Amend the Constitution now!

Our founders told us that our Constitution and Freedom depend on a moral society. Without one, it will fail.

We need to start from the top down.

The Constitutional amendment should state:

Before any member of the congress, senate, supreme court or executive branch can start a newly elected term, they must be judged by a random selected Jury of common citizens.

This would be a quick review, where a jury would investigate potential corruption during their last term.


Look for things like, how much money did the person make while holding office. What was their net worth like before and after the term? Look at the person's voting record, did he honor his oath to the constitution on his/her first term? What has the person received from Lobbiests? Are there any foreign interests that might be a conflict of interest?



If we don't do something to protect ourselves from corruption, we will never see freedom again, in the very near future. This amendment would put some protection against politicians and our liberties.

That way would just become corrupted as well.

How would that achieve anything?

As the other replies states, that process would just become corrupted as well.

Originally posted by xstealth
Our founders told us that our Constitution and Freedom depend on a moral society. Without one, it will fail.

We need to start from the top down.

The Constitutional amendment should state:

Before any member of the congress, senate, supreme court or executive branch can start a newly elected term, they must be judged by a random selected Jury of common citizens.

This would be a quick review, where a jury would investigate potential corruption during their last term.


Look for things like, how much money did the person make while holding office. What was their net worth like before and after the term? Look at the person's voting record, did he honor his oath to the constitution on his/her first term? What has the person received from Lobbiests? Are there any foreign interests that might be a conflict of interest?



If we don't do something to protect ourselves from corruption, we will never see freedom again, in the very near future. This amendment would put some protection against politicians and our liberties.

Not a bad idea, however, I would support 2 term limits as well.

Originally posted by libertytoall
That way would just become corrupted as well.

Well, a randomly selected citizen jury is about the best way to stop that.

I know they could be paid off for a ruling, but what other options are there?

reply to post by xstealth


You expect random citizens to have any better understanding of the Constitution, Law and government function?

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by xstealth

 

You expect random citizens to have any better understanding of the Constitution, Law and government function?

They have enough understanding to come to a criminal trial and issue a verdict.

They can do the same with a political trial.

Then they start buying off said citizen boards....but nice try.

Term limits.

2 terms, no medical, no dental, no retirement package, no salary.

Public servants should feel honoured to serve.

Too big to fail? How about, "too big to handle"? It is too big, too wasteful, too much power, too much corruption, the sky is the limit, or the moon is the limit, or the solar system is the limit. Their is no limit to the power and corruption they are capable of reaching for.

There is no power left in the hands of the people, no power to change things or to protect our God given rights. Our "rights" are their "wrongs". Time to wake up and smell the coffee before they have us dressed in leather, chained up in a box in the back room, ready to be the party favor for their sick pleasures.

reply to post by xstealth

Just make it easier to impeach/remove them from office.

Whens the last time that a Congressman or Senator was removed mid term simply because he or she violated her oath of office?

Originally posted by beezzer
Term limits.

2 terms, no medical, no dental, no retirement package, no salary.

Public servants should feel honoured to serve.

I am in full agreement here. It should be a privelage to serve in public office. Take the money and other financial benefits out of the equation and more of the right people would find their way into office. politics are ruled by corruption and greed and this is one way of curbing that. Sure some people would still seek the power from a corrupt standpoint but this is a plausible scenario for change for the better if you ask me.

reply to post by xstealth


I think oddly enough Warren Buffet made a pretty on spot alteration/point to the system...NO government official can or will make decisions or direct any legislation that is of no consequence to them.

Kinda like how our politicians can mandate/regulate/legislate things such as retirement yet are completely unaffected by those legislation themselves...because their salary is life-long retirement is irrelevant to them.

kinda like how our politicians want to mandate/regulate/legislate our ability to protect ourselves from THEM yet they have private security surrounding them to protect them from US...ultimately they are unaffected by such decisions...

that would be a GREAT starting point is to limit the power of our "officials" to only things that will effect them as well...they need to suffer the consequences of their decisions...

When i first read about AI technology, i thought, that could be dangerous in the long run. Now i think, That could work pretty good if we instructed it to make decisions based on the Constitution and put it in charge of the government. If humans are involved there will be corruption. If they are the most honest person on the planet they will get corrupted in the end. Of course, someone would hack it. There is just no perfect system. The higher the population gets the more corruption there is. 545 people run this country basically. You would think they could set any differences aside and do what is best for the common man.

Originally posted by xstealth

Before any member of the congress, senate, supreme court or executive branch can start a newly elected term, they must be judged by a random selected Jury of common citizens.


Look for things like, how much money did the person make while holding office. What was their net worth like before and after the term? Look at the person's voting record, did he honor his oath to the constitution on his/her first term? What has the person received from Lobbiests? Are there any foreign interests that might be a conflict of interest?

Don't we already have elections to do just that? During that process would seem like the opportune time to weed out any bad apples.

Why would a smaller, select group do better than a general electorate? Should we forego having elections altogether and randomly put together a committee to select our representatives for us, or just select one to overturn our democratic vote?

I can't say I favor your "amendment."

Originally posted by beezzer
Term limits.

2 terms, no medical, no dental, no retirement package, no salary.

Public servants should feel honoured to serve.

Exactly this.

Originally posted by Erongaricuaro

Don't we already have elections to do just that? During that process would seem like the opportune time to weed out any bad apples.

Why would a smaller, select group do better than a general electorate? Should we forego having elections altogether and randomly put together a committee to select our representatives for us, or just select one to overturn our democratic vote?

I can't say I favor your "amendment."

edit on 15-1-2013 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)

Simple, the election still happens. Sadly when most people vote, they vote for their party and know nothing about the candidate.

This doesn't hinder election results, except if the person is found guilty on corruption charges.

Think of it as a review panel, companies have them for employees, we shouldn't have them for our representatives?

Having read the ops piece written about the admending the constitution, and what all the posts that are written the following can be stated:

I believe that the constitution needs to be admended, however, the supreme law of the land needs to be changed in so much as to affect a more positive change and not go just off of the emotions or of the reaction of the current thoughts of the public at the time.

Being a wise in governing, means that you must look and speak with one voice for the people, including those that did not vote for you, to that end, here is what I see that I agree with:

Term limits for all in government at all levels, and no retirement packages what so ever. No medical or benefit from being in office, in fact the only one who should get any sort of benefit is the President of the United States of America and just that.

Pay should be limited to what all in their districts make.

There should also be a review of all laws, and the removal of law that are no longer valid in society or have a bearing.

And before any law that would affect the general population, those that would enact such should be forced to live under said laws for a min of 1 year before the rest of us have to. Let those who make the laws have to deal with such first, before inflicting it on the rest of us.

And one final admendment, that no one can have a different set of laws, that way if someone breaks the law, they have to suffer the same penalties as everyone else, no matter of what position they hold and ultimately how much money they may or may not have.

Originally posted by xstealth
Sadly when most people vote, they vote for their party and know nothing about the candidate.

This doesn't hinder election results, except if the person is found guilty on corruption charges.

Think of it as a review panel, companies have them for employees, we shouldn't have them for our representatives?
(underline emphasis added)

Then why don't we vet our employees (elected officials) BEFORE we hire (elect) them? Or is your argument that most people can't be trusted to vote properly and need another group of random wiser people to decide if an electee has perhaps too many parking tickets or too many foreign or special-interest friends to be worthy of the trust just given them by (the vote of) the people?