Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I just received this via email (like most of these type of notices)

Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land...all because of public pressure.
__________________________________________________
________C Congressional Reform Act of 2011

1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

2. Congress (past, present &future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4.Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care
system and participates in the same health care systems as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the
American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void
effective 1/1/12.

The American people did not make this contract with
Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. it is time. THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS

Sounds stupid to me.

Congress serves wall street. It's not just because wall street bribe em, it's also because they represent more money, therefore have higher priority.

It's incredibly ironic that the more America would help actual Americans, the less gdp and money it gets, and the worse reputation it has as a country. Economically anyway.

I've always been shocked that 4 wasn't written straight into the Constitution. Does 6 matter? Like did Congress ever make a law that specifically exempted itself and/or its members?

Originally posted by tru-marvell
2. Congress (past, present &future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose. All funds of what? "All educational funds flow into the Social Security system." Please specify.
"Congress participates with the American people" - and each congressman must host a party with at least three pinatas with the 'American people.' WTF??? Again, please specify.

Originally posted by tru-marvell
3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do. Surely you mean "Congressmen" right? Congress as a whole already purchased their own retirement plan.....

Originally posted by tru-marvell
4.Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%. The authority to change that needs to exist somewhere, otherwise it can't even be defined. The Supreme Court can't do it, the President definitely shouldn't do it unless we restructure everything about his Constitutional responsibilities, and a host of ethical issues are brought into place if the state legislatures do it. Who's gonna do it?

Originally posted by tru-marvell
5. Congress loses their current health care
system and participates in the same health care systems as the American people. I've never looked this up, but call it a hunch: I don't think Congressmen have their own health care system. I think they have their own health care coverage.

Originally posted by tru-marvell
6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the
American people. Mission accomplished, 1789.

Originally posted by tru-marvell
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void
effective 1/1/12. Full faith and credit of the United States out the window....

Originally posted by tru-marvell
The American people did not make this contract with
Congressmen. Thank heavens.

Originally posted by tru-marvell
Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.
Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. it is time. THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS Dude, this isn't even a baby step to fixing Congress.....

Hey "dude"....these are not my ideas, but I thought it provacative enough to post.
And honestly ur agruments against seem a little on the defensive side...r u a Congressman perchance?

Items 1-4-5 are very easy to rememdy...u can of course nick pick it to death as our Congress currently does things ( hmmm) or we could simply unite and demand that theses things are done. ..

Honestly we make things far more complicated than need be...

I'm not just nitpicking, I need clarification. For each item on the list, I would like to know (1) what the current situation is vs. (2) what the idea is proposing. I can figure the first part out for myself. Perhaps I'm just stupid or out of the loop, but I need clarification for the second part.

I would add this-

8. All political campaigns shall be funded by a public fund established with a 0.1% tax on all income and capital gains. All candidates shall receive equal funds. Candidates may receive private donations for primary elections only from non-incorporated individuals, gifts not exceeding $50 per person. Any remaining raised or received funds shall be forfeit to either back into the general fund or into the candidates district or state.

9. Campaigning shall be limited to 60 days before an election and any electioneering on any broadcast or network which labels itself as "news" shall be prohibited. Repeat violators shall forfeit their funds as described above, forfeit their campaign and shall be barred from running for any office for a period not less than five years.

10. Lobbying any politician by any individual or group, in privacy or in open congress, or offering up pre-written legislation by any trade association or group shall be strictly prohibited. Violating parties shall be barred from holding public office and shall be imprisoned for 20 years.

11. A consensus vote of 60% of a state's population of no confidence may at any time dissolve a state's government and force an immediate election. A consensus vote of 40 state governors or 60% of the general population of no confidence at any time will dissolve the federal government and force an immediate general election. This right may be suspended only upon a declaration of war by the congress of the United States and only after an attack on US soil by a foreign power or entity or a formal declaration of war by another nation state.

In addition, how about conducting campaigns exclusively via public broadcasting? Then everyone would get a fair chance to be heard.

idk, those seem like some egregious violations of freedom of speech

Originally posted by inimalist
idk, those seem like some egregious violations of freedom of speech How so? Corporate personhood is illegitimate, therefore money isn't speech. If corporations or special interests want influence, they can pay to advertise during public commercial time and voters can vote for their causes if they decide on it. Also, business interests can always go crying to the WTO with their complaints although without any corporate influence in politics, maybe congress would rightfully choose to label them a terrorist organization and finally lob a cruise missile at them.
As for the electioneering provision, many states already have laws against electioneering on local stations or radio. People can discuss the issues but no one can blatantly tell you who to vote for. Limits on campaign time also exist in virtually every other western nation to prevent the kind of ridiculous theater we have. At the very least the electioneering provision could also fall under truth in packaging laws.

