Posted on Aug 10, 2019
Is it time for a 28th amendment to the constitution?
1.23K
60
67
6
6
0
I'd like to hear opinions on if a 28th amendment is needed and thoughts as to what it would include.
Posted in these groups: 
Constitution
Government
Constitution Government
Posted 5 y ago
Responses: 11
7
7
0
Term limits
Balanced budget and debt reduction
All of government on the same system as "common folks" (insurance especially)
No insider trading
No money from lobbyists
Balanced budget and debt reduction
All of government on the same system as "common folks" (insurance especially)
No insider trading
No money from lobbyists
(7)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett - "lashing out with other issues having nothing to do with the subject at hand". Huh?
"I pointed out that you were trying to educate a lawyer on the law, which is akin to telling a doctor about how to treat an illness, or telling a master carpenter how to join pieces of wood, etc." And a double huh? Having gone through 3 years of fighting custody for my kids I discovered that not all lawyers are created equal. I ended up having to fire 2 lawyers over that course of time. My wife and I spent scores of hours in the Law Library looking up precedent, outcomes, strategies and more. When brought to our lawyers as "have you thought about" requests we were told point blank that they were the lawyers and how dare I presume to educate them on the law. One of my life coaches for the last 18 years is a retired doc. He is the first to tell me that docs go through the same thing. A family GP is not the same as a brain surgeon, is not the same as a foot surgeon, is not the same as an orthopedist. My wife, having been through 25 surgeries over the last 29 years can attest to this. It was not until a period of time between surgery #23 and #24 that a GP twigged to the possibility of a syndrome that falls within a narrow specialty. Since then, we have had to educate every doc, nurse and PT we've come in contact with. And you my friend are not a Constitutional Lawyer. I don't remember your area of practice but I am fairly certain it was not Constitutional Law. I have no reason to "get all butt-hurt, and react like a snowflake".
"when I point out the problem with what you proposed and posted a response". A third huh. You did not point out the problem (are problems insurmountable?) but instead pointed out 3 references as to your (internal) reasoning it would never work. And, might I add, left no links to find said references. And having scanned through them they are opinion pieces. So feel free to cherry pick some opinions and wrap them in law jargon and hope we don't actually go read them.
And the 3rd reference you gave is a letter to a colleague and even states "I do have some thoughts, albeit very incomplete ones." And like a lawyer that knows "The tool of lawyers is language, and words have meaning", try to make the case that if the law is followed, it is not followed. In other words, a way to nullify the Article V right for the States to call a Convention. Yes, words have meanings and lawyers are in the business of crafting words to take on overtone of other meanings if not outright opposite meanings. And again I tell you sir, **this is a HUGE problem** and is the tool of those who wish to see the language of the Constitution as complex instead of forthright..
"I pointed out that you were trying to educate a lawyer on the law, which is akin to telling a doctor about how to treat an illness, or telling a master carpenter how to join pieces of wood, etc." And a double huh? Having gone through 3 years of fighting custody for my kids I discovered that not all lawyers are created equal. I ended up having to fire 2 lawyers over that course of time. My wife and I spent scores of hours in the Law Library looking up precedent, outcomes, strategies and more. When brought to our lawyers as "have you thought about" requests we were told point blank that they were the lawyers and how dare I presume to educate them on the law. One of my life coaches for the last 18 years is a retired doc. He is the first to tell me that docs go through the same thing. A family GP is not the same as a brain surgeon, is not the same as a foot surgeon, is not the same as an orthopedist. My wife, having been through 25 surgeries over the last 29 years can attest to this. It was not until a period of time between surgery #23 and #24 that a GP twigged to the possibility of a syndrome that falls within a narrow specialty. Since then, we have had to educate every doc, nurse and PT we've come in contact with. And you my friend are not a Constitutional Lawyer. I don't remember your area of practice but I am fairly certain it was not Constitutional Law. I have no reason to "get all butt-hurt, and react like a snowflake".
"when I point out the problem with what you proposed and posted a response". A third huh. You did not point out the problem (are problems insurmountable?) but instead pointed out 3 references as to your (internal) reasoning it would never work. And, might I add, left no links to find said references. And having scanned through them they are opinion pieces. So feel free to cherry pick some opinions and wrap them in law jargon and hope we don't actually go read them.
And the 3rd reference you gave is a letter to a colleague and even states "I do have some thoughts, albeit very incomplete ones." And like a lawyer that knows "The tool of lawyers is language, and words have meaning", try to make the case that if the law is followed, it is not followed. In other words, a way to nullify the Article V right for the States to call a Convention. Yes, words have meanings and lawyers are in the business of crafting words to take on overtone of other meanings if not outright opposite meanings. And again I tell you sir, **this is a HUGE problem** and is the tool of those who wish to see the language of the Constitution as complex instead of forthright..
