THE PLAN TO SAVE AMERICA- GOES PUBLIC TODAY.

OK, I think I've read enough to call it as this plan is DOA.

My reasoning is that the website simply doesn't give a clear concise explanation of the plan, and neither does the OP who is in fact involved in it, and apparently is insulted that the plan isn't sweeping the nation and is getting all of these questions instead. You need to provide a fairly simple summary of the plan for something like this and apparently the nature of it is resistant to it. This is a forum of politically interested and politically aware posters and if they are not grasping it quickly that's a real problem to rolling it out.

Very similar to to the Fair Tax idea that conservatives wasted so much time with decades ago. Although it was simple to describe the questions and implications went on and on.

 

Finding a source of information that uses and promotes common sense these days would be something rare, perhaps less likely than making a gold strike in your back yard.
I follow several news feeds every morning. Even the best falls well short of the quality of reporting of 50 years ago. The centuries old Journalistic ethic we could rely on then appears to be extinct.
If you know of any sources where it has survived, please share!

 

There are none anymore.. And sites like these and social media are just parroting all the propaganda..

Maybe some common sense and intelligent eye might be a start..

 

I was expecting a “final solution” based on your thread title. I was pleasantly surprised your post was something very different.

 

Mike- there is not enough time left in the world to curry the favor and entertain all the critics. I've seen your comments for a long time. and you have seemed to be a pretty savvy guy. You have seen the way every issue today gets sucked into endless arguments and nonsense logic, and you know nothing good comes from that.

I will assume you have at some time read actual legislation, and I'd be willing to bet that you never did that and walked away with a clear understanding of what it meant. We chose not to represent the bill in a complete legislative format for that reason, few people read typical legalese and feel confident in it- and they shouldn't. At the same time, if you present the essential points, some think it's not complete, wonder what you're hiding and think you can't be trusted. We are well aware that we can't reach everybody, no matter how we do it. The directors of the project have argued this. Our internet expert favors the approach of sales promotion, believing we need everyone, and must appeal to the more shallow thinkers. She assumes the deeper minds won't have a problem with one-line answers. Our production expert says that we must realize upfront that there will be a sizeable group of people who will not engage regardless- and it would be useless to chase that segment. I agree with his view. Just as there are people who never vote, there are people who will simply not take an interest in their own future- but at the same time, compose a good portion of the people who complain about it. Some seem to think that if they just complain enough, someone else will fix things for them. Then, they will complain about the fix not being perfect, not making them happy. That is endless, and nothing ever gets accomplished that way. IF we are to have any chance of success- we simply can't go there.

The difference between these views of the board members may be related to their ages. The production guy is a senior in his 60's, the internet expert is in her early 40's. "Clear and concise" sounds good, and I'm all in favor of it. However, regardless of how you write it, the way people take it, their capacity to grasp it- will vary widely. There just is no universal answer. The short version is inadequate for the details person. The long version confuses the person who likes the summary explanation; tends to make them think you are hiding something. Both want a shift in focus, off the objective and on to their personal complaints.
We can't afford to lose focus, or the endless time that would take. Time is very important here. I've been pushing to go public since before the mid-terms, the rest of the board has insisted we weren't ready and needed to keep tweaking and polishing the message and expanding the services.

The best chance for this project is to make it a campaign issue, right now. Make the question candidates regularly hear- Do you support an Honorable Congress?
It can be a powerful argument, and it can swing a lot of votes for those who do, and lose a lot for those who don't. This can help put a congress in place that has already committed to passing the act. Thus- there is a political window open now, that is getting shorter every day. If we get bogged down trying to respond to all the criticisms, justifying, procrastinating, trying to respond to everything- we will miss that window- and conditions being what they are, I don't think there will ever be another opportunity. Certainly not any near as good.

I'm old. My objective is to leave the nation intact for my descendants and yours, not benefit myself; I won't be here. None of us get salaries or compensation. We pay for services such as web development, printing, etc- with funds advanced and donated, investing in hope. There is no hidden agenda here, but there's just no time to waste. As I mentioned in another post- this is not a courtship, it's a rescue mission, and it's urgent.