your option 9 would allow the federal government to label what is or is not news and limit its ability to broadcast...

its your attack on media outlets that gets me, not the lobbying stuff

Originally posted by inimalist
your option 9 would allow the federal government to label what is or is not news and limit its ability to broadcast...

its your attack on media outlets that gets me, not the lobbying stuff If the government can label what is and isn't cheese and what is and isn't honey they can do the same for news. It doesn't limit access, just what you can label it as and where it is in the grocery store. That's why I can eat honey content in knowing that it's not whipped with sugar and why my sandwiches aren't made with butter run-off.

yes, but there is a far more relevant conflict of interests involved in the government having the right to label what is informative speech and what isn't versus them being able to say what constitutes honey...

and I don't actually think the government regulates what must constitute honey, just what safety standards it has to meet

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, but there is a far more relevant conflict of interests involved in the government having the right to label what is informative speech and what isn't versus them being able to say what constitutes honey...

and I don't actually think the government regulates what must constitute honey, just what safety standards it has to meet
If it's made of corn syrup or is whipped or has any sweetener added, it cannot be labeled honey, it's either substitute or honey product.

News means information, not advertisement or opinion. Simple as that. I agree that you can't regulate what is or isn't important news but I'm pretty sure that when local news resembles Billy Mayes or when it's some uneducated Aryan embarrassment telling you to cut taxes and kill the Jews while his paid guest nods in agreement, it's not news.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
If it's made of corn syrup or is whipped or has any sweetener added, it cannot be labeled honey, it's either substitute or honey product.

lol, that might as well be a law saying if it has mushrooms in it you can't call it lasagna

Originally posted by Darth Jello
News means information, not advertisement or opinion. Simple as that. I agree that you can't regulate what is or isn't important news but I'm pretty sure that when local news resembles Billy Mayes or when it's some uneducated Aryan embarrassment telling you to cut taxes and kill the Jews while his paid guest nods in agreement, it's not news.

so in your opinion, anything that has any bias or slant or opinion content shouldn't be allowed to call itself a news program?

so like, I get you want to blast fox, but you would also say something like DemocracyNow! isn't allowed to call itself a news program?

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, that might as well be a law saying if it has mushrooms in it you can't call it lasagna



so in your opinion, anything that has any bias or slant or opinion content shouldn't be allowed to call itself a news program?

so like, I get you want to blast fox, but you would also say something like DemocracyNow! isn't allowed to call itself a news program?

Sure. Back in the fairness act days, if opinion, especially controversial opinion crept into a news story or interview, the reporter would give a disclaimer before and after the interview. So if due to some relevance, CBS News or whoever decided to do an interview with Alex Jones or Glenn Beck Grover Norquist, the reporter would tell everyone before and after that it's an opinion or an unverified theory and that the subject escaped from an asylum and eats dicks constantly. You get my point.

Trying to outlaw lobbying is akin to fascism and is the most outrageous thing here of many outrageous and stupid things listed. Absolutely and utterly immoral and to be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

An any-time government recall provision is not immoral, it's just catastrophically dumb (as noted, they are all stupid but that one really stuck out).

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Trying to outlaw lobbying is akin to fascism and is the most outrageous thing here of many outrageous and stupid things listed. Absolutely and utterly immoral and to be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

An any-time government recall provision is not immoral, it's just catastrophically dumb (as noted, they are all stupid but that one really stuck out). I'm sorry, your country has a Queen to who can instantly dissolve government, we don't. We also have an atmosphere where lobbying has become nothing more than legalized bribery. The whole point is to banish money from politics. What's so moral about inverted totalitarianism and managed democracy?

As for the fascism comment, i'll pretend you didn't say that. Fascism is the merger of political and corporate power. What could be more fascist than industry writing its own regulation or the oil lobby giving congressmen reelection funds in exchange for subsidies and anti-competitive legislation?

There is no actual practical sense in which the Queen can dissolve Parliament. Tjhere is also no sense at all in weakening Government which has regular fixed-term elections in such a way. You are simply wrong to think that representative democracy is furthered by allowing such recalls- it does nothing of the sort. You only need ONE limiter on government behaviour; that they need the vote at the next election. Almost every Government in any Western democracy ever has had 60% of the populace pissed off with it at some point but suggesting they all should have been dissolved is lunacy, plus your system is utterly impractical by the definition of 'any time'.

I lover the way you said you would pretend I didn't say it and then went on to address me saying it. Fascism is merely a particular form of totalitarianism and attempting to ban people from trying to persuade Government representatives to see their point of view absolutely falls into that category. In advocating it, you are taking the position of the fascist and I condemn it utterly.

