“Transform America: Repeal the 17th and Impose Term Limits Now!”
Convention of States proposals, repeal 17th Amendment benefits, term limits for Congress

IMO, a hypothetical Convention of States should do exactly 2 things and only 2 things:

1. Repeal the 17th
2. Term limits

That’s it. No arguing. No fluff. No idealism. Just these 2 things will kill the Swamp and we should align on them. @COSProject

—————–

The Case for a Convention of States: Repealing the 17th Amendment and Implementing Term Limits

In the ongoing dialogue surrounding the governance of the United States, a significant proposal has emerged: the idea of a Convention of States. This concept has been championed by various political activists and organizations, most notably by the @COSProject on Twitter. A recent tweet by a user known as DataRepublican succinctly encapsulates a compelling vision for this convention, asserting that it should focus solely on two critical objectives: repealing the 17th Amendment and establishing term limits for elected officials.

Understanding the 17th Amendment

The 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1913, shifted the election of U.S. Senators from state legislatures to direct popular vote. While this amendment was designed to enhance democratic representation, critics argue that it has contributed to the federal government’s overreach and the entrenchment of political elites. By allowing senators to be elected directly by the populace, the amendment reduced the power of state governments and diminished the influence of local interests in federal policy-making.

Repealing the 17th Amendment would reinstate the original constitutional framework, where state legislatures appoint senators. Proponents argue that this change would empower states, foster a more collaborative relationship between state and federal governments, and ultimately lead to more effective governance. By returning the selection of senators to state legislatures, the accountability of these officials would shift, potentially reducing the impact of special interests and increasing responsiveness to the needs of state constituents.

The Need for Term Limits

Alongside the repeal of the 17th Amendment, the implementation of term limits for members of Congress is another focal point of the Convention of States proposal. Currently, there are no limits on the number of terms a senator or representative can serve, which has led to the establishment of career politicians who may prioritize personal or party agendas over the needs of their constituents.

Term limits could serve as a powerful mechanism to combat political stagnation and encourage fresh perspectives within Congress. By capping the number of terms an individual can serve, supporters argue that the political landscape would become more dynamic, allowing for new leaders to emerge and reducing the risks associated with entrenched political power. This change could foster a culture of accountability and responsiveness, as elected officials would be aware that their time in office is finite, prompting them to prioritize the interests of their constituents.

The Argument Against Idealism

DataRepublican’s tweet emphasizes a pragmatic approach to the Convention of States, advocating for a focus on these two specific changes without succumbing to the allure of broader reforms or idealistic visions. This call for simplicity resonates with many citizens who feel overwhelmed by the complexity of political discourse. By centering the conversation on two measurable objectives, proponents aim to build consensus among diverse political factions and mobilize grassroots support.

The idea is that by uniting around these two fundamental reforms, citizens can effectively “kill the Swamp” — a term commonly used to describe the perceived corruption and inefficiency within the federal government. By targeting the structural issues that allow for the perpetuation of political power and influence, advocates believe they can create a more accountable and responsive government.

Mobilizing Support for the Convention of States

To turn this vision into reality, supporters of the Convention of States must engage in grassroots organizing and advocacy. This involves educating the public about the benefits of repealing the 17th Amendment and implementing term limits, as well as dispelling common misconceptions about these proposals. Utilizing social media platforms, like Twitter, can be an effective strategy for reaching a broad audience and galvanizing support.

Organizations like the @COSProject have already begun this work, promoting awareness and rallying citizens to advocate for a Convention of States. Through petitions, town halls, and public forums, they aim to foster a dialogue about the need for constitutional reforms that prioritize accountability and representation.

Conclusion

The proposal for a Convention of States, focused on repealing the 17th Amendment and establishing term limits, presents a compelling opportunity for reforming the U.S. political landscape. By concentrating on these two specific objectives, advocates believe they can address key issues related to political accountability, the influence of special interests, and the stagnation of career politicians.

As the conversation around governance evolves, it’s crucial for citizens to engage with these proposals thoughtfully. Whether one agrees with the necessity of a Convention of States or not, the underlying concerns about political representation and accountability are universal. By fostering informed discussions and mobilizing grassroots support, advocates can work toward a more responsive and effective government that truly reflects the will of the people.

In summary, the focus on repealing the 17th Amendment and implementing term limits encapsulates a pragmatic approach to reforming the political system. As the dialogue continues, it will be essential for citizens to remain engaged and advocate for changes that align with their values and vision for the future of American governance.

IMO, a hypothetical Convention of States should do exactly 2 things and only 2 things:

1. Repeal the 17th
2. Term limits

That’s it. No arguing. No fluff. No idealism. Just these 2 things will kill the Swamp and we should align on them. @COSProject https://t.co/PEAF55dlpm

— DataRepublican (small r) (@DataRepublican) June 7, 2025

IMO, a hypothetical Convention of States should do exactly 2 things and only 2 things:

When it comes to the political landscape in the U.S., many people feel frustrated. The idea of a Convention of States has gained traction as a way to address some of the core issues plaguing our government. But what if I told you that IMO, a hypothetical Convention of States should do exactly 2 things and only 2 things? Sounds simple, right? Let’s dive into what those are.

1. Repeal the 17th

First up on our list: repealing the 17th Amendment. You might be wondering, “What’s that all about?” Well, the 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, changed the way we elect our U.S. Senators. Before this amendment, state legislatures were responsible for selecting Senators. After its ratification, the election of Senators shifted to a direct popular vote. While this might sound democratic, supporters of repealing the 17th argue that it has led to a significant disconnect between the senate and the states.

By returning to the original method of senate selection, we could potentially restore the balance of power between state and federal governments. This change could also diminish the influence of special interest groups that thrive in a system where Senators are elected by the populace—those groups often operate through funding campaigns and political action committees. Repealing the 17th could lead to a senate that is more answerable to state legislatures and, subsequently, the citizens of those states.

If you’re curious about the implications of these changes, think about how much more responsive Senators could be to their state’s needs if they were beholden to state legislatures rather than directly to voters. This isn’t just a theory; studies and discussions on this topic show that returning to the original framework could lead to a more locally focused approach to governance. You can check out more about the pros and cons of this amendment on platforms like The Heritage Foundation.

2. Term Limits

Now let’s talk about the second critical point: term limits. This is a hot topic and one that many agree could shake up the political scene in a way that benefits the average citizen. Imagine a world where politicians couldn’t stick around in office for decades, often becoming entrenched in their positions and losing touch with the very people they were elected to serve.

The idea behind term limits is simple: infuse new ideas and perspectives into our government. When politicians know they have a limited time to make an impact, they might be more motivated to cut through the bureaucratic red tape and actually get things done. Think of all the energy, innovation, and passion fresh faces could bring to Washington! It could also reduce the chances of corruption that come with long-term incumbency.

Many states have already implemented term limits for their legislatures, and the results have sparked significant discussion. Advocates argue that these limits can lead to a more dynamic and responsive political environment. You can read more about successful case studies in states like California and Florida to see how term limits have changed the game.

That’s it. No arguing.

When you boil it down, these two proposals—repealing the 17th Amendment and instituting term limits—could provide a straightforward way to address many of the frustrations that Americans feel about their government. It’s about cutting through the noise and focusing on practical solutions that can lead to real change.

Sure, there’s bound to be pushback. People will argue about the implications, the logistics, and the potential fallout of such changes. But let’s not get bogged down in those arguments. Instead, let’s focus on the potential benefits of these changes. After all, if the primary goal is to “kill the Swamp,” as some like to say, then aligning on these two issues could be a powerful first step.

No fluff. No idealism.

It’s easy to get lost in idealistic visions of what governance should look like, but the reality is that we need actionable strategies that can bring about change. This isn’t about grandiose ideas; it’s about practical steps that can truly make a difference in how our government operates.

In a world where political discourse feels increasingly polarized, focusing on a couple of key changes might be one of the few things that can unite people across the spectrum. Whether you’re a die-hard republican, a passionate democrat, or somewhere in between, these issues resonate with anyone who’s tired of the status quo and eager for a government that works better for the people.

Just these 2 things will kill the Swamp

When you hear someone mention “the Swamp,” it’s usually in reference to the entrenched bureaucracy and political elitism that many feel has taken over Washington, D.C. The phrase has become shorthand for a system that seems more concerned with preserving power than serving the public. By repealing the 17th Amendment and instituting term limits, we could begin to dismantle this Swamp mentality.

Let’s be honest: the current political climate can feel overwhelming. It’s easy to feel powerless in the face of such a large and complex system. However, by championing these two changes, we can empower ourselves and our fellow citizens to demand a government that truly represents us. It’s about taking back control and ensuring that our elected officials are held accountable.

We should align on them.

Ultimately, the call to action here is one of unity. It’s time to rally around these two proposals and advocate for a Convention of States that focuses on practical change. By aligning on the repeal of the 17th Amendment and the establishment of term limits, we can create a movement that transcends party lines. The goal isn’t to push an agenda but rather to foster a government that truly serves its people.

As citizens, we have the power to shape our government, and it starts with conversations like this. By engaging with each other and discussing these key issues, we can work towards a brighter future where our elected officials are more accountable, more responsive, and more in tune with the needs of their constituents.

So, what do you think? Are you ready to join the conversation and advocate for these changes? Let’s keep the dialogue going and push for a government that works for everyone, not just the insiders.

