Term Limits Amendment

[Boss]

And they are all forms of democracy. I know you righties hate the term because you believe your form of govt is the best out there (in terms of the western world, IMO it is the second worst after the UK) and that the world 'democracy' gives you the shits ("oh, the tyranny of the majority!! We are doomed!"). Be that as it may, the US is a democracy. A constitutional republic, but a democracy nonetheless. As is the UK.

Again, it is the equivalent of saying MMA is a form of Judo.

We're not a democracy, we've never been a democracy, the founders were fearful of a democracy and intentionally established a representative constitutional republic. I've given you the appropriate definitions and documentation, I've shown you where it says it in the Constitution and I've explained several ways in which we are definitely not a democracy by your own definition.

If you're still too ignorant to accept the facts, that's on you, buddy.

 

[Boss]

Sorry, you don't get to decide what a word means.

Sorry... YOU don't get to override the Constitution, fuckwit.

I'm not over riding anything. Not my fault you can't understand a simple concept. Mind you, I'm guessing you voted for Trump....not the brightest bulb in the socket are you?

Well... yes... you are.

Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion . . .

 

[Dr Grump]

Herein lies the problem... this is NOT our form of government, else there could be no electoral college, no supreme court, no senate and no such thing as a "super-majority" in Congress. All of those things are a direct affront to a "democracy."

In a democracy, the majority rules. This means 50% +1 wins every time. That is NOT the case in our system of government. We have a bicameral congress designed to represent both the people and the state. A "democracy" is ruled only by the people or their agents. We have a Supreme Court who can rule in cases where a "democratic" majority may rule otherwise with regard to constitutional rights. We have a Senate which consists of two senators per state regardless of the population. All appropriations and funding bills in Congress require 2/3rds majority for passage instead of 50% +1, which would be a "democracy." We elect presidents with an electoral college vote instead of a popular (democratic) majority vote. Even in the ratification of Constitutional Amendments, we are NOT a democracy. We require 3/5ths of the states to amend the constitution... in a democracy, we would only need 50% +1.

IF you bother to take the time to READ the Federalist Papers, you can discover that our brilliant framers were very fearful of a democracy. They could have established a democracy but they chose NOT to do so. Now.... you can remain woefully ignorant and continue to parrot left-wing liberal idiocy all over the place... I don't really care. The FACT remains, we are NOT a democracy and never have been. We ARE a constitutional republic.

And that, any way you put it, is a form of democratic governance. It has nothing to do with any political affiliations. And the majority does rule in your govt. Whether it is via the EC, a decision in the USSC, or a vote in the house or congress. As I have stated, I know the term is an affront to you right-wing loons because you like to think your form of govt is superior and well thought out. It wasn't. It is one of the worse systems in the western world. And it is still a form of democracy whether you like it or not. You don't get to decide that. People a lot higher up the food chain than you do.

 

[Dr Grump]

[

Article IV Section 4 of the Constitution states: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion . . .

I'm not denying it is a republican form of govt. Just as the UK is a constitutional monarchy. However, they are both forms of democratic governance.

 

[Dr Grump]

And they are all forms of democracy. I know you righties hate the term because you believe your form of govt is the best out there (in terms of the western world, IMO it is the second worst after the UK) and that the world 'democracy' gives you the shits ("oh, the tyranny of the majority!! We are doomed!"). Be that as it may, the US is a democracy. A constitutional republic, but a democracy nonetheless. As is the UK.

Again, it is the equivalent of saying MMA is a form of Judo.

We're not a democracy, we've never been a democracy, the founders were fearful of a democracy and intentionally established a representative constitutional republic. I've given you the appropriate definitions and documentation, I've shown you where it says it in the Constitution and I've explained several ways in which we are definitely not a democracy by your own definition.

If you're still too ignorant to accept the facts, that's on you, buddy.

And I've given you dictionary definitions that even mention the US as a democracy. Sorry, as I said, bigger national bodies and organisations and governmental agenices agree with me. MMA might not be judo, but they are both forms of martial arts. Thanks for adding to my POV.

