HR 1446

JPG said:

Only way to do this will be with a Convention of States.

https://conventionofstates.com

If the Senators were appointed by the States like originally were instead of elected by the masses two things would happen; 1. Big money would be out of the election - they would have to spread around to 435 congressmen instead of a handful of Senators each election cycle. and 2. Senators would vote in the interest of their State because they could get recalled or not get reappointed when their term is up.

Click to expand...

You'd need to amend the constitution again still. 17th moved senatorial elections to direct elections from appointment by state legislatures.

IMHO I think we SHOULD be directly voting on those running at least the executive and legislative branches. So I am not remotely supportive of overturning that one.

That said, I am firmly supportive of term AND age limits.

IMHO, for the later, set it to the social security full retirement age probably. As we live longer and in better health, you can serve longer.

But IMHO doesn't matter your party, some late 70 something, let alone 80 something year old should not be running the government. If the maximum age to start a term in office was 67, that would probably do the country a world of good. Hard to be as connected with real current issues or what the majority of Americans (even of your own party) actually care about when you are 1-3 generations older than the majority of your constituents.

I would argue that to a degree a part time elected official isn't a great idea. Or at least one who has very limited experience. Hard to understand how your government really functions with no experience. That said, I think for the house it should be no more than 4 terms, senate 2 and President of course 2. If you really went through all of those offices, that is 30 years in government. That is a full career. Spend your 4 terms and can't get elected to the senate. I guess you are out. Or try again another time to the senate or whatever.

How about what was in the Articles of Confederation

Article V

... " and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years;" ...

Soooooo. No Repesentative four years in any sixteen, No Senator six years in any twenty-four, sounds way good to me.

Chauchat said:

How about what was in the Articles of Confederation

Article V

... " and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years;" ...

Soooooo. No Repesentative four years in any sixteen, No Senator six years in any twenty-four, sounds way good to me.

Click to expand...

IMHO, considering modern society and how complex some things are, I'd be better off with 4 years terms in the house and 6 in the senate. But you can't hold office in contiguous terms.

2 years is a really short amount of time. I think part of the issue you run in to are politicians, especially in the house are basically always running for office. But 2 years is a really short amount of time to learn your job, how the legislative process works and do anything.

I am a bit more comfortable with government doing less, than more. But so you have continuity, continue to have elections every 2 years. Half the house is up for election in each 2 year election, just like 1/3rd of senators are.

Being in office WHILE running for office I think is half the problem. 100% ban on lobbying for or collecting campaign contributions while in office. Do they when you aren't serving in office. Also ban the promise of future campaign contributions (that'll be harder to enforce for sure, but something).

You can't sell real favors now, but "hey I just wrote an FEC max check to the senator. Unrelatedly, I was wondering if the senator might like to take a look at the bill I wrote regulating my client's industry?"

None of that and no "so I was thinking of writing a check for the senator later..."

Probably some strict lobbying stuff for former office holders. Add in some max number of terms in a body to prevent constant turn over. Well, the same two people have held the Maryland 2nd Congressional district in the House of Representatives for the last 40 years, they just trade it back and forth...

Oh and the ban on contiguous terms, make it for ANY elected office to the same branch. Maybe even elected office at that level of government (yeah, okay so a Mayor or Governor might run for Congress or the Presidency, or a Congress critter running for Governor, etc.). At least crack down if the point is reduce those running for office while in office from going from the house to the senate back to the house and so on as a revolving door.

lazarus said:

100% ban on lobbying for or collecting campaign contributions while in office. Do they when you aren't serving in office. Also ban the promise of future campaign contributions (that'll be harder to enforce for sure, but something).

Click to expand...

That doesn't solve the bigger problem, which is PACs and other non-campaign advocacy groups. Cut off a source of funding to the campaigns themselves, they'll be even more beholden to the external interests.

Allen65 said:

That doesn't solve the bigger problem, which is PACs and other non-campaign advocacy groups. Cut off a source of funding to the campaigns themselves, they'll be even more beholden to the external interests.

Click to expand...

Be fine getting rid of PACs also.

lazarus said:

Be fine getting rid of PACs also.

Click to expand...

Sounds good in theory, but it runs smack dab into the 1st Amendment on both free speech and "redress of grievances" grounds. A PAC is a group of people pooling their money to advocate for or against (more often against) government policies and the politicians responsible for them.

I'm in favor of all socialists. communists, and commie wannabes going directly to jail and not collecting their $200 in universal basic income. Of course, our economy will crash well before that could happen. What wins? Liberty or otherwise?

The Convention of States is a great idea, the only thing that's bugged me is issue of would there be a scope or would it be a free for all. For example, would they only be able to work on what the convention was called for, or could California throw in a repeal of the 2A along with term limits.

I think the framers messed up in the sense that instead of a convention of states, they should have made it more simple. A state proposes an amendment. If 3/4ths of the states pass the exact same legislation, it becomes an amendment.

rockstarr said:

Democrats know what that means when they lose power.

Click to expand...

KingClown said:

They wont lose power they now know they know how to rig elections and the courts wont do shit about it.

Click to expand...

Yeah, if the dims lose power the repubs will do..... absolutely nothing.