“Transform America: Repeal the 17th and Impose Term Limits Now!”
Convention of States proposals, repeal 17th Amendment benefits, term limits for Congress

IMO, a hypothetical Convention of States should do exactly 2 things and only 2 things:

1. Repeal the 17th
2. Term limits

That’s it. No arguing. No fluff. No idealism. Just these 2 things will kill the Swamp and we should align on them. @COSProject

—————–

The Case for a Convention of States: Repealing the 17th Amendment and Implementing Term Limits

In the ongoing dialogue surrounding the governance of the United States, a significant proposal has emerged: the idea of a Convention of States. This concept has been championed by various political activists and organizations, most notably by the @COSProject on Twitter. Recently, a tweet by a user known as DataRepublican succinctly encapsulated a compelling vision for this convention, asserting that it should focus solely on two critical objectives: repealing the 17th Amendment and establishing term limits for elected officials.

Understanding the 17th Amendment

The 17th Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified in 1913, shifted the election of U.S. Senators from state legislatures to direct popular vote. While this amendment was designed to enhance democratic representation, critics argue that it has contributed to the federal government’s overreach and the entrenchment of political elites. By allowing senators to be elected directly by the populace, the amendment reduced the power of state governments and diminished the influence of local interests in federal policy-making.

Repealing the 17th Amendment would reinstate the original constitutional framework, where state legislatures appoint senators. Proponents argue that this change would empower states, foster a more collaborative relationship between state and federal governments, and ultimately lead to more effective governance. By returning the selection of senators to state legislatures, the accountability of these officials would shift, potentially reducing the impact of special interests and increasing responsiveness to the needs of state constituents. You can dive deeper into the implications of this amendment on platforms like the Heritage Foundation.

The Need for Term Limits

Alongside the repeal of the 17th Amendment, the implementation of term limits for members of Congress is another focal point of the Convention of States proposal. Currently, there are no limits on the number of terms a senator or representative can serve, which has led to the establishment of career politicians who may prioritize personal or party agendas over the needs of their constituents.

Term limits could serve as a powerful mechanism to combat political stagnation and encourage fresh perspectives within Congress. By capping the number of terms an individual can serve, supporters argue that the political landscape would become more dynamic, allowing for new leaders to emerge and reducing the risks associated with entrenched political power. This change could foster a culture of accountability and responsiveness, as elected officials would be aware that their time in office is finite, prompting them to prioritize the interests of their constituents. Several states have already seen positive results from implementing term limits.

The Argument Against Idealism

DataRepublican’s tweet emphasizes a pragmatic approach to the Convention of States, advocating for a focus on these two specific changes without succumbing to the allure of broader reforms or idealistic visions. This call for simplicity resonates with many citizens who feel overwhelmed by the complexity of political discourse. By centering the conversation on two measurable objectives, proponents aim to build consensus among diverse political factions and mobilize grassroots support.

The idea is that by uniting around these two fundamental reforms, citizens can effectively “kill the Swamp” — a term commonly used to describe the perceived corruption and inefficiency within the federal government. By targeting the structural issues that allow for the perpetuation of political power and influence, advocates believe they can create a more accountable and responsive government.

Mobilizing Support for the Convention of States

To turn this vision into reality, supporters of the Convention of States must engage in grassroots organizing and advocacy. This involves educating the public about the benefits of repealing the 17th Amendment and implementing term limits, as well as dispelling common misconceptions about these proposals. Utilizing social media platforms, like Twitter, can be an effective strategy for reaching a broad audience and galvanizing support.

Organizations like the @COSProject have already begun this work, promoting awareness and rallying citizens to advocate for a Convention of States. Through petitions, town halls, and public forums, they aim to foster a dialogue about the need for constitutional reforms that prioritize accountability and representation.

Conclusion

The proposal for a Convention of States, focused on repealing the 17th Amendment and establishing term limits, presents a compelling opportunity for reforming the U.S. political landscape. By concentrating on these two specific objectives, advocates believe they can address key issues related to political accountability, the influence of special interests, and the stagnation of career politicians.

As the conversation around governance evolves, it’s crucial for citizens to engage with these proposals thoughtfully. Whether one agrees with the necessity of a Convention of States or not, the underlying concerns about political representation and accountability are universal. By fostering informed discussions and mobilizing grassroots support, advocates can work toward a more responsive and effective government that truly reflects the will of the people.

