PDA

View Full Version : Propose Your Own Amendment



Mjölnir
06-16-2016, 07:04 PM
So, just for fun ... if you could propose a Constitutional Amendment, what would it be. No worries about it being unconstitutional since it would be changing the Constitution.

and ... go ...

sandsjames
06-16-2016, 07:31 PM
Simple, IMO. Term limits on everyone in government. 8 years, at most, for everyone.

Rainmaker
06-16-2016, 07:35 PM
So, just for fun ... if you could propose a Constitutional Amendment, what would it be. No worries about it being unconstitutional since it would be changing the Constitution.

and ... go ...

An amendment banning dual-citizens from participating in all elections and from receiving government appointments to positions of public trust

efmbman
06-16-2016, 07:36 PM
Repeal the 12th. Abolish the Electoral College and establish popular vote to elect POTUS.

efmbman
06-16-2016, 07:38 PM
I would also re-word the 14th to specify that persons born in the US are automatically US citizens only if at least one of the parents is already a US citizen.

Short version - no anchor baby clause.

SomeRandomGuy
06-16-2016, 07:42 PM
Institute a Flat Tax


The system I like best is the one outlined at fairtax.org. We can completely get rid of the IRS since States would collect the Fair Tax along with their Sales Tax as they do now. It also provides a pre-bate to get everyone up to the poverty level.

Rainmaker
06-16-2016, 07:55 PM
I think we'd be better off repealing a few than adding anything. We have too many amendments already.

sandsjames
06-16-2016, 08:15 PM
I think we'd be better off repealing a few than adding anything. We have too many amendments already.So which would you repeal? Or are you just trying to be contrary to everyone else?

Rainmaker
06-16-2016, 08:24 PM
So which would you repeal? Or are you just trying to be contrary to everyone else?

14th, 16th and 17th for starters

Rainmaker
06-16-2016, 08:30 PM
It also provides a pre-bate to get everyone up to the poverty level.

Noice! Plank 2 of the communist manifesto

Mjölnir
06-16-2016, 08:34 PM
http://e.lvme.me/kwovcbl.jpg

efmbman
06-16-2016, 08:35 PM
14th, 16th and 17th for starters

You would repeal the 14th completely? What are your concerns about the clause stating "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

sandsjames
06-16-2016, 08:40 PM
You would repeal the 14th completely? What are your concerns about the clause stating "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

You know his answer to that. If they are minorities, specifically Muslims, then they don't deserve due process. It would be a permanent enactment, with a broadening, of the Patriot Act. Just think, if Trump would do it, RM would do it.

sandsjames
06-16-2016, 08:42 PM
14th, 16th and 17th for starters

17th? You don't like the people of the state electing their own Senators? Or is it the temporary appointments you don't like?

Rainmaker
06-16-2016, 08:51 PM
You would repeal the 14th completely? What are your concerns about the clause stating "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It's a Carpet bagger amendment ratified under duress & threat of military invasion.
Activist judges today routinely misuse it to abuse private property rights and discriminate against whites in the name of "fairness".

Besides it's obsolete. When's the last time you've run into a recently freed American born slave?

Rainmaker
06-16-2016, 09:10 PM
If they are minorities, specifically Muslims, then they don't deserve due process.

Mein Trumper's Talking about Foreign National Mooslims. That are not here yet .

You know the one's coming here as a result of Hillary & McStain's disastrous policy of spending Billions of $ covertly arming up Al Qaeda terrorists to foment civil wars on behalf of their owners in Israel?

Speaking of which, the latest hacker "guccifer2" just released Hitlery's top donor list. Tic Toc. Because the Bitch is clearly compromised.

Maybe once Anderson Vanderbilt Cooper stops fake crying over some Puerto Rican poofters & pontificating about banning "assault" rifles he'll mention it on the CNN "news"

Rusty Jones
06-16-2016, 10:37 PM
The 14th Amendment outlawed slavery. I guess Rainmaker wants to bring it back.

Rusty Jones
06-16-2016, 10:41 PM
Here's an amendment I think we can ALL agree with: establishing a mandatory minimum number active duty, reserve, and guard personnel for each service. For example, if the mandatory minimum is 500,000 for active duty Air Force; the Air Force CANNOT cut below that.

