If you could amend the Constitution in one way...

[grasping the after wind]

Hw does that work with senior positions that require experience?

Works the same way as for President. You get canned after you have been there the amount of time you were allotted. The difference would be that your replacement would not get hired by winning a popularity contest. If the position requires experience( which many high level government positions do not seem to require judging by who has been appointed to them over the years and why they have attained those positions i. e. political connections) the replacement would need to have a level of experience equivalent to the experience the outgoing position holder had when the out going person was first hired. Just the same as when anyone is replaced for other reasons than term limits.

As for Amending the Constitution, I would put in a clause that stated the Federal Government has only the powers that were specifically given to it in the constitution and all other power belonged to the individual citizens and the individual States. and I would add that in two times because if something is repeated three times I have heard that people tend to pay attention.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Term limits for ALL (100%) of federal employees.

edit: As in even for "jobs", not just elected officials.

Outstanding, an Army of 20 year old generals leading 20 year old privates. Who needs senior noncommissioned officers anyway?

 

[keith99]

Outstanding, an Army of 20 year old generals leading 20 year old privates. Who needs senior noncommissioned officers anyway?

That sounds ugly, but adding in 20 year old mechanics, cooks and most important supply officers and it starts to get so bad it becomes funny. Unless you are there of course.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Balanced budget
Term limits
Voter ID

 

[Arcangl86]

I would split the role of Head of State and Head of Government, probably by implementing a parliamentary system. There are a couple of other things i would like to do, but that's the most radical.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Balanced budget
Term limits
Voter ID

I'm with you on the balanced budget aspect, as long as it's not a concrete rule in terms of "budget has to be balanced at all times"...I'd be more of the mindset of "you can take on certain levels of debt in crisis and emergency situations, but the balance of each instance of borrowing has to be paid off in 10 years"

I explained my issues with the concept of term limits for congress in an earlier post...

For the voter ID laws aspect, I would have to ask, why is it okay to make people go through red tape for one constitutional right, but not another? For example, why is a voter ID law okay if a gun owner ID law isn't?

 

[RickG]

1. Term limits for both the House & Senate, no more than 8 years for both, elections every 2 years for both.
2. No lobbyists, PERIOD.
3. Campaign donations allowed only from "individuals" with verifiable incomes. None from organizations, institutions, businesses or industry.

 

[jayem]

For the voter ID laws aspect, I would have to ask, why is it okay to make people go through red tape for one constitutional right, but not another? For example, why is a voter ID law okay if a gun owner ID law isn't?

For the record, voting is not a Constitutional right. Voting is a privilege that's granted by the states. The Constitution only says that voting can't be denied because of race, sex, age over 18, or inability to pass any kind of test, or pay any kind of poll tax. Voting rights may be protected by state constitutions. But in theory, if it didn't violate its own constitution, a state could legally prohibit anyone from voting, as long as such prohibition wasn't based on those criteria.

 

[NightHawkeye]

I'm with you on the balanced budget aspect, as long as it's not a concrete rule in terms of "budget has to be balanced at all times"...I'd be more of the mindset of "you can take on certain levels of debt in crisis and emergency situations, but the balance of each instance of borrowing has to be paid off in 10 years"

That doesn't seem like an unreasonable compromise, though 10 years seems a little worrisome given the known temptation for legislators to overspend.

I explained my issues with the concept of term limits for congress in an earlier post...

Not too long ago I thought term limits unnecessary ... but since came to the realization that term limits are the easiest way to allow much needed new blood in to the system.

For the voter ID laws aspect, I would have to ask, why is it okay to make people go through red tape for one constitutional right, but not another? For example, why is a voter ID law okay if a gun owner ID law isn't?

LOL, no gun owner ID? Were you trying to be funny?

 

[DaisyDay]

You could try that, but you'd likely be accused of racism in short order...

Well, sure because of how that has been used in the past to deny citizens suffrage.

 

[CaDan]

While it could also be accomplished by statute, I would like to see a much larger House of Representatives. Amend Art. II Sec. 2 to require one representative for each 250,000 people. This would roughly triple the size of the House.

I want the "People's House" to be loud and noisy and crowded.

 

[keith99]

I'd opt for allowing removal from office for medical/senility reasons. Sooner or later this is going to be a significant problem with the court system. Supreme Court the headline maker, but significant at all appointed for life or long terms judges.

