The Congress of The United States is granted power, by the people, to pass legislation and send that legislation to the President of The United States. The President of The United States may sign the legislation, or exercise veto the veto power granted by the people.
If The President exercises veto power, the legislation will be returned to The Congress of The United States for amendment, or the necessary vote to override the veto of The President of The United States. If The Congress of The United States does not vote to override the veto of The President of The United States, the bill is considered dead.
If the President of The United States signs legislation sent to him by The Congress of The United States, the legislation will then be posted online for seventy-two (72) hours, during which time all registered voters will have the opportunity to log into a secured website and vote to approve, or reject the legislation.
If a majority of American voters who choose to cast a vote on the legislation vote to approve the legislation, the legislation is enacted into law, on a timeline stated in the legislation. If a majority of American voters who choose to cast a vote on the legislation reject the legislation, the legislation is returned to The Congress of The United States. The Congress of The United States may choose to amend the legislation for further consideration by American voters, or kill the legislation.
This Constitutional Amendment forbids The Congress of The United States, or The President of The United States to take any Executive Action that is not in accordance with legislation as it is approved by a majority of American voters.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Constitutional Amendment 28 Will Give Power To The People
This movement will work and it can be done in one of two ways. Congress can pass a Constitutional Amendment requiring a majority, online vote of the people before legislation is enacted into law. Two-thirds (2/3) of the states must ratify such an Amendment. Another way to pass a Constitutional Amendment is by putting it on state ballots, bypassing congress completely. This requires ratification by a three-fourths (3/4) of the states.
Members of congress will never voluntarily give Americans the online voting right. We the people will have to do it on our own, by passing an Amendment and ratifying it in three-fourths of the states. Members of congress are addicted to their power and many of them truly believe they know better than the people who elected them what is best for the people who elected them. Congress is only.000004% of all American voters and we the people are allowing this .000004% of Americans to destroy America.
Case in point; the House and Senate passed The Affordable Care Act despite outrage from a majority of American voters. In 2010, many of those members of congress were replaced in The House of Representatives, but they were replaced too late. The damage was done. The Affordable Care Act was already passed.
We are now facing multiple issues with The Affordable Care Act. The issues are so bad that members of congress have exempted themselves and their staff from the Act. Once again, they have put their own well being over the well being of the people who elected them to office. The final word on legislation before it is enacted must be taken away from congress and given to the people.
Congress will still have a very important job; to propose and pass laws for the voter consideration. After the law is passed by congress, and signed by The President, the American voter must have 72 hours to log into a secure site and vote for approval, or rejection of the law. If a majority vote of the people is for approval, the law is enacted. If a majority vote of the people is for rejection, the law must go back to congress for further consideration. It really is that simple and it will work every time.
Will all registered voters log into a site and vote on every law passed by congress? No, but a large majority will, especially on legislation like The Affordable Care Act. The majority vote of the people will be the final voice on legislation. That majority vote must be our check and balance on a congress that does not always do the will of the people.
Would we have The Affordable Care Act today if it had to pass a majority vote of the people? The polls at the time it was thrust upon us by congress indicate that The Affordable Care Act would not have passed a vote of the people. The 2010 elections indicate that Americans were upset at members of congress who passed The Affordable Care Act. Many of those members of congress were voted out of office, but voting them out of office was too late to save Americans from The Affordable Care Act.
Every American voter must have the opportunity to vote on all legislation before he/she has to live under the law. Such a vote will also put an end to congress passing laws, then exempting themselves from the law without our approval. It's time for this .000004% of American voters to live under the same laws all other American voters live under.
The wording of a Constitutional Amendment must be simple. Here is an example.
The Congress of The United States is granted power, by the people, to
pass legislation and send that legislation to the President of The
United States. The President of The United States may sign the
legislation, or exercise veto the veto power granted by the people.
If The President exercises veto power, the legislation will be returned to The Congress of The United States for amendment, or the necessary vote to override the veto of The President of The United States. If The Congress of The United States does not vote to override the veto of The President of The United States, the bill is considered dead.
If the President of The United States signs legislation sent to him by The Congress of The United States, the legislation will then be posted online for seventy-two (72) hours, during which time all registered voters will have the opportunity to log into a secured website and vote to approve, or reject the legislation.