 

[Boss]

And I've given you dictionary definitions that even mention the US as a democracy. Sorry, as I said, bigger national bodies and organisations and governmental agenices agree with me. MMA might not be judo, but they are both forms of martial arts. Thanks for adding to my POV.

Dictionary also defines the US as a republic.

MMA and Judo are both forms of martial arts but MMA is not Judo.

Again, I have pointed out how we are definitely NOT a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules. That's not how our system works. Now, you can certainly state that our system uses ELEMENTS of democracy and that's true. Just as MMA uses elements of Judo. But a constitutional republic is not a democracy just as MMA is not Judo.... Rhonda Rousey probably wishes MMA were Judo, then she wouldn't have gotten her ass kicked... but alas, MMA is not Judo.

And I really don't care who agrees with you, this isn't a popularity contest.

 

[Boss]

And the majority does rule in your govt. Whether it is via the EC, a decision in the USSC, or a vote in the house or congress.

No it doesn't, that's the distinction here. The majority doesn't rule. In the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton had the majority of the popular vote but did not win the presidency. If we were a true democracy, Hillary Clinton would be president.

In a true democracy, the SCOTUS could not have overturned California's ban on same sex marriages which was passed by a majority vote of the people.

In a true democracy, the House could pass all bills with a simple majority and there would be no purpose in a Senate or bicameral Congress.

In a true democracy, 26 states could amend the constitution.. or better yet, we could simply have a national referendum and amend with a majority popular vote.

So... boom... boom-boom... boom.... over and over again, I am pummeling your argument with facts you cannot refute. We are clearly NOT a true democracy. YES... we utilize aspects of democracy in our republic. THAT doesn't make us a democracy any more than aspects of Judo make MMA Judo.

 

[Dr Grump]

No it doesn't, that's the distinction here. The majority doesn't rule. In the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton had the majority of the popular vote but did not win the presidency. If we were a true democracy, Hillary Clinton would be president.

In a true democracy, the SCOTUS could not have overturned California's ban on same sex marriages which was passed by a majority vote of the people.

In a true democracy, the House could pass all bills with a simple majority and there would be no purpose in a Senate or bicameral Congress.

In a true democracy, 26 states could amend the constitution.. or better yet, we could simply have a national referendum and amend with a majority popular vote.

So... boom... boom-boom... boom.... over and over again, I am pummeling your argument with facts you cannot refute. We are clearly NOT a true democracy. YES... we utilize aspects of democracy in our republic. THAT doesn't make us a democracy any more than aspects of Judo make MMA Judo.

In that case, perhaps with the exception of Switzerland, no western country is a democracy (horseshit BTW)... You can yell it to the top of the mountains for all I care. As I said, judo and MMA are forms of martial arts. The US is a form of democracy...

 

[Dr Grump]

And I've given you dictionary definitions that even mention the US as a democracy. Sorry, as I said, bigger national bodies and organisations and governmental agenices agree with me. MMA might not be judo, but they are both forms of martial arts. Thanks for adding to my POV.

Dictionary also defines the US as a republic.

MMA and Judo are both forms of martial arts but MMA is not Judo.

Again, I have pointed out how we are definitely NOT a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules. That's not how our system works. Now, you can certainly state that our system uses ELEMENTS of democracy and that's true. Just as MMA uses elements of Judo. But a constitutional republic is not a democracy just as MMA is not Judo.... Rhonda Rousey probably wishes MMA were Judo, then she wouldn't have gotten her ass kicked... but alas, MMA is not Judo.

And I really don't care who agrees with you, this isn't a popularity contest.

Only websters does. And even then with a caveat...See the bolded part. Perhaps with the exception of Switzerland, all western democracies do the latter - elect representatives who make choices on their behalf - including the US.

Definition of DEMOCRACY

One of the most commonly encountered questions about the word democracy has nothing to do with its spelling or pronunciation, and isn’t even directly related to the meaning of the word itself. That question is “is the United States a democracy or a republic?” The answer to this, as with so many other questions about meaning, may be phrased as some form of “it depends.”


