VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 07:09:13 10/28/11 Fri
Author: bill
Author Host/IP: 70.111.111.7
Subject: Re: Something I think we all can get behind.....
In reply to: Mark S. 's message, "Re: Something I think we all can get behind....." on 13:50:45 10/27/11 Thu

According to snopes this is a mostly false message and a new version of one that has been around for some time.

Their explanation is somewhat extensive but basically there are two ways to amend the constitution.
One way is for two thirds of the state legislatures to ask for an amendment and for three fourths of the states to pass it , a process that has never been used most likely because it would be near impossible to get the first step done rather than the confirmation step which is common for all amendments.
The other way to amend the constitution is for congress to make the proposal and for a supermajority to pass it. it then goes to the states for confirmation by three fourths of the states before it becomes law.

Getting enough legislators on the state level to agree on an amendment seems to be a harder road to travel than getting enough congresspersons in both houses to agree on an amendment so has not been used. This would probably be the closest to a popular movement but there is no provision for a popular referendum where the people directly propose an amendment to the constituion.

As for the usual method the federal congress most likely would not agree to any term limits or cuts in their own benefits that they did not see as worthy of consideration which would exclude their pension plans and so fourth from being limited.
They already participate in social security as of the 80s when that was passed but most of them have the money and the option to purchase their own private retirement plans and do so.
One term participants on the federal level are not eligible for all of the benefits that longer term participants enjoy.

Anyhow there is some truth and som falshood in the e-mail which as I said has been around in other forms for some time Possibly as long as the internet or even before in other forms of communication.
I know I have seen it in some of the previous versions prior to this last revival which dates to earlier this year.

Just sayin' ain't no way those federal legislators will do it and unlikely that the state legislators many of whom might aspire to federal levels in the future will fuel a popular movement to reform what they see as their career path and rewards for participation... not likely but possible of course.

Might actually be easier to get a popular referendum amendment through than any other amendments and that is not likely either since it cuts out the middleman i.e. the people elected representatives who would be directly affected by anything that limits their powers under the present system.

b

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.