Patriots Defending America: Imposing Term Limits on the U.S. Congress

Patriots Defending America is a page dedicated to Imposing Term Limits on the U.S. Congress using Article 5 of the Constitution.  This is an integral first step in the fight to take back our country.  The following is a compilation of information taken directly from their page.

With the ongoing addition of new members in our effort to use Article 5 to impose Term Limits on the US Congress without the approval of the US Congress, I am posting and pinning to the top of the page a simple outline of the steps we are taking to make this happen.

1. Increase our numbers as much and as quickly as possible by making others aware of the option to Amend the US Constitution to include Term Limits for the US Congress without their approval.

2. Become educated on the topic. If we want to be taken seriously, we must know what we are talking about. There are certain arguments that will continuously arise regarding Term Limits. Read the FACT image/articles on the page so that we ALL have an understanding and foundation from which to build.

3. Create the actual Amendment. We must be able to approach the public and the State governments with an actual Amendment, not simply a request for Term Limits. Without a defined Amendment, each State will end up creating its own and we will find ourselves spinning our wheels while the State governments battle over whose is better.

4. Strategize and coordinate. We will need to map out whom we have and where they are. We will need a central contact point for each state and contact points throughout each State. We will need a baseline petition that defines our Amendment and request to the State governments, so that all completed petitions will be in a unified format for consolidation of petitions at the State level. We will need to coordinate with other organizations. We will need to build a realistic timeline of events. By taking the time to coordinate in advance, we can provide a professional and consolidated front across the entire nation.

5. Begin the Movement. There will be petitions, flyers, town hall meetings, rallies, and door-to-door efforts.

There is no waiting until tomorrow. There is no hoping that someone will fix our problems. It is time that we stood together and changed the direction of our Country’s future. Every day the Aristocracy in the US Congress continues to eat away at the freedom and strength of our Country. The health of our nation has reached a critical stage.

THIS IS THE FIRST STEP AND IT IS A STEP THAT ALL AMERICANS MUST TAKE TOGETHER.

It’s true.

Article 5 of the US Constitution provides us the “means” to amend the US Constitution to include an Amendment Limiting Terms in the US Congress without needing the approval of the US Congress.

This statement has confused a few people. They have looked up Article 5 and responded by saying there is nothing there about Term Limits.

Article 5 provides TWO options for amending the US Constitution.

One is for an Amendment to be presented by a Super-Majority in the US House of Representatives and a Super-Majority in the US Senate.

OR

Second, for 2/3’s of the STATE Legislators (State governments) to present an Amendment.

Following the presentation in either option of an Amendment, the Amendment then has to be ratified (approved) by ¾’s of the States.


What this means to us is that we can start a grassroots effort to add an Amendment to the US Constitution limiting Terms in the US Congress and push the Amendment at the State level until 2/3’s of the States present it. After the States present it, and ¾’s of the States Approve it, it becomes a new Amendment in the US Constitution WITHOUT the US Congress ever having had a say-so…..

In an idealistic world, every American would be continuously aware of the actions and inactions, the accomplishments and failures, and the beliefs and morals of any politician whom they vote for. If that were the case, elections would never have allowed our government to reach the state that it is in.

In reality, this is how it works:

Even should Americans become upset with the actions of a particular politician, there is little that can be done unless his or her actions are so extreme as to have garnered the media’s attention for an extended period prior to an election. The reason being that the majority of Americans know little to nothing about those who have been elected to represent them. All that they know and hear is from the media before an election.

Prior to an election, a party uses its money and influence to determine who will be elected. Most campaign contributors will contribute to the politician that the party supports. Without the contributions from the party and those who support the party, a politician does not have the funding to generate the media exposure that will guide the votes of the otherwise uninformed public.

This process guarantees that even the few politicians with commendable goals must toe the line of their party if they wish to continue their political careers. If they do not support the party’s agenda, the party will select another member from their party to support during the primaries and guarantee the political demise of the shunned member.