Success depends on the people, and most likely, the odds are against us- because of the limitations of human nature. We have always known that, but have chosen to try anyway.
But be aware that if our rescue mission fails, the ship that sinks.... is the one we are both on.

 

Sadly, I have to agree. There was a time when news people lived or died on the basis of the honesty of their reporting; and they were trustworthy.
At the same time, a savvy person could sort the wheat from the chaff, and keep reality in sight.

The demise of honest media combined with the rise of propaganda has not only destroyed the power of the media to protect the people- it has destroyed the ability of the people to protect themselves, diminshed the personal strength and vision every individual needs to manage their own lives.

This project hopes to re-establish honor and order in Congress; make it both the role model for the agencies it oversees, and the disciplinarian that keeps order everywhere. This would have the same effect on the nation; it can be just as contagious as the chaos has been. It's about much more than Congress, but Congress is where it has to start.

 

I assume by final solution, you mean something like destroying your enemies. That is something we can avoid with this plan. It is also something that seems quite possible if we can't change course.
Saving America- has to include all of us. Unite us, not divide us.

I appreciate your observation. We haven't addressed that, but it is something that our current condition could foster.

 

Spiritgide, here is what the Constitution says in Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

So we see that the authority to expel a member lies solely with the members of the particular house, and it must be by a vote of two thirds. Even if Congress passed a law creating this panel that you envision, its authority to punish or expel a member would be immediately challenged in court as being unconstitutional. In my opinion, the Constitution is clear, and I think giving a panel that authority would be plainly unconstitutional on its face. The panel could recommend, but it could not impose punishments or expel a member on its own authority. And if all it could do is recommend, it would be really no different than any other organization that monitors and reports on Congress.

Our country badly needs to reform Congress, but this is just not the way to do it.

 

"Legitimate questions welcome. Endless arguments with no purpose are obstructions to our mission, and we can't indulge that.
If you take offense, that is unfortunate, but is your choice, not our intention."​

Uh huh.
Well thanks for being so accommodating and explaining yourself better.

Oh, and gosh!
Almost forgot to thank you for saving us from ourselves!

 

@spiritgide,

I have read the website, and read every FAQ item, and am still skeptical. So, at the risk of being called names, I will enumerate the problems I see with this proposal.

At it's essence, this is a "drain the swamp" initiative. It seeks to eject the oath breakers from our governance, and incentivize those who remain to become and remain faithful to their oaths.

One problem with proposing legislation focused on "draining the swamp" is that the people who must enact such legislation are the same people who the legislation targets. In essence, the snakes and gators must install the drain, and then allow a citizen panel to control it. I find this... unlikely. I would like the OP to describe how this legislation is going to be "forced" past those who's interest is to block it at all costs.

In order to enact this plan, I imagine there will need to be an initial period of The People showing their elected representatives who is boss, by way of "support this or pack your bags" at the polls. In order for this to happen, The People en masse must WANT this change, and require candidates support it in exchange for their votes. As I mentioned in a previous message, there is a super-majority of "Pauls" who are just fine with the way the "Peters" are robbed on their behalf. Holding Congress accountable means that gravy-train will necessarily stop. I would like the OP to expand on why people who are benefiting from the status quo would get behind a plan to upset that apple cart.

Another problem is, this legislation (if I understand it correctly) is limited to holding our ELECTED officials accountable. The swamp is way deeper than that, and so, replacing one congressman with another is akin to giving a crappy car a shiny new paint job. It has a new fresh look, but under the hood, it's still a POS. I would like the OP to clarify whether the Citizen Panel has the power to eject non-elected oath breakers as well. And also to speculate what the first 6 months of carnage would be like. I imagine that the majority of the current non-elected swampers would need to be warned or fired immediately, and that would create chaos.

I would like to re-iterate that I am not trying to be a downer. Something like this plan is absolutely what is needed for The People to regain control of their governance, and it has my full support, but I am skeptical about it ever getting past those invested in the status-quo.