Rusty Jones
06-16-2016, 10:50 PM
I say repeal the 3rd Amendment. It's not that I don't agree with the amendment, because I do. But, IMO, it's too petty to be a constitutional amendment, and would make more sense as a law under the CFR.

efmbman
06-17-2016, 12:06 PM
It's a Carpet bagger amendment ratified under duress & threat of military invasion.
Activist judges today routinely misuse it to abuse private property rights and discriminate against whites in the name of "fairness".

Besides it's obsolete. When's the last time you've run into a recently freed American born slave?

You feel that due process is obsolete?

sandsjames
06-17-2016, 12:43 PM
You feel that due process is obsolete?


Don't misunderstand him. It's not obsolete for white folks...

Rusty Jones
06-17-2016, 12:45 PM
Don't misunderstand him. It's not obsolete for white folks...

He must have a new comeback for being called a racist that he's just dying to use.

SomeRandomGuy
06-17-2016, 02:08 PM
Here's an amendment I think we can ALL agree with: establishing a mandatory minimum number active duty, reserve, and guard personnel for each service. For example, if the mandatory minimum is 500,000 for active duty Air Force; the Air Force CANNOT cut below that.

I actually don't agree with that. The number of Active Duty troops needed isn't a static number. If the services would get smarter they wouldn't even need as many troops as we have now. The problem is we have way, way, way too many support troops. (I'm saying this as someone who was in a support AFSC) If we would just simplify our regulations we wouldn't need so many support troops. DTS is an absolute mess but the idea behind it is right. You should be able to enter your own travel claim. Where it gets bogged down is how many people have to approve it. When I worked Travel and Expense for a Corporation our entire Travel Regulation was SIX pages! The JFTR doesn't need to be some damn complicated.

Also, if we were smarter about closing bases we wouldn't need so many support people. Have you ever played the game Risk? What we currently have is too small of an Army to occupy all the territories we want to control. If the overseas bases are absolute necessities that's fine, but lets at least close some CONUS bases down. They don't necessarily have to be the bases everyone hates (Minot, Kirtland, Ellsworth, etc). We could close some of the expensive bases (Los Angeles, Hanscom, Bolling).

The point here is the Air Force doesn't need anywhere close to 500,000 Airmen to do it's actual mission. We just have way too many bases and way too many people in support roles who's only job is to create nifty little PowerPoint slides with a little yellow, some red, but mostly green.

Rusty Jones
06-17-2016, 02:17 PM
I actually don't agree with that. The number of Active Duty troops needed isn't a static number. If the services would get smarter they wouldn't even need as many troops as we have now. The problem is we have way, way, way too many support troops. (I'm saying this as someone who was in a support AFSC) If we would just simplify our regulations we wouldn't need so many support troops. DTS is an absolute mess but the idea behind it is right. You should be able to enter your own travel claim. Where it gets bogged down is how many people have to approve it. When I worked Travel and Expense for a Corporation our entire Travel Regulation was SIX pages! The JFTR doesn't need to be some damn complicated.

Also, if we were smarter about closing bases we wouldn't need so many support people. Have you ever played the game Risk? What we currently have is too small of an Army to occupy all the territories we want to control. If the overseas bases are absolute necessities that's fine, but lets at least close some CONUS bases down. They don't necessarily have to be the bases everyone hates (Minot, Kirtland, Ellsworth, etc). We could close some of the expensive bases (Los Angeles, Hanscom, Bolling).

The point here is the Air Force doesn't need anywhere close to 500,000 Airmen to do it's actual mission. We just have way too many bases and way too many people in support roles who's only job is to create nifty little PowerPoint slides with a little yellow, some red, but mostly green.

We say that until shit hits the fan, and we weren't ready for it and/or we don't have enough troops for the job. Remember the problems that the services were having with recruiting ten years ago, and the Army was offering $80,000 bonuses (40K in cash, and 40K toward a house or a business)?

I think that one thing we're all sick and tired of is how the military is too fucking bipolar when it comes to manning. Either the military is downsizing, or it's desperately trying to grow (and lowering its standards to that end). I don't recall one time EVER during my career, where there was a sense of stability and the military was content with its current manning levels. That said, establishing a minimum strength level would help mitigate that issue.

I wasn't trying to suggest that the Air Force needs a minimum strength of 500K; I was just throwing an arbitrary number out there to make a point.

SomeRandomGuy
06-17-2016, 02:33 PM
We say that until shit hits the fan, and we weren't ready for it and/or we don't have enough troops for the job. Remember the problems that the services were having with recruiting ten years ago, and the Army was offering $80,000 bonuses (40K in cash, and 40K toward a house or a business)?