Outright bribery is already illegal. If you want to tighten those laws, fine, but broadening that to attack the idea of lobbying itself and throwing around literally insane ideas like a 20 year prison sentence simply show your views as being hysterical.

Luckily, no-one who thinks at all like you will ever remotely get close to any tiny modicum of power. You think you are the good guy but you are VERY much the enemy here.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Sure. Back in the fairness act days, if opinion, especially controversial opinion crept into a news story or interview, the reporter would give a disclaimer before and after the interview. So if due to some relevance, CBS News or whoever decided to do an interview with Alex Jones or Glenn Beck Grover Norquist, the reporter would tell everyone before and after that it's an opinion or an unverified theory and that the subject escaped from an asylum and eats dicks constantly. You get my point.

so all you want is for news anchors to say that their guests are presenting an opinion?

idk, I'd rather just not have government involved at all, considering how little that is going to change anything

Originally posted by Ushgarak
There is no actual practical sense in which the Queen can dissolve Parliament. Tjhere is also no sense at all in weakening Government which has regular fixed-term elections in such a way. You are simply wrong to think that representative democracy is furthered by allowing such recalls- it does nothing of the sort. You only need ONE limiter on government behaviour; that they need the vote at the next election. Almost every Government in any Western democracy ever has had 60% of the populace pissed off with it at some point but suggesting they all should have been dissolved is lunacy, plus your system is utterly impractical by the definition of 'any time'.

I lover the way you said you would pretend I didn't say it and then went on to address me saying it. Fascism is merely a particular form of totalitarianism and attempting to ban people from trying to persuade Government representatives to see their point of view absolutely falls into that category. In advocating it, you are taking the position of the fascist and I condemn it utterly.

Outright bribery is already illegal. If you want to tighten those laws, fine, but broadening that to attack the idea of lobbying itself and throwing around literally insane ideas like a 20 year prison sentence simply show your views as being hysterical.

Luckily, no-one who thinks at all like you will ever remotely get close to any tiny modicum of power. You think you are the good guy but you are VERY much the enemy here.

You can persuade government officials by communication, petition, paid media advertisement, or voting. You don't need to contribute money to a reelection campaign, or do their job for them in your favor, or have secret meetings, or buy them dinner and whores.
How does making government public, banning dirty tricks, and eliminating influence peddling make me the enemy? How could you Europeans even comment on that considering that for the most part, your democratic governments still represent the interests of its constituents rather than holding and economy hostage and planning to starve half the country in exchange for a cushy retirement.

Do you even know that under current law people who run for office get to keep campaign contributions as personal income after an election? why do you think Newt Gingrich is running and why elected officials keep raising funds even when their terms are up or when they aren't planing to run?

what would you have them do with the money?

Originally posted by inimalist
what would you have them do with the money? As I said, put it back into a general election fund or into their local government/community.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
11. A consensus vote of 60% of a state's population of no confidence may at any time dissolve a state's government and force an immediate election. A consensus vote of 40 state governors or 60% of the general population of no confidence at any time will dissolve the federal government and force an immediate general election. This right may be suspended only upon a declaration of war by the congress of the United States and only after an attack on US soil by a foreign power or entity or a formal declaration of war by another nation state. Wait... you want the government to be able to fall and immediately enter a new election campaign, when all their coffers were drained at the end of the last election? How are they going to fund this "immediate election"?

Even if the logistics could be cleared up, you'd be left with a two-party system of government see-sawing from one party to the next every couple of years. As soon as one loses favor, the other would get all the votes and receive all the <$50 donations. Obama came in with a large majority of the votes for the Democrats, but 2 years later his approval rating had dipped below half. You would have the entire executive branch dissolved based on polling? Even at a single state's level that'd be a nightmare.

And how would you conduct this objective and unbiased poll? Take a small sample of the population like every poll does? Take the time (and public money) to fund a door-to-door mandatory census opinion poll? You would dissolve the government and force an immediate election based on shifting opinions?! Granted that's pretty much what happens every 4 years, but to do it at any given time? That would be one helluva messed up government.



Iunno maybe I missed a post you made that easily explains those problems, but I don't see how any solution could be offered with a law like that in place.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
As I said, put it back into a general election fund or into their local government/community.

man, why not just give all the money to the state in the first place?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Do you even know that under current law people who run for office get to keep campaign contributions as personal income after an election? We could sign the proposal of this thread into law and they'd still be able to do that. Changing topics doesn't make your point more powerful. Plus I always thought the constitutional and ethical symptoms of requiring a candidate by law to donate to a general election fund were fairly obvious.