 

But- you don't have a better way. In fact, nobody has offered a way- any way at all. But if you do have an idea besides just going down with the ship, step up to the plate; let's hear it.
Not a suggestion or criticism somebody else should do, but a firm plan that could work, and you are willing to invest yourself in to make it work. I'd love to not be doing this.

We have read the Constitution on this and studied the possibility for years. At one point, we had a constitutional lawyer in our group. We have probably already considered all the possible arguments.
We want to pass the bill with a 2/3 majority. The panel has to have a 2/3 vote to remove as well. Purpose- to keep faith with the vote required in the authority to remove. And yes, it is by house.

Something that should be obvious is that interpretations of law, even the direct Constitutional amendments, along with latitude can be substantial. If Congress wants to do something that needs that latitude, they usually find a way to get there. What we have to do is make them want to do it, and that requires the super majority. The list of things we do that strict adherence to the constitution clearly prohibit is quite large and quite significant in impact.

Of course this isn't a shoe-in; we never assumed it was. We have spent years looking for a crack in the armor because there is no open door where you can just walk in tell them to clean up their act.

While we may fail- there is no harm in trying, absolutely nothing to lose. Not trying is another thing. That pretty much ensures everybody will lose everything. There are no perfect choices, no fool-proof answer.
Try and have a chance- fail to try and have no chance. The fate of the nation is on the table right now. Only the foolish and naive don't know that, and I don't assume you are such a person.

 

Lots of people seem to think that to try, you must have a magic wand that can't fail. There are none.
Fact is, if the people do get behind this solidly- it will happen, because it will be political suicide to refuse it. That is not in our control. On the fence won't get it done. The only possible way- is Super Majority support. We're actually betting on the people to help save the country they live in simply by supporting a concept.

If you understand the proposal- it takes no position on any political issue, party or person. Only on the rules of order. No axe to grind, and it's not retroactive prior to the date it becomes effective.
If it is necessary to demonstrate it will be used- it will be because some don't believe it, not because it needs to be used as a weapon. I have no doubt that would happen- but I also believe that the majority of people in Congress, particularly the ones old enough to understand the importance of discipline and order- would be thrilled to have a stable environment.

All this bill does is say you must follow the basic rules of your job. Nothing more. In the private sector- that is a rule everywhere, and a rule you get fired for not respecting. Yet in Congress, where the stakes are huge by comparison- that's too much to expect and unfair. The citizens of this nation are entitled to more than that.

Congress could have created a similar rule, anytime since the Constitution was written. Simply state that violation of primary ethics gets you removed. But- there are NO qualifications for the rule. Nothing. .
They expelled 17 leading into the civil war- for being sympathetic to the south, a very partisan act. Since then, in 156 years- only TWO, until the recent removal of Santos. Without a qualification, the power of expulsion is an invitation to a partisan civil war, because it is all between peers and not independent at all.

This was first discussed as a possible tool by me and a friend of mine, a judge- 20 years ago, before our group actually began. We see the problems. We don't see an alternative.

If anyone can step up and show us a way to improve it, I'd be happy to listen. Telling us they don't think it will work is arm-chair quarterback stuff, unless that person is particularly qualified in some way.

Now- assume it doesn't get support. And assume somehow the nation doesn't collapse from the chaos and financial mismanagement that is adding $10 to the national debt for every man woman and child in the nation every day. There is a slim chance that having the concept on the table might result in Congress coming to grips with the idea that it must find a way to restore and maintain order- someday. That's a very long shot, as they have been allowed to abuse the trust of the people so long that it is deeply entrenched- and none of them want to believe they are personally responsible.

So- shall we try and risk failure, or just hope that happens before the nation collapses?

I listened to JFK tell the people "Ask not what your country can do for you... Ask what you can do for your country".
That's what we're trying to do- something for America. Not for us- for the future. For my descendants, and yours.
It's quite possible, perhaps probable- that the people we need to make it happen, the people it would benefit- will sit by and wait to see if someone else will do it for them.
I learned a long time ago that you can't help people who won't help themselves. Trouble is that in this case, they could take the rest of society down with them.

