the many. They believe that high taxes and high spending is the most efficient way to provide services. Of course, we know that history proves them not true. Those who support a big government might contend that those like myself are really antigovernment, but that is not true as well. Our Federal Government serves an important purpose, but our Nation is better off when that purpose is limited.

Mr. Speaker, those who support federalism as I do, those who strictly adhere to the 10th amendment, know that a large, burdensome, bureaucratic government is not the most efficient way to get the services to the American people. You see, State taxpayers and Federal taxpayers are not two separate groups of people but they are individuals who are taxed twice.

Think about that for a moment. Americans from all around the country send their money to Washington only for Washington to lose some of it, waste some it, and spend some of it on

[Page: H5081] GPO's PDF

areas and ways that you and I might not agree with. In fact, you have taxpayers from one State who are subsidizing services for taxpayers in another State. For instance, in my State of New Jersey, I know that for every dollar that we send to Washington, we only receive back 54 cents from the Federal Government. That does not make sense to me and I know that is not fair.

Our recent leaders have tried to right this position of our Federal Government back to where our Founding Fathers had it. In his first inaugural address in 1981, President Reagan said, ``It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.''

In light of the looming fiscal crisis of our Federal budget and the domestic programs that are simply not reaching their intended goals, I believe it is imperative to highlight the need to return to a system intended under the reserve clause of the Constitution. I invite and encourage my colleagues to join the caucus and help us return control to those who know what is best, to the people. All of our constituents deserve the most efficient and effective government, a government in accord with our Constitution.
 

·
Retired Moderator
Joined
·
16,301 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
TRS-80 vet said:
Do these proposals surprise you Blade? Don't you think it's necessary that the fed spend millions of dollars debating what the definition of marriage is?

I don't either.
Not at all....what does (kind of) is the fact that most people don't know about it -- which is what prompted this thread.
 

·
Retired Moderator
Joined
·
16,301 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
I probably should have named this thread to include any act of Congress :rolleyes:

Before the end of Senate business yesterday...they passed the junk fax prevention act of 2005 (S 714 ES) unanimously :up:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51,023 Posts
Ciberblade said:
Before the end of Senate business yesterday...they passed the junk fax prevention act of 2005 (S 714 ES) unanimously :up:
If you work very closely with the law as I do you gain a different perspective and respect for the work of politicians. I have found that the vast, overwhemling majority of laws appear to consider the equities and do a decent job of allowing for fairness to the extent possible in an imperfect world. What I get sick and tired of seeing is the constant desecration of politicians (either in total or one sided depending on political affiliation) as lowly scum interested in only their own self interests. This cynism says more about the people making these claims than it does about the politicians, IMO. Very few people here could do a better job and I for one give a :up: to both Republicans and Democrats and anyone else that has this thankless job. I also give a :down: to all those that universally cast aspersion on them--your cynism and negativity will do far more harm to yourself than what you think you accomplish by spreading the poison from within to this forum and in your lives in general. :down:
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Top