Term Limits: Send to the States for ratification the repeal of the 22nd Amendment to the...

...US Constitution.  The Twenty-Second Amendment limits US Presidents to just two terms.  [Anyone who is for term limits is a well-intended but shallow-thinking fool for they are wanting to throw the baby out with the bath water: Throwing out the good Presidents after only two terms.  As history shows, we have NO problem getting rid of bad Presidents (e.g., Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush).  What we need is to keep the good ones longer.  The Twenty-Second Amendment was pushed by Republicans after Franklin D. Roosevelt died in office after four terms.  The Republicans feared another Democrat might be able to do so again.  However, those same Republicans later regretted their decision once the very popular Ronald Reagan gained the office and they regretted it even more after George H. W. Bush ("Read My Lips: No New Taxes") rode Ronnie's coattails into the Oval Office and made a disaster of it.

Also, even if a President wins a second term, he instantly becomes a lame duck.  Those in Congress know he cannot run again.  His opponents can literally wait him out.  His supporters have to start looking for a replacement.  Second-term Presidents rarely accomplish anything major but instead spend their last term trying to protect what they were able to get passed in their first term.  This challenge changes that.  This change makes Presidents as meaningful in their second term as their first.  And, again, if they become horrible in their second or subsequent terms, they're voted out of office just as they would be if they were horrible during their first term.  It is time to correct this mistake and repeal the Twenty-Second Amendment.]
Added to the amendment to repeal the Twenty-Second Amendment should also be:
A) The direct election of the US President by popular vote and thus the elimination of the Electoral College.  [Expect the national broadcast/cable TV networks, nationally syndicated TV/radio shows, national radio networks, satellite radio, national newspapers, newsmagazines, news websites, regular magazines, blogs, and online social networks to get behind this amendment for just this alone.  Currently, due to how the Electoral College is structured, presidential campaigns are focused on advertising in just "battleground" states and thus the overwhelming amount of money goes into regional and local TV and radio stations in those few states.  With the passage of this measure, presidential campaigns will have to go national and that will become a quadrennial windfall for national medias.]
B) The elimination of the office of the Vice President.  [There is no more meaningless political office in the WORLD than the US Vice President.  It is a joke and a complete waste of taxpayer money.  As Will Rogers once said: The man with the best job in the world is the Vice President.  All he has to do is get up every morning and ask: "How is the President?"  As for the task of the Vice President "presiding over" the US Senate and breaking ties in it, it would serve the country best that such ties are not broken so any such barely acceptable bill doesn't become law.]  As for the succession to the presidency, the new amendment should let the President pick one from his cabinet to be the first in line of succession and then the order as it currently stands.  [By the President publicly picking who in his cabinet will be his successor, he will be letting the American public know what he considers the most important task in his administration.  By picking the Secretary of State as his possible replacement, foreign affairs most concerns him.  Picking Secretary of the Treasury would indicate fiscal responsibility is of chief importance.  Picking Secretary of Justice would indicate the US Constitution is most important to him.]  This enables the President to have some control over who replaces him if he can no longer serve as President so that there is a greater chance that his policies will continue until the next presidential election.  The amendment should also mandate that by at least the time any presidential candidate (who isn't the incumbent) accepts her/his party's nomination to be their presidential candidate, s/he must name who they are going to nominate to the US Senate for confirmation as their cabinet.  [This will help the voting public to better understand that presidential candidate by the choices they make for their cabinet as well as insure that their cabinet is composed of a blue-ribbon panel of experts.]


Presidential Amendment

SECTION 1.  The Twenty-Second Amendment is repealed.

SECTION 2. The President must be elected by a direct vote.  Voter registration is automatic and the responsibility of the federal government.  Those in prison and mental institutions as well as ex-convicts on parole and those classified by a state or federal court as mentally retarded (IQ under 70) and/or mentally incompetent cannot vote.

SECTION 3.  The office of the Vice President is eliminated.

SECTION 4.  The President must assign one of her/his cabinet to be first in line of succession to the presidency.

SECTION 5.  Before or during their party's nomination convention to be its presidential nominee or, as an independent candidate, before one can get one's name on the ballot in any US State, the candidate must make public who they will nominate to the US Senate for their entire cabinet and then those individuals must be the first persons so nominated to the US Senate for those positions.