We have a choice. We can turn our backs on the future of our country, saying that it’s not worth the effort if so many others are irresponsible.

OR

We can stand together and create an Amendment that will limit the damage WHEN so many Americans are irresponsible.

Term limits are the only means of cracking this nearly impervious shell surrounding the aristocracy of congress without the violence of a revolution.

Imposing Term Limits on the US Congress is an incredible rarity in that it is an issue that so many of us can agree on, regardless of our political affiliations, religions, nature, or many of the other factors that often find us butting heads with one another.

Coordinating efforts with others on a topic such as Term Limits is definitely beneficial and will occur. But, COMBINING tends to give the impression of becoming a single entity.

Even though we have just started out, we have over 13,000 people on board. These 13,000 come from very diversified backgrounds, but as I mentioned, Term Limits is a rare topic that we can all agree on.

Now let’s use Mark Levin as an example. Mark is a highly known conservative. He supports Term Limits, but many other Amendments as well. Should we combine our efforts with Mark, I can guarantee that there would be far FEWER than 13,000 of us that would end up in his camp.

He often ridicules the Democratic Party. Those here who are Democrats would not join him. He has alienated some of the Republican Party. Some of the Republicans on here would not join him. Many of his ideas are very conservative. Some of those with a more liberal attitude would not join him. Each of the Amendments that he is presenting would call to some and alienate others.

As long as we keep our goal simplistic and pure, we will call to Americans from every walk of life.

It will take 34 States to present an Amendment. It will take 38 States to ratify it.

WE WILL NEED EVERYONE TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN.

WE CANNOT ALLOW PERSONAL OPINIONS AND POLITICAL BELIEFS TO TAINT OUR GOAL.

Do you remember playing the game as a kid where everyone sits in a circle, you whisper a secret to the one next to you and by the time it goes around the circle the final secret is completely different from how it started?

That is a pretty good analogy for the story of US Congressional Retirements. Every time it is passed on it seems to grow and change until the average person is left with the impression that EVERYONE coming out of the US Congress is leaving with an outrageous retirement.

It is not true.

Rather than listen to the stories, I found the ACTUAL US Congress retirement document.

Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress
(Due to linking problems I have copied it as plain text and loaded it as a "note" in the Notes section of this page under the title "2013 Retirement Benefits for Members of Congress" )

It reminded me very much of Social Security requirements and was nearly Identical to the retirement packages in most large companies/corporations, including the aerospace industry from which I came.

Just like most companies, they're vested at five years and their retirement amounts are dependent upon years served, age at which they begin to draw, and previous salaries while serving.

I can’t help but think that the horror stories that some are hearing are being based on these career politicians who are retiring after 30+ years in Congress and their 30+ years are the reason they’re drawing such significant benefits.

With Term Limits imposed, there will NOT be any 20, 30, or nearly 40 year terms that will result in significant retirements.

They will still be vested at five years, but like any other person with a job in a big company, they won’t be able to draw any retirement until they hit the minimum age and how much they draw at that point is limited by the both the number of years served and the salaries they made while serving……

With an example of a 12 year Term Limit for US Congress,
NONE WILL EVER DRAW ANYWHERE NEAR WHAT THEY MADE WHILE IN THE US CONGRESS

While being a member of the US Congress is supposed to be a service to your country rather than a job, unless your comfortable with allowing only the wealthy to decide our country’s fate, you might want to give it a little more thought.

Let’s say the Term Limit set was 12 years and let’s use YOU as an example.

You feel that you have more to offer to help the future of our country that some of those in office. You run and are elected into the US Senate.

Can you survive for 6 years without a paycheck? Personally, I would have a rough time going six weeks without an income… LOL

Now let’s say you did a great job and were re-elected to serve a second term before hitting the 12-year limit.


Most people don’t become involved in a retirement plan until they hit their thirties, which gives them maybe a 35-year window to prepare for retirement.