 

[ananda]

Amend the Constitution to severely limit the commerce clause.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

but the balance of each instance of borrowing has to be paid off in 10 years

I don’t think the 10 year thing is a good idea. First of all, everyone is calling for term limits. That sounds good in practice but…

What is going to keep a Congress that is on its last year from doing an insane budget tripling the size of the government? They don’t have to worry about the ramifications of their actions because they will never be elected again. The new Congress will most likely be inexperienced and have no idea how things are supposed to work. Plus, they will have no incentive to pay down the last Congresses budget because they will be on their last term before the 10 year deadline comes due and will be out of office as well.

It is the Congressmen’s and Senator’s fear of losing their jobs that is the motivation to get what little they do done.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

2. No lobbyists, PERIOD.

I have mixed feelings about lobbyists, personally.

On one hand, the stereotypical lobbyist scenario of some "special interest coming in and influencing a vote in favor of a greedy business" is one that I'm sure frustrates many of us...

However, there have been times when lobbying has been a force for good, and helped accomplish things that a decentralized, disorganized group of individuals could've never accomplished without pooling their funds together and having an advocate properly use those funds.

I think most people on both sides would realize that they have a love/hate relationship with the concept of lobbying... Many republicans would probably say they hate the "eco-lobby" but love the NRA, likewise many democrats would have the inverse position on that.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It is the Congressmen’s and Senator’s fear of losing their jobs that is the motivation to get what little they do done.

...yeah, but that fear can go in the other direction too. Making them do things they know aren't right merely for the sake of keeping their job. If they know their term is up, that "you better vote a certain way or you'll lose your seat" scare tactic won't work on them.

 

[trunks2k]

Amend the constitution to repel first past vote and replace it with alternative vote.

I'd go even further than that. Alternative vote for the president and senate but change the makeup of the house to so that every person has at least two representatives (this could be combining districts) and using a single transferable vote. Addendum to this, voting districts must be drawn by independent non partisan commissions.

 

[trunks2k]

I'm with you on the balanced budget aspect, as long as it's not a concrete rule in terms of "budget has to be balanced at all times"...I'd be more of the mindset of "you can take on certain levels of debt in crisis and emergency situations, but the balance of each instance of borrowing has to be paid off in 10 years"

meh. Deficit spending isn't inherently a bad thing. If you can borrow money now to do something that will see returns greater than the cost of the borrowing it's worth it. Granted you can't get too crazy, I.e. I don't disagree with setting an a max deficit of projected revenue for the year with the ability to go over with an appropriate vote.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That doesn't seem like an unreasonable compromise, though 10 years seems a little worrisome given the known temptation for legislators to overspend.

I threw 10 years out there because if that window of time is too small, it's boxing us in too much... Not that it would ever happen, but if there were some catastrophe that required, let's say $400 billion dollars to address. I figured 10 years would be a reasonable payoff time on that. If you make it shorter, people are going to be crying the blues when they have to pay a 50% federal income tax rate for 2-3 years to try to get it paid off, especially if it was for something they didn't particularly care about.

Not too long ago I thought term limits unnecessary ... but since came to the realization that term limits are the easiest way to allow much needed new blood in to the system.

I think there's a balance to be had, like I mentioned in my first post, I'd be okay with term limits, provided that we make the terms longer...or set the number to something like 4 or 5 terms. 4 year attrition times on legislators it too quick if you ask me.

LOL, no gun owner ID? Were you trying to be funny?

Yes, I was trying to be facetious to illustrate a point...
Many on the far-right insist that most forms of gun control are "making law abiding citizens jump through hoops to exercise something that's supposed to be a constitutional right" (which I would agree with them on many of those things), yet...voting is also a constitutional right but they seem to have no problem with making people jump through hoops on that.

In both cases, the purpose of making people jump through hoops is less about security or maintaining the integrity of an institution, and more about discouraging people from doing something you don't want them to do. Both sides' intentions on those two issues are very transparent. Far-left democrats want to discourage gun ownership, many republicans want to discourage voting (for certain folks) by enacting requirements that disproportionately impact demographics that don't tend to vote for them.

Both side tend to use scare tactics to justify their positions
"If we don't restrict guns, fender benders will turn into wild west shootouts in the streets"
"If we don't restrict voting, thousands of illegal immigrants will show up and vote 100 times"

 

[ThatRobGuy]

For the record, voting is not a Constitutional right. Voting is a privilege that's granted by the states. The Constitution only says that voting can't be denied because of race, sex, age over 18, or inability to pass any kind of test, or pay any kind of poll tax. Voting rights may be protected by state constitutions. But in theory, if it didn't violate its own constitution, a state could legally prohibit anyone from voting, as long as such prohibition wasn't based on those criteria.

"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. "

"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax. "

"Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. "

If voting isn't a "right", then they sure chose their words poorly in the constitution.