A gift to the far right

[Gramps]

Your hero of the house is 74 today. I hope each of of you have a great day during your celebration of Nancy's birthday.

Enjoy. ...

 

[BearCat204]

sexy

 

[davethevol]

Just another day closer to her hooking up with her old pal Lucifer.

 

[utvolpj]

she alone could make me support term limits

 

[JonWard]

 

[Vol737]

she alone could make me support term limits

Nothing changes till that happens. As far as Nancy "We have to pass it so we can find out what's in it" Pelosi.......good mug shot for the dart board.

 

[Vol737]

Your hero of the house is 74 today. I hope each of of you have a great day during your celebration of Nancy's birthday.

Enjoy. ...

Thanks a lot Gramps! Woke up thinking today was going to be a great day. Now look what you've done. :bash:

 

[Abe Hoffman]

It is just a few days until Sarah Palin's birthday . . . April 1st.

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

:run: maybe in her younger days. ukeb: This is what's reality today.

 

[utvolpj]

Nothing changes till that happens.

sure it can. People just need to send better reps to DC and negate any influence she has

 

[Vol737]

sure it can. People just need to send better reps to DC and negate any influence she has

Then, in a sense, we've instituted our own term limits as a voter base which I'm all for. Vote the clowns on both sides out.

 

[utvolpj]

Then, in a sense, we've instituted our own term limits as a voter base which I'm all for. Vote the clowns on both sides out.

absolutely they exist IMO but the voters are allowed to fix them. Don't like the guy you put in? Voted out after one term. Like the new guy you just put in? Keep him there for 4 terms

I do think there is a disconnect with voters though when Congress has a single-digit approval rating yet incumbents don't get defeated often enough. If people truly thought about it the turnover would be huge

 

[therealUT]

Term limits are unConstitutional (to include term limits for Presidents) in that they directly defy the ability of the electorate to choose their representatives.

 

[utvolpj]

Term limits are unConstitutional (to include term limits for Presidents) in that they directly defy the ability of the electorate to choose their representatives.

not sure how something in the Constitution can be unconstitutional

 

[Grand Vol]

Term limits are unConstitutional (to include term limits for Presidents) in that they directly defy the ability of the electorate to choose their representatives.

So is that better than keeping representatives in for countless terms that end up shredding the Constitution as it is?

Less time in Washington, less career politicians (it's public service, not a profession), less time for the special interests to get in their pocket, less damage that can be done.

 

[therealUT]

not sure how something in the Constitution can be unconstitutional

If you think that certain currents of the Constitutional are immutable and some powers cannot be taken from certain institutions and cannot also be delegated, then this Amendment runs afoul of certain foundational provisions the Constitution is to serve and protect.

Namely, the states and the citizens (whichever one comprises the electorate for POTUS), are meant to have and retain the choice of who they wish to have as the leading executive officer in the US. Disqualifying an individual merely because that individual has already been the President robs the electorate of a genuine choice.

 

[therealUT]

So is that better than keeping representatives in for countless terms that end up shredding the Constitution as it is?

Less time in Washington, less career politicians (it's public service, not a profession), less time for the special interests to get in their pocket, less damage that can be done.

No, but two other major pieces of legislation (one an amendment, the other just routine legislation), have also defied the spirit of the Constitution in that they have taken vast amounts of power from the people: namely, the change in the way Senators are elected/appointed; and, the cap on the number of Representatives, thus reducing, every single year, each individual citizen's influence over Congress and, hence, over the Federal Government (and, it is much easier for special interest groups to pay off a material amount of representatives in a body of 435 than to pay off a material amount of representatives in a body of over 1,000).

Small gov't =/= less powerful gov't.
Big gov't =/= more powerful gov't.

Larger assemblies, which lowered the ratio of representatives to citizens would result in a more powerful citizenry, and thus a less powerful gov't. The problems of term limits are ultimately a problem with oligarchy; and, the ratio or rep's to citizens surely signals an oligarchy more than any type of representative republic.

 

[hog88]

Term limits are unConstitutional (to include term limits for Presidents) in that they directly defy the ability of the electorate to choose their representatives.

Direct election of Senators was unconstitutional. It was (unfortunately) changed making it constitutional. Term limits can be made constitutional.

 

[MG1968]

you make term limits Constitutional by having a Constitutional convention and amending the Constitution

I don't know why trut is handwringing over this one

 

[hog88]

you make term limits Constitutional by having a Constitutional convention and amending the Constitution

I don't know why trut is handwringing over this one

We under no circumstances want a constitutional convention.

 

[Grand Vol]

No, but two other major pieces of legislation (one an amendment, the other just routine legislation), have also defied the spirit of the Constitution in that they have taken vast amounts of power from the people: namely, the change in the way Senators are elected/appointed; and, the cap on the number of Representatives, thus reducing, every single year, each individual citizen's influence over Congress and, hence, over the Federal Government (and, it is much easier for special interest groups to pay off a material amount of representatives in a body of 435 than to pay off a material amount of representatives in a body of over 1,000).

Small gov't =/= less powerful gov't.
Big gov't =/= more powerful gov't.

Larger assemblies, which lowered the ratio of representatives to citizens would result in a more powerful citizenry, and thus a less powerful gov't. The problems of term limits are ultimately a problem with oligarchy; and, the ratio or rep's to citizens surely signals an oligarchy more than any type of representative republic.

Certainly an interesting line of thinking. Problem arises in the oligarchical system that politicians make a career of it and end up becoming de facto aristocracy no matter if there are 535 or 5,035. You stay in office long enough and you gain the political power associated with some of our leading political figures today.

But the real problem lies in the voter base itself. Even if the representation was diluted even further like you suggest, the people still won't get out and vote. Or when they do vote, they take little consideration of who the person is into account and just keep voting for the devil they know instead of taking a chance on someone else. Maybe term limits would actually force the people to pay attention for a change and listen to what the candidates are running for instead of "well, so-and-so served 20 years already, why change horses?"

I'm a dreamer, I know.

 

[therealUT]

We under no circumstances want a constitutional convention.

I want plenty of Constitutional Conventions. However, I do not want Constitutional Amendments that neglect or fly in the face of the foundational principles of the nation and of a representative republic. Eliminating choices for the citizens in who can represent them (specifically, in eliminating the very individuals that have represented them and who they desire to continue to represent them) either neglects those principles or flies in the face of them.

It is possible to conceive of an Amendment passing which absolutely changes the structure of the Federal Government from some sort of representative republic to a formal dictatorship. Even if such an amendment passed in the manner declared by Article V of the Constitution, I would readily declare such an Amendment to be unConstitutional.

Passing Article V muster is, in my opinion, a necessary condition for an Amendment; however, I reject the notion that it is a sufficient condition. Sure, the Amendment will be law, but it will be law that flies in the face of the principles of representative government.

 

[therealUT]

Certainly an interesting line of thinking. Problem arises in the oligarchical system that politicians make a career of it and end up becoming de facto aristocracy no matter if there are 535 or 5,035. You stay in office long enough and you gain the political power associated with some of our leading political figures today.

But the real problem lies in the voter base itself. Even if the representation was diluted even further like you suggest, the people still won't get out and vote. Or when they do vote, they take little consideration of who the person is into account and just keep voting for the devil they know instead of taking a chance on someone else. Maybe term limits would actually force the people to pay attention for a change and listen to what the candidates are running for instead of "well, so-and-so served 20 years already, why change horses?"

I'm a dreamer, I know.

I think localizing politics (getting rid of mass elections for Senators and Presidents) combined with reducing the ratio in question, would result in less career politicians. The financial backing to keep many in power would be harder to come by. The constituents would be much more familiar with their own representatives (a ratio of 1:50,000 allows for plenty of voters to actually speak to their representative) and representatives, due to political funds having to be distributed wider, would have to rely less on huge political machines and more on actually engaging their constituents (of whom, there would be fewer).

Further, voters would not have to focus on so many issues. They would only have one Federal official to focus upon (not three or four). And, they could then focus on local politics. Senators would be jockeying for appointment by trying to appeal to individuals that actually know the ins and outs of gov't (state assemblies), and they would serve at the interest of that state assembly. Again, this takes power away from the Federal Gov't and returns it to the state; the state in turn, is much more reliant upon the individual citizens.

If massive pipe-dream Amendments are being tossed about, these are the Amendments that ought to be made; not term limits. Term limits are a problem relative to the condition that now exists in which the individual citizen is largely powerless and lacks influence.

 

[volinbham]

term limits are an eligibility issue which is certainly within the bounds of the Constitution. Hell, the Constitution itself explicitly states eligibility standards so those directly defy the ability of the electorate to choose their representative.

In short, term limits are not inherently unConstitutional.

 

[therealUT]

term limits are an eligibility issue which is certainly within the bounds of the Constitution. Hell, the Constitution itself explicitly states eligibility standards so those directly defy the ability of the electorate to choose their representative.

In short, term limits are not inherently unConstitutional.

Correct. I think those eligibility issues undermine the principles that lay the foundation for representative republics. The Constitution also formally permits slavery, but I think slavery is and always has been unConstitutional insofar as it undermines the principles that lay the foundation for representative republics. If we choose to ignore those principles, and merely say that anything in the Constitution is Constitutionally legitimate, then we also throw out any justification for giving a **** about Constitutionality. Saying something is Constitutional, then just reduces to saying it is a very strong statute but that, in itself, is absolutely meaningless and tells me little about how a representative republic ought to function.

When asserting that something is "Constitutional", however, we quite often think that to mean more than just it is a strong, yet arbitrary, statute. When we make such assertions, we often make them in a normative context, declare them to be principled, and declare them to be something that all ought to abide by. If we want to keep that baggage, then the fundamental principles matter. If we don't want to keep that baggage, then such principles do not matter but neither does something being "Constitutional" matter anymore, as it would simply be unprincipled, arbitrary, and, often, bad law.