Now without a retirement plan in Congress, you lost out on 12 of your 35 years. When you hit 65 and retire, you’re only receiving 2/3’s of the income that all your friends who didn’t serve are receiving. Will it be enough to pay the bills? Maybe.. Maybe not…


The point of course being that without a paycheck and benefits, the average American will not be able to afford to be a member of the US Congress. The only people in the US Congress would be the wealthy.

Whenever the topic of using the option in Article 5 to amend the Constitution without the approval of the US Congress arises, there are always those that start screaming, “The sky is falling!”

Using our intent to exercise the option to amend the Constitution to impose Term Limits on the US Congress without their approval as an example, the process goes as follows:

We present the desired amendment to the State governments.

If 34 States support the amendment, they request that a Constitutional Convention be called.
(Also referred to as an Article 5 Convention or an Amendments Convention)

At the Constitutional Convention the Amendment is presented.

If 38 States ratify the Amendment, it becomes part of the Constitution without requiring approval from the US Congress.

There are those that fear a Constitutional Convention being called.

There is an organization working to establish a “Limited” Constitutional Convention, where the States agree in advance that the ONLY Amendment to be proposed is the one for which the convention has been called.

Regardless of whether a “Limited” convention occurs, a full Constitutional Convention is not something to fear.

There will be some that scream, “The sky is falling!” and will claim that once the convention is called ANY amendment can be presented and at the conclusion of the convention, our Constitution could be demolished or completely overhauled.

This is not a Reasonable or Rational fear.

Any Amendment CAN be presented at a full Constitutional Convention. But, consider this:

Over the past 50 years there have been NUMEROUS groups and organizations that have tried to use the option in Article 5 and call for a Constitutional Convention. Not a single Amendment over this period has had enough support to CALL a convention (34 States), let alone to garner the support of the 38 States needed to ratify it.

If, over this entire period, not a single time could even 34 States agree on anything, it is irrational to think that 38 States will suddenly agree on multiple, diversified topics.

Term Limits on the US Congress is the SINGLE Amendment that I have seen that crosses the boundaries of political affiliations and hot topic beliefs.

TO GIVE IN TO A FEAR OF CHANGE LEADS ONLY TO STAGNATION.

STAGNATION LEADS TO DECAY AND DEATH.

WE WILL NOT LIVE IN FEAR.
NOR WILL WE WATCH THE DECAY AND DEATH OF OUR NATION!

Using the option created by Article 5 of the US Constitution to impose Term Limits on the US Congress without their approval is a mission long past due and necessary for the future of our country and our freedom.

The question then becomes, “What should the limit be?”

Before we can make a logical choice, we must have a firm understanding of what the current terms are and why. A great deal of thought and intent by some brilliant minds went into the original design and we would be foolish to not take their efforts into consideration.

Let’s start with a quick overview.

A very common mistake that I hear repeatedly is a misunderstanding of the US Congress. The US Congress is composed of two houses. One is the House of Representatives, often referred to simply as “the house”, and the other is the Senate.

The original intent, prior to the 17th Amendment (ratified in 1913), was that the Senate would represent the will of the State Governments and the House of Representatives would represent the will of the people.

The 17th Amendment changed that intent. Rather than Senators being appointed by the State Governments, they now receive the position by popular election. This is an ongoing point of contention, with the State Governments feeling that they no longer have any voice in the governing of the country or the laws being made that impact the governing of their own States.

Now on to why the Senate is currently a 6-year term and the House is currently a 2-year term.

The short, 2-year term in the house was intended to create a more dynamic environment, where the fluctuation in the opinions of the people would be reflected more quickly. If a Representative was not reflecting the will of the people in his/her district, they never had to put up with him/her for more than two years.

The decision to make a term in the Senate six years was come to for a number of reasons.

Many do not realize that the Senate is divided into three groups. Every two years, the members of one of the groups are up for election. This ensures that at any given time, 2/3’s of the Senate has a minimum of two years experience. Never will there be an instance where an equal number or majority of Senators are in the learning curve and thereby ineffective.

A second reason for the 6-year Senate term was the accepted belief that fluctuations in opinions and needs at a State level of government do not fluctuate nearly as often or as quickly as public opinions and needs at district levels.