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
SSgt (Join to see) - and you still haven't addressed the issues I pointed out. Again, try to address those issues.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett - Maybe you should clarify what your issues are? I read the 3 references you gave and they are opinion briefs, not laws that have been passed. Therefore, in my mind, they are non-issues. Of course, someone *will* make an issue of all of those points and it will eventually end up in court where a ruling will finally happen.
Article V gives the States the right to call for a Convention. It says how many states must call for the Convention. It does not address your issues - on purpose. They aren't issues until someone wants to call a foul and make it an issue. Again - a huge problem in today's political landscape.
For different words: If 40 states call for a convention and the topics are the same or similar it is not 40 calls for a convention. It is ONE call for a convention by 40 states. At that point, the topics are brought together and solidified into the agenda. Congress does not have the power, or right, to deny it from happening. That too is clear in Article V. And now that we have an agenda the states agree to a timeline and we are off. Once an agreement is met then it is put before the 50 State Congess, both houses, to say yea or nay.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomlindsay/2016/02/23/debunking-the-myths-surrounding-an-article-v-convention-to-propose-constitutional-amendments/#5cee9df9384d sums up my thoughts pretty well - and accurately on all the "issues" you proposed would be bad.
Article V gives the States the right to call for a Convention. It says how many states must call for the Convention. It does not address your issues - on purpose. They aren't issues until someone wants to call a foul and make it an issue. Again - a huge problem in today's political landscape.
For different words: If 40 states call for a convention and the topics are the same or similar it is not 40 calls for a convention. It is ONE call for a convention by 40 states. At that point, the topics are brought together and solidified into the agenda. Congress does not have the power, or right, to deny it from happening. That too is clear in Article V. And now that we have an agenda the states agree to a timeline and we are off. Once an agreement is met then it is put before the 50 State Congess, both houses, to say yea or nay.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/tomlindsay/2016/02/23/debunking-the-myths-surrounding-an-article-v-convention-to-propose-constitutional-amendments/#5cee9df9384d sums up my thoughts pretty well - and accurately on all the "issues" you proposed would be bad.
Debunking The Myths Surrounding An Article V Convention To Propose Constitutional Amendments
Our profligate federal government has not only burdened this generation with catastrophic debt, but also our children and grandchildren
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
SSgt (Join to see) - "Laws that have passed" would have no bearing on a Constitutional issue, but the references were not "opinion briefs" as you state. They are the position of law professors, and in the legal field, are considered experts. And when you don't have any case law on an issue, as with the Art. V conventions so that there is no binding authority, then judges are required to look at what is known a persuasive authority. The OpEd article that you cite, by a non-lawyer, is not going to carry any weight, and to be honest, doesn't really address any of the legal points raised.
Next, you assert that it is one call by 40 states, but there is nothing that indicates that is anything but wistful thinking on your part. You can't prove it either way, because it is a case of first impression, and Congress could very well refuse to call such a convention on the grounds that it is 40 separate calls by individual states for different topics.
And nothing you have brought up addresses the concerns of a runaway convention.
Next, you assert that it is one call by 40 states, but there is nothing that indicates that is anything but wistful thinking on your part. You can't prove it either way, because it is a case of first impression, and Congress could very well refuse to call such a convention on the grounds that it is 40 separate calls by individual states for different topics.
And nothing you have brought up addresses the concerns of a runaway convention.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
28th Amendment - Term Limits for Senate and House members. Maximum total of 12 years total in any federal office, House, Senate, or POTUS/VP.
29th Amendment - 2-year probationary term for Supreme Court Justices. It shouldn't be that a justice portray themselves one way, then give us something completely different once safely established in a lifetime appointment. This would allow the Senate to reconsider (after an election cycle) whether or not a justice stay on the Supreme Court for life. Mandatory retirement age of 85 (give or take).
30th Amendment - Balanced budget. Exception for declared wars
31st Amendment - Campaign finance reform. Basically, outlaw PACs, campaign contributions from corporations, unions, and lobbyists, and limit individual contribution (including the candidate themselves) to a specific, inflation-adjusted amount.
32nd Amendment - clarify at the federal level who may vote in federal elections, and how a person can gain and lose this right. Specifically, naturalized citizens, felons, or any other reasonable category.
33rd Amendment - sunset clause on every spending law to ensure that "continuing resolutions" go away. Every year, Congress would have to reauthorize all taxing and spending items, by agency.
34th Amendment - Every regulation and executive order needs to be codified into law by the Congress or it lapses one year after being established.
35th Amendment - all judicial decisions are subject to review by Congress and can be overridden by a 2/3 vote.
