Just the News
Supporters of COS [Convention of States] who are clamoring about out-of-control spending may have a substantial case. The U.S. national debt in the year 2000, according to the U.S. Treasury, was $5.63 trillion. It is now $37.43 and counting. That’s a 565% increase.
Another hallmark issue for COS is term limits for elected officials. The call for term limits in elected office stems from bipartisan concerns about entrenched power, career politicians, and declining public trust in government. Supporters of the idea argue that term limits would promote fresh perspectives and accountability, since the average length of service is now 10.1 years for the House (a little over five terms) and 12.7 years for the Senate (over two terms.)
I am still concerned that this would make the Deep State even more entrenched than it has been. We need to do something about that before we put term limits in.
Be careful what you wish for.
Convention of States?
Sure. Why not? Here’s the agenda:
1. Bounce the 16th. Amendment.
2. Bounce the 17th. Amendment. Senate appointments as originally defined in the Constitution.
3. Amendment to require certified, secret paper ballots in national elections.
4. Amendment to provide for Congressional sessions only upon request of 60% of State Legislatures or upon emergency Presidential decree.
5. Amendment to strike the words “promote the general Welfare” from the Preamble of the Constitution.
That’s enough for this Convention.
Term limits would be another huge, irreversible mistake like the 17th amendment.
We’ve always had term limits; they’re called elections.
$37.43 trillion debt
I’ve read that, if you stacked that many $1 bills on top of each other, they would go to the moon, and beyond, ten times.
As tk “trrm limits” it may change the face on the campaign posters, but does nothing to turn out the various and sundry office denizens and frankly the lobbiest that write too much of the legislation.
Add to this how delegates are selected, and this country will certainly get more socialist, not less.
Too many ‘blue’ states, and too many deep state RINOs that bask in their grift of power and money, to trust it wouldn’t make things much worse.
They don’t follow the constitution now! Why would they follow the new rules put in it? And that assumes the whole process isn’t hijacked.
What about a tar and feathering amendment?
Only growing larger under Mr. Bankruptcy. For all of you approved his plans to throw it all away.
I’ve always believed; make voting 100% legit and the rest will take care of itself.
@General Malaise
Regarding your 5th recommendation; the term “general welfare” in the Preamble does not refer to entitlement programs, as many Americans seem to believe in the modern day. It was referring to the overall well-being of the entire nation in a common term used at the time of its founding. That the government was supposed to oversee the conditions that allowed our country and citizens to prosper – ie: opportunity for everyone.
By saying that line should be striken is agreeing with the left that our Constitution implies the government should support the lazy and entitled, which it was NEVER meant to mean.
Put a Democrat in the top slot of this corporation and every single f**cking EO will be reversed as fast as the paperwork can be signed. We were provided the means to cut our federal government off at the knees by people that knew where we’d eventually end up. We’re there.
Yeah, a convention of states scary. So is AOC as POTUS and Mamdani as VP.
I’m going to piss somebody off now. Elections as term limits? That’s a display of mind-numbing ignorance. How have those election based term limits worked out over the last couple hundred years?
Great civilizations that existed before us have fallen. I’m certain that they found comfort in the status quo. Our forefathers provided us a path to the water but they can’t make us drink. We’re too damned smart for that.
Peter – I forgot the “Commerce Clause” –
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
[The Congress shall have Power . . . ] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; . . .
…which, in the 20th Century, has been taken to mean by almost everyone (courts and Congress) that Congress may “regulate” not only trade between the States, but the very products of such trade. This was NOT the intent of the writers and also needs to be seriously addressed in an Amendment.
Similarly, the “general Welfare” clause has been interpreted to mean the Federal Government is RESPONSIBLE for your welfare. It represents “philosophyical creap” in the original reasoning that you cite.
Here’s my logic: The Constitution is a LEGAL DOCUMENT and the SOURCE of our law in this country. It does NOT need ambiguous, ill-defined, easily misconstrued sentences or clauses in it. We need to remove them.
Why not just impose the death penalty for treason and be done with it?
Anything less than a complete R and R is just pissing in the wind, IMO. That’s a very, very tall order, I know. I have no doubt it would be a brutal, bloody, battle. I believe it’s inevitable. The progressives, and all of the foreign trash need to be eliminated, with extra attention paid to the Ahabs. Just my personal belief. I’m probably way off base. I hope I am. I would wager I’m not that far off.
Communisms’ only failure, is that it hasn’t been done by the right people.