Some people believe that a country calling itself a democracy must be engaged in direct (or pure) democracy, in which the people of a state or region vote directly for policies, rather than elect representatives who make choices on their behalf. People who follow this line of reasoning hold that the United States is more properly described as a republic, using the following definition of that word: ”a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.”


However, both democracy and republic have more than a single meaning, and one of the definitions we provide for democracy closely resembles the definition of republic given above: “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.”


So if someone asks you if the United States is a democracy or a republic, you may safely answer the question with either “both” or “it depends.”

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yeah, I'm opposed. The authority to impose term limits is not granted to the Congress under Art. I, sec 8; for Republican's to introduce such a limit proves what hypocrites they are, and ignores their usual claim that such a matter not enumerated should be left to the states or to the people (10th A.). In fact it is left to the people, who can return their senators to office every 6th year, or not.

Do you not understand what Constitutional Amendments are?

Of course, and your response is a non sequitur, do you know what that is?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The other problem I can foresee is the nation's power elite can groom a person to be a US Senator, provide him or her the tools and funds necessary to be elected, and if/when the sham is elected they would own his or her vote for 12 years. ; 24 if s/he went from the H.of R. to the Senate.

Nope... 18 is the max under any scenario... read the Amendment again.

And why can't they already do that, except with an unlimited period of time?

They can, and some do. But once in power a senator can go his or her own way, basically flip off their benefactor. If the senator is only able to spend 12 years in office, and entered at age 30, for example, he would likely not flip off his benefactor and get the rewards promised for the work he had done, in terms of a job on a board of directors, a lobbyist, etc.

 

[Boss]

In that case, perhaps with the exception of Switzerland, no western country is a democracy (horseshit BTW)... You can yell it to the top of the mountains for all I care. As I said, judo and MMA are forms of martial arts. The US is a form of democracy...

Well, I don't know about other countries, that's not the argument we're having, is it?

Yes... Judo and MMA are forms of martial arts but MMA is "Mixed Martial Arts" which includes Judo. It's NOT Judo. So you're missing the point there. MMA uses aspects of Judo, just as a Representative Constitutional Republic uses aspects of democracy. But it's not a true democracy just like MMA is not true Judo. There are distinct differences and you can't call MMA Judo because it's not Judo. It's also incorrect to call MMA a "form of Judo."

Now, the reason I am being so anal about this is because our framers were anal about it. They specifically did not want to have a true democracy. They were fearful of democracy. As I said, you can read about this if you'd like to educate yourself on the subject. It's all in the Federalist Papers. There is a reason why the Constitution does not mention "democracy" anywhere in the text. There is a reason Article IV Sec. 4 specifies we are a Republic. This isn't just a convenient coincidence.

I totally understand what's going on here. "Democrats" like to CLAIM we are a democracy because that's their ideology. They are "democrats!" They HATE for Republicans to point out we are a "republic" because it's like we're taking one of their toys away from them. I'm sorry about that, I've tried to console you by pointing out that we utilize elements of democracy in our Republic, but we are not a Democracy and we're not going to turn into one because you keep repeating it.

 

[Boss]

Of course, and your response is a non sequitur, do you know what that is?

Yeah, I know what that is but that's not accurate. An Amendment to the Constitution is quite different than a legislative act. If Cruz were trying to pass an ACT in the legislature for term limits, you'd have a point. That's NOT what he has proposed. A Constitutional Amendment is to CHANGE what is in the Constitution. So what is IN the Constitution currently, is irrelevant. That's what change is being proposed...that's the whole entire purpose and premise behind an Amendment.

They can, and some do. But once in power a senator can go his or her own way, basically flip off their benefactor. If the senator is only able to spend 12 years in office, and entered at age 30, for example, he would likely not flip off his benefactor and get the rewards promised for the work he had done, in terms of a job on a board of directors, a lobbyist, etc.

