Visitors
It is time... For The 28th Amendment...
I challenge you to read this and NOT have the will to pass it on to your 20
Monday we learned that the staffers of Congress family members are exempt from having to pay back student loans. This will get national attention if news networks will broadcast it. When you add this to the below, just where will all of it stop?
For too long we have been too complacent about the workings of Congress. Many citizens had no idea that members of Congress could retire with the same pay after only one term, that they specifically exempted themselves from many of the laws they have passed while citizens must live under those laws.
If each person that receives this will forward it on to 20 people, in three days, most people in The United States of America will have the message.
You are one of my 20+
Email
Print Article
Favorites
Report Abuse
User Comments
 |
MMK, I got sooo busy after I posted this yesterday...but here I am. I think I remember a small item somewhere about these congressional proposals you mention. Yes, please do try to look up those articles. Post them here, or the links. Or maybe post them at your blog under some title about Amendment #28. |
|
Somebody did a post about it here, like within the past week or so...I just don't remember who. I'll try to find it for you today. |
|
Thank you MMK and Co-C,... MMK="I think most Americans, regardless of political affiliation would agree with most of this. " I wonder what either of you think others (besides the present offenders!) might not like about this... |
|
Fellow Conservatives: The term limits amendment was defeated 24-75 with 52 Democrats and 23 Republicans opposing it. The most common argument I hear against term limits from politicians is that they're unnecessary because "that's what elections are for."
Toomey's earmark ban was also defeated 40-59 with 46 Democrats and 13 Republicans opposing it. |
|
hank you, MMK! I will try to spend some time supporting this...SOMEhow! |
|
CO-C,... --ONE-- It is difficult, as it should be, to change the Constitution. It has happened almost 30 times. Yet, today I am sure it is more difficult than ever to get such a congress-limiting amendment to get started and to pass. As to limiting voting age Not a bad idea, but......again, not likely. Probably even more less-likely than for the 28th. There's just too many in those lower ages who would be able to stop it, let alone the many elders who would not like it.
|
|
Look at this: There are two main ways that the interpretation of the Constitution changes, and hence its meaning. The first is simply that circumstances can change. One prime example is the extension of the vote. In the times of the Constitutional Convention, the vote was often granted only to monied land holders. Over time, this changed and the vote was extended to more and more groups. Finally, the vote was extended to all males, then all persons 21 and older, and then to all persons 18 and older. The informal status quo became law, a part of the Constitution, because that was the direction the culture was headed. Another example is the political process that has evolved in the United States: political parties, and their trappings (such as primaries and conventions) are not mentioned or contemplated in the Constitution, but they are fundamental to our political system. |
|
A couple of thoughts... 1) Right. The brain is not completely formed until 27-30! 2) More about the 35 age thing: a) The founders did not anticipate that a LOT of people would be immature longer, like they are now. b) Too, remember that many many adults died in their 40's & 50's in those days. 3) Right again...the founders did not anticipate that the schools would be full of irreligious, selfish, unethical, commie and etc. teachers. 4) How does one ever get a Only-Landowners-Can-Vote, thing passed? And, what is a "Landowner"? Someone w/ a house? Apartment dwellers are out? What exact demographic are you talking about? |
|
My questions of you pertain to present day...otherwise I understand landowner perfectly. "4) How does one ever get a Only-Landowners-Can-Vote, thing passed? And, what is a "Landowner"? Someone w/ a house? Apartment dwellers are out? What exact demographic are you talking about?" |
|
I am not asking you about the old deal about landowner's vote. I am asking you how you think such a deal could be implemented in our modern times, what it would look like, and how you would get it passed into law... |
|
Interesting presentation. Thinking through what was stated in the ppt...the faulty/idiotic proposition of "unfair for some!" was obviously at work as the voting enfranchisement grew, opening voting to many groups inviting the lazy, the selfish, the unethical, the irresponsible, and etc. UNFAIR: When someone shouts "unfair!" it insidiously puts the onus on the responsible to prove a negative...that they are not unfair'. They then idiotically (wrongly) feel forced to accommodate those who bring the heart-wrenching charge of 'unfair'. --The responsible don't know how to refute the charge, the media (even in old days) likes a fight because it sells media, and the idiotic responsibles (the great majority are those who can't think far or fast enough to defend their stand) get taken again and again. Whoever shouts "unfair!", is not thinking; whomever accepts the 'unfair' argument is not thinking.
|
|
Unfair does not mean unjust but the unthinkers think it does. |
|
There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used. The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd). The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about. Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority. It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). There are two main ways that the interpretation of the Constitution changes, and hence its meaning. The first is simply that circumstances can change. One prime example is the extension of the vote. In the times of the Constitutional Convention, the vote was often granted only to monied land holders. Over time, this changed and the vote was extended to more and more groups. Finally, the vote was extended to all males, then all persons 21 and older, and then to all persons 18 and older. The informal status quo became law, a part of the Constitution, because that was the direction the culture was headed. Another example is the political process that has evolved in the United States: political parties, and their trappings (such as primaries and conventions) are not mentioned or contemplated in the Constitution, but they are fundamental to our political system.
The notion of popular amendment comes from the conceptual framework of the Constitution. Its power derives from the people; it was adopted by the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of the people. Given all this, if the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a change to the Constitution, should not the people be allowed to make such a change? As Wilson noted in 1787, "... the people may change the constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of which no positive institution can ever deprive them." It makes sense - if the people demand a change, it should be made. The change may not be the will of the Congress, nor of the states, so the two enumerated methods of amendment might not be practical, for they rely on these institutions. The real issue is not in the conceptual. It is a reality that if the people do not support the Constitution in its present form, it cannot survive. The real issue is in the practical. Since there is no process specified, what would the process be? There are no national elections today - even elections for the presidency are local. There is no precedent for a national referendum. It is easy to say that the Constitution can be changed by the people in any way the people wish. Actually making the change is another story altogether. Suffice it to say, for now, that the notion of popular amendment makes perfect sense in the constitutional framework, even though the details of effecting popular amendment could be impossible to resolve. |
I think most Americans, regardless of political affiliation would agree with most of this.
Actually, a couple senators have recently introduced bills regarding this topic, but were resoundly defeated. I'll have to look aound tomorrow to find the actual articles. Please reply to this comment, so I remember to do so in the morning.