In the Declaration of Independence the words "all men are created equal" are written. There has been much debate on the meaning of these words. Even Vice President Joe Biden once told a gathering of like-minded democrats that they should all remember they are equal. Not sure what "equality" he was squawking about, but, we should all be clear about what the words in the Declaration of Independence don't mean which is what he was hinting at: we are all equal in ability or we are equal such that we should be paid the same, or any of those other ridiculous social justice issues he and his ilk use to seduce the electorate.
I can catch a football. I can run rather fast. Does this mean I have the same ability as Chad Ochocinco? Of course not. Chad and I are not equal in ability. He will best me every time. No matter what practice I may undergo, I will never be on the same level as Chad. Also, if I was his age, I, even with extensive coaching, would not be on his level. We are not equal.
The question becomes then, should we be treated differently as human beings based on this difference? No. To quote Temple Grandin, "different but not less." These are powerful words. We are all different from each other, but from a human being standpoint, we are all "equal." Each of us are not less than the other because of our strengths and weaknesses.
This is what the Founders were saying in the Declaration of Independence. They were railing against the "nobility" concept of European law - a concept which declared some people were some how better than others and therefore are entitled to make the rules, to make decisions regarding everyone else. Nobility is based on birthright and the Founders did not believe people were born with a right to rule others. Instead, the Founders said we are all equal. They believed that together we could make laws which respected others. No one is entitled to rule - it must be earned. And thus was born our Country and our Constitution.
But, the Founders left something out of the Constitution. The populous realized what was missing and passed Amendment XXII in 1951. Unfortunately, the 22nd Amendment only fixed one half of the problem. We should now stand together and fix the Constitution for good.
The 22nd Amendment limited the President of the United States to two terms. After FDR had been elected to a fourth term, the people realized that someone in power too long was not a good idea in accordance with our Country's principles. A person could, theoretically, be elected for life unless term limits were set. Even with the balances of power in our Constitution, someone in power is corrupted by power. A President for life is too akin to a King. This is not what we want or need in this country. It is now time to extend that same philosophy to the Congress.
Two months ago, Senator Robert Byrd passed away. He had served from 1958 until his passing. He served 52 years at our expense. In 2003, Senator Strom Thurmond passed away after serving in the Senate since 1956. He served 47 years at our expense. In the Congress there are numerous professional politicians who are reelected, not because they are good at their job; they are reelected because they spend all of their time trying to get reelected. Instead of doing the job description found in the Constitution, they worry more about what they have to do stay in a job at the taxpayer's expense. Additionally, there are people who do not vote with intelligence. Too many people vote in the hopes they get something in return. Hmm, a vote for something in return is that not an element of corruption? Instead of voting who will or could do the best job in the Congress, the electorate continue to vote the same people into the Congress and then complain about the rules and laws which come from those people. And instead of voting them out of office, which is a principle of our Republic, they make the "easy vote."
Should not the same premise to limit the President's term in office (corruption of power, King thinking, etc) also apply to those in Congress? Should they not be limited to serve in the Congress? Should they not be returned to the populous so that they can live like the rest of us under the rules they set up? This is not a strange premise - we only have to go back to the beginning of our country to find it in writing.
The Virginia Bill of Rights , which were based on the English Declaration of Rights and were used to write our Bill of Rights, has a provision which eludes to this premise. "That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judicative; and that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections, in which all, or any part of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct."
I repeat, "that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression, by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station." Unfortunately, we do not reduce to a private station the members of Congress such that they feel the burdens with which they have bestowed upon us. It is time for this to occur.
The other day, Glenn Beck showed footage of Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA). This guy feels he is better than everyone. He is in Congress, not because we gave him that honor, but because he is a great man who should rule the rest of us. His pompous and elitist attitude is prevalent in everything he says. Just visit to see for yourself: http://dailyradar.com/beltwayblips/story/pete-stark-raving-mad-strikes-again/.
Rep. Pete Stark has served since 1973. He is up for re-election this year. Something tells me, that even though many of the people in the videos are against Stark, he will get reelected because there are more voters who have no clue about the meaning of their vote and they'll vote him back into Congress.
It is time to remove the Pete Starks and the Barbara "I worked hard to be a Senator so could you please call me Senator vice ma'am?" Boxers and the Nancy Pelosis of the Congress and return them to the populous. It is time to amend the Constitution. We need term limits in the Congress much like what we have for the President.
Now some might argue that some in Congress are good leaders and might be replaced with bad leaders. Uh, that happens under a Republic. We then vote them out. Our government is of the people, BY THE PEOPLE. As far as I'm concerned, everyone should have a go at government. But I will agree with those who argue against term limits that we should balance the term limits such that our good politicians can still provide sound leadership.
With the balancing in mind, I propose the following:
Section 1. No person shall be elected to:
a. The Senate of the United States for more than two consecutive terms, and no person who has held a Senate seat for more than three years of a term to which some other person was elected shall be elected more than once.
b. The House of Representatives for more than four consecutive terms.
c. Either House of Congress if they have served at least one term in the other House of Congress such that the terms they would serve in both Houses would be consecutive terms with each other.
Section 2. For anyone who has fulfilled the term limits of Section 1 of this article, after having not served in the Congress for an amount of time equal to 1/2 of the total time they served consecutively, may be elected to either House of the Congress to again to be subject to the limits of Section 1 as if they had not served previously.
The essence of this amendment would be to:
a) limit Senators to 12 years of consecutive service followed by a 6 year break before they could serve again.
b) limit House of Representatives to 8 years of consecutive service followed by a 4 year break before they could serve again.
c) ensure no one could jump Houses of Congress in an attempt to avoid the consecutive term limits.
This amendment would ensure those in government are returned to the populous such that they live under the very rules which they have passed. Additionally, the taxpayers could save money by ensuring not a single member of Congress gets a pension for their service to the people.
I like my proposed amendment to the Constitution. It's time for term limits. I hope you agree....
Mike
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Sounds good to me
ReplyDelete