Repeal 22nd Amendment?

16th - repeal, or at least force a flat tax above a certain income level, and no tax below that level. I think different cut-offs for corporations and citizens would obviously be required, and corporations should be taxed on net income rather than gross because otherwise that money is taxed twice.

17th (direct election of senators) - repeal. this one was simply foolish.

22nd - replace "more than twice" with "more than once", and remove the original instance of " more than once".

23rd (congressional representation of D.C.) - repeal; ordinary people should not be living in the district. If they do, it's their fault they don't have official federal representation. The truth is, they do have federal representation because virtually all senators and congresspeople live nearby and go there as part of their jobs. Issues of concern in the District get addressed whether or not it has its own official representation. Issues of concern for residents should be brought before the D.C. city council.

And what ever happened to the ERA? I don't think States would have as much trouble ratifying it today as they did a few decades ago. What really ought to happen is that the anti-discrimination and rights guarantees that are part of the BoR, 13th, 14th, and the (unratified) ERA ought to be clarified and combined into a single statement of rights that would replace all those other amendments. It's silly to have one amendment that nebulously forbids de jure discrimination based on color, while some other amendment forbids discrimination based on sex.

And who's in charge of rewriting the 2nd and 4th amendments so the courts can't continue stomping on them without it being plainly obvious?
 
You really want the ****tards you elect for state office picking the ****tards who represent you in the Senate?

God, why not just go with a life-time appointment ala the House of Lords?
 
Given that nobody in the Senate respects the Constitution, I don't think doing away with popular election could cause any serious problems. It would eliminate at least one major problem, though -- Senators would not be skipping out on their jobs to go campaign.
 
You betcha. They may be ****tards, but they'll be ****tards who belong to the States, and represent those States in Congress.

Congress has absolutely no reason to pay the least attention to States Rights, and that needs to change.

God, why not just go with a life-time appointment ala the House of Lords?
Click to expand...

I give you Strom Thurmond (47 years in office), Robert Byrd (46 years and counting), Teddy Kennedy (42 years and counting), and others.

They've already got the life-time appointments, they might as well be balancing the State.gov versus the Fed.gov while they're there.

LawDog
 
a few comments from a History teacher

17th Amendment- many states elected senators prior to this amendment. The winner of the election was appointed by the state legislator. The 19th merely formalized this growing practice.
22nd Amendment- look at pictures of FDR in 1940 and 1945 and see what the office does to a president.. This amendment formalized the precedent set by Washington when he declined to run for a third term. FDR ignored Washington's advice and it killed him. The amendment was passed with FDR firmly in the mind of the federal and state legislators- no conspiracy involved!

The amendment process is so dfficult that few amendments are passed out of the thousands proposed. And that is how it was meant to be so that trendy , casual or politically motivated changes to the Constitution would be unlikely.

Times change and so can the Constitution but not easily. Clever guys 200 and some years ago!
 
"I give you Strom Thurmond (47 years in office), Robert Byrd (46 years and counting), Teddy Kennedy (42 years and counting), and others..."

And that's any different from the way it was in the 1800s?

Or, for that matter, from the House?

You've also given 3 examples on the extreme end of the equasion.

The average senatorial term throughout the second half of the 20th century was, IIRC, along the lines of 15 years, or just over 2 terms.

That's pretty decent churn.
 
But, to go against myself.... only in a few instances were Presidents elected more then 8 years, George Washington being one. Then does the Constitution say that a President can be re-elected many times, hence no limit on how many times or does it mean, for 4 years only? The majority after Washington was 4 years only, unless they were killed.
Click to expand...

Most of the 43 presidents that survived their first terms ran for reelection.

14 presidents served more than one term, 5 died in office, and 10 were defeated in their attempts at a second term. That's a lot more than a majority. Also, Washington was not elected for more than 8 years. He served 2 terms and started the tradition of only serving for two terms. The only 2 presidents that went against tradition were Franklin Roosevelt, who was elected 4 times and Teddy Roosevelt, who attempted to run for a third term but was defeated by Woodrow Wilson.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top