Figure out a better way, and we will be happy to endorse you.

 

I think the biggest obstacle you will encounter is human nature. People tend to sit idle in their status quo until it's their house that is on fire.

Even if there is a better way, the way it's always been done is preferred, for some reason. I can't tell you the number of times in my career in I.T. that I've asked the question "why do you do it that way", only to be met with "that's the way we've always done it". I can re-engineer a business process to take half the time, at half the cost, and half the manpower, producing a better result, and still be met with resistance, because fear of the unknown.

I wish you every success in this noble endeavor, because it really is what needs to happen. And I have done my part, by contacting my representatives, to help.

 

The biggest problem we have is the way the system works and the type of people it attracts. We know certain things about the motivations of our elected representatives and senators. We know that most of them are careerists who, once elected, will not voluntarily leave their positions unless they grow very old or die. According to information I found, well over 90 percent of congressional incumbents win re-election. I think we know that most of them are motivated by a desire for power, privilege and fame rather than a burning desire to serve something greater than themselves, that being their constituents and the country. And in their pursuit of those things, they quickly give up their integrity (if they ever really had any). They cow-tow to the leaders of their chamber. They vote like trained monkeys. They gaslight us constantly. And, of course, they give an ear to their biggest campaign donors and appease them with their votes on issues that affect them. And because difficult decisions can be controversial, and taking a side on a controversial decision could endanger their re-election, they avoid making those decisions. "Better to do nothing and blame someone else for the problem than to do something for which I will be held accountable." This is the mindset in Congress. This is why we can't have a balanced budget. This is why we can't control the border. And this is why, at every opportunity, Congress punts its authority to the President, the Supreme Court, or the bureaucracy. I could go on and on, and I'm sure you could too. I have almost no doubt that you perceive the same things as I do about that institution.

What your proposal reminds me of is disciplining fundamentally bad people. It reminds me of making criminals obedient to rules in prison, but they are only going to obey the rules under threat. I know from experience that some criminals make great inmates, but they are not good people. They are "good" because they are forced to be good. You take away the walls, bars, and guards, and they go right back to being bad.

What I am suggesting is that we attract good people, people who don't really care about power and fame that much. What they care about is the honor of representing their district or their state for a time as a service to them and the country. So how do we do that?

I am going to suggest that we get behind 4 constitutional amendments, the first two being the most important to cleaning up Congress and attracting truly good people to run for those offices.

1) Term limits on members of the House of Representatives. I would suggest a limit of two, 2-year terms. Then they would go home with a nice plaque and the honor of knowing they served. This would eliminate the careerists whose plan is to do or say whatever it takes to stay in office forever. It would attract the kind of person who wanted to do something while they were in office, rather than do nothing to avoid accountability. This would attract the kind of person who would say what they believed because they believed it. This would attract the kind of people who have a passion for service, rather than those who have a passion for lifelong power and privilege and fame.

2) Regarding the Senate: I would suggest repealing the 17th Amendment which provided for the selection of Senators by popular vote. Prior to that amendment, senators were selected by a vote in their state legislatures. Why go back to that? Because then, every senator would be accountable to only their state legislature. Senators would have no need for campaign finance, a need that corrodes their integrity and independence. And senators would not be influenced by campaign donors from interests that had nothing to do with their state. Furthermore, the wishes of the people of their state, as represented by their state legislature, would have a higher priority than the wishes of their Senate leader because they would be accountable to their state legislature, not the Senate leader. Under this system, the voters would only be one step removed from the election of their senators. If they wanted conservative senators, elect a conservative legislature. If they wanted liberal senators, well, you get it.

Now if we reject this idea, then the alternative I would suggest is that senators have term limits, probably two 4-year terms like the President.

3) A constitutional amendment declaring that campaign donations are not a type of speech, nor do they enjoy any special immunity from regulation by law. This amendment would take away the impediment to enacting laws that limit campaign donations. Then, we would have to pressure our elected leaders to enact those laws. That would be our challenge, but at least it could be possible.

