HAVE YOU BEEN LIED TO?™
We need to limit Congressional Terms at any cost.
[Citizens For A Better America ® announces its recommendations for Propositions on the June 2nd, 1998 California primary.]
This is not about limiting Congressional Terms. It is about re-writing the U.S. Constitution. And they are wasting our money doing it. They set it up to fail and then use the failure to support their arguments that there is no other way but a
Constitutional Convention (CON CON). Just check out their own writings.
PROPOSITION 225: “Limiting Congressional Terms. Proposed U.S. Constitutional Amendment. Initiative Statute.”
“California Voter INFORMATION GUIDE PRIMARY ELECTION JUNE 2, 1998 BALLOT PAMPHLET” it says on page 25, 2nd paragraph:
“Federal law does not limit the number of terms a person may be elected to serve as a senator or representative in Congress. In 1992, California voters adopted Proposition 164, which established term limits for California’s senators and representatives
in Congress. However, Proposition 164 is not likely to go into effect. This is because the United States Supreme Court ruled, in a case involving similar limits established by other states, that the qualifications of office for federal elective officials
may be changed only by amendment to the United States Constitution.
Congress can propose amendments to the United States Constitution with the approval of two-thirds of the Members of both Houses. All amendments must ultimately be ratified by three-fourths of the states before they can become part of the United States
“California Voter INFORMATION GUIDE PRIMARY ELECTION JUNE 2, 1998 BALLOT PAMPHLET” it says on page 26, in the ‘Argument in Favor of Proposition 225’:
This initiative was part of a national campaign to enact a constitutional amendment for term limits on Congress. Unfortunately, similar initiatives passed in other states have been overturned in court, and this approach has been dropped. Thus, passage of
this measure will likely result only in needless and costly litigation. In fact, in order to save taxpayer money, we went to court to avoid a meaningless election.
Nothing is more important to the future of our country than returning Congress to the citizen legislature designed by our Founders. We remain committed to term limits on Congress and are happy to know that a superior measure, and one clearly
constitutional, will appear on the November ballot."
Signed by: SALLY REED IMPASTATO (No other information)"
In all due respect to Sally Reed Impastato, whom I have never met before, nor do I know what, of any organization she represents. Also, the voter guide does not even state what city or state she is from. I don’t understand why they have wasted the
taxpayers money putting this proposition on the ballot. As she herself indicates in her statement, “Thus, passage of this measure will likely result only in needless and costly litigation. In fact, in order to save taxpayer money, we went to court to
avoid a meaningless election”.
As if this was not enough, they also want to waste California Taxpayers time. They also have the gall to tell us that they will come back with another proposition, “We remain committed to term limits on Congress and are happy to know that a superior
measure, and one clearly constitutional, will appear on the November ballot.”
Believe it or not, that’s not all of it, they state in the “California Voter INFORMATION GUIDE PRIMARY ELECTION JUNE 2, 1998 BALLOT PAMPHLET” page 71, last paragraph: “Whereas, With foresight and wisdom our Founders, under Article V of the U.S.
Constitution, did provide the People with a procedure by which to circumvent congressional self- interest, by which procedure the People may call a convention to propose amendment to the U.S. Constitution when two-thirds or 34 states expressly call for
such a convention;...”
It is unbelievable to me that this person or persons thinks that we as California Voters ought to trust them to call a U.S. Constitutional Convention so that they can potentially re-write our entire Constitution, our Bill of Rights (the first ten
amendments), the sixteen Amendments that are part of our constitution now.
These sixteen Amendments were added to our Constitution the right and correct way. If we need to limit Congressional and Senatorial terms this is the place to do it by adding a Constitutional Amendment limiting those terms. And if the Congressional
Representatives and U.S. Senators won’t pass it then we replace them with ones that will. We don’t replace the U.S. Constitution.
You might be asking the question how were they proposed the right and correct way?
Regarding amending the Constitution, “Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides two ways to propose amendments to the document and two ways to ratify them. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress, by two-thirds votes of the House and the
Senate, or by a convention called by Congress in response to applications from the legislatures of two- thirds (34) or more of the States”, per Congressman Istook (website at http://religiousfreedom.house.gov/process.htm).
Amendments must be ratified by three-quarters (38) or more of the States. The Congress can choose to refer proposed amendments either to State legislatures, or to special conventions called in the States to consider ratification."
We at Citizens For A Better America ® completely support the Religious Freedom Amendment which is scheduled to come up for a vote in Congress on June 4th, 1998. We encourage you to call Congress to encourage a Yes vote, call (202)224-3121.
The Religious Freedom Amendment will go through the Constitutional Amendment process in the safe manner but any and all calls for the States to call a Constitutional Convention is like playing Russian Roulette. Vote an absolute big NO on this or any
other Proposition, action, etc. that calls for a Constitutional Convention.