Any member of congress in office during a "government shutdown" should be disqualified from re-election.

​I'm just a veteran who understands the threat of missed paychecks, and I can't believe the number of Americans about to be harmed. ​

Some federal employees are flat-out laid off. 700,000 to 800,000 are facing that right now. Including their families, that's approximately 2.5 million Americans. Just for the stress this causes so many people—whether the deadline is missed by a day or two weeks—a failure to cooperate on this is unacceptable. ​

"Honorable" is in the title of congresspeople and senators. Hurting 2.5 million Americans doesn't fit any definition of honor I've ever heard.

I would give my life for this rule. I served for nine years, squarely in the 2000s, for basic love of my family, and sentiment, and emotions. The hurt Congress is willing to cause to whole families and especially children is countable and measurable.  

A solid and tangible opportunity to prevent so much hurt would be worth this soldier's life, without question.  

And yet here is our congress. If you ask them why, they point fingers. They're acting without honor, conscience, or consequence. It's not a game or a performance when it affects real American families on our own soil.

I believe our founders would accuse them of something more like treason. It doesn't quite cross the line of waging war on our country, or giving aid or comfort to our enemies, but they know how many Americans they're about to harm.

The outcomes are same.

You might not believe I'd give my life for this, but our founders would. Our system was meant to be slow and deliberate, but a failure to pay our government workers, public servants, and military (especially due to purely legislative disagreement vs Treasury issues) would have been seen as a profound betrayal.

To "provide for the common Defence," "rule of law," and sanctity of contracts.  of our founders are easy to verify.

This requires an amendment to the Constitution. According to Grok, x.com's AI: "U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1995) ruled that states cannot impose extra qualifications on congressional candidates beyond the Constitution's explicit ones—age 25/30, U.S. citizenship for 7/9 years, and state residency—because elections belong to the people, not states adding barriers."

"To amend the Constitution for added congressional qualifications—like disqualifying shutdown culprits—you'd need 2/3 approval in both House and Senate, or a convention via 2/3 state legislatures, followed by ratification from 3/4 states (38 of 50)."

So the bad news is they literally don't have any consequences for this. The good news is this doesn't reverse or displace any existing decisions or laws.

The power of the purse belongs only to Congress, and even the President's hands are tied when they pass deadline. Failure has become practice for the legislative branch, and as the people, I believe half of the blame is on us for accepting it.

There's a special place in my heart for things like complacency and failure to perform core duties. I don't care about names or blame in this situation. It's impossible to get a straight answer from anyone, and I believe a broad disqualification from re-election is a very specific and appropriate consequence. 

My main concern is that other Americans are given enough time to consider performing a few years of civic responsibilities. I would suggest removal of congress immediately, but leaving the offices empty would be worse. Slightly.

Congress is also responsible for government oversight. If this doesn't warrant an amendment to the Constitution, what does?

Yes, I propose our politicians should create consequences for their performance. We were expected to get them to do it anyway. A government shutdown is Congress' failure. Believing this is impossible is our failure. This is exactly the type of thing our founders wanted us to pursue.