CDZ Do You Support Term Limits For Congress?

[DandyDonovan]

All you guys whining about term limits KNOW that Congress has to create the amendment right? Now how much chance is there that Congress creates an amendment that limits its own power?

This is false. There are TWO ways to create a Constitutional Amendment. Only one of them requires the consent of Congress. Although obviously that is unlikely to happen, it CAN happen

Name a single time an amendment has ever been approved from the States and NOT Congress. There was one that won enough States to create the amendment yet it never appeared because Congress stomped on it.

Nevertheless, it CAN happen

 

[DandyDonovan]

What's your fix?

~S~

I’m against term limits.
I’m for a better informed electorate.

All we can do is start with ourselves. Inject some honesty and reject partisanship in our discussions and maybe it will start a new trend.

I fear that Russia got exactly what they wanted and all this nonsense about Trump being a Russian agent has further dumbed down an already dumb electorate.

 

[oldsoul]

I personally think that the State-Controlled airwaves should be made available free of charge to anyone with demonstrated support during the biannual elections for federal office. By that I mean that the radio and television stations that are licensed by the FCC should be required to run candidate-produced advertisements on a 1:1 ratio.

An interesting idea. One which I am not completely opposed to, however, I am slow to endorse anything requiring private firms to do any particular thing, especially when it involves government and money. Now, you say it would be "free air time", that air time costs money. If the candidates don't pay for it, and the government doesn't pay for it, the stations/networks would have to pay for it. Even if that were only in lost advertisement revenue.

What I didn’t say was that there would be time limits; say from September 1 to Election day. This would be once every 2 years. And remember, they can buy whatever they want on top of what they get for free so it’s not as if the stations would be making nothing off of the election.

You seem to be missing my point. If the network is required to provide air time free of charge, then the network loses money. These are PRIVATE businesses that are for profit. It would be the same as if cell phone providers were required to provide a certain number of cell phone plans for the election free of cost. They simply pass the cost on to those who pay. That would be you. You therefore, indirectly, help to support a candidate that you may or may not agree with.

Additionally, it is FORCING a business to have political content, whether or not they wish to. It really goes back to the First Amendment, for me.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Emphasis added.

 

[JoeMoma]

You want term limits? Get an amendment on the ballot. Failing that you can whine, cry and stamp your feet all you want it ain't happening.

I agree, congress certainly will not term limit itself.

 

[candycorn]

I personally think that the State-Controlled airwaves should be made available free of charge to anyone with demonstrated support during the biannual elections for federal office. By that I mean that the radio and television stations that are licensed by the FCC should be required to run candidate-produced advertisements on a 1:1 ratio.

An interesting idea. One which I am not completely opposed to, however, I am slow to endorse anything requiring private firms to do any particular thing, especially when it involves government and money. Now, you say it would be "free air time", that air time costs money. If the candidates don't pay for it, and the government doesn't pay for it, the stations/networks would have to pay for it. Even if that were only in lost advertisement revenue.

What I didn’t say was that there would be time limits; say from September 1 to Election day. This would be once every 2 years. And remember, they can buy whatever they want on top of what they get for free so it’s not as if the stations would be making nothing off of the election.

You seem to be missing my point. If the network is required to provide air time free of charge, then the network loses money. These are PRIVATE businesses that are for profit. It would be the same as if cell phone providers were required to provide a certain number of cell phone plans for the election free of cost. They simply pass the cost on to those who pay. That would be you. You therefore, indirectly, help to support a candidate that you may or may not agree with.

Additionally, it is FORCING a business to have political content, whether or not they wish to. It really goes back to the First Amendment, for me.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Emphasis added.

I am watching food network right now. Just saw the “required weekly test” of the Emergency Alert System. We already force Direct TV to do it. We also force terrestrial radio to do it. This is not much different. It’s for a defined period every other year. Little if any injury.

Maybe we can make Mexico pay the stations? Lol

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Do You Support Term Limits For Congress?"

Of course not – we already have term limits, they’re called elections.

‘Term limits’ is a ‘solution’ in search of a ‘problem’ that doesn’t exist, they are fundamentally undemocratic, and deny the people their right to elect whomever they wish for as long as they wish.

And in jurisdictions where ‘term limits’ are in place, there is no evidence of ‘change’ or of the people being ‘better represented’ – we see only a different politician propagating the same failed, wrongheaded policy agenda.