If a majority of American voters who choose to cast a vote on the legislation vote to approve the legislation, the legislation is enacted into law, on a timeline stated in the legislation. If a majority of American voters who choose to cast a vote on the legislation reject the legislation, the legislation is returned to The Congress of The United States. The Congress of The United States may choose to amend the legislation for further consideration by American voters, or kill the legislation.
This Amendment forbids The Congress of The United States, or The President of The United States to take any Executive Action that is not in accordance with legislation as it is approved by a majority of American voters.
Monday, August 12, 2013
The GOP Missed Its Only Opportunity To Defund Obamacare
Congress voted to exempt its members and staffers from the Affordable Care Act (ACA). I do not blame them for exempting themselves, but I have to ask why republican members of congress did not hold out for extending that exemption to all Americans when they gave it to themselves? Instead of forcing ACA on congress, why not give Americans the same exemption congress gave itself?
Where should implementation of the ACA not be left up to the individuals who will pay for it? Why not just let Americans choose to accept, or reject the ACA on an individual basis? Why not let the ACA be an individual selection, instead of an individual mandate?
Democrats in congress will argue that the ACA will not work unless there is an individual mandate. Duh... you think? Perhaps those who do not want the individual mandate know the ACA will not work, even with the mandate. Could it be a majority of American voters know better than congress? Congress is .000004% of American voters, yet they are forcing the ACA on everyone... except themselves.
What is wrong with that picture? What is wrong with that picture is the fact that .000004% of Americans are arrogant enough to believe they know what is best for all other Americans. What is wrong with that picture is the fact that .000004% of Americans are forcing all other Americans to live under laws from which the .000004% is exempt. What is tragic about it; we Americans allow them to do it.
Personally, I do not want to force the ACA on congress and congressional staffers. I believe they should be allowed the exemption, but I want the exemption for myself, along with members of congress and their staffers. Why do members of congress, and staffers, believe they are better than those of us who pay their salaries? They believe it because we allow them to believe it.
Fox News is attempting to get all members of congress to answer whether, or not, they will exempt themselves. I submit that Fox News should attempt to get the same answer from all congressional staffers. Perhaps that question posed to staffers may encourage those staffers, who have the ears of congressional members, to fight for exemptions for all other Americans. Perhaps Fox News should expose the staffers who exempt themselves, the same way the news network works to expose their bosses.
Senator Ted Cruz, while exempting himself and his staffers, is trying to defund the ACA. He will fail, even though a majority of Americans support his effort. He could have fought to give the same exemption to Americans that he gave to himself and his staff, but that thought never entered his mind. Why did he and his republican colleagues in congress not fight that fight for all Americans?
The answer is simple; Senator Ted Cruz and his colleagues were thinking about themselves when they exempted themselves and staffers. They were not thinking about their constituents. It is business as usual for Senator Ted Cruz. He replaced a fight for his constituents with a fight for his personal agenda. He is not a hero for attempting to defund the ACA. He and his colleagues are cowards for not fighting to give all Americans the right to exempt themselves from the ACA.
The republican controlled House of Representatives had voted 40 times to repeal the ACA, knowing every time their bill would go nowhere in The Senate. How much time did the republicans waste? Why did those same republicans say no to exempting themselves unless the same exemption was given to all Americans? The answer is simple; they put personal well being ahead of their constituents.
Why should congress not fight now to give all Americans the exemption they gave themselves? It's too late now. The House of Representatives can vote to exempt Americans from the ACA now, but such a vote will go nowhere in The Senate. The Senate already has what it wants, exemption for its members and their staffers. Republicans leaped to exempt themselves before they looked for a way to exempt all Americans.
When will Americans send people to congress who will put their constituents wants and needs ahead of congressional members' personal wants and needs? The American people have no one to blame but ourselves if we re-elect any member of congress who exempts himself/herself from the personal mandate.
Where should implementation of the ACA not be left up to the individuals who will pay for it? Why not just let Americans choose to accept, or reject the ACA on an individual basis? Why not let the ACA be an individual selection, instead of an individual mandate?
Democrats in congress will argue that the ACA will not work unless there is an individual mandate. Duh... you think? Perhaps those who do not want the individual mandate know the ACA will not work, even with the mandate. Could it be a majority of American voters know better than congress? Congress is .000004% of American voters, yet they are forcing the ACA on everyone... except themselves.
