Had Enough Yet?

by Chuck on September 22, 2011 · 0 comments

I was reading the news today about how the House rejected a measure which would provide up to $3.7 billion in disaster relief as part of a bill to prevent a government shutdown at the end of next week.  According to the AP:

“The surprise 230-195 defeat came at the hands of Democrats and tea party Republicans.

Democrats were opposed because the measure contains $1.5 billion in cuts to a government loan program to help car companies build fuel-efficient vehicles. For their part, many GOP conservatives felt the underlying bill permits spending at too high a rate.

The outcome sends House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and his leadership team back to the drawing board as they seek to make sure the government doesn’t shut down on Sept. 30, the end of this fiscal year. It also raises the possibility that the government’s main disaster relief program could run out of money early next week for victims of Hurricane Irene and other disasters.”

I don’t think anybody disagrees that FEMA needs the funding, and that we need to help those who suffer when a natural disaster strikes.  What disturbs me is the continuation of business as usual in Congress where they refuse to pay for their expenditures out of cash on hand.  Last time I looked, it was a company’s responsibility to fund its own R&D.  If it needed a loan, it would go to its bank and get one.  If it was a small business, they could go to the SBA (a worse paper chase does not exist in this country… they make it so you just want to tell them to kiss your ass and walk away).

However, a publicly held company shouldn’t be able to go to the Feds to get a loan guarantee for R&D, no matter the project’s goal, which in this case is development of fuel efficient vehicles.  Riddle me this:  Why are the Dems in such lockstep over the availability of Federal guarantees for this R&D?  Think about it.  The Dems must have something to gain by guaranteeing these loans.  What might that be?

So, do you want to fix the problems in DC?  The solution is very simple, you know… and here it is, step by step:

Repeal the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution (Limits the president to two terms, or a maximum of 10 years (i.e., if a Vice President serves not more than one half of a President’s term, he or she can be elected to a further two terms).

Repeal the 17th Amendment to the Constitution (Establishes the direct election of United States Senators by popular vote).

Create a new Constitutional Amendment (we’ll call it the Term Limits Amendment for now) that incorporates the text of the 22nd Amendment, plus the following text:

No person may serve more than twelve (12) years in Congress.  If a person has been appointed to fill a vacant Congressional seat by their state’s Governor or by special election, he or she can be elected to terms totaling 12 years in addition to the time served filling the vacancy.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the legislatures thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.  When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the legislatures of such State shall elect a replacement to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the legislature fills the vacancies by election.

Congress shall make no law that affects The People that does not apply to the members thereof.

There you have it.  So, what have we done here?  First, we have eliminated the career politician at the Federal level.  Nobody spend more than 12 years in Congress… period.

We have also helped undo the partisan politics inherent in having members of the Senate elected by the general population of each State.  Our Founding Fathers created the House of Representatives as The People’s House, whereby those serving in The House were looking out for The People’s best interests.  Under the original provisions of the Constitution, Senators were elected by State legislatures; this was intended to ensure that the Federal government contained representatives of the States, and also to provide a body not dependent on popular support that could afford to “take a more detached view of issues coming before Congress”.

Though some will claim otherwise, the 17th amendments was a pure power play designed to further entrench party politics in DC.  Critics of the Seventeenth Amendment claim that by altering the way Senators are elected, the States lost any representation they had in the Federal government and that this led to the gradual “slide into ignominy” of State legislatures, as well as an overextension of Federal power and the rise of special interest groups to fill the power vacuum previously occupied by State legislatures.  In my opinion, these critics were correct in their assessment, and it is time to go back to doing things the way our Founding Fathers intended they be done.

We have also eliminated loopholes such as those created by ObamaCare when Congress was able to exempt themselves from it.  If a law is good enough for The People to be subject to its statutes, it’s good enough for the members of Congress to be subject to it, as well.

It is pretty clear there is no way Congress will author an Amendment that will limit their term of service to 12 years.  After all, it’s not in their best interest.  The Supreme Court has also ruled that the States cannot limit the terms of their representatives to Congress.  So, the only way left for We The People to regain control of our Government is to take matters into our own hands, and push for a Constitutional Amendment ourselves.  I will be discussing how we can do that in another article.

Of course, this is just One Man’s View.  I welcome your comments.

, Constitution , limited government , Politics

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: