A three part Amendment, all three parts necessary to pass as one amendment: (1) Repeal the Re-Apportionment Act of 1929 limiting the size of the district of a member of the House of Representatives rather than limiting the size of the House, (2) Repeal Amendment 17 returning Senatorial Election to State Legislatures, (3) Limit the federal legislature to part time, and limit their benefits.

The effect of limiting the size of the House instead of the size of a district is a LOSS of POPULAR REPRESENTATION, and the effect of Amendment 17 is a LOSS of STATE REPRESENTATION.

Article #1 of the Bill of Rights (Congress passed 12 articles, but the states only ratified 10) would have limited the number of citizens in a district to between 30,000 and 50,000, but it was poorly worded and confusing. Still, re-apportioning operated basically along these line for the first 150 years of the republic. Without the 1929 Act, the House membership would currently around 7000 members. Instead, the arbitrary 435 member limit on the size of the House, has gradually and increasingly violated the principle of localizing representation with each House member "representing" over 700,000 citizens. No matter what technology you have in place, no Congressman can effectively communicate with individuals in that large of a district, but with a district under 50,000 it is entirely possible. THIS IS THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF POLITICAL APATHY--YOU CAN'T REACH YOUR CONGESSMAN.

THE fundamental federalist provision of the constitution was the check and balance of state representation in the Senate. Federalism died with Amendment 17. If you are not sovereign, then you acquire you rights from the sovereign you serve. The founders rejected that, realizing your rights are endowed to you by virtue of the fact you are a sovereign. Through the original federal structure of our nation, specific aspects of our sovereignty were delegated to the states in which we vote. To preserve republican form of government, the lineage of sovereignty is likewise delegated to the federal government, or at least, it is supposed to be. Since ratification of Amendment 17, the delegation of our sovereignty has been confused. Since then, the only exercise of control over the federal notion of sovereignty has been through popular representation, which is essentially the democratic form of government unanimously rejected by those who ratified the original constitution. Think of states' rights as your delegation of your sovereign individual rights. With Amendment 17, states effectively lost sovereign representation of the rights you delegated.

When State representation is restored by repealing Amendment 17, restoring the senate to state representation, it will become even more necessary to restore popular representation at the same time. I propose a single Federal Representation Amendment to do both. Look up www.thirty-thousand.org for info on repealing the Re-apportionment Act of 1929.

I am working on unvailing this as the Federal Representation Amendment. Please help.

I believe a good amount of mischief would go away with a repeal of the 16th amendment.

At the end of Atlas Shrugged, Judge Narragansett is writing an amendment; I can't do better than that!

I repeat, look to the 10th Amendment to restrict and restraint our representatives. Never trust in their integrity or knowledge.

And, ironically, listen to our English cousins - Paul and John - - -

'You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free your mind instead'

Every law or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.

All bills appropriating money shall specify in federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered.

Did you know both of those come word for word from the Constitution of the Confederate States of America? The first would prevent 'pork' being added to a bill that cannot stand on its own and the second would prevent 'cost overruns' by a 'low bidder' who knew they would not be able to meet their bid price and could squeeze out extra money later.

The right to not have to support programs I do not agree with. I suggest that whatever the current tax structure all people would still have to pay their taxes but would be able to direct their portion to fund only those government activities they deem aproprait.

The founding fathers spent a great deal of time studying the pro and cons of each form of government since the beginning of recorded civilization.. The book that best describes their process and intent is "Five Thousand Year Leap." After reading this book and the Federalists Papers I suspect George, James, Ben and the boys wouldn't recognize our government today. We are way past its original intent. The question is "can we go back?" Perhpas in the Gulch but nowhere else.

In all cases in which a free market (private) and a government (public) solution exists, the government *must* defer the the free market solution.

"all representatives shall sign an affidavit stating they have read and fully understand any law in which they are casting a vote. Punishable as treason and perjury."

How about there shall be no laws enacted which prevent the freedom of choice which do not infringe on the rights of others.

Like that stupid law they are trying to pass in New York banning soda pop.

All laws enacted by a governing body shall expire with that governing body. So, each Congress would have to re-enact any law that they chose to keep from the previous Congress. The only way to make a law permanent would be to amend the Consitution.
An alternate version would be to set an expiration term, such as 4 years.

I would restructure out election system. Not the electoral college, but mostly the format of campaigning and fundraising. Too often money muddies the water, politicians lie to get your money and then your real goals are never met.

I like all of the talk of term limits, but I'd like to add:

1. Limit the amount a single person or entity can donate to a campaign.
2. Enact a strict set of guidelines of public discourse where each candidate is asked the same set of questions and offers a response in a set amount of time, no more, no less.
3. Require candidates post on their website their platforms with measurable goals, not generalities.
4. Make it illegal for politicians to be involved directly or indirectly with the companies that donate to their campaign for several years before and after their term.
5. Remove the lifelong post-term pay for everyone except the president, and even that office would only receive enough to provide a security team and contract pay for consulting with future Presidents. All Presidents from now on will make millions post-term, no matter who they are because of the office they held.

I believe that if we had such a system it would go a long way to end crony capitalism and get us back to pure capitalism. Plus it would put the idea back into our society that government is a short term donation of your time and effort to better your country, not line your pockets and power.

No law effecting the constitution, or the rights of the citizens of the United States of America, can be enacted, or amended, without a plebiscite vote (a vote of all the citizens), with a written form, sent to every household in America, released well in advance of the vote.