I believe everyone would agree that our federal government is not working the way it was intended.  So what's wrong with it?  

First, it's unresponsive to the people e.g., most Americans want to build a fence on the border and police it, but those in power (both sides) in DC have no intention of allowing that to happen.  

Second, most conservatives (if not most Americans) believe the federal government is too large and that it long ago encrouched upon the powers "reserved to the states respectively, or to the people".

Third, the two political parties are locked in mortal combat to determine the direction of this Nation, and that only the demise of one party can end the perpetual legislative gridlock inflicted upon us.

So....what one thing has caused unresponsiveness, encrouchment and legislative gridlock?   How about the reelection of the same egoistical, power hungry representatives who pander to the lobbyists for reelection money, who owe their allegiance to the party elites,  and who garner favor with their constituency by bringing home the pork?   It's who we elect.

The one way to break this insidious cycle is to stop returning those same people to DC year after year.  I'm talking about term limiting the Congress.  

Term Limits.....that one simple solution would kill the corrupt seniority system currently in place and eliminate the disproportionate power of the long tenured over the less tenured.  

It would weaken the monolithic power of the two parties over the elected representatives by obviating the need for party support in future reelection attempts.  

It would encourage  representatives to be more responsive to the desires of the people by freeing them from party/lobbyist money.

It would encourage cross-party alliances based upon the interests of their constituents, and it would diminish the lock-step, unthinking, monolithic voting block demanded by party elites.

It would bring new ideas to DC and diminish the vitriol and personal animus we see between the long tenured power elites.

I really see no alternative solution.  Real change is needed.  More of the same will just get us more of the same.

The liberal Supreme Court of Sandra Day O'Conner ruled against term limits thus insuring we live in a defacto dictatorship where only the figure head(President) changes every 4 to 8 years.

AMEN!

I've heard several arguments against Congressional term limits and they're all preposterous.  Term limits would go a long way towards fixing America's problems.  We need a Constitutional Amendment that doesn't originate in the Halls of Congress, NO Senator or Congressman would ever propose or consent to such a thing.  They must be bypassed to let the issue come directly to the American people.

Well..here's a little something that hasn't made the big news yet and probably won't.  This is how they would keep their jobs and therefore their power and their empires.  I am disgusted to say that my senator (who doesn't represent me), Arlen Specter-RINO Extrordinaire, apparently is co-sponsoring this amendment.  The odds of it actually going thru and becoming a change to our constitution is doubtful since 2/3 is needed to ratify a constitutional amendment.  This just makes me ill.  Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely..I forget who said that..   Campaign Reformers, Drunk on Power
Is their next target the Constitution?
Steve Chapman | October 29, 2007
<!-- google_ad_section_start -->When a political party that has been a minority suddenly gains power, the change can be intoxicating. After Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives in 1994, you didn't need a Breathalyzer to detect the effect. It became obvious the instant they started batting around ideas for amending the Constitution—everything from banning flag desecration to inventing new rights for crime victims.

None of these went anywhere. Even the hyperkinetic Newt Gingrich soon realized he had his hands full with the normal business of legislating. Sobriety eventually returned.

But Democrats are susceptible to the same peril. For years, they (along with a few Republicans, notably John McCain) have clamored for laws to purge campaigns of the baneful influence of money. Now, heady with their unaccustomed majority status, they have decided mere laws are not enough.

They want to amend the Constitution.

The proposed amendment, sponsored by Senate Democrats Chuck Schumer of New York and Tom Harkin of Iowa, would overturn Supreme Court decisions that limit Congress' power to regulate the funding of political campaigns. The senators are right about one thing: The "reforms" they envision cannot be reconciled with the Constitution -- particularly that passage about free speech and free association. So if their ambitions cannot be reconciled with the First Amendment, too bad for the First Amendment.

Their discontent dates back to the Watergate era, when Congress tried to cure corruption by putting tight limits on political contributions and expenditures. In their zeal, lawmakers paid no heed to critics who said the restrictions would impoverish public understanding by impeding communication.

But the critics were vindicated when the Supreme Court ruled that, under the First Amendment, candidates are free both to spend as much as they choose and to contribute unlimited amounts to their own campaigns. It also said citizens have the right to spend as much as they choose to spread their own views about candidates.

"Discussion of public issues and debate on the qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of the system of government established by our Constitution," the court held. "A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their exploration, and the size of the audience reached."

Subsequent measures have foundered on the same rocks. The 2002 McCain-Feingold law made it illegal to use corporate funds for radio or TV spots that even mention a candidate for federal office within 60 days of an election. This year, though, the court said that unless such commercials are clearly campaign ads in disguise, they may not be banned. When the purpose of a message is in question, wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, "we give the benefit of doubt to speech, not censorship."

Not Schumer and Harkin, who are joined in their crusade by Republican Sens. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and Thad Cochran of Mississippi. The amendment would give Congress complete authority to regulate "the raising and spending of money, including the setting of limits," for any federal campaign.

The most obvious travesty is that the amendment would repeal the First Amendment as it relates to campaign finance. This would be the first time in our history that we altered the Constitution to curtail liberties protected by the Bill of Rights.