You're not making rational sense with this either. Politicians can be corrupted by outside influences either way and they often are. Shortening their terms doesn't change anything or make anything more or less likely. All you're doing is making a wild speculation based on NOTHING.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Of course, and your response is a non sequitur, do you know what that is?

Yeah, I know what that is but that's not accurate. An Amendment to the Constitution is quite different than a legislative act. If Cruz were trying to pass an ACT in the legislature for term limits, you'd have a point. That's NOT what he has proposed. A Constitutional Amendment is to CHANGE what is in the Constitution. So what is IN the Constitution currently, is irrelevant. That's what change is being proposed...that's the whole entire purpose and premise behind an Amendment.

They can, and some do. But once in power a senator can go his or her own way, basically flip off their benefactor. If the senator is only able to spend 12 years in office, and entered at age 30, for example, he would likely not flip off his benefactor and get the rewards promised for the work he had done, in terms of a job on a board of directors, a lobbyist, etc.

You're not making rational sense with this either. Politicians can be corrupted by outside influences either way and they often are. Shortening their terms doesn't change anything or make anything more or less likely. All you're doing is making a wild speculation based on NOTHING.

It is speculation based on human nature, power tends to corrupt...and, I was not aware Cruz, (was it) wanted to float a Constitutional Amendment. He may be nuts, but I thought he was smarter than to suggest that.

 

[Boss]

It is speculation based on human nature, power tends to corrupt...and, I was not aware Cruz, (was it) wanted to float a Constitutional Amendment. He may be nuts, but I thought he was smarter than to suggest that.

Well, if "power corrupts" it would seem very logical the longer you hold power the greater the chance you'll become corrupt. I'm not getting your logic in arguing that longer tenure in DC leads to less likelihood of corruption... that just doesn't comport with rationality.

And Cruz is not "floating" anything. An actual Constitutional Amendment has been presented for consideration. 74% of the people say they want it and 13% say they don't. It will make it's way to the floor sometime next year and there will be a vote. If Congress approves, it goes to the States for ratification. If 36 states approve, it becomes a Constitutional Amendment.

The ONLY people who do not support this are the establishment elite... you're at about 13% at the moment. So good luck trying to stop this freight train because it's coming full steam ahead whether you like it or not.

 

[Dr Grump]

Well, I don't know about other countries, that's not the argument we're having, is it?

Yes... Judo and MMA are forms of martial arts but MMA is "Mixed Martial Arts" which includes Judo. It's NOT Judo. So you're missing the point there. MMA uses aspects of Judo, just as a Representative Constitutional Republic uses aspects of democracy. But it's not a true democracy just like MMA is not true Judo. There are distinct differences and you can't call MMA Judo because it's not Judo. It's also incorrect to call MMA a "form of Judo."

Now, the reason I am being so anal about this is because our framers were anal about it. They specifically did not want to have a true democracy. They were fearful of democracy. As I said, you can read about this if you'd like to educate yourself on the subject. It's all in the Federalist Papers. There is a reason why the Constitution does not mention "democracy" anywhere in the text. There is a reason Article IV Sec. 4 specifies we are a Republic. This isn't just a convenient coincidence.

I totally understand what's going on here. "Democrats" like to CLAIM we are a democracy because that's their ideology. They are "democrats!" They HATE for Republicans to point out we are a "republic" because it's like we're taking one of their toys away from them. I'm sorry about that, I've tried to console you by pointing out that we utilize elements of democracy in our Republic, but we are not a Democracy and we're not going to turn into one because you keep repeating it.

Well, we agree to disagree. I still say your MMA and Judo analogy works in my favour - they are both martial arts. BTW, I do mean democracy in the general sense, not the term you are defininig. As I said, all western countries are democracies, and the only one I can think of that meets your description is Switzerland -even that's a maybe. Remember, western Europe at the time of your FF was mainly made up of absolute monarchies. That is no longer the case.

 

[wherewoof]

Sneator Cruz has co-sponsored an Amendment resolution to the Constitution.