I think that one thing we're all sick and tired of is how the military is too fucking bipolar when it comes to manning. Either the military is downsizing, or it's desperately trying to grow (and lowering its standards to that end). I don't recall one time EVER during my career, where there was a sense of stability and the military was content with its current manning levels. That said, establishing a minimum strength level would help mitigate that issue.

I wasn't trying to suggest that the Air Force needs a minimum strength of 500K; I was just throwing an arbitrary number out there to make a point.

If "shit hits the fan" pulling MSgt PowerPointClicker from HQ AFMC and sending him to the front lines isn't going to make a difference. If there is a minimum number of ground troops required, those people should be in the Army or Marines. I would agree with your premise to establish a minimum strength for the Air Force (and other services) but first let's define each service's mission, root out all the unnecessary bases and positions, and let's set the number there. Having people exist just in case we need them isn't a good strategy. A lot of the people in the higher ranks are just riding out their time until 20 or trying to finish their degree before high year tenure in order to come back as a contractor or civilian in their same position.

I'm not familiar enough to comment on the strength needed by the Army, Navy or Marines but I can affirmatively say that the Air Force doesn't NEED more people than it has now. It simply needs to be smarter about how it uses those people.

sandsjames
06-17-2016, 03:00 PM
If "shit hits the fan" pulling MSgt PowerPointClicker from HQ AFMC and sending him to the front lines isn't going to make a difference. If there is a minimum number of ground troops required, those people should be in the Army or Marines.

I think you are misunderstanding what he's saying. He's not speaking specifically about any numbers or any service. He's just using AF and 500,000 as an example. He's simply saying that we need a set number of military folks and to quit wasting money buy continuously raising and cutting manning. The specifics here aren't the point.

SomeRandomGuy
06-17-2016, 03:35 PM
I think you are misunderstanding what he's saying. He's not speaking specifically about any numbers or any service. He's just using AF and 500,000 as an example. He's simply saying that we need a set number of military folks and to quit wasting money buy continuously raising and cutting manning. The specifics here aren't the point.

No, I understood that. My point is that the number of troops needed will never be static. In 1954 the Air Force had 947,918 but in 2014 that number was 326,259.

Where would you set the minimum? Things change. I'm saying that right now the services actually have pretty close to what they need if they would stop with all the bullshit stuff that isn't part of their mission.

Rainmaker
06-17-2016, 03:42 PM
You feel that due process is obsolete?

we already have due process under the Bill of rights (5th amendment).

The 14th Amendment did not apply to white citizens and its passing had absolutely nothing to do with promoting "equality" of the races either. The carpet bagger hypocrites never intended for freed blacks to be equal to whites.

At the time it was passed, radical republican zealots had taken over the Congress and they disenfranchised so many ex-confederates and enfranchised so many blacks that they effectively took over the southern governments.

They got illiterate blacks that had never even been off the plantation elected and then used them as puppets to loot the South's coffers for their own benefit. They basically set themselves up as the blacks new masters and set them back 100 years.

To say that the 14th amendment applies to foreign nationals that are illegally in this country is a perversion of the founders intent and absurd.

Of course activist judges being appointed by corrupt politicians (that are bought off by corporate interests) is nothing new.

They want open borders and free (slave) trade at all costs.

Calling everyone a racist who disagrees is just a smokescreen to silence legitimate concern and won't work for much longer.

Rusty Jones
06-17-2016, 04:32 PM
No, I understood that. My point is that the number of troops needed will never be static. In 1954 the Air Force had 947,918 but in 2014 that number was 326,259.

Where would you set the minimum? Things change. I'm saying that right now the services actually have pretty close to what they need if they would stop with all the bullshit stuff that isn't part of their mission.

I don't think any of us here could quantify what the strength should be, but we could certainly qualify it: it should be enough to fight against Russia and China simultaneously with no allies, and to be able to handle two to three major conflicts. All at the same time..

After all, what would we have done ten years ago if North Korea and/or Iran decided to get bold while we were already spread thin in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

While I can't come up with a number for each component of each service to be able to do that, I'm sure that there are generals and admirals who could.

SomeRandomGuy
06-17-2016, 05:18 PM
I don't think any of us here could quantify what the strength should be, but we could certainly qualify it: it should be enough to fight against Russia and China simultaneously with no allies, and to be able to handle two to three major conflicts. All at the same time..