What is wrong with that picture? What is wrong with that picture is the fact that .000004% of Americans are arrogant enough to believe they know what is best for all other Americans. What is wrong with that picture is the fact that .000004% of Americans are forcing all other Americans to live under laws from which the .000004% is exempt. What is tragic about it; we Americans allow them to do it.
Personally, I do not want to force the ACA on congress and congressional staffers. I believe they should be allowed the exemption, but I want the exemption for myself, along with members of congress and their staffers. Why do members of congress, and staffers, believe they are better than those of us who pay their salaries? They believe it because we allow them to believe it.
Fox News is attempting to get all members of congress to answer whether, or not, they will exempt themselves. I submit that Fox News should attempt to get the same answer from all congressional staffers. Perhaps that question posed to staffers may encourage those staffers, who have the ears of congressional members, to fight for exemptions for all other Americans. Perhaps Fox News should expose the staffers who exempt themselves, the same way the news network works to expose their bosses.
Senator Ted Cruz, while exempting himself and his staffers, is trying to defund the ACA. He will fail, even though a majority of Americans support his effort. He could have fought to give the same exemption to Americans that he gave to himself and his staff, but that thought never entered his mind. Why did he and his republican colleagues in congress not fight that fight for all Americans?
The answer is simple; Senator Ted Cruz and his colleagues were thinking about themselves when they exempted themselves and staffers. They were not thinking about their constituents. It is business as usual for Senator Ted Cruz. He replaced a fight for his constituents with a fight for his personal agenda. He is not a hero for attempting to defund the ACA. He and his colleagues are cowards for not fighting to give all Americans the right to exempt themselves from the ACA.
The republican controlled House of Representatives had voted 40 times to repeal the ACA, knowing every time their bill would go nowhere in The Senate. How much time did the republicans waste? Why did those same republicans say no to exempting themselves unless the same exemption was given to all Americans? The answer is simple; they put personal well being ahead of their constituents.
Why should congress not fight now to give all Americans the exemption they gave themselves? It's too late now. The House of Representatives can vote to exempt Americans from the ACA now, but such a vote will go nowhere in The Senate. The Senate already has what it wants, exemption for its members and their staffers. Republicans leaped to exempt themselves before they looked for a way to exempt all Americans.
When will Americans send people to congress who will put their constituents wants and needs ahead of congressional members' personal wants and needs? The American people have no one to blame but ourselves if we re-elect any member of congress who exempts himself/herself from the personal mandate.
Friday, August 9, 2013
Reince Priebus Has His Foot In His Mouth
Every time I here the name Reince Priebus I think about David Letterman's list of the top ten ways to mispronounce his name. My personal favorite was "Rented Prius".
Reince Priebus was RNC chairman when Mitt Romney lost to Barack Obama, but Reince now has the way to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential campaign. Never mind that Hillary Clinton has not announced her candidacy yet and never mind that the republications have not nominated an opponent to tun against whomever the democrats nominate. Priebus has put his foot in his mouth. Unfortunately he has also put his foot in his party's mouth and the mouth of the party's candidate in 2016.
Reince Priebus is running scared of a potential candidate. He has taken the stand that his party will not participate in presidential debates aired on CBS and CNN if those networks air a miniseries about Hillary Clinton. Perhaps he should wait to see who the 2016 democratic nominee for president is before he formulates a strategy to avoid debating the nominee? Right now, he just looks like he is afraid to have his candidate debate anyone on CBS or CNN.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have no idea who I will vote for in the 2016 presidential election, for a very good reason. I have no idea who is running yet! With respect to Hillary Clinton, I am not her most avid supporter, but let's give the lady her due. She was First Lady, Senator from New York, Presidential Candidate and Secretary of State. My resume is not that impressive and neither is the resume of Reince Priebus.
Maybe he is just upset because he does not have a resume worthy of a miniseries about him, unless his top ten list on The David Letterman Show qualifies him for a miniseries. Of course, his current whining sessions will probably make it to the miniseries. That will be an "ah shit" moment for the RNC and the Republican Party. Reince clearly does not think before he opens his mouth.
Reince was on Fox News, The Sean Hannity Show, whining about the proposed miniseries. Reince definitely picked the right venue for whining. Sean Hannity is as far to the right as Chris Matthews is to the left. Sean was happy to give Reince time to air a "bitch-fest" about Fox News competitors.