A third reason was to create an intentional overlap in terms between the two Senators with offset election cycles and the State Governors, who usually serve a 4-year term.

Between a Representative serving 2 years, a Governor serving 4 years, and two Senators serving 6 years with offset election cycles, you create a well-meshed system that maintains a level of experience for the States.

The reason that I am pointing this out is that if we throw a stick in the gears by deciding on a term limit that doesn’t blend well with the system, we put at risk the entire well thought out system. And, we greatly reduce the possibility of States supporting us if they feel that our numbers complicate their lives or result in the cost/pain of legislative changes to the election processes.

This is why I originally came up with the idea of 12 years in Congress. Keep in mind; this is in the combined House and Senate. This allows the limit to blend well with the existing 2-year House term, 4-year Governor term, and the offset 6-year Senate terms. 12 years is a great deal of experience, but not long enough to be a career.

Now let’s hear what you think.

Should the term limit be a blanket for all of Congress or should it be an individual limit for the House and a separate limit for the Senate?

What should it be and why? What about it would appeal to the States?

Simplicity will be the key to success in imposing Term Limits on the US Congress.

Let’s use this page as an example. At the time that I am writing this, we have 21,000 people who are here to support imposing Term Limits on the US Congress.

21,000 for Term Limits

We have had input ranging from 1 year limits to 20 year limits and all in between. We have had suggestions that the Term Limit should be a blanket number of years in Congress (House and Senate), and we have had suggestions that the House and Senate should each have their own maximum number of years.

For the sake of argument, let’s say the final decision is 12 Years max for Congress (House and Senate).

The odds are that we will lose at least 15% of our support due to members disagreeing with the final number.
21,000 – 3,150 = 17,850

Now we add a part to the Amendment controlling retirements. The myths of the Congressional retirement are covered in another FACT image, so I won’t go into detail other than to say that the “actual” retirement is similar to many mid to large size companies. Adding this opens a whole new can of worms. Some say NO retirement. Some say Social Security only. Some say a “regular” retirement plan keeps the door open to average citizens being able to serve in Congress without jeopardizing their ability to retire at 65.

Whatever we agree, it will take much longer to come to a decision and it guarantees that at least another 15% will leave because they don’t support the conclusion.
17,850 – 2677 = 15,173

Now we add in healthcare insurance after leaving Congress. Currently, after leaving, they have to pay a percentage of the premium and the government pays the rest. Some will say no healthcare insurance. Some may say there should be a similar option such as COBRA, which is what many businesses offer. Some may say that it is fine as it is, but with a smaller percentage of the premium paid by the government.

Again, whatever we decide, some will disagree.
15,173 – 2276 = 12,897

Some have mentioned including a Term Limit on Justices in the Supreme Court.
12,897 – 1,934 = 10,963

Some have suggested no Salary or the Salary being paid by the States.
10,963 – 1,645 = 9,318


Of course the numbers being lost are fictitious. They could be higher or lower in each case. But, the point remains the same.

Even in an environment such as ours, where 21,000 people have gathered to support a single topic, Term Limits, the more details that we add, the more support that we will lose. In an environment where all involved do not support Term Limits (such as the State Governments), the reduction in support would be even more drastic.

Now take into consideration that an Amendment must be ratified by ¾’s of the States to be added to the Constitution and let’s compare that to the example we used.

We started with 21,000 people. Three quarters for ratification on this page would be 15,750 people.

By the time we hammered out the actual Amendment, we were down to 85%.

By the time we added just the retirement, we were down to 72% and no longer had enough people to ratify the Amendment. We still had the numbers to call a convention (2/3’s), but what would be the point if it won’t pass?

Regardless of how many great ideas we have and how strongly we feel that they would benefit our country, we have to force ourselves to maintain our focus on our primary goal, Term Limits.

Anything more will limit our chances of success. Each idea will have to be a separate battle, fought on a separate day.

Patriots Defending America