IMO, a hypothetical Convention of States should do exactly 2 things and only 2 things:

1. Repeal the 17th
2. Term limits

That’s it. No arguing. No fluff. No idealism. Just these 2 things will kill the Swamp and we should align on them. @COSProject https://t.co/PEAF55dlpm

— DataRepublican (small r) (@DataRepublican) June 7, 2025

Two Bold Moves to Drain the Swamp: Repeal 17th & Term Limits

When it comes to the political landscape in the U.S., many people feel frustrated. The idea of a Convention of States has gained traction as a way to address some of the core issues plaguing our government. But what if I told you that IMO, a hypothetical Convention of States should do exactly 2 things and only 2 things? Sounds simple, right? Let’s dive into what those are.

1. Repeal the 17th

First up on our list: repealing the 17th Amendment. You might be wondering, “What’s that all about?” Well, the 17th Amendment, ratified in 1913, changed the way we elect our U.S. Senators. Before this amendment, state legislatures were responsible for selecting Senators. After its ratification, the election of Senators shifted to a direct popular vote. While this might sound democratic, supporters of repealing the 17th argue that it has led to a significant disconnect between the senate and the states.

By returning to the original method of senate selection, we could potentially restore the balance of power between state and federal governments. This change could also diminish the influence of special interest groups that thrive in a system where Senators are elected by the populace—those groups often operate through funding campaigns and political action committees. Repealing the 17th could lead to a senate that is more answerable to state legislatures and, subsequently, the citizens of those states.

If you’re curious about the implications of these changes, think about how much more responsive Senators could be to their state’s needs if they were beholden to state legislatures rather than directly to voters. This isn’t just a theory; studies and discussions on this topic show that returning to the original framework could lead to a more locally focused approach to governance. You can check out more about the pros and cons of this amendment on platforms like the Heritage Foundation.

2. Term Limits

Now let’s talk about the second critical point: term limits. This is a hot topic and one that many agree could shake up the political scene in a way that benefits the average citizen. Imagine a world where politicians couldn’t stick around in office for decades, often becoming entrenched in their positions and losing touch with the very people they were elected to serve.

The idea behind term limits is simple: infuse new ideas and perspectives into our government. When politicians know they have a limited time to make an impact, they might be more motivated to cut through the bureaucratic red tape and actually get things done. Think of all the energy, innovation, and passion fresh faces could bring to Washington! It could also reduce the chances of corruption that come with long-term incumbency.

Many states have already implemented term limits for their legislatures, and the results have sparked significant discussion. Advocates argue that these limits can lead to a more dynamic and responsive political environment. You can read more about successful case studies in states like California and Florida to see how term limits have changed the game.

That’s it. No arguing.

When you boil it down, these two proposals—repealing the 17th Amendment and instituting term limits—could provide a straightforward way to address many of the frustrations that Americans feel about their government. It’s about cutting through the noise and focusing on practical solutions that can lead to real change.

Sure, there’s bound to be pushback. People will argue about the implications, the logistics, and the potential fallout of such changes. But let’s not get bogged down in those arguments. Instead, let’s focus on the potential benefits of these changes. After all, if the primary goal is to “kill the Swamp,” as some like to say, then aligning on these two issues could be a powerful first step.

No fluff. No idealism.

It’s easy to get lost in idealistic visions of what governance should look like, but the reality is that we need actionable strategies that can bring about change. This isn’t about grandiose ideas; it’s about practical steps that can truly make a difference in how our government operates.

In a world where political discourse feels increasingly polarized, focusing on a couple of key changes might be one of the few things that can unite people across the spectrum. Whether you’re a die-hard republican, a passionate democrat, or somewhere in between, these issues resonate with anyone who’s tired of the status quo and eager for a government that works better for the people.

Just these 2 things will kill the Swamp

When you hear someone mention “the Swamp,” it’s usually in reference to the entrenched bureaucracy and political elitism that many feel has taken over Washington, D.C. The phrase has become shorthand for a system that seems more concerned with preserving power than serving the public. By repealing the 17th Amendment and instituting term limits, we could begin to dismantle this Swamp mentality.

Let’s be honest: the current political climate can feel overwhelming. It’s easy to feel powerless in the face of such a large and complex system. However, by championing these two changes, we can empower ourselves and our fellow citizens to demand a government that truly represents us. It’s about taking back control and ensuring that our elected officials are held accountable.

We should align on them.

Ultimately, the call to action here is one of unity. It’s time to rally around these two proposals and advocate for a Convention of States that focuses on practical change. By aligning on the repeal of the 17th Amendment and the establishment of term limits, we can create a movement that transcends party lines. The goal isn’t to push an agenda but rather to foster a government that truly serves its people.

As citizens, we have the power to shape our government, and it starts with conversations like this. By engaging with each other and discussing these key issues, we can work towards a brighter future where our elected officials are more accountable, more responsive, and more in tune with the needs of their constituents.

So, what do you think? Are you ready to join the conversation and advocate for these changes? Let’s keep the dialogue going and push for a government that works for everyone, not just the insiders.