Term Limits: 28th Amendment
Posted: Friday, January 15, 2010
by Richard Vail
Chisel & Plane
I hereby propose the following as the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
1. No citizen of the United States shall be elected to the House of Representatives to more than four (4) consecutive, two (2) year terms to office.
2. No citizen of the United States shall be elected to the United States Senate for more than two (2) consecutive, six (6) year terms of office.
4. Congress shall not exempt itself from any laws of the United States of America, in whole or in part.
5. Congress shall be in session for a period of not less than 90 consecutive days in the Spring, and 90 consecutive days in the Summer of each year. Each sitting of Congress may be extended by the President for a period not to exceed 30 days. The Spring session shall start on the first Monday of March. The Summer session shall begin on the first Monday in June. An additional 45 day session to begin on the 2nd Monday of November shall be called by the President if so deemed necessary, this session may not be extended unless a period of National Emergency is formally declared by the President. {This section I think is necessary to basically force Congress to actually work...in the past decade they generally only spend 2 1/2 days per week actually working in Washington, DC. Most often only from Tues afternoon to Thurs afternoon!}
This Article has been viewed 497 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (8 total)good idea. congress has to vote on it, though. not much luck I'd say.no, not particularly...however, is 2/3rds of the states present an amendment to congress...and then pass it Congress is bound by that amendment...at least I think that's how it works. Not sure if that's the case. I wasn't exactly sober in class that day...30 years ago.We're back to the local level again, aren't we?it sure looks that way doesn't it? So...get to work.
You're right on the money, Richard. What I can't figure out is, who are the 22% of people who actually approve of the job Congress is doing?those are the people who work for congress.
Another good piece - someday I think more and more readers/people will need to give an ear to what you are saying! Fresh, well researched and much needed! Marijofrom your mouth to G-ds ear! I got ZERO hits on my blog on Friday and Saturday...the first time THAT's ever happened. [big sigh]I do not usually have time to do the Blogs of anyone and do not have one myself - life is SO short, eh? I post to 3 Searchwarp related sites and FaithWriters where I have been the longest. I am going to remove myself from Facebook as I have never learned that site! and I am "retired".... MarijoLOL, I an understand that one....but then, I don't have a lot to do at the moment...so I tend to post a great deal here, and on my blog(s).I can understand that! I just don't have time to keep up with everything I'd like to do online. I have found Facebook and Twitter to be doing the most for my efforts. Sometimes, if I invest the time on Searchwarp, I get traffic, but that is if I have time.
You could have gone more in depth to the argument you are bringing up to the forefront. If you get inspired and rivalled up then show that more in your article. It was great info though and really well researched.I suppose I could...I generally write about American politics, economics and generally puntitize, so I tend to assume a certain level of knowledge in my audience on "how things work" in America, that I know that our international audience doesn't have, my appologies on that.
Another excellent article Richard. Your article is right on mark, but don't hold your breath until a similar amendment is acted upon.No, because our politicians are first and foremost...politicians and this would force them to have to find honest work periodically...[big sigh] and we know the chances of that, don't we?
Richard,I agree 100%, especially with item 3. I found an article that says we spend over $20M every year on congressional pensions. I'd say that woudl be a great way to trim the budget just a little.Indeed it would. One of the things that really @#$@#&*es me off about the health care proposals before Congress right now is that Congress and ALL federal employees are specifically exempt from it's provisions. That's wrong on so many levels. Thanks for stopping by.$20M on congressional pensions? Doesn't sound like a very high number in the scheme of things, as compared to a military budget, let's say. Maybe we can lower that quite a bit and save even more.I realize that $20M is just a drop in the bucket and I am thankful for those in Congress who have served our country faithfully. But there are very few that I would put in that category. And they say they are "serving their country" but it seems to me that we are serving them. Get elected, serve for 2, 4, 6 years or maybe more, oops loose the election. Oh well I still have a full retirement coming to me. Outrageous!I agree fully...they only have to "serve" 5 years to be fully vested, with lifetime health care benefits...i.e. access to military base/medical care for life...of course, what they're trying to foist on the rest of us is far, far less.
I agree with this article also. It is great. You should add that they can not add raises on anything for themselves unless the american people vote it in, not them voting it in themselve. Thank you for writing this.thanks Clairessa! I appreciate it.
I'd certainly like to see something done to fight back against the corruption. This would be a good move in that direction!I agree, my only reservations (and I do have them on this proposed amendment) is that this may very well empower the "professional" staffers in DC...
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.