It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A New Amendment (Proposal)

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 03:11 AM
link   
We (that's you and me: 'We ... The People') need a new amendment to the Constitution. It need only be simple.

No one may serve the People of the United States beyond the age of 60, without an annual vote of confidence from the Senate of the United States.

Someone smarter'n'me can figure out how to add in the verbiage that says 'no lists of people' can be voted on. Each individual must be independently considered.

Because: That'll make ya think. 60 years is being quite generous. I'd have no problems with anyone who argued the age should be 45.




posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 03:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Deplorable

The problem with a simple constitutional amendment is once opened all the communist maggots will try to eat what is left of our rights away by adding their own special little amendments .

I think this voting cycle there may be some who will be surprised they no longer have a job.



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 03:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: 727Sky
I think this voting cycle there may be some who will be surprised they no longer have a job.

Brother ... I hope you are right.
edit on 24-11-2019 by Deplorable because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 03:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: 727Sky
a reply to: Deplorable
The problem with a simple constitutional amendment is once opened all the communist maggots will try to eat what is left of our rights away by adding their own special little amendments .


It's already happened. Take the 13th Amendment for example. Those damn maggot communists took away our rights to own slaves!



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Deplorable

How about no sponsors for campaign funding?

Peace



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 05:02 AM
link   
a reply to: Deplorable
It would become a political weapon, either play the game or your out.



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 05:19 AM
link   
I vote no. I do not want some inexperienced idiot running a country. It takes time to work out all the messed up relationships going on. You really want some Greta running on emotion? No thanks. I wants facts. I want wisdom.

Why can bureaucratic judges run their carer into the 80's and 90's while most bricklayers are burnt out by 50? A presidential role is more about mental strength than physical. I want smart cookies that know what they are talking about than young buff dudes that look good in a jock string.



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 05:30 AM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev

Unfortunately age does not equal wisdom and right now we have neither young jocks or wise elders.


+2 more 
posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 05:52 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015

We understand the Democrats are upset the Republicans freed the slaves.



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Thank goodness the Framers made it complicated to amend the Constitution is about all I can say.

2nd line.



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 06:06 AM
link   
I think age is a terrible thing to base restrictions on. Almost everyone looks back on their life and sees that they are wiser today than 20 years ago. Unless you are suffering from medical senility, it shouldn't matter.

I am, however, not opposed to term limits in some form.

If anything, there should be a comprehensive civics test that demonstrates in some factual manner that you have read the constitution from one end to the other. If you haven't even read it, how can you possibly claim to be able to represent it?

It wouldn't have to get into interpretation, just multiple choice "excerpts" where you have to identify the correct one. No pass, no get to run. That's probably somehow racist though.

Heck, I'd even be for government sponsored classes to help you pass. I don't really care as long as the end result is you read it even if you disagree with it.
edit on 24-11-2019 by Halfswede because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 06:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Deplorable
A teen or twenty-something in 1776 was a LOT different than today. Life expectancy was shorter, so you had to grow up fast and take responsibility for your own life early on. The average teen then would seem like a much older person than the average teen today.

I'm with Gryphon on this one...


Thank goodness the Framers made it complicated to amend the Constitution is about all I can say.



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04



Unfortunately age does not equal wisdom and right now we have neither young jocks or wise elders


Are you kidding? Have you ever looked into the claims of fake new by the current president? Perhaps you would rather some Kennan born Muslim selling out the nation still in power? Wake up America.

Yeah Canada is still stuffed with its jock strapped leader. We still have some believer here is Australia too. There are a lot of bad deals going on that need renegotiation.



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 06:42 AM
link   
a reply to: 727Sky

Forgive me for my ignorance, I am not American; but can't the American people propose amendments any longer? Is there some kind of expiration after which your Constitution cannot be amended any longer?



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 06:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: TaninimLong
a reply to: 727Sky

Forgive me for my ignorance, I am not American; but can't the American people propose amendments any longer? Is there some kind of expiration after which your Constitution cannot be amended any longer?


It can be amended it is just extremely difficult for an amendment to be proposed. There needs to either be a 2/3 majority in both the house and senate or a constitutional convention.



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 06:59 AM
link   
A New Amendment (Proposal)

The RIGHT of the STATES to leave the union.

That's the one we should go for.

#EXITUNION



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 07:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Deplorable

I'd consider 70..
60 is to young....

And term limits of 10 years for one position including the Supreme Court..



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 08:29 AM
link   
It's called age discrimination.
It is unlawful - currently - for people in the workplace under 65.
For those unfamiliar, federal age discrimination laws kick in at 40.
Another liberal fascist fantasy proposal...

ganjoa



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Deplorable

Ive been saying on here for years... The number one across the aisle issue we should be fighting for is term limits.

There's no way someone can be in office for 30+ years and not be corrupt or have someone pulling your strings bc of the skeletons in your closet.

It's especially interesting the people whom are millionaires that have only been in public office their entire career



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 08:39 AM
link   
How about no consecutive terms as a compromise to term limits?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join