The Senate of the United States shall be composed of one Senator from each State, elected by the people thereof, for five years; and each Senator shall have one vote. Of the two Senators from each State prior to ratification of this amendment, only the junior Senator shall continue in term following ratification. Following ratification, immediately after the junior Senators shall be assembled, they shall be divided as equally as may be into five Classes, ordered according to their current term in office. The Seats of the Senators of the first and longest term Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the first Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the second Year, of the third Class at the Expiration of the third Year, of the forth Class at the Expiration of the forth Year, and of the fifth Class at the Expiration of the fifth Year.
No person shall be elected to the office of Senator for consecutive terms and no person who has held the office of Senator, or acted as Senator, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected shall be elected to the office for the following term.
Signed, Granvel D. Gibson of Lake Jackson, TX.
Your responses in the comments please.
5 comments:
That is interesting. I don't think that there is a need or a desire for that drastic of a change. It would completely change the profile of our Congress.
I think that the problem is simply that senators would not have to face the voters again if that person made an unpopular vote. This would cause the senator to almost have a free reign on their votes and never have to face the consequences. I think that politicians moderate their views, campaign promises to some degree because people have memories and they might not forget how that politician mislead them before in the next election cycle. If this were to happen someone could lie through their teeth, get elected and do a 180 knowing their political career is very short. They might then jam what they want through knowing that if it pisses the voters off they will never really pay for it. re elections are vital to keeping politicians somewhat honest.
I share similar sentiments with jon. There are reasons why some Senators have served for 30 years... They please their constituents. I don't like career politicians. They have huge war chests, and have the advantages of incumbency. I would have no problem seeing 3 or 4 term limits, but to not subject a senator to reelection... thats a different story. Then there is no chance to hold them accountable for their votes and broken promises. It would also deprive us of truly great statesmen from continuing to serve the public. Like em or hate em this would prevent the greats like McCain or Kennedy from ever being great.
I think limits on terms is reasonable, but like the others, no re-election at all is strange. If someone does a good job, why tell them they cannot continue doing a good job? I'm sure this amendment will go no where as there is little need or public outcry for such.
well, I did a little research when i first saw this blog and found out Granvel D. Gibson is just some blogger on T. Boone Pickens website. that said, I wouldn't imagine there are many others like him begging for the amendment. I would be interested in finding out why he thinks it would be a good idea. other than jon's musings; who i will from here on out refer to as big jon, I can't really figure out what the upside would be to it. maybe the reasoning is just the opposite of big jon's. perhaps granvel thinks that because the senators won't develop a faithful constituency they will attempt to pass legislation that may not be popular but is good in the long run. taxes are an example, it's a dreaded word for many politicians and Americans often protest but sometimes a tax raise or two is necessary. not defending the amendment just offering up an explanation.
Post a Comment