SECTION 6.  This article shall be inoperative unless it has been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States.

Future Challenge:

Federally taxing at 100% of all the campaign contributions made to a federal, state, or local incumbent's first re-election campaign (including supporting/defending political action committees (PACs), supporting/defending Super PACs, and supporting/defending labor union support) that goes beyond half of what their biggest spending challenger spends in running against them.  Then, without exception, taxing at 100% all of the campaign contributions to an incumbent's second and beyond re-election campaigns, including supporting/defending PACs, supporting/defending Super PACs, and supporting/defending labor union support.

[Incumbents have HUGE advantages over challengers.  For the entire time they are in office, they get covered by their local, state, and even national press.  Not just at election time but whenever they do something newsworthy during their term of office.  They are regular guests on local radio and TV talk shows.  They get countless invitations to speak before social clubs, business groups, trade associations, student assemblies, college classes, and numerous other groups and events.  They get to do "constituent services" for their voters that helps win favor with them.  They get honored at dinners.  They get to do ribbon-cutting ceremonies for new buildings and businesses.  After securing the tax money to build them, they get courthouses, airports, and even dog parks named after them.  They are FAR more known to their constituents than their challengers ever usually are and get "(I)" next to their names on the election ballot.  On top of all that, currently incumbents can and do build up huge "war chest" campaign funds to further scare off challengers.  This future challenge's goal is to at least eliminate the incumbent's "war chest" advantage.  By doing this, more people will be able to effectively compete against incumbents.  This will help get rid of bad incumbents who basically used their wealth and/or lobbyists' "donations" to buy their re-elections.
But this challenge is reasonable in that it lets first-time incumbents spend up to half of what their biggest spending challengers spend.  First-time incumbents can use this money to inform their constituents of what good they've done in office and of what future good they would like to do.  However, after their first re-election, they've been in office long enough to be known by their constituents and get even more entrenched.  It is at this point that challengers really need a hand in competing against them and this challenge at least eliminates the incumbent having a cash advantage.
And by eliminating all campaign contributions for long-time incumbents, the influence and power of lobbyists will be GREATLY diminished.  Lobbyists won't be able to buy the incumbent's vote or ear ... at least not openly and legally.  The ethical lobbyists will have to win over the politician on their arguments alone.
This challenge will also force incumbents to get out and speak to their constituents.  They cannot just let TV and radio do their talking.  They'll have to do their own talking.  They'll have to get out and ... *shock* ... interact with their constituents who have the audacity to think the incumbent works for them and thus must answer to them.
As for ALL current and past campaign reforms, those were and are UTTER bullshit.  Think about it for a moment.  Who writes up and passes that campaign reform bill?  Incumbents.  See the "slight" conflict of interest?  Outside of "throwing the baby out with the bath water" term limits, do you now understand why none of the campaign reforms have EVER resulted in incumbents losing re-election.  This challenge is REAL campaign reform.  Yes, it will still take politicians to enact this challenge BUT they cannot then claim to want to reform campaigns and not at least address this proposal.  And eventually, if this proposal gains popularity, the political parties will have to adopt it or risk their opposing political parties adopting it and calling them on not adopting it.
As for how some might say this violates an incumbent's Freedom of Speech, my answer to that is, yes, it does.  It purposely and knowingly does.  But this is nothing new for government workers.  When you join the military, the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to you anymore.  As a soldier, you are governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.  You lose your Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Press, and Freedom of Assembly.  While it isn't in the Bill of Rights, as a soldier, you also lose your Freedom of Movement.  But most soldiers understand the need for them to lose those rights.  If soldiers had those rights, there is a very good chance that even more soldier lives would be lost in war.  This challenge's logic is along these same lines.  Incumbent politicians are government employees.  This challenge makes it part of their terms of service that they lose their ability to buy commercial speech by half for their first re-election and completely for all subsequent ones.  If they don't want to lose that, they don't have to run for office.  This is a playing field handicapper that has been long overdue.]

If you would like to discuss this challenge with others, click here to go to this challenge's discussion forum.

All Rights Reserved