Reince announced the republicans will not participate in presidential debates on CBS and CNN in 2016 if those networks air a miniseries about Hillary Clinton. If CBS and CNN do not play by his rules, he will not play the game? What if the eventual republican nominee disagrees with Reince's position regarding the debates? How does Reince manage to remove his foot from his mouth then?
Right now he just looks like a man who is running afraid of Hillary Clinton, but there may be more to it than that. He may just be using that as an excuse to get his candidate out of debating. If his candidate does not agree with him in 2016, Reince may be the man whose party's nominee will not even listen to him. Perhaps Reince Priebus should work on a campaign strategy that does not include running from debates.
There is no question that some of the 2012 debates were biased, in favor of democrats. Reince does have a point with respect to having some say in picking the moderators for 2016. However, I believe the moderators for 2012 debates were all approved by republicans. Did he play any role in approving those moderators? If so, should republicans question his judgement as their chairman?
Reince has a platform to discuss the issues now, such as the economy, jobs, the debt ceiling, etc. I guess those things are not as important to him as a miniseries about a person who has not yet announced that she is a candidate for president in 2016. Reince, if you do not have a plan that reaches beyond whining, bitching and moaning about a miniseries, do your party a favor and use the time to come up with more ways to mispronounce your name. Letterman will be happy to air them.
Reince Priebus was RNC chairman when Mitt Romney lost to Barack Obama, but Reince now has the way to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential campaign. Never mind that Hillary Clinton has not announced her candidacy yet and never mind that the republications have not nominated an opponent to tun against whomever the democrats nominate. Priebus has put his foot in his mouth. Unfortunately he has also put his foot in his party's mouth and the mouth of the party's candidate in 2016.
Reince Priebus is running scared of a potential candidate. He has taken the stand that his party will not participate in presidential debates aired on CBS and CNN if those networks air a miniseries about Hillary Clinton. Perhaps he should wait to see who the 2016 democratic nominee for president is before he formulates a strategy to avoid debating the nominee? Right now, he just looks like he is afraid to have his candidate debate anyone on CBS or CNN.
In the interest of full disclosure, I have no idea who I will vote for in the 2016 presidential election, for a very good reason. I have no idea who is running yet! With respect to Hillary Clinton, I am not her most avid supporter, but let's give the lady her due. She was First Lady, Senator from New York, Presidential Candidate and Secretary of State. My resume is not that impressive and neither is the resume of Reince Priebus.
Maybe he is just upset because he does not have a resume worthy of a miniseries about him, unless his top ten list on The David Letterman Show qualifies him for a miniseries. Of course, his current whining sessions will probably make it to the miniseries. That will be an "ah shit" moment for the RNC and the Republican Party. Reince clearly does not think before he opens his mouth.
Reince was on Fox News, The Sean Hannity Show, whining about the proposed miniseries. Reince definitely picked the right venue for whining. Sean Hannity is as far to the right as Chris Matthews is to the left. Sean was happy to give Reince time to air a "bitch-fest" about Fox News competitors.
Reince announced the republicans will not participate in presidential debates on CBS and CNN in 2016 if those networks air a miniseries about Hillary Clinton. If CBS and CNN do not play by his rules, he will not play the game? What if the eventual republican nominee disagrees with Reince's position regarding the debates? How does Reince manage to remove his foot from his mouth then?
Right now he just looks like a man who is running afraid of Hillary Clinton, but there may be more to it than that. He may just be using that as an excuse to get his candidate out of debating. If his candidate does not agree with him in 2016, Reince may be the man whose party's nominee will not even listen to him. Perhaps Reince Priebus should work on a campaign strategy that does not include running from debates.
There is no question that some of the 2012 debates were biased, in favor of democrats. Reince does have a point with respect to having some say in picking the moderators for 2016. However, I believe the moderators for 2012 debates were all approved by republicans. Did he play any role in approving those moderators? If so, should republicans question his judgement as their chairman?
Reince has a platform to discuss the issues now, such as the economy, jobs, the debt ceiling, etc. I guess those things are not as important to him as a miniseries about a person who has not yet announced that she is a candidate for president in 2016. Reince, if you do not have a plan that reaches beyond whining, bitching and moaning about a miniseries, do your party a favor and use the time to come up with more ways to mispronounce your name. Letterman will be happy to air them.