After all, what would we have done ten years ago if North Korea and/or Iran decided to get bold while we were already spread thin in both Iraq and Afghanistan?

While I can't come up with a number for each component of each service to be able to do that, I'm sure that there are generals and admirals who could.

I guess that's where we disagree then. You think the U.S. Military should be manned to handle the "worst case scenario" at all times? I would personally prefer we keep a minimum-sized military. In the event of a conflict the draft can be reinstated or just lower the standards and a bunch of farm boys from the south will come join.

I'd just rather see the U.S. Military get back to what it is supposed to be. The best way I've heard it described is that the Military isn't for our National Defense it's for our National Interests. There's a big difference.

I'll give an example. A few weeks ago someone posted a meme that said something to the effect of "This guy is fighting for your freedom" it showed a guy in either Iraq or Afghanistan. Sorry, but that guy didn't make or keep me free. He's over there fighting for someone else's freedom but it isn't for any American's freedom. At no point did Iraq or Afghanistan ever threaten any American's freedom.

Those are National Interests not National Defense.

Rusty Jones
06-17-2016, 05:37 PM
I would personally prefer we keep a minimum-sized military. In the event of a conflict the draft can be reinstated or just lower the standards and a bunch of farm boys from the south will come join.

The whole purpose of having the strength levels that I've described is to prevent THIS from happening.

Again, having the military constantly raise and lower manning levels all the time isn't doing anyone any good.

It's like this: when the military downsizes, they're going after the mid-career NCOs. They're not going after the first-termers, because they know that more than half of them are either going to not reenlist or do something stupid and get kicked out before their enlistment is up.

So... when you kick out these mid-career NCO's, you're getting rid of years of experience. Three years later, when it's time for the military to build up its active duty strength, do you think these NCOs are coming back? Nope. They've already found civilian jobs that they're comfortable with and have established new lives that they're not going to fuck up.

Establishing minimum strength levels would help mitigate that problem.

sandsjames
06-17-2016, 07:02 PM
How 'bout an amendment that states what was originally stated in Kindergarten Cop:

"Boys have a penis, girls have a vagina."

Rusty Jones
06-17-2016, 07:37 PM
I've got a good one: how about establishing quotas for who gets arrested when cops show up to a domestic violence incident and for who wins custody in a contested case?

I.e., by law, it has to be 50/50. In cases where both partners were beating eachother, if they're only going to arrest one and not both, then 50% of the time; the woman has to be arrested and the other 50% has to be men.

In the cased of contested custody, 50% of all cases has to be awared to the father, and 50% has to be awarded to the mother.

Fuck, that might not even need to be an amendment. A law under the CFR would be good enough.

MikeKerriii
06-18-2016, 03:24 AM
You would repeal the 14th completely? What are your concerns about the clause stating "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Do you relay thing Rainmaker like those provisions? He likes cops being able to be judge jury and executioner.

MikeKerriii
06-18-2016, 03:28 AM
If "shit hits the fan" pulling MSgt PowerPointClicker from HQ AFMC and sending him to the front lines isn't going to make a difference. If there is a minimum number of ground troops required, those people should be in the Army or Marines. I would agree with your premise to establish a minimum strength for the Air Force (and other services) but first let's define each service's mission, root out all the unnecessary bases and positions, and let's set the number there. Having people exist just in case we need them isn't a good strategy. A lot of the people in the higher ranks are just riding out their time until 20 or trying to finish their degree before high year tenure in order to come back as a contractor or civilian in their same position.

I'm not familiar enough to comment on the strength needed by the Army, Navy or Marines but I can affirmatively say that the Air Force doesn't NEED more people than it has now. It simply needs to be smarter about how it uses those people.

Getting rid of half the Generals would be a good start, they keep multiplying like bacteria, and are less useful

Mjölnir
06-18-2016, 12:54 PM
Simple, IMO. Term limits on everyone in government. 8 years, at most, for everyone.

I am in favor of term limits, the founders never intended for a permanent political class. I would slightly modify from your idea:

-House of Representatives: 8 years (4 terms)
-Senate: 12 years (2 terms)
-Cumulative limit if service in both chambers: 12 years
*allow a provision if selected as Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leaser to serve one 2 year term (one Congress) bumping the max to 10 for the House and 14 for the Senate. If elected speaker or leader prior to the existing limits, this provision not taking effect.