Real change starts at the very local level, with average Americans getting involved in the political process, not with inane top-down ‘solutions’ such as ‘term limits.’

 

[SNAFUBARIFIC]

"Do You Support Term Limits For Congress?"

Of course not – we already have term limits, they’re called elections.

‘Term limits’ is a ‘solution’ in search of a ‘problem’ that doesn’t exist, they are fundamentally undemocratic, and deny the people their right to elect whomever they wish for as long as they wish.

And in jurisdictions where ‘term limits’ are in place, there is no evidence of ‘change’ or of the people being ‘better represented’ – we see only a different politician propagating the same failed, wrongheaded policy agenda.

Real change starts at the very local level, with average Americans getting involved in the political process, not with inane top-down ‘solutions’ such as ‘term limits.’

Then...why are there term limits for POTUS?

So we don't end up with a DICTATOR-slash-KING...YES?

So why do we let our "representatives" hang around DC for 90% of their lives, engaging in insider trading, taking bribes, kissing lobbyist's butts..etc...???

Just my take...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘Term limits’ is the product of the intellectually lazy, of those who have no consideration for sound governance and responsible public policy – it’s nothing more than a bad faith proposal intended attack the political opposition.

 

[SNAFUBARIFIC]

‘Term limits’ is the product of the intellectually lazy, of those who have no consideration for sound governance and responsible public policy – it’s nothing more than a bad faith proposal intended attack the political opposition.

I'll put this to you...since when...in recent times...have we had sound governance and responsible public policy??? I'm conservative (NON establishment...) BTW...and I haven't seen any of the such in a VERY LONG TIME...from EITHER of the prescribed "parties"...

I DO respect your opinion...

 

[candycorn]

"Do You Support Term Limits For Congress?"

Of course not – we already have term limits, they’re called elections.

‘Term limits’ is a ‘solution’ in search of a ‘problem’ that doesn’t exist, they are fundamentally undemocratic, and deny the people their right to elect whomever they wish for as long as they wish.

And in jurisdictions where ‘term limits’ are in place, there is no evidence of ‘change’ or of the people being ‘better represented’ – we see only a different politician propagating the same failed, wrongheaded policy agenda.

Real change starts at the very local level, with average Americans getting involved in the political process, not with inane top-down ‘solutions’ such as ‘term limits.’

Then...why are there term limits for POTUS?

So we don't end up with a DICTATOR-slash-KING...YES?

So why do we let our "representatives" hang around DC for 90% of their lives, engaging in insider trading, taking bribes, kissing lobbyist's butts..etc...???

Just my take...

Again, in our single elective, we could have a continuation of a single policy for an extended period of time.
Our Senate and House are set up where they are 1/100 or 1/435 so a single member’s power is diluted.

Thus the term limits for the former and not the latter.

As for the political conditions of today, the constitution is not concerned and allows for self-policing. I think this needs to be corrected.

 

[DandyDonovan]

‘Term limits’ is the product of the intellectually lazy, of those who have no consideration for sound governance and responsible public policy – it’s nothing more than a bad faith proposal intended attack the political opposition.

I notice you avoided the question of putting term limits on the President. Term limits cant' be both good for Presidents and bad for Congress.

Fundamentally, I agree with you about term limits, but arguig that we can't have term limits that's bad for democracy is pretty silly in light of the fact that we do have term limits on President.

 

[SNAFUBARIFIC]

I believe we'd have better representation if we were able to remove money from politics. Insider trading..etc...many of these clowns go to D.C. with a lead slug and a ball of lint in their pocket...and end up MILLIONAIRES. I have no problem with rich folks...just CROOKS...

 

[candycorn]

I believe we'd have better representation if we were able to remove money from politics. Insider trading..etc...many of these clowns go to D.C. with a lead slug and a ball of lint in their pocket...and end up MILLIONAIRES. I have no problem with rich folks...just CROOKS...

Term limits will not remove the money from politics.

 

[SNAFUBARIFIC]

I believe we'd have better representation if we were able to remove money from politics. Insider trading..etc...many of these clowns go to D.C. with a lead slug and a ball of lint in their pocket...and end up MILLIONAIRES. I have no problem with rich folks...just CROOKS...

Term limits will not remove the money from politics.

It might discourage people from "running for the money" though...

