This is a question I was thinking about to myself the other day and I am curious to see what you guys would suggest here. When speaking about a change here, I don't mean specific laws. Some people might want to have an amendment outlawing abortion or whatever, but what I'm aiming at here is just a structural change in government as laid out in the constitution.

If I could change one thing in the constitution it would be to alter the term durations and limits. I would prefer that the President only get to serve one 6 year term, that senators serve a maximum of three, 4 year terms, and members of the House of Representatives serve a maximum of six, 2 year terms. The fact that so many politicians look out for re-election is one of the biggest flaws in our system in my opinion, presidents are duplicitous about their true agendas even whilst sitting in office to try and ensure re-election. To solve this problem I would like to see a change made where the president serves only one 6 year term. I think 1, 4 year term is too short for a president to have an agenda and provide leadership, so 6 seemed to me like the good number between 4 being too short and 8 being too long. In regards to congress, you can only be a senator for a maximum of 12 years, and a member of the house for a maximum of 12 years. I think this would help to clear washington out periodically of those career politicians who get entrenched in a state or district and remain in power for decades. This would also encourage people who really want to be involved politically as a vocation to get active in their state legislatures which wouldn't have these limits or limits set by themselves. Emphasis added on the state legislatures would decrease the amount of abuse coming from the federal government in my opinion if states can maintain a strong network of devoted statesmen while Washington is periodically cleaned out of politicians who reach their maximum term limit.

I agree that term limits should have been provided initially.  I'm not as sure that your suggestions are sufficient.  House members ought to be limited to three 2-year terms, and e Senate members limited to two 4-year terms. 





(In your honor, I'm considering changing my sign-in name to Javert.)

I would keep House members serving 2 year terms and serving for as long as people vote them in. House members are closer to their municipalities and know the people on a personal level so that election should continue to be every 2 years.

Quote from: PeterR on November 17, 2012, 02:00:22 PM
I agree that term limits should have been provided initially.  I'm not as sure that your suggestions are sufficient.  House members ought to be limited to three 2-year terms, and e Senate members limited to two 4-year terms. 





(In your honor, I'm considering changing my sign-in name to Javert.)

They were provided for.

They're called "elections"!

The Constitution was designed to do two things; enhance and guarantee the personal liberty of each citizen and to restrain government. It has been an epic failure.

Posted with the full realization that Neo-Cons, one worlders, statists, and nationalists will not care for the idea.

Quote from: Shooterman on November 17, 2012, 07:29:52 PM
The Constitution was designed to do two things; enhance and guarantee the personal liberty of each citizen and to restrain government. It has been an epic failure.

Posted with the full realization that Neo-Cons, one worlders, statists, and nationalists will not care for the idea.

I'll respectfully disagree.

It is not the Constitution which has failed the people, it is the people who have failed the Constitution.

Term limits, of course
I would limit Representatives to six terms of two years, and once you lose you are forbidden to run again.
I would limit Senators to two terms of six years, have them elected by the state legislatures, with the same lose and out rule.
I would limit the President, to three terms of four years, same lose and out forever rule.
I would only appoint the USSC justices to one term of twelve years, subject to a renewal of terms by a vote of the Senate.
ALL laws wold have to have a AUTOMATIC sunset clause of two years, though they would be subject to renewal by both Houses.
NO Federal agency would have the power to set ANY rules and regulation having the force of law. CONGRESS, AND ONLY CONGRESS would have the Constitutional authority to write laws.

Quote from: Darth Fife on November 17, 2012, 10:55:34 PM
I'll respectfully disagree.

It is not the Constitution which has failed the people, it is the people who have failed the Constitution.

With all due respect, that is a cop out. Why have the people failed the Constitution? I might suggest, failure of the Constitution was written into it, as the Anti-Federalists supposed. It became even more evident when states rights was kicked to the curb. Few, if any Presidents, since that momentous occasion, have, and most have done so with the blessings of Congress, destroyed the precept of the states being a check on the federal government.

The Constitution was written as a compact among the states, each sovereign, and having given a limited amount of its sovereignty to the Federal government, with the explicit reasoning it could withdraw that limited amount of sovereignty at any time. Once that precept was destroyed by force, there was little left to keep the machine working as it should.

The Constitution has failed to restrain government and/or to promote and guarantee the freedom of the people.

Quote from: mdgiles on November 18, 2012, 05:49:02 AM
Term limits, of course
I would limit Representatives to six terms of two years, and once you lose you are forbidden to run again.
I would limit Senators to two terms of six years, have them elected by the state legislatures, with the same lose and out rule.
I would limit the President, to three terms of four years, same lose and out forever rule.
I would only appoint the USSC justices to one term of twelve years, subject to a renewal of terms by a vote of the Senate.
ALL laws wold have to have a AUTOMATIC sunset clause of two years, though they would be subject to renewal by both Houses.
NO Federal agency would have the power to set ANY rules and regulation having the force of law. CONGRESS, AND ONLY CONGRESS would have the Constitutional authority to write laws.

Okay that's more than one thing; but think of it as term limits on both the people and the laws.

I would also take out the commerce clause and the general welfare clause, they are the two most abused clauses in the constitution used to justify anything.

Quote from: valjean on November 18, 2012, 10:27:57 AM
I would also take out the commerce clause and the general welfare clause, they are the two most abused clauses in the constitution used to justify anything.

Hear here!!

I wonder if it would be possible to do something about Congresscritters profiting from their stay in Congress. No Congressperson should enter Congress with a few dollars to their name, and leave a millionaire.

The Supreme Justices, the way they are chosen and how long they should be able to stay. 

Quote from: Shooterman on November 18, 2012, 06:36:36 AM
With all due respect, that is a cop out. Why have the people failed the Constitution? I might suggest, failure of the Constitution was written into it, as the Anti-Federalists supposed. It became even more evident when states rights was kicked to the curb. Few, if any Presidents, since that momentous occasion, have, and most have done so with the blessings of Congress, destroyed the precept of the states being a check on the federal government.

The Constitution was written as a compact among the states, each sovereign, and having given a limited amount of its sovereignty to the Federal government, with the explicit reasoning it could withdraw that limited amount of sovereignty at any time. Once that precept was destroyed by force, there was little left to keep the machine working as it should.

The Constitution has failed to restrain government and/or to promote and guarantee the freedom of the people.

Look at it this way.

We all know that a red traffic light means Stop, right?

Now, if some idiot purposefully runs through that Red traffic light and gets into an accident, who is to blame? The traffic light or the idiot who ignored it?

I stand by my previous statement.

And, yes, I agree with you, Lincoln's decision that The Union must survive was a big part of dismantling the Constitution.

With my one change I would repeal the 22d Amendment.

No term limits what so ever!