4) A balanced budget amendment. This would, of course, force fiscal responsibility. In it, I would want it spelled out that if Congress spent more money than it took in, they would have to concurrently raise taxes on the public to pay for the overspending. And that would not be a popular thing to do, now would it?

These 4 constitutional amendments would, in my opinion, transform Congress into a body of patriotic Americans who wanted to serve their constituents and our country for the time that they had, rather than what we have now which is the moral cesspool I have already described.

And, since these are constitutional amendments, they could not be nullified by even the Supreme Court, and they would be very hard to repeal.

Thanks for asking me to give my plan. Although I am with you in spirit and intent, we disagree on the "how". But thanks for listening.

Seth

 

I'm confused how exactly this is different from what currently exists.

You seem to deal with generalities but do not really get into specifics.

I think what would inevitably happen is that any committee granted great powers would inevitably become subject to political bias.

A House ethics committee already exists, to recommend expulsion of members for the most blatant egregious misconduct.

 

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

One of the key tools of success in life, in anything you do- is to know where your power is. Everybody has power, but few know where it is, or can figure out how to use it. It's not always in the same place-
and not alway useful in the same way, but it is always there.

So- in this effort, do we expect constitutional challenges- Absolutely.
So lets say those challenges are valid, and interpretation and latitude aren't successful in overcoming them.

So lets say (Just for example) that 99% of the voters tell their representatives that the national symbol of America, the Bald Eagle- shall be replaced with a cowardly chicken, and the American flag will become a picture of that chicken. And- that if they fail to vote for that, they will never get another vote or hold office again. The people have spoken, the congress has no choice. They can refuse, and be replaced with people who won't. While that's a ludicrous example, the point it makes is that the will of the people, in sufficient majority- DOES have the power to control Congress.

Congress DOES have the ability to put a system of discipline of this nature in place. They don't- because we let them get away with it. There is no other reason. The intent of the Constitution is that Congress be an honorable institution that serves the best interests of the people, and keeps order. To say they can't because it's not constitutional is literally a dodge of their constitutional duty.

Congress COULD pass a law that states any member of Congress who violates the oath of office shall be immediately removed, and that decision will be in the hands of a citizens panel.
They could pass a bill to change the Constitution itself, to create a similar kind of discipline tool, but that would take about 10 years to ratify.

IF their jobs are on the line, Congress will do what it must to survive- including pass legislation to bring order to their own house.

The exact final form of that is not as important as that it be done, be effective, and be permanent. All the reasons why this approach can't work can be overcome with sufficient popular support for the objective of it. That is where the power of the people is at. IF Congress has no choice, they will find a way to overcome any constitutional issues and create an effective means reaching the same objective.

The people making the laws work for US. The power they have to control US- comes from US. That means we do have the power to control them.
To use that power to demand they do their job and serve with honor- is more than our right, it's our duty.

A bill never passes Congress in the exact form it is introduced. What we must do once the bill is presented, is maintain the pressure to preserve the key elements.
We are open to all kinds of alternate options- SO LONG AS THEY GET THE SAME RESULTS.

There are reasons our bill is structured in such a way as to have no political bias at all. Give no advantage, be a service to everyone, including Congress. The primary reason is that nothing else could generate a Super Majority. It's also the right thing to do.

I want to point to something else- that is extremely important. The moral value systems of a society shape it, make it what it is. These things are learned, not intuitive. They are learned from behaviors modeled by people in authority- starting with parents and family from day one, on to teachers and people we interact with, and most importantly- those with authority. The primary learning doesn't come from what they say- but what they do. We see the tools they use, such as violence, denial, lies, abuse, compassion, integrity, etc. We see the consequences as well, and learn what not to do, what works- what fails. The more powerful the model, the stronger their message.

The moral values in America are falling. Falling a lot, and falling quickly; it's easily documented as well as in-your-face visible.
This is an erosion of the society we all depend on. To reverse that trend- you must change what the models of conduct are.
When the people who are given the power to make the rules will not follow their own rules- that is a major model of conduct, one that justifies the same behavior for everyone else.
Thus, a change in the conduct modeled by Congress would have huge impact on the perception of the public as to what is acceptable, and how we must conduct ourselves to be successful.

