Constitutional Amendment Needed.

It's time to bring Congress under control of the voters

Published on June 16, 2004 By Tendrils In Politics

The U.S.Constitution, Acticle I, Section 5,gave congress the power to make its own rules of how it will operate.

“Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide. Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member. Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal. Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.”

This was a mistake which should be rectified by an amendment to read:

Congress shall make no law that deal with more than one (1) purpose, and amendments to the bill that are not associated with the stated purpose of this bill shall not be allowed.

I’m not a lawyer, someone with expertise would have to word it to close all loop-holes/

It is in the attaching of unrelated items to bills that are necessary that allows corruption and the influence of lobbyists to flourish. Senator John McCain, on his website give details of items that are “pork-barrel” items. U.S. Click here: Senator John McCain.

The boys are not going to do this themselves, they must be forced to do it with a constitutional amendment. All the campaign finance laws and lobby regulation would be unnecessary if congress had to be open and unambigious with their bills.

Comments

pseudosoldier

on Jun 16, 2004

While I don't wish to fully address the main thrust of your article (although I think you're being overly idealistic, and will point out that nothing would get done in Congress due to the constant give-and-take necessary to make the bereaucratic wheels turn), I will ask, "Who's going to make the Amendment, if 'the boys are not going to do this themselves?'"
Fortunately, I'm taking a Government class right now, and can just quote from the book:
"A constitutional amendment must first be proposed, and then it must be ratified. The Constitution allows two methods of proposing a constitutional amendment: (1) by passage in the House and the Senate with a two-thirds vote, or (2) by passage in a national convention called by Congress in response to petitions by two-thirds of the state legislatures. Congress then chooses the method of retification, which can be either (1) by vote in the legislatures of three-fourths of the states, or (2) by vote in conventions called for that purpose in three-fourths of the states."
There are four possible combinations of proposal/ratification, but all but one of the amendments used the two-thirds of Congress proposal/three-fourths of state legislatures ratification. "Only for the Twenty-first Amendment's repeal of Prohibition did Congress call for state ratifying conventions (principally because Congress feared that southern Bible Belt state legislatures would vote against repeal."
"The method of proposal by national convention has never been used." And rightly so. It requires the most effort, for one thing.
While I appreciate the sentiment behind which your article was written, if you can sneak an Amendment through without Congress shooting it down, please let me know, as I could probably come up with a couple more...

Madine

on Jun 16, 2004

A more pratical way to shoot down pork would be a line item veto ammendment.

Tendrils

on Jun 17, 2004

Thank you for telling me how the constitution can be amended. I had it on my list to look up. I am an idealist, no doubt about it. I was thinking along the lines of the grass-roots ballot items all the states have. Wouldn't such a campaign force the states to put the issue up? Tendril

Tendrils

on Jun 17, 2004

Congress tried that and the court shot it down.

pseudosoldier

on Jun 17, 2004

Like I pointed out, Tendrils, you'd have to get that "grass-roots ballot item" through 2/3 of the States' legislatures.

Madine - I don't know that Congress truly wants that power in the hands of any president, anyway. Besides, it would only eliminate the pork barrel items that the current president disagreed with. Not a complete solution to Tendrils's perceived problem.

Madine

on Jun 17, 2004

I don't know if 2/3 of Congress wants it, but a Republican Congress did vote to give it to a Democratic President.

I'm not sure if forcing pork to be more transparent would be more effective than a line item veto.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!