Monday, August 5, 2013
Immigration Reform - Not Unless Current Laws Are Enforced
The Department of Justice refuses to enforce current immigration laws. So, democrats want to pass more immigration laws. Why will Department of Justice enforce new laws when it will not enforce current laws? The answer is simple, Barack Obama and Eric Holder do not like the current laws. So, let's wait until after the 2016 elections.
Maybe a new Republican administration will enforce current laws, and we may see that those laws work. The argument is that the current laws do not work. My car does not work without effort on my part. I actually have to put gas in it and turn on the key. Yet Barack Obama and Eric Holder make no effort to enforce the current immigration laws, then claim those laws do not work.
Is that really how it works? Does the President of The United States and The United States Attorney General really have the right to enforce only the laws they favor? I say no. I support their right to fight for immigration reform, but they are breaking the law by not enforcing current laws on the books while they work on immigration reform.
It's a bit disingenuous for the Obama administration to claim others are blocking immigration reform when the Obama administration blocks enforcement of current laws that are on the books. It is a slippery slope when government employees are allowed to choose which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore.
Last week I ignored a speed limit sign and was ticketed. The speed limit is only 30 MPH on a street that is clearly meant for higher speeds. I believe the police officer who gave me the ticket should have refused to enforce the speed limit on that street. Unfortunately, he did not agree with me. I guess the police officer is more conscienuous about doing his job than Barack Obama and Eric Holder are about doing their jobs.
Let's enforce the laws on the books. If that enforcement does not work, then we are justified in reforming the law. The "pick and choose" position of The President and Attorney General should be met with a no vote on reform legislation.
Maybe a new Republican administration will enforce current laws, and we may see that those laws work. The argument is that the current laws do not work. My car does not work without effort on my part. I actually have to put gas in it and turn on the key. Yet Barack Obama and Eric Holder make no effort to enforce the current immigration laws, then claim those laws do not work.
Is that really how it works? Does the President of The United States and The United States Attorney General really have the right to enforce only the laws they favor? I say no. I support their right to fight for immigration reform, but they are breaking the law by not enforcing current laws on the books while they work on immigration reform.
It's a bit disingenuous for the Obama administration to claim others are blocking immigration reform when the Obama administration blocks enforcement of current laws that are on the books. It is a slippery slope when government employees are allowed to choose which laws to enforce and which ones to ignore.
Last week I ignored a speed limit sign and was ticketed. The speed limit is only 30 MPH on a street that is clearly meant for higher speeds. I believe the police officer who gave me the ticket should have refused to enforce the speed limit on that street. Unfortunately, he did not agree with me. I guess the police officer is more conscienuous about doing his job than Barack Obama and Eric Holder are about doing their jobs.
Let's enforce the laws on the books. If that enforcement does not work, then we are justified in reforming the law. The "pick and choose" position of The President and Attorney General should be met with a no vote on reform legislation.
Friday, August 2, 2013
The Dumb-Down Version of Obamacare And The Continuing Resolution
In January, 2014 The Affordable Care Act will be implemented. It will be a dumb-down version of the Act that was passed over two years ago. What's missing; a way to pay for it. The employer mandate is being delayed for another year and groups exempted are rising on a daily basis. So, how do we pay for the dumb-down version of healthcare for those who cannot pay for that healthcare?
The answer is simple; we will increase the national debt, which is now approaching $17 trillion. There is no question in anyone's mind that the national debt ceiling will be increased by congress when the continuing resolution is passed in September; probably the eleventh hour of the last day of September. Has anyone heard one member of congress mention NOT raising the debt ceiling? No, and you will not hear it.
The people who promised they would go to Washington and reduce the national debt are hoping you have forgotten they made those promises. There will be rhetoric and finger pointing on both sides of the aisle as to why it is necessary to raise the national debt. Each side will blame the other for the necessity to raise the national debt. The only spin that will be the same on both sides is the spin supporting the idea that we cannot shut down government.
How about taking another approach? Forget raising the national debt and focus on running the government with the revenues collected by the government? Congress says that will not work. Why not? Americans who are unemployed and under-employed are making it work in their households. The people who provide the revenue for government are running their households on the money they make. Why can members of congress NOT do the same thing with respect to running government?