-No impact on service in the Executive Branch (POTUS or VPOTUS) for service in the Legislature.

-Judical Branch (Federal Judges - minus the Supreme Court) 16 years, total of 20 if service in the Legislature.
* Supreme Court remain as lifetime appointment.

My reasoning on the above:

The Senate is meant as the 'higher house' and is intended by design to slow things down. Longer terms of 6 years vice 2 were to allow Senators to not have to worry about a constant reelection cycle and to allow a longer period of influence -- a higher term limit for them would meet the original intent.

Allow the one person elected as the chamber leader two additional years as the 'most experienced' one there. Otherwise the chamber leadership will always be relatively junior and possibly be too inexperienced.

Judges are meant to outlast politicians, 8 years as a limit would have their terms of service tied to election cycles and possibly not allow the stability that the Judiciary should have to outlast a one off shift in political sway. Same mentality for the Supreme Court. The Justices should be able to make their decisions without worrying about the personal consequence; additionally I think you would see more influence over a Judge or Justice from outside interests if they knew in a couple of years they needed to go back to private practice. A longer appointment / term (in a relatively good job) leaves them absent of worrying about how they will make their living when they are done. Specifically in the case of the Supreme Court, graft could creep in; right now it isn't a concern ... they are more concerned with the law than they are about making millions.

Rusty Jones
06-18-2016, 01:07 PM
I am in favor of term limits, the founders never intended for a permanent political class. I would slightly modify from your idea:

-House of Representatives: 8 years (4 terms)
-Senate: 12 years (2 terms)
-Cumulative limit if service in both chambers: 12 years
*allow a provision if selected as Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leaser to serve one 2 year term (one Congress) bumping the max to 10 for the House and 14 for the Senate. If elected speaker or leader prior to the existing limits, this provision not taking effect.

-No impact on service in the Executive Branch (POTUS or VPOTUS) for service in the Legislature.

-Judical Branch (Federal Judges - minus the Supreme Court) 16 years, total of 20 if service in the Legislature.
* Supreme Court remain as lifetime appointment.

I say every politician only does ONE term, as I'm not a fan of "terms." Now that term doesn't have to be four years; you can make it into eight year terms, and I'd be fine with that.

Why?

Because, for example, in a two-term limit scenario... the person holding office rarely gets much accomplished during the first term anyway. Because of the possibility that they could lose their job half-way through their maximum possible tenure, they never get much accomplished during their first term because they're walking on eggshells the whole time. It's not until their second term that they're "free" to actually do things.

So... one term and one term only. Again, it doesn't have to be four years.

Mjölnir
06-18-2016, 01:15 PM
I say every politician only does ONE term, as I'm not a fan of "terms." Now that term doesn't have to be four years; you can make it into eight year terms, and I'd be fine with that.

Why?

Because, for example, in a two-term limit scenario... the person holding office rarely gets much accomplished during the first term anyway. Because of the possibility that they could lose their job half-way through their maximum possible tenure, they never get much accomplished during their first term because they're walking on eggshells the whole time. It's not until their second term that they're "free" to actually do things.

So... one term and one term only. Again, it doesn't have to be four years.

Interesting. I know that on the House side (two year terms) they pretty much are always in an election cycle mindset, from what I heard it sucked. Working on the Senate side election year churn didn't happen usually until two years before.

I would say that I like the idea of terms specifically to keep the politician attuned to the will of their constituents vice becoming a total shill to the party. "Go too rogue from those you represent you will not get reelected" Ref: Mary Landrieu from Louisiana or Ben Nelson from Nebraska.

Rusty Jones
06-18-2016, 02:35 PM
Interesting. I know that on the House side (two year terms) they pretty much are always in an election cycle mindset, from what I heard it sucked. Working on the Senate side election year churn didn't happen usually until two years before.

I would say that I like the idea of terms specifically to keep the politician attuned to the will of their constituents vice becoming a total shill to the party. "Go too rogue from those you represent you will not get reelected" Ref: Mary Landrieu from Louisiana or Ben Nelson from Nebraska.

That's the part of democracy that I DON'T like. Unfortunately, democracy assumes that "the people" are as equally competent in ruling as kings (who were groomed and trained from birth to lead nations); but that isn't the case.

The big problem with democracy is that democratically elected office holders are forced to do the popular thing, even if it's not the right thing.