Sen. Cruz and Rep. DeSantis Introduce Constitutional Amendment To Impose Term Limits On Members of Congress | Ted Cruz | U.S. Senator for Texas

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and U.S. Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) today proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to impose term limits on members of Congress. The amendment would limit U.S. senators to two six-year terms and members of the U.S. House of Representatives to three two-year terms.

The enduring concept of a citizen legislature, of limiting unruly influence and abuse of power, and of promoting integrity and unclouded judgment in Washington through congressional term limits is a priority strongly supported by the American people. According to an October Rasmussen survey, 74 percent of Americans support establishing term limits for all members of Congress, while only 13 percent oppose term limits.

Thoughts?

Only a fool would support term limits. Most politicians are criminals. The only thing that limits the level of their criminality is the knowledge that they have to run for reelection. If they didn't have to worry about that, they would just get into office and do their worst. Because they wouldn't have to worry about getting elected again.

 

[namvet]

The amendment would limit U.S. senators to two six-year terms and members of the U.S. House of Representatives to three two-year terms. don't think this dog will hunt. all this will do is discourage young newbies. who want's a short career like that?? what's the current retirement age?? that'll work IMO

 

[FJO]

Sneator Cruz has co-sponsored an Amendment resolution to the Constitution.

Sen. Cruz and Rep. DeSantis Introduce Constitutional Amendment To Impose Term Limits On Members of Congress | Ted Cruz | U.S. Senator for Texas

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and U.S. Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) today proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to impose term limits on members of Congress. The amendment would limit U.S. senators to two six-year terms and members of the U.S. House of Representatives to three two-year terms.

The enduring concept of a citizen legislature, of limiting unruly influence and abuse of power, and of promoting integrity and unclouded judgment in Washington through congressional term limits is a priority strongly supported by the American people. According to an October Rasmussen survey, 74 percent of Americans support establishing term limits for all members of Congress, while only 13 percent oppose term limits.

Thoughts?

If this were the law, half of the United States Congress would be on the breadline begging for more soup like Oliver Twist.

Can you see any member of the Congressional Black Caucus "earning' a living any other place than where they are now? Can any of them even flip a hamburger? Could any of them even change a tire? Could any of them be able to call someone if they had a flat tire?

Term limits would limit the corruption prevalent now. Term limits would remind the the people of the Founding Fathers who considered public service a temporary absence from what a man supposed to do first, look after his family by hard work, rather than government largesse.

Imagine a Congress without long term scum like Charlie Rangel, Eliijah Cummings, or that clown who insists on wearing a red hat while sucking up t Obama, as seen in recent videos.

Imagine a Congress without Mitch McConnell.

 

[Boss]

Well, we agree to disagree. I still say your MMA and Judo analogy works in my favour - they are both martial arts. BTW, I do mean democracy in the general sense, not the term you are defininig. As I said, all western countries are democracies, and the only one I can think of that meets your description is Switzerland -even that's a maybe. Remember, western Europe at the time of your FF was mainly made up of absolute monarchies. That is no longer the case.

Well, no, my analogy doesn't work in your favor, it works in my favor which is why I presented it. I've already carefully and patiently explained why the US is not a true democracy. I've given you several specific examples to demonstrate how we are not a democracy but rather a republic. Our form of government is (little r) republican not democratic. Our founding fathers did not want a democratic government. They feared democratic government and specifically established us as a republic. It's in the Constitution that we are a Republic. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say we're a democracy, in fact, the word is not even in the Constitution.

We're not debating other countries or what other countries call themselves. Anyone can call themselves anything they please. China calls themselves a Republic... doesn't mean shit. They're not a Republic. North Korea calls themselves a "Democratic Republic" and they're neither a democracy or a republic. So we can't compare what WE are to what other people call themselves.

Now you say you mean "democracy in the general sense." Well, in the general sense, a democracy is governed by the will of the people exclusively. We're not. If we were, Hillary Clinton would be president.