Why do members of congress dumb-down their intelligence when it comes doing the things they ask other Americans to do? They must hold the line on the debt ceiling and force themselves and all other members of congress to come to the table with a budget that will work within the revenues currently received from the taxpayers who are managing their budgets.
Maybe they should start with pay cuts for members of congress, and cut backs in staffing. Why is that not a place to start? Many of the people who elected members of congress experienced pay cuts, and companies facing hard times in today's economy were forced to cut back in staffing. Why is government exempt from doing the same things Americans do during hard times? Why does the cost of government continue to rise while Americans are cutting back?
The approach of cutting back on government spending will be a tough job for congress, but all members signed up for that tough job when they asked us to vote for them. It is time for all of them to accept the job they signed up for and do that job. Otherwise, they should resign over the congressional recess so Americans can send someone to congress who will accept the job and do the job.
There are many issues to be addressed besides the Affordable Care Act, but it is the one getting all of the attention, because it is the one that is scheduled for implementation without a plan, or a way to pay for it.
Obviously, The Affordable Care Act will add to the national debt if it is implemented in January. The dumb-down version will not provide revenues sufficient to pay for the implementation. So, hold the line on the debt ceiling and let those who insist on implementation offer a way to pay for it, along with every other cost of running government.
Put the dumb-down version of The Affordable Care Act on a list with all other costs of running government and decide where to cut to keep from raising the debt ceiling. Americans who will have to pay off the national debt make cuts everyday. It is time for congress to manage the cost of government. Tough decisions and sacrifices must be made. Raising the debt ceiling is not the answer.
The answer is simple; we will increase the national debt, which is now approaching $17 trillion. There is no question in anyone's mind that the national debt ceiling will be increased by congress when the continuing resolution is passed in September; probably the eleventh hour of the last day of September. Has anyone heard one member of congress mention NOT raising the debt ceiling? No, and you will not hear it.
The people who promised they would go to Washington and reduce the national debt are hoping you have forgotten they made those promises. There will be rhetoric and finger pointing on both sides of the aisle as to why it is necessary to raise the national debt. Each side will blame the other for the necessity to raise the national debt. The only spin that will be the same on both sides is the spin supporting the idea that we cannot shut down government.
How about taking another approach? Forget raising the national debt and focus on running the government with the revenues collected by the government? Congress says that will not work. Why not? Americans who are unemployed and under-employed are making it work in their households. The people who provide the revenue for government are running their households on the money they make. Why can members of congress NOT do the same thing with respect to running government?
Why do members of congress dumb-down their intelligence when it comes doing the things they ask other Americans to do? They must hold the line on the debt ceiling and force themselves and all other members of congress to come to the table with a budget that will work within the revenues currently received from the taxpayers who are managing their budgets.
Maybe they should start with pay cuts for members of congress, and cut backs in staffing. Why is that not a place to start? Many of the people who elected members of congress experienced pay cuts, and companies facing hard times in today's economy were forced to cut back in staffing. Why is government exempt from doing the same things Americans do during hard times? Why does the cost of government continue to rise while Americans are cutting back?
The approach of cutting back on government spending will be a tough job for congress, but all members signed up for that tough job when they asked us to vote for them. It is time for all of them to accept the job they signed up for and do that job. Otherwise, they should resign over the congressional recess so Americans can send someone to congress who will accept the job and do the job.
There are many issues to be addressed besides the Affordable Care Act, but it is the one getting all of the attention, because it is the one that is scheduled for implementation without a plan, or a way to pay for it.
Obviously, The Affordable Care Act will add to the national debt if it is implemented in January. The dumb-down version will not provide revenues sufficient to pay for the implementation. So, hold the line on the debt ceiling and let those who insist on implementation offer a way to pay for it, along with every other cost of running government.
Put the dumb-down version of The Affordable Care Act on a list with all other costs of running government and decide where to cut to keep from raising the debt ceiling. Americans who will have to pay off the national debt make cuts everyday. It is time for congress to manage the cost of government. Tough decisions and sacrifices must be made. Raising the debt ceiling is not the answer.