I think that if one can only do just one term, it would help mitigate that.

Rusty Jones
06-18-2016, 02:40 PM
Here in Virginia, governors can't serve in consecutive terms (they CAN, however, serve in non-consecutive terms). I think it's working out just fine here, as every governor we've had - for better or for worse - has had some significant impact on the state, compared to other states I've lived in.

garhkal
06-19-2016, 04:41 AM
So, just for fun ... if you could propose a Constitutional Amendment, what would it be. No worries about it being unconstitutional since it would be changing the Constitution.

and ... go ...I would also re-word the 14th to specify that persons born in the US are automatically US citizens only if at least one of the parents is already a US citizen.

Short version - no anchor baby clause.


I can think of plenty.. Starting with that one!!

2) ANY law passed by congress, cannot THEN be 'claused to disinclude congress. They have to suffer / follow the same laws as WE do (so no opting out like they did with Obamacare)..


Simple, IMO. Term limits on everyone in government. 8 years, at most, for everyone.

+1000 there. Well 8 years at THAT spot. But no more than 20 total years in Government, so no going from city council, to county, to state, to congress each for 2-3 terms of 4 years, THEN running for president..


An amendment banning dual-citizens from participating in all elections and from receiving government appointments to positions of public trust

I can get behind that.


Institute a Flat Tax


The system I like best is the one outlined at fairtax.org. We can completely get rid of the IRS since States would collect the Fair Tax along with their Sales Tax as they do now. It also provides a pre-bate to get everyone up to the poverty level.

I am all for that..


I actually don't agree with that. The number of Active Duty troops needed isn't a static number. If the services would get smarter they wouldn't even need as many troops as we have now. The problem is we have way, way, way too many support troops. (I'm saying this as someone who was in a support AFSC) If we would just simplify our regulations we wouldn't need so many support troops. DTS is an absolute mess but the idea behind it is right. You should be able to enter your own travel claim. Where it gets bogged down is how many people have to approve it. When I worked Travel and Expense for a Corporation our entire Travel Regulation was SIX pages! The JFTR doesn't need to be some damn complicated.

Also, if we were smarter about closing bases we wouldn't need so many support people. Have you ever played the game Risk? What we currently have is too small of an Army to occupy all the territories we want to control. If the overseas bases are absolute necessities that's fine, but lets at least close some CONUS bases down. They don't necessarily have to be the bases everyone hates (Minot, Kirtland, Ellsworth, etc). We could close some of the expensive bases (Los Angeles, Hanscom, Bolling).

The point here is the Air Force doesn't need anywhere close to 500,000 Airmen to do it's actual mission. We just have way too many bases and way too many people in support roles who's only job is to create nifty little PowerPoint slides with a little yellow, some red, but mostly green.

And when we have more generals NOW than we ever did during WW2, Vietnam etc, somethings up!


I am in favor of term limits, the founders never intended for a permanent political class. I would slightly modify from your idea:

-House of Representatives: 8 years (4 terms)
-Senate: 12 years (2 terms)
-Cumulative limit if service in both chambers: 12 years
*allow a provision if selected as Speaker of the House or Senate Majority Leaser to serve one 2 year term (one Congress) bumping the max to 10 for the House and 14 for the Senate. If elected speaker or leader prior to the existing limits, this provision not taking effect.

-No impact on service in the Executive Branch (POTUS or VPOTUS) for service in the Legislature.

-Judical Branch (Federal Judges - minus the Supreme Court) 16 years, total of 20 if service in the Legislature.
* Supreme Court remain as lifetime appointment.

I am ok with some of that, OTHER than keeping the Scoutus as lifetime appointments..
I think THEY also need term limits, so as to avoid someone like that old hack Ginsburg..



Judges are meant to outlast politicians, 8 years as a limit would have their terms of service tied to election cycles and possibly not allow the stability that the Judiciary should have to outlast a one off shift in political sway. Same mentality for the Supreme Court. The Justices should be able to make their decisions without worrying about the personal consequence; additionally I think you would see more influence over a Judge or Justice from outside interests if they knew in a couple of years they needed to go back to private practice. A longer appointment / term (in a relatively good job) leaves them absent of worrying about how they will make their living when they are done. Specifically in the case of the Supreme Court, graft could creep in; right now it isn't a concern ... they are more concerned with the law than they are about making millions.

To me, it seems these days they are more concerned with voting on Party lines, than law..