29th Amendment - 2-year probationary term for Supreme Court Justices. It shouldn't be that a justice portray themselves one way, then give us something completely different once safely established in a lifetime appointment. This would allow the Senate to reconsider (after an election cycle) whether or not a justice stay on the Supreme Court for life. Mandatory retirement age of 85 (give or take).
30th Amendment - Balanced budget. Exception for declared wars
31st Amendment - Campaign finance reform. Basically, outlaw PACs, campaign contributions from corporations, unions, and lobbyists, and limit individual contribution (including the candidate themselves) to a specific, inflation-adjusted amount.
32nd Amendment - clarify at the federal level who may vote in federal elections, and how a person can gain and lose this right. Specifically, naturalized citizens, felons, or any other reasonable category.
33rd Amendment - sunset clause on every spending law to ensure that "continuing resolutions" go away. Every year, Congress would have to reauthorize all taxing and spending items, by agency.
34th Amendment - Every regulation and executive order needs to be codified into law by the Congress or it lapses one year after being established.
35th Amendment - all judicial decisions are subject to review by Congress and can be overridden by a 2/3 vote.
(5)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett -
29th - majority vote from the Senate, just like the confirmation vote. If the Senate Changes hands, so what? Plenty of Justices were approved by opposing Senates.
30th - We can throw in other exemptions, like say declared national emergencies. But the idea is busting spending over revenue is hard. $22T in debt is preposterous.
31st - I'd question if buying influence with an official constitutes speech, but the SCOTUS says it is. Ergo, need for an Amendment.
32nd - I don't think it is that hard or wordy. We need some detail on this, because there are issues in this area.
33rd - at issue is that with all these CRs, EVERY good (or not so good) tax, program, or appropriation continues in perpetuity. That is not what the founders intended. Who knew that Congress would stop doing normal budgeting for 13 years running? I think we could go a long way towards obtaining the goal of a balanced budget with this provision alone. Right now inertia just allows failed programs to continue forever.
34th - So many issues with both regulations and EO, regardless of party in power. I don't think Presidents should rule by decree, much less unelected bureaucrats. Have them go up the Hill and tell the right committee why a new regulation is needed and needs to continue. If they agree, fine. If not, convince better or go back to the drawing board.
35th - You can do better than a straw man argument. Do you really think Congress would have overturned desegregation, for example, with a 2/3 vote? I don't. But something like Roe or Janus? Maybe.
29th - majority vote from the Senate, just like the confirmation vote. If the Senate Changes hands, so what? Plenty of Justices were approved by opposing Senates.
30th - We can throw in other exemptions, like say declared national emergencies. But the idea is busting spending over revenue is hard. $22T in debt is preposterous.
31st - I'd question if buying influence with an official constitutes speech, but the SCOTUS says it is. Ergo, need for an Amendment.
32nd - I don't think it is that hard or wordy. We need some detail on this, because there are issues in this area.
33rd - at issue is that with all these CRs, EVERY good (or not so good) tax, program, or appropriation continues in perpetuity. That is not what the founders intended. Who knew that Congress would stop doing normal budgeting for 13 years running? I think we could go a long way towards obtaining the goal of a balanced budget with this provision alone. Right now inertia just allows failed programs to continue forever.
34th - So many issues with both regulations and EO, regardless of party in power. I don't think Presidents should rule by decree, much less unelected bureaucrats. Have them go up the Hill and tell the right committee why a new regulation is needed and needs to continue. If they agree, fine. If not, convince better or go back to the drawing board.
35th - You can do better than a straw man argument. Do you really think Congress would have overturned desegregation, for example, with a 2/3 vote? I don't. But something like Roe or Janus? Maybe.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
1SG (Join to see) - I think that I grew up while that was happening and that Loving would have been overturned, easily, by Congress if it went for a vote. I think that free speech would have been impacted, that Jehovah's Witnesses would be forced to say the Pledge because Congress would overrule it. I think that Mapp v. Ohio, Gideon, Miranda, and dozens of other cases would have been overturned. It's a dumb idea. It fundamentally changes the nature of our government, and you don't have a clue what the outcome will be.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Capt Gregory Prickett - I think we would have less judicial activism, and that would be my desired outcome.
(0)
(0)
Capt Gregory Prickett
1SG (Join to see) - it would fundamentally change our form of government for the worse, and would be a further step towards losing our republic.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
Capt Daniel Goodman
Not that your question wasn't serious...I got that it was, honest...I just couldn't resist that one, truly....
(1)
(0)
Capt Daniel Goodman
I'll also try to think up something genuinely more germane as well, seriously, OK? It's just that was too good on the spot to my mind to not send, really....
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google