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Term Limits Is Not The Answer - May Do More Damage Than Good
Many are calling for term limits in congress, but that could cause more damage than good. A member of congress in a final term has no incentive to keep the promises made to his/her constituents. There will be more incentive for members of congress, in their final terms, to line there pockets from the lobbyists and push agendas that do not benefit the people who elected them.
The voters of each state should decide on the limit of terms for each member of congress at the ballot box. Setting term limits leaves the member of congress with no accountability to constituents in his/her final term. Term limits will definitely do more damage than good.
As it is, we have enough issues with congressional members making campaign promises, being elected, then breaking those campaign promises. These people can be, and in many cases are, voted out of office on our next trip to the polls, but that is after the damage is done by those members of congress. We must have a way to check and balance congress with each and every bill it passes.
I strongly believe we need a congress. We need qualified people who will pass legislation that is good for Americans, and who is better to decide what is good for Americans than a majority vote on enactment of legislation passed by congress? This can be done if American voters have the right to vote on enactment of legislation. If congressional legislation passes a majority vote of the people, it becomes an enacted law. If congressional legislation does not pass a majority vote of the people, it goes back to congress, where it can be amended, or dropped.
This will work and it is possible if we amend the constitution. Constitutional Amendments have changed the face of America. Without a Constitutional Amendment women would not now be allowed to vote. Critics who argue that a Constitutional Amendment giving Americans the online vote for, or against, enactment of legislation will never be ratified. I remind those critics that term limits will also require a Constitutional Amendment that will have to be ratified. Either way, we have to fight for a Constitutional Amendment.
Ask yourself this question; what would be fate of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) if Americans voted on it before enactment? If you believe the polls 53% of American voters would vote against enacting it. Who really knows. The polls may be wrong. A majority of voters may vote to enact it, as written and passed by congress.
Personally, I would not vote to enact any legislation that adds to the national debt. I would vote to enact only legislation that is designed to reduce the national debt, and eventually pay it off. If America had a surplus that would cover implementation of a healthcare act, I would vote to enact such a bill in a heartbeat. America needs a healthcare act, but it needs one that can be paid for from surpluses.
Online Majority will continue to work for a Constitutional Amendment that will give American voters the final word on enactment of legislation passed by congress. Such an Amendment will leave terms of members of congress up to the voters who send those members to congress and it will render lobbyists irrelevant.
The voters of each state should decide on the limit of terms for each member of congress at the ballot box. Setting term limits leaves the member of congress with no accountability to constituents in his/her final term. Term limits will definitely do more damage than good.
As it is, we have enough issues with congressional members making campaign promises, being elected, then breaking those campaign promises. These people can be, and in many cases are, voted out of office on our next trip to the polls, but that is after the damage is done by those members of congress. We must have a way to check and balance congress with each and every bill it passes.
I strongly believe we need a congress. We need qualified people who will pass legislation that is good for Americans, and who is better to decide what is good for Americans than a majority vote on enactment of legislation passed by congress? This can be done if American voters have the right to vote on enactment of legislation. If congressional legislation passes a majority vote of the people, it becomes an enacted law. If congressional legislation does not pass a majority vote of the people, it goes back to congress, where it can be amended, or dropped.
This will work and it is possible if we amend the constitution. Constitutional Amendments have changed the face of America. Without a Constitutional Amendment women would not now be allowed to vote. Critics who argue that a Constitutional Amendment giving Americans the online vote for, or against, enactment of legislation will never be ratified. I remind those critics that term limits will also require a Constitutional Amendment that will have to be ratified. Either way, we have to fight for a Constitutional Amendment.
Ask yourself this question; what would be fate of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) if Americans voted on it before enactment? If you believe the polls 53% of American voters would vote against enacting it. Who really knows. The polls may be wrong. A majority of voters may vote to enact it, as written and passed by congress.
Personally, I would not vote to enact any legislation that adds to the national debt. I would vote to enact only legislation that is designed to reduce the national debt, and eventually pay it off. If America had a surplus that would cover implementation of a healthcare act, I would vote to enact such a bill in a heartbeat. America needs a healthcare act, but it needs one that can be paid for from surpluses.
Online Majority will continue to work for a Constitutional Amendment that will give American voters the final word on enactment of legislation passed by congress. Such an Amendment will leave terms of members of congress up to the voters who send those members to congress and it will render lobbyists irrelevant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)