 

[candycorn]

I believe we'd have better representation if we were able to remove money from politics. Insider trading..etc...many of these clowns go to D.C. with a lead slug and a ball of lint in their pocket...and end up MILLIONAIRES. I have no problem with rich folks...just CROOKS...

Term limits will not remove the money from politics.

It might discourage people from "running for the money" though...

Ok.

 

[DandyDonovan]

I believe we'd have better representation if we were able to remove money from politics. Insider trading..etc...many of these clowns go to D.C. with a lead slug and a ball of lint in their pocket...and end up MILLIONAIRES. I have no problem with rich folks...just CROOKS...

The obvious solution there is to forbid both former government employees AND anyone who has held public office from becoming a lobbyist.

 

[candycorn]

I believe we'd have better representation if we were able to remove money from politics. Insider trading..etc...many of these clowns go to D.C. with a lead slug and a ball of lint in their pocket...and end up MILLIONAIRES. I have no problem with rich folks...just CROOKS...

The obvious solution there is to forbid both former government employees AND anyone who has held public office from becoming a lobbyist.

Didn’t they do that already? They just became “consultants” as I recall.

 

[DandyDonovan]

I believe we'd have better representation if we were able to remove money from politics. Insider trading..etc...many of these clowns go to D.C. with a lead slug and a ball of lint in their pocket...and end up MILLIONAIRES. I have no problem with rich folks...just CROOKS...

The obvious solution there is to forbid both former government employees AND anyone who has held public office from becoming a lobbyist.

Didn’t they do that already? They just became “consultants” as I recall.

Nope, not illegal at all. In fact I'm in the Army . I'm a Colonel thinking of retiring from the Army and quite a few companies are trying to hire me as a lobbyist due to the fact that I work in DC and know most of the players.

Trump signed an EO barring WH employees from being a lobbyist for 5 years after leaving the WH, but certainly Congress doesn't bar anyone who works for or with them from becoming a lobbyist.

It's a giant circle jerk Candy, both parties, it's ugly . These morons whine and dine politicians trying to get big government contracts and in return the politicians don't even worry about the waste, fraud, and going over budget that these people do.

The entire thing should be illegal.

 

[candycorn]

I believe we'd have better representation if we were able to remove money from politics. Insider trading..etc...many of these clowns go to D.C. with a lead slug and a ball of lint in their pocket...and end up MILLIONAIRES. I have no problem with rich folks...just CROOKS...

The obvious solution there is to forbid both former government employees AND anyone who has held public office from becoming a lobbyist.

Didn’t they do that already? They just became “consultants” as I recall.

Nope, not illegal at all. In fact I'm in the Army . I'm a Colonel thinking of retiring from the Army and quite a few companies are trying to hire me as a lobbyist due to the fact that I work in DC and know most of the players.

Trump signed an EO barring WH employees from being a lobbyist for 5 years after leaving the WH, but certainly Congress doesn't bar anyone who works for or with them from becoming a lobbyist.

It's a giant circle jerk Candy, both parties, it's ugly . These morons whine and dine politicians trying to get big government contracts and in return the politicians don't even worry about the waste, fraud, and going over budget that these people do.

The entire thing should be illegal.

Ok

Restrictions on Post-Government Employment

 

[DandyDonovan]

I believe we'd have better representation if we were able to remove money from politics. Insider trading..etc...many of these clowns go to D.C. with a lead slug and a ball of lint in their pocket...and end up MILLIONAIRES. I have no problem with rich folks...just CROOKS...

The obvious solution there is to forbid both former government employees AND anyone who has held public office from becoming a lobbyist.

Didn’t they do that already? They just became “consultants” as I recall.

Nope, not illegal at all. In fact I'm in the Army . I'm a Colonel thinking of retiring from the Army and quite a few companies are trying to hire me as a lobbyist due to the fact that I work in DC and know most of the players.

Trump signed an EO barring WH employees from being a lobbyist for 5 years after leaving the WH, but certainly Congress doesn't bar anyone who works for or with them from becoming a lobbyist.

It's a giant circle jerk Candy, both parties, it's ugly . These morons whine and dine politicians trying to get big government contracts and in return the politicians don't even worry about the waste, fraud, and going over budget that these people do.

The entire thing should be illegal.

Ok

Restrictions on Post-Government Employment

Yes read those "restrictions" and see how weak they are.

And I challenge you to find me ANYONE who has ever been charged with violating those laws. It doesn't hapen.