Skip to content

A Modest Proposal

21 April 2009

1.  No person shall be elected to the office of Senator more than twice in succession. This Article shall apply to any person holding the office of Senator when this Article was proposed by the Congress, except that a person holding the office of Senator when this Article was proposed by Congress shall be permitted to serve the remainder of that term.  This Article shall apply strictly, without regard to whether or not the successive elections are to the same seat within a State, to different seats within a State, or to seats representing different States.

2.  No person shall be elected to the House of Representatives more than three times in succession. This Article shall apply to any person holding the office of Representative when this Article was proposed by the Congress, except that a person holding the office of Representative when this Article was proposed by Congress shall be permitted to serve the remainder of that term.  This Article shall apply strictly, without regard to whether or not the successive elections are to the same seat within a State, to different seats within a State, or to seats representing different States.

3.  This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of at least three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

qb

Advertisements
4 Comments leave one →
  1. Dan Smith permalink
    22 April 2009 10:00 am

    Greetings from the High Desert, where we are expecting 85 today and 50 on Saturday.

    A small nitpick:

    Congress is comprised of two bodies — Senate & HoR., who’s members are called Senator or Member of the House (or Representative).

    A Congressman may be a member of either.

    Your #2 should refer to a Representative rather than Congressman.

  2. 22 April 2009 11:19 am

    So shall it be, Dan, thanks. qb

  3. 24 April 2009 11:50 am

    qb,

    Not bad. But then what about arguments favoring continuity. Damn. Dilemmas, dilemmas.

    Blessings!

  4. 24 April 2009 2:56 pm

    Coop, I think the jury has returned its verdict on continuity. Not an unmitigated evil, to be sure, but the preponderance of the evidence weighs in favor of this proposal, I think. qb

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: