GOP senators push for term limits

[VaYank5150]

GOP senators push for term limits - CNN.com

"Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians," DeMint said in a statement released by his office. "As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buyoff special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork -- in short, amassing their own power."

Wow....a GOP candidate I could possibly vote for....

 

[Wry Catcher]

GOP senators push for term limits - CNN.com

"Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians," DeMint said in a statement released by his office. "As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buyoff special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork -- in short, amassing their own power."

Wow....a GOP candidate I could possibly vote for....

I disagree. We need professional lawmakers. We need to pay them well and punish those severly who accept bribes. Money must somehow, someway be taken out of politics.

 

[VaYank5150]

GOP senators push for term limits - CNN.com

"Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians," DeMint said in a statement released by his office. "As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buyoff special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork -- in short, amassing their own power."

Wow....a GOP candidate I could possibly vote for....

I disagree. We need professional lawmakers. We need to pay them well and punish those severly who accept bribes. Money must somehow, someway be taken out of politics.

What better way to do it that not allow policiticians to be "professionals"?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It would require a Constitutional Amendment and flys in the face of the supposed right of the people to elect whom they want by popular vote.

How about they just repel the amendment that allows Senators to be elected and return that power to the State Governments where it belongs?

 

[Darkwind]

It would require a Constitutional Amendment and flys in the face of the supposed right of the people to elect whom they want by popular vote.

How about they just repel the amendment that allows Senators to be elected and return that power to the State Governments where it belongs?

A much better solution then making Dukes, Earls and Kings out of our lawmakers.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It would require a Constitutional Amendment and flys in the face of the supposed right of the people to elect whom they want by popular vote.

How about they just repel the amendment that allows Senators to be elected and return that power to the State Governments where it belongs?

A much better solution then making Dukes, Earls and Kings out of our lawmakers.

Yup, why don't we just give up our right to vote? I mean you people are insisting we are just to damn stupid to know who to vote for.

 

[Xenophon]

The way people are elected is the problem, the system is all about money and favors.

 

[VaYank5150]

It would require a Constitutional Amendment and flys in the face of the supposed right of the people to elect whom they want by popular vote.

How about they just repel the amendment that allows Senators to be elected and return that power to the State Governments where it belongs?

A much better solution then making Dukes, Earls and Kings out of our lawmakers.

Yup, why don't we just give up our right to vote? I mean you people are insisting we are just to damn stupid to know who to vote for.

Well, we all know YOU are just based onthe drivel that you post. Let's pass a Constituional Amendment that requires every voter MUCH pass a minimum eqivalency test on the issues at hand prior to being able to vote. That should do it!

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I always find it funny that you can predict who's talking about term limits from year to year.... They're always the party out of power.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A much better solution then making Dukes, Earls and Kings out of our lawmakers.

Yup, why don't we just give up our right to vote? I mean you people are insisting we are just to damn stupid to know who to vote for.

Well, we all know YOU are just based onthe drivel that you post. Let's pass a Constituional Amendment that requires every voter MUCH pass a minimum eqivalency test on the issues at hand prior to being able to vote. That should do it!

And there you have it, the left attempting to deny the vote to whom ever they can. By the way dumb ass I guess you missed the Supreme Court rulings on Competency tests at the start of the Civil Rights movement? They are anything but. Their purpose is to deny the vote to what ever group or groups are currently out of favor with the Democratic party. And here you are advocating for them.

Once again for the terminally stupid, Term limits accomplish one thing, denying the people the right to vote for whom they want to represent them, a bed rock of the very Government we have. The House of Representatives are supposed to be the people's voice. Members elected BY the people to Represent them. Term limits are for the lazy and the stupid. You see unlike you, I VOTE for the person I want to represent me, they just so far ( except for a sheriff) have all been Republicans. Ohh and last year I voted for the Democrat that ran for the House Seat in my district. I would have voted for Hillary also but I sure as hell wasn't gonna vote for Obama.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It would require a Constitutional Amendment and flys in the face of the supposed right of the people to elect whom they want by popular vote.

How about they just repel the amendment that allows Senators to be elected and return that power to the State Governments where it belongs?

This is correct. An amendment to the Constitution would be necessary to implement term limits for the House, and I agree that repealing the 17th Amendment would be better than term limiting the Senate.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

How about they just repel the amendment that allows Senators to be elected and return that power to the State Governments where it belongs?

I go back and forth on the 17th Ammendment, and would one day be interested in reading well reasoned arguments both for an against it.

The largest issue I see with repealing the 17th would be that it has an even greater potential to introduce cronism and corruption to the Senate. Letting politicians choose politicians seems like a questionable idea.

There is the attraction that it returns power to the States and to some extend insulates the Senate from re-election concerns. But even that seems overshadowed by the idea that in the modern world repealing the 17th could result in the national parties working harder to politicize state government races and moving those races away from local issues.

 

[VaYank5150]

Yup, why don't we just give up our right to vote? I mean you people are insisting we are just to damn stupid to know who to vote for.

Well, we all know YOU are just based onthe drivel that you post. Let's pass a Constituional Amendment that requires every voter MUCH pass a minimum eqivalency test on the issues at hand prior to being able to vote. That should do it!

And there you have it, the left attempting to deny the vote to whom ever they can. By the way dumb ass I guess you missed the Supreme Court rulings on Competency tests at the start of the Civil Rights movement? They are anything but. Their purpose is to deny the vote to what ever group or groups are currently out of favor with the Democratic party. And here you are advocating for them.

Once again for the terminally stupid, Term limits accomplish one thing, denying the people the right to vote for whom they want to represent them, a bed rock of the very Government we have. The House of Representatives are supposed to be the people's voice. Members elected BY the people to Represent them. Term limits are for the lazy and the stupid. You see unlike you, I VOTE for the person I want to represent me, they just so far ( except for a sheriff) have all been Republicans. Ohh and last year I voted for the Democrat that ran for the House Seat in my district. I would have voted for Hillary also but I sure as hell wasn't gonna vote for Obama.

Duh?! Why do you think I support minimum equivalency testing prior to being able to vote? Should people who REALLY believe the government wants to set up "death panels" or that the 9/11 attacks were an insides job pulled off by our government be allowed to vote for the people in said government? I think not.

 

[nodoginnafight]

How about they just repel the amendment that allows Senators to be elected and return that power to the State Governments where it belongs?

I go back and forth on the 17th Ammendment, and would one day be interested in reading well reasoned arguments both for an against it.

The largest issue I see with repealing the 17th would be that it has an even greater potential to introduce cronism and corruption to the Senate. Letting politicians choose politicians seems like a questionable idea.

There is the attraction that it returns power to the States and to some extend insulates the Senate from re-election concerns. But even that seems overshadowed by the idea that in the modern world repealing the 17th could result in the national parties working harder to politicize state government races and moving those races away from local issues.

I agree that it is an interesting idea. I wouldn't mind more give and take on that myself.
But my knee-jerk is that moving the election OUT of the hands of the people and into the hands of legislative bodies smacks of back-room deals, corruption, and a step further away from democracy.

The idea that people just aren't smart enough to elect their own representative (yeah in THIS case senators but I ment it in the sense of electing someone to represent you) is contrary to my sense of democracy.

I also find a lot of truth in the post that noted term limits always seems to get trotted out by the party out of power.

It also requently seems to be an attack on OTHER PEOPLE's elected officials. It makes me wonder - if you don't vote out YOUR senator, why should you have any authority to express dissatisfaction or have a say in who someone else elects?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I also find a lot of truth in the post that noted term limits always seems to get trotted out by the party out of power.

