So, what is(are) the problem(s) with our form of government?

I think its government spending. Some of the stuff our tax dollars get spent on could be spent on much better things
https://www.rd.com/list/wasteful-government-spending/

 

You might want to re-evaluate what you're doing, because it's not working.

You know what? You deserve credit for that and perhaps for sparking debate.

Sure I do. I was born and raised here, I'm a disabled combat veteran, and I taught Intro to International Relations and US Foreign Policy while I was getting my PhD.

So, you have 86 years and are confined to a nursing home?

That would be the only excuse I would accept.

I wrote them. I am the original author. I've been involved in law, law enforcement, legal, military and government since I was 22.

There's nothing nonsensical about it. Precise language is important to avoid vagueness and ambiguity.

Section 1 says if you cannot legally vote for a candidate, then you cannot contribute money to that candidate. Period. End of story.

Take Representative Steve Chabot (R) 1st District Ohio.

In order to contribute money to his campaign, you must be a registered voter living in the 1st District, or you must be a US Citizen who is living in the 1st District and can legally register to vote.

If you live in Cleveland, Ohio, you cannot contribute money to his campaign because you cannot legally vote in the 1st District. If you live in Sarasota, Florida, you cannot contribute money to his campaign for the same reason.

If you are a corporation, a business, a union, a think-tank, a PAC, a civic group, or any other group like the National Council of Churches or the NRA or the American Hospital Association or the American Plastics Council, you cannot legally vote, so you cannot contribute money.

Section 2 says that if Senator Sharrod Brown (D) of Ohio is getting his ass kicked in the polls, the Democrat Party of California cannot send money to the Democrat Party of Ohio to prop up his campaign.

Section 3 is the very stiff penalties for violating.

I live in Ohio, you live anywhere but Ohio and you give me money to make a contribution to Governor Dickwhine (R) then you and I go to prison and pay a fine.

I work for Microsux, and Microsux gives me money to contribute to contribute to Senator Brown (D) then I go to prison and pay a fine and Microsux goes into receivership for the next 7 to 10 years and pays a fine and its stock share plummet to $0.03/share and now Bill Gates' net worth is $12 Million instead of $96 Billion.

If Google contributes any money to the campaign of anyone then Google goes into receivership for the next 7 to 10 years and pays a fine.

Sucks for you to be a share-holder, but then you need to be actively involved and make sure your corporation walks the straight and narrow.

If the American Federation of Teachers contributes money to any campaign, then they go into receivership, which effectively means the union gets decertified.

If you're a teacher and you lose your benefits and maybe even your job, well then I guess that will motivate you to get involved and make sure there's no shenanigans.

Yeah, that's right. There's no such thing as a free-ride.

Um, once the Amendment is adopted it becomes the law of the land.

You have an incredibly poor attitude conceding defeat before an attempt is even made.

In order to solve any problem, you must understand how the problem arose in the first place in order create any effective solution.

The problem is money. Period. Term limits do not take money out of the equation, by my Amendment does.

 

So, what is(are) the problem(s) with our form of government?

The same problem with every form of government. People put personal interests ahead of the common good. Human nature is the problem.

 

The piss poor quality and aging of too many of the candidates certainly does not help drive interest in our elections. People like Marjorie Taylor Greene and several others elected recently leave a lot to be desired. We should have upper age limits as well as the current lower limits for all elected offices.

 

Doesn't that include Biden?

 

I appreciate the thought, but iu does not mesh with human nature. As some of the framers opined, if men were angels we would not need a constitution. I agree that there should be better way to enforce following the Constitution which currently depends only on the judicial opinion of a few men and women in black robes. State legislatures having some power to overturn supreme court rulings might help. Or maybe there are other things that can be put in the Constitution that might help.

 

Rod, I think it is actually based on human nature and our history supports it. Not that we have ever done everything right, but in places where things have done well, one consistent metric is that rules were respected, and that is what I'm saying is needed.

Imagine a football or most any sports game, then- remove the referees and let the players make their own call as to what happened and is fair.
This is the difference between order through disciplined limits and rules (controlled not by the players but by independent people) and a free-for-all. Todays congress pretty much is a free-for-all, and the rest of government is following suit. It's not so much a legal issue that should be addressed by the court. The rules are already there, but the tools to enforce them are not. And these aren't rules of criminal law, but of conduct. If you play ball but ignore the rules, what happens? Think along those lines. That's where the answers are.

 

You are right that the base problem is human nature, but it’s all of us, on every level, that are contributing or hampering. Pointing fingers is a dodge, and it’s not just about desires. It’s also about fear and ignorance.
And there is both good and bad in human nature.
The saying in Zen, ‘fix the man, fix the world’, is apt.
The challenge is, how?

 

I sometimes wish they COULD outright buy votes... set up competing kiosks outside every poll and to the highest bidder goes the spoils (cash in hand, no IOUs). At least we'd leave with more than hopes of imaginary campaign promises coming true.

 

2 parties that play good cop/bad cop. Large bribe money to election campaigns. Making we the people an after thought.

Who has to implement the term limits? The congress people themselves. We got close with McCain/Feingold some 2 decades ago but it failed because congress has to vote for it and limit their cushy jobs and plethora of money for bribing.

Voters can impose term limits. Vote out all incumbents all the time.
Also, see if we can reduce the amount of bribe money that can be given to politicians.