This is a voice, more from the left, which also believes we should not have the Constitutional Convention and the resulting Amendments.
Though for very different reasons, this adds another view to think about. My whole point is; do not rush into anything because the outcome may not be what you thought it would.
The argument, our Federal Government cannot live bt the same constraints as a state is valid. Think about that for a moment, what about an incident which requires immediate funding beyond the budget. We’d hope if a Balanced Budget Amendment passed it would have exemptions for emergencies. The problem arises when everything becomes an emergency and we are right back where we were.
Term limits sounds like a good thing because it would limit the lobbyist from building long-term influence. Okay, so with this solved, what about short-term influence? Could this not produce similar problems? I agree with the writer that we would lose the experience, however, isn’t this experience what allows them to game the system? Are they using this experience for their voters or are they using it for themselves?
What is the solution? The solution is the same for all elected officials, us. We must only support and vote for people of high moral and ethical quality. Here is another problem, whose moral yardstick do we use? I would say biblical, others might suggest something else. Again, we are back where we were before. Why not focus this moral and ethical judgement on ourselves first?
Every generation or so, a call for amending the U.S. Constitution can be heard across the land. Between times this urge remains latent, stymied by the difficulty of the process required and, even more important, by the prospects of what a temporarily erratic political process might produce.
The authors of […]