About term limits, etc.
Some people commenting on other blog posts have mentioned term limits, so I thought I’d point out an interesting Web site that tackles that idea and other possible constitutional amendments.
Randy Barnett, a law professor at Georgetown University, is proposing that the states call for a Constitutional Convention to consider a Bill of Federalism. You can read about it here, but the 10 amendments in this bill would include:
1. Restrictions on Tax Powers of Congress (basically eliminating any federal tax other than a sales tax)
2. Limits of Commerce Power (to limit the interpretation of the Commerce Clause)
3. Unfunded Mandates and Conditions on Spending (to prevent Congress from placing unfunded mandates on state governments)
4. No Abuse of the Treaty Power (keeping Congress from using foreign treaties as an excuse to grant itself power beyond what the Constitution allows)
5. Freedom of Political Speech and Press (eliminating restrictions on campaign contributions)
Loading ...7. Term Limits for Congress
8. Balanced Budget Line Item Veto (allowing the president to use a line-item veto if the federal budget would increase the public debt)
9. The Rights Retained by the People (giving citizens greater ability to challenge federal laws)
10. Neither Foreign Law nor American Judges May Alter Meaning of Constitution
Such a Bill of Federalism would be the most sweeping change to our foundational law since it was created. And a Constitutional Convention could, of course, provide an opening for all manner of other amendments. But I’ve begun to think that the states are going to have to provide more leadership on these kinds of issues because Congress won’t.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2011 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
13 comments Add your comment
Churchill's MOM
September 4th, 2009
1:19 pm
You are headed in the RIGHT direction but how about the copyright law?
kwingfield
September 4th, 2009
1:30 pm
Churchill’s MOM: There’s a big difference between cutting and pasting an entire 800-word column from another publication without even crediting the author, and quoting sparingly from an article (using the term loosely here) while providing a link and credit. Do the latter, and you’ll be fine.
Hillbilly Deluxe
September 4th, 2009
1:47 pm
I’d be in favor of term limits and perhaps a couple other things on the list but if you call a Constitutional Convention (assuming you’re sucessful), there’s no telling what kind of Pandora’s box you’d be opening. The potential for mischief and mayhem are great.
Davo
September 4th, 2009
1:52 pm
#5 is a bit worrisome…if corporations are included it would be terrible. The rest sounds good to me.
Davo
September 4th, 2009
1:57 pm
A Will Out
by Jack Hunter on September 04, 2009
http://www.takimag.com/article/a_will_out/
“If a liberal can be defined as someone who refuses to reconcile his utopian vision with reality, then there has never been anything particularly conservative about the neoconservatives. That the U.S. could somehow transform the Middle East if only we invested enough dollars and effort was a fairy tale the neoconservative Bush administration not only sold the American people, but Republican unity and identity depended on conservatives’ willingness to believe this fantasy.”
jt
September 4th, 2009
2:55 pm
Hillbilly nails it with the “pandoras box”.
Don’t let a bunch of lawyer/politicians muddy the water.
The present constitution serves us fine IF we follow it.
Term Limits legislation would not be necessary IF we had an AUDIT at the end of each Representative’s “career”. Any conflict of interest or unethical gain would be forfeited and the rep would be fined.
The IRS routinely does this to ordinary Americans. Term limits might make you feel good, but oftentimes, politician/lawyers do more damage and steal more AFTER they are fired by the public.
(Think Dachsel,).
Ya caint legislate morality. Americans deserve who they vote in.
Disgusted
September 4th, 2009
3:41 pm
In essence, then, we are to get rid of most of the Constitution as it exists and form a new nation based on untrammeled commercial and state power, with a federal government so weak it might as well not exist. Fifty little nations allied with a few thousand corporations, eh?
No thanks. I’ll keep what we have, warts and all. And this whole business of term limits is a bunch of hooey. You never hear conservatives calling for term limits when their party is in power. It’s strange how the cry for term limits goes out when the conservatives have lost their stranglehold on federal power.
Wes
September 4th, 2009
5:24 pm
I love these ideas.
The Federal government represents 300+ million people with varying incomes ethnicities, and cultures. To assume that one government can provide laws that are equitable is laughable at best. Throw in the fact that the average rep has a district with 700,000 people in it suggests that the Federal government is fairly distanced from the people it supposedly represents. I feel much more safe with a weak government whose main responsibility is protecting individual rights than a strong government that is only concerned with 151 million of us.
jm
September 4th, 2009
6:07 pm
One big problem with term limits is that it will invest far more power with unelected government officials, if for no other reason, they are the ones who know how everything works. I will give you a great example. When I was up in D.C., I had a good friend who worked as a contractor with NASA. Every couple of years, the contract would come up for bid. During his 15 or so years there, the contract changed hands four times. With each contract change, most of the senior managers would be replaced but most of the remaining staff members would be asked to stay. He worked essentially the same job during his tenure but he did it for four different employers. The same thing happens when new senators or members of congress get elected. They might bring in a few new faces but chances are, they recruit their staff from the people already there.
Michael H. Smith
September 4th, 2009
8:23 pm
As I said previously calling for a Constitutional Convention is risky business; however, to proceed “as is” with the status quo is even more risky and far worse than unacceptable.
“New Faces” cannot correct inherent problems found in the Articles of the Constitution and in a couple of Constitutional Amendments that were written to address issues of a different time that no longer exist today which has only created other current dilemmas.
I was glad to see Randy Barnett went after the commerce clause: One of the most Federally abused Articles of Confederation and detrimental to the Rights of the States. Though he should not have stopped with restraining the Congress alone. He should have included the other two branches of government, particularly the Supreme Court.
I do disagree with the thoughts that the majority in this country are fiscal conservatives but social liberals: Only the vast minority of 41 states happen to agree with me.
Bill Walker
September 6th, 2009
12:14 pm
The author and some of those commenting are not obviously informed about the facts of this issue. This also applies to Mr. Barnett. His theory was for the states to ask for a convention and “scare” Congress into proposing his amendments. Problem is, Mr. Barnett was not aware of public record. It shows all 50 states have submitted 750 applications for an Article V Convention far in excess of the 34 applications required. The applications can be read at http://www.foavc.org.
Then there are those who say they oppose a convention and use the argument that all that is needed is obey the Constitution as it currently is and there is no need a for a convention. The problem comes that Article V is part of the current Constitution. Its terms have been satisfied. Therefore convention is required. If we follow the argument of these people, therefore they support a convention because we would be obeying the Constitution “as is” meaning if the states apply, a convention must be called.
But they oppose a convention meaning they really don’t want it obeyed “as is”; what they want is a Constitution obeyed “as they see it.” In short, they want to scrap the Constitution just as much as those they criticize, they just want scrap it for their political benefit, not theirs.
Michael H. Smith
September 7th, 2009
8:45 am
Thanks for the link Bill. A convention should be under way or should have been already convened. Bring it on. First item to address is the commerce clause found in Article One.
How to fix Congress: Make it bigger | Kyle Wingfield
October 7th, 2009
10:23 am
[...] European countries offer some lessons about the pitfalls of multiparty systems. But if you would like to see a new party supplant one of the two major parties, this is probably the most likely way for that to happen. Of course, Congress is highly unlikely to expand itself; this kind of change would probably require action from the states, something I’ve written about before. [...]