If you look at the behaviors in Congress, and the behaviors of the public today, you see many things mirrored. The correlation is obvious.
If we had the Congress this bill would create, imagine the impact of that model.

That is a purpose of this bill. Not just what an Honorable Congress would do today, but how it would influence the strength and character of future generations.
Create an honorable congress with respect for duty, for civility, for each other and for sound principles- and you shift the path of the nation. Slowly, but surely.
We can't change the mindset of all the individuals in society, that's not in our power. But we can change their primary role model, and that IS within our power.

I really appreciate your support. Sorry for the long response.

 

Seth- all those things make sense. However, it would probably be impossible to generate enough public pressure to force most of them through, and it might take 5-10 years to ratify an amendment to the constitution. Term limit bills for example have been proposed in every congress for decades. None pass. In the average 2-year Congress, there will be four to six million words of new law- yet things continue to get worse. We the people, are not in control of what happens in Congress.

The purpose of Congress is to guide the nation, safely to the future the people want. Think of Congress as a navigational system, setting a course, avoiding obstacles, solving problems- to get to a goal.
Simple job description- Make America work well, take us safely to a better future.

Then think of what happens when the navigational system is corrupted by itself for it's own benefit- and we ask it to fix itself, but the most we can do is ask. That's where we are.

There used to be a saying about poor performance in Congress- "Throw the bums out!". I don't know how long we've been relying on that, but at least 75 years. Yet, we have more bums than ever.
I don't think you can muster enough public pressure to force Congress to do these things, any more than you can herd cats. Doing this by force is also an ongoing battle, like we have now, and we lack the weaponry to force it. We are all tired of it, and we all see we are losing. We shouldn't have to force it anyway.

This is why this bill adopts the same principle that works everywhere. It's basically that if you won't do the job, play for Team America, you won't work for team America. We can't force them to care, to be honorable, we don't have the power. The ability to sort that out in the electoral process has never worked, and is far less today than ever before given the lack of honest news media.

Power is control, but you can't use power you don't have, and if you don't use power you do have- it too is useless. Members of Congress have control over their behavior and mindset- the voters do not. And while we do have the power to control who gets in office, we don't have the power to ensure they will do their job honestly. The objective here is to gain that power, leave no choice but to do the job right. It's fast, clean, and sends a clear message.

Now IF we can make Congress an honorable institution- one of the effects would be that really good people who cared about the nation- the kind you and I agree should be there- would want to be part of it. Nobody with real talent wants to join a circus, but the opportunity to help the nation appeals to a lot of fine people. With the right kind of mindset in Congress, those goals you list would also be their goals, and they would explore the benefits of those ideas rather than fight them to the death. So we are looking for the same thing- a Congress that serves the nation. I think we should realize that we can't force people to think that way, we just lack that power. Some of that nature will get in office, no matter what our election rules may be. But we could have the power to throw out the bad apples- and that would leave us with a Congress of good ones.

Such a Congress would quickly gain respect and trust. It would be able to bridge the aisle and be far more bi-partisan. Help re-unite the people. We cannot force the mindset needed to do that, it can only happen when we have people who want to make it work that way. We desperately need high-caliber people- the kind that want the job rather than seek the side benefits. Obviously we agree on that, and all people should.

The question is, how to achieve it, and do so before the nation disintegrates.
I think we understand the problem perfectly, as well as the nature of what a solution must achieve. The means of solution certainly isn't perfect, it's just the closest we could design- and you wouldn't believe the number of hours and debate we have dedicated to getting there. We are open to better ideas, but not open to doing nothing in the hopes one will come along someday. This is a kind of rescue mission, the need is getting critical.

Appreciate your thoughts, and I agree with your objectives.

 

Everyone has the option to surrender to corruption, because they don't think the alternative solution is perfect.....

