PostHeaderIcon Proposed Constitutional Amendment #7

(As promised (threatened?) in a previous article, I intend to submit a number of proposed amendments to our Constitution that, in my own judgment, would help restore a Constitutional Republic in our nation. Some of these are my own, some are based on Mark Levin’s The Liberty Amendments and some have been suggested by others).

The Congressional Constraint Amendment

Starting the year following ratification of this amendment, no member of the United States Congress may serve more than 12 years in office. This total will include time served in either the House of Representatives, the Senate, or both.

Starting the year following ratification of this amendment, the existing congressional pension plan will be discontinued. In its place, each member of Congress shall be awarded credits under the Civil Service Retirement Act for each year served. Such credits will be aggregated with similar credits earned through other federal employment, per the terms and conditions of the Civil Service Retirement Act . Any such other benefits provided to members of Congress will also be in accordance with the Civil Service Retirement Act . Likewise, any medical and/or health-care benefits provided to members of Congress will be the same as those provided to other federal employee.

I think this amendment hardly needs explanation or justification. Note that this is similar to, but not exactly the same, as that proposed by Mark Levin in The Liberty Amendments

Please offer constructive comments as you see fit.

Troy L Robinson

6 Responses to “Proposed Constitutional Amendment #7”

  • Grouch, MD says:

    Former members of the congress or senate are banned for life from taking positions in groups that seek to influence congress. This includes but is not limited to lobbying groups, etc. This ban applies regardless of time in office.

    • Agreed, Grouch. That is a good one, although it would be less critical if we institute term limits, so they wouldn’t have left behind many cronies. Then, if we had the good sense to repeal the Civil Service Act, and return to the spoils system, we might get our government back under control. As it is, it matters not whether a D or R gets the most votes, the busybody bureaucrats always get reelected. At least with the spoils system, we could throw all the rascals out. 😉 â—„Daveâ–º

    • Troy says:

      At first thought, this sounds desirable. However, after reflecting on your suggestion for a few days, I cannot agree. For sure, I am as disgusted as anyone over the behavior of our elected representatives, both in office and after. However, not ALL lobbying is bad. I fear that, were such a rule imposed, it would be used to prevent ex officeholders from participating in those lobbies that tend to be patriotic in nature. For instance, Jim DeMint recently resigned his Senate seat to take the top job at the Heritage Foundation. Others have associated themselves with the N.R.A. in the past. Similar examples can be easily found.

      I much prefer my Proposed Amendment #1, The Equal Protection Amendment. The real abuse in the current system is the “selling of indulgences” such as tax breaks, subsidies and regulatory mischief. The intent of Proposed Amendment #1 is to take from Congress much of its ability to “sell” such favors. (For instance, there are today, several hundred items in our tax code that are worded such that they benefit a single company or individual.)

      Lobbying our government is a Constitutionally protected activity. Much better (in my mind) to limit what Congress can do in response to special interest lobbying.

      Thanks for commenting,


      • Good points, Troy. Upon further reflection, I would add another. Our Constitution should be a constraint on government itself, not how private citizens might interact with it. Once out of office, ex-Congressmen are once again private citizens. Further, we need to be cautious about placing a stigma on someone for having served. It is hard enough to get good citizens to step up to the chore of being a citizen-legislator, and the honor of having done so should redound to their good, when they return to private life. For instance, it would give me no grief that a corporation might wish to put someone of their stature on their board of directors, with no nefarious motives whatever, of unduly influencing old cronies. â—„Daveâ–º

      • Chris says:

        Agreed Troy. The problem isn’t the lobbyist but the power that enables any one business, group, or individual to benefit from such lobbying. In other words nobody would bother lobbying politicians for something they couldn’t do. This is at the root of the argument for limited government.

Leave a Reply

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Internal Links