It would also have the effect, not accidental, of protecting incumbent members of Congress from being unseated at the polls. Whatever else our leaders may try to achieve through campaign finance laws, you can be sure their paramount objective will be ensuring they stay in office.

Such restrictions are an easy way to accomplish that end in the hallowed guise of fighting corruption. Since they have numerous ways to keep their names in front of voters without spending money, incumbents have little to lose from spending limits. Challengers generally can't win votes unless they can deliver their message to voters, which requires sums of money that campaign reformers hope to deny them.

Fortunately, the amendment has dim chances of being enacted. A constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds majority in each house, and even McCain-Feingold didn't get that.

But the effort should serve two invaluable purposes. Democrats in Congress will learn the limits of their new power, and the public will gain a new appreciation of why the power of Congress needs limits.

COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.<!-- google_ad_section_end -->

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution to provide for term limits for the United States Congress, both House of Representatives and Senate, and for greater accountability in the Service to the Country as an elected politician to the Congress of the United States

Resolved by the People, citizens of these United States of America, that the following articles are proposed as amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within six months after the date of its submission to the States for ratification.

ARTICLE—1

Section 1.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every three years by the People of the several States comprising the United States of America. Numbers of Representatives shall be determined based upon populations of their respective districts.  Each Representative shall have one Vote.   Each Representative shall be limited to two consecutive terms within the House of Representatives.  

Section 3.  

The Senate of the United States of America shall be composed of two senators from each State duly elected every 3 years by the People of the several States comprising the United States of America.  Senators shall serve no more than two consecutive terms in the Senate house of the Congress.  Each Senator shall have one Vote.
ARTICLE—V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States comprising the United States of America, or under majority opinion of the people thru exercise of the right to vote, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments.  When ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several states comprising the United States of America thru Convention the proposed Amendments shall be considered valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of the Constitution of the United States of America.

It is the feeling of the People of the United States that Congress has lost touch with those they are supposed to Represent and in particular those who have spent entire careers in the Congress.

It is the feeling of the People of the United States that corruption amongst members of the Congress has become a major issue to be dealt with and it is the feeling of the People of the United States that the Congress is not dealing with such corruption.

It is the feeling of the People of the United States that certain members have created political empires in which to spend the people’s money for their own political gain.


It is the feeling of the People of the United States that certain members create laws in opposition to the will of the people and try to rush these laws thru the Congress and to the President for signature despite the People’s direct opposition and voice.

Be it resolved that the People, citizens of the United States, wish to execute their rights as “WE THE PEOPLE” in demanding the Congress of the United States call a Constitutional Convention to provide an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to institute term limits within both Houses of the Congress both in terms of time limits and term limits.  Be it also resolved that the People of the United States wish to exercise their right to vote on the calling of Constitutional Conventions for proposing Amendments to the Constitution whenever the bodies of Congress attempt to legislate issues in direct violation of the Constitution of the United States of America.

TheIndependent wrote:The liberal Supreme Court of Sandra Day O'Conner ruled against term limits thus insuring we live in a defacto dictatorship where only the figure head(President) changes every 4 to 8 years.

Yes, but I'm talking about amending the Constitution by way of Article Five and demanding Congress call a Constitutional Convention.  That has never been done in the history of our Nation, although every state in the union (100%) has requested it at one time or another.  Congress ignores the requests for fear they will lose control.

To: SoldiersMum

Great draft of proposed Article Five

Thank you.  I wrote it myself just after the second cloture vote on the Amnesty Bill as an OpEd piece for a blog I write for.  It seemed to me then as it seems to me now, that having individuals in Congress for a lifetime is not what the founding fathers had in mind.  When just looking at the Senate, they have completely changed the intent in the constitution and the power of that body.  It was the House that was supposed to have the power.  They, the fossils, cease to be representatives of the people and become all powerful leaders of their own empires where they no longer see or for that matter care about "the people" who sent them there in the first place.

The Federal Government has become something the founders never envisioned as well.  The expansion of its power has incrementally crept into our lives and unfortunately will continue if we don't start getting some real conservatives into the offices that matter.  Did you know that no where in the constitution is a federal income tax authorized by the Federal Government?  If anyone can find any place where it states they can tax the people for the reasons they use, entitlements being the largest one [expansion of socialism], then please enlighten me because I sure have not been able to find that authorization.

So how can we force Congress to call a Constitutional Convention?  They will never do so voluntarily.  To date the states have submitted 567 applications and Congress has turned a blind eye to them all....they are all logged in the Congressional Record....but no action has ever been taken even though every single state has requested it.

It appears that only a successful lawsuit will ever force the issue.  With all the political action groups out there why hasn't one of them filed suit to compel Congress to act in accordance with the Constitution?  Do we need Congress's consent to sue?  It's really scary when you think about it......a bunch of political elites thumbing their noses at the rest of us.  Wait a minute.....that sounds a little like 1776 and the reason we fought the revolution.

Yeah, but the difference is, back then the common man had little say on who ended up in Parliament. Far too many stupid Americans are willing to vote for Hillary and her lackeys.