If you read the posts and visit the website (honorablecongress.org) you will find specifics.
There have been two expulsions in the last 156 years prior to the recent one of George Santos.
We have many members of Congress convicted of felonies, and sentenced to prison- but never expelled.
The power of expulsion doesn't work because it's not used, and that's because it's peer-to-peer- among people who are all playing the game the same way.

If you read the info on the website, you would see the panel is so structured that political bias can never control it. Screening, rules and term limits do that.
All these things have been debated and considered a thousand times in our process.
IF the house ethics committee worked- WHY do we have the kind of rampant corruption and choas that exists right now?
A sign on the wall saying "We have Honor" is a sign. Just a sign. An ethics committee that has no ethics serves the same purpose; that of appearances.
If that is enough for you, it's your choice.

We've been doing our homework here for a very long time, and with many talented minds at work on it.
Ask a specific question, I will answer.But please, read the posts and visit the website first.

 

I'd like to add something that seems to never occur to most people.

We can't pass good laws- until we have a good Congress.

For that reason, the most important step in creating a government that truly will serve the nation well is a having a Congress both capable and dedicated to doing so.

Until we fix Congress- we won't be able to fix anything else right. Once we do that, anything is possible- but it must come first.

The theme logo of the Honorable Congress Project is MACH 1. That means-

MAKING AMERICAS CONGRESS HONORABLE- IS JOB 1.

That's what this is about, and why.

 

I'm a little shaky on number 3 since it's hard to imagine that won't be used as a cudgel against the First Amendment, which is already on shaky ground, but I heartily support the other amendments. Sad that we'll never get them, but there's no harm supporting them.

 

It would seem that most people support things like fiscal responsibility, but we have a hell of a time getting any recognition of that.

People spending their own hard-earned money are frugal- but those spending Other People's Money (OPM, similar in effect to OPIUM) spend like the people they take it from have bottomless pockets and won't miss it. They get addicted to throwing money at everything, and using the leverage that provides to generate power, control, dependency and campaign contributions- and the ability to gain more money.

That of course is but one of the hundreds of things that a responsible congress would do differently, but one that urgently needs to change.


The first step to ensure you get a good surgery- is having a good surgeon. True with about everything.

Well- the first thing you must do to ensure you get good laws, is having good lawmakers.
You achieve that by excluding bad ones from pack, as quickly as possible.

Now exactly how we achieve that is not near as important as getting it done.
But we will never have the kind of laws and leadership we need to keep the nation on track and thriving, until we do. Never.

 

Have you done anything to get the major propaganda outlets to pick this up? Because, if you have both MSNBC and FOX preaching this gospel, then we may have a hope to effect this change.

 

Yes.
Press release finally cleared approval this morning, should hit the press by tomorrow; hundreds of news agencies, TV stations, papers, etc. These people get 100 or more press releases a day, so we don't know how many will pick up the story. Private emails going to couple dozen prime names in news/political coverage.
Letters to all members of congress probably hit their in-boxes this morning. The process there usually take a few days to get to to the office holder. Those are all personal on full color stationary, they won't be seen as the everyday stuff. We also have social media marketing spots going, things like that.

 

Not to be a negative nellie here, but I disagree with this too.

You will never have enough "good people" to reliably count on good government. The nature of politics is corrupting by it's nature and even good people turn bad. Look what happened to the Tea Party candidates. Most of them turned into the same type of people they ran against. What you really need is an incentive system to forces bad people to do the right thing, even if it's for the wrong reasons.

“I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing. Unless it is politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing, the right people will not do the right thing either, or it they try, they will shortly be out of office.”
― Milton Friedman

 

Well, I believe you're going to need a constitutional amendment to do what you're planning to do anyway. I already cited the Article in the Constitution that would contravene the ability of the panel to punish or expel a member of Congress.

But whenever polling is done on the subject of congressional term limits the results are overwhelmingly in favor of them. With all due respect, my suggestion would be to rally the super majority of the public behind that goal and use that public pressure to force Congress to start the process. We already have the super majority in favor of term limits! What the people need are leaders and an organization to spearhead the effort.