Its a pretty common tactic by the party out of power to propose term limits as part of a strategy to get back into power. The idea is that term limits always make you sound like reformers, while at the same time if term limits do pass, it puts a ticking clock on the incumbents and gives you a shot at winning those races.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How about they just repel the amendment that allows Senators to be elected and return that power to the State Governments where it belongs?

I go back and forth on the 17th Ammendment, and would one day be interested in reading well reasoned arguments both for an against it.

The largest issue I see with repealing the 17th would be that it has an even greater potential to introduce cronism and corruption to the Senate. Letting politicians choose politicians seems like a questionable idea.

There is the attraction that it returns power to the States and to some extend insulates the Senate from re-election concerns. But even that seems overshadowed by the idea that in the modern world repealing the 17th could result in the national parties working harder to politicize state government races and moving those races away from local issues.

I agree that it is an interesting idea. I wouldn't mind more give and take on that myself.
But my knee-jerk is that moving the election OUT of the hands of the people and into the hands of legislative bodies smacks of back-room deals, corruption, and a step further away from democracy.

The idea that people just aren't smart enough to elect their own representative (yeah in THIS case senators but I ment it in the sense of electing someone to represent you) is contrary to my sense of democracy.

I also find a lot of truth in the post that noted term limits always seems to get trotted out by the party out of power.

It also requently seems to be an attack on OTHER PEOPLE's elected officials. It makes me wonder - if you don't vote out YOUR senator, why should you have any authority to express dissatisfaction or have a say in who someone else elects?

We're not supposed to have a democracy. We're supposed to have a republic. The founders detested democracy.

 

[nodoginnafight]

I go back and forth on the 17th Ammendment, and would one day be interested in reading well reasoned arguments both for an against it.

The largest issue I see with repealing the 17th would be that it has an even greater potential to introduce cronism and corruption to the Senate. Letting politicians choose politicians seems like a questionable idea.

There is the attraction that it returns power to the States and to some extend insulates the Senate from re-election concerns. But even that seems overshadowed by the idea that in the modern world repealing the 17th could result in the national parties working harder to politicize state government races and moving those races away from local issues.

I agree that it is an interesting idea. I wouldn't mind more give and take on that myself.
But my knee-jerk is that moving the election OUT of the hands of the people and into the hands of legislative bodies smacks of back-room deals, corruption, and a step further away from democracy.

The idea that people just aren't smart enough to elect their own representative (yeah in THIS case senators but I ment it in the sense of electing someone to represent you) is contrary to my sense of democracy.

I also find a lot of truth in the post that noted term limits always seems to get trotted out by the party out of power.

It also requently seems to be an attack on OTHER PEOPLE's elected officials. It makes me wonder - if you don't vote out YOUR senator, why should you have any authority to express dissatisfaction or have a say in who someone else elects?

We're not supposed to have a democracy. We're supposed to have a republic. The founders detested democracy.

yeah yeah yeah - semantics

 

[Immanuel]

It would require a Constitutional Amendment and flys in the face of the supposed right of the people to elect whom they want by popular vote.

How about they just repel the amendment that allows Senators to be elected and return that power to the State Governments where it belongs?

I would support such an Amendment. We already have term limits for the President yet I don't see many people complaining about that interfereing with the right of the people to elect whom they want by popular vote.

I truly believe that career politicians are a big factor in what is tearing this country apart.

Immie

 

[blastoff]

It would require a Constitutional Amendment and flys in the face of the supposed right of the people to elect whom they want by popular vote.

How about they just repel the amendment that allows Senators to be elected and return that power to the State Governments where it belongs?

A much better solution then making Dukes, Earls and Kings out of our lawmakers.

Yup, why don't we just give up our right to vote? I mean you people are insisting we are just to damn stupid to know who to vote for.

Well based on the outcome of last year's election that's a bit more than half right.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

We're not supposed to have a democracy. We're supposed to have a republic. The founders detested democracy.

Anyone who follows ballot initives is likely to detest democracy too.

Like I said, I'm open to debate on the 17th, but there are some real issues that would come from a repeal that ought to be discussed.