In 1776 people died. It is just that simple.
You didn't need term limits.
In 1776, the life expectancy was 35 years old (assuming you had a large supply of leeches).
Today, it is 78 years old.
This is not a reflection on the age of congress. When it was set up, Franklin was one of the oldest people alive and one of the most valuable members. Instead, we are talking about the natural replacement of members of every age (from 35 up).
In addition. issues are more complex, things happen quicker and the power of congress is farther reaching. This means that congress (as a whole) needs more time to review issues and to measure the results of their actions.
What is suggested is set out in more detail in "China's Weaponized Economy" a book better described today as "How to take back Congress from innept career politicians" but that's a job for later in the week.
The basics are two terms of 5 years with limitations thereafter of increasing severity. I don't think "any" exception is justified since there are other ways for people to serve, but if you wanted an exception, an example would be to require that 25 states vote to allow an extended term for someone to run past the two terms and then increasing the number of states thereafter. Someone the country considered essential (like a Franklin or an Adams) could continue in office). This coudl even apply to presidential candidates. Unfortunately, this would potentially lead to worse corruption than we have.
As I have mentioned previously, this is something to do at the state level. The reason is congress is too corrupt to do this to themselves. The good news? It's relatively easy where, as now, the majority of the population sees the need for this.
The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.
The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.
Want more? See China's Weaponized economy, soon to be re-released as "How to take Congress back from innept and corrupt career politicians" or some such name.
No comments:
Post a Comment