As much as I respect Ted Cruz and Mike Lee this one is DOA:
There is not a chance their proposed constitutional amendment will be considered with a straight face:
Does anyone really believe that members of Congress will rape the media:
Aiming to reform Capitol Hill, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla) officially filed an amendment on Tuesday to impose term limits on Congress. Cruz made the annoucement on Facebook, saying: “With control of a decisive majority of the states, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, we have a responsibility to answer the voters’ call-to-action. We must deliver.” The two had previously promised to introduce the measure this year in a Washington Post op-ed.
The proposal already has support from Republican Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Deb Fischer (Neb.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Thom Tillis (N.C.) and David Perdue (Ga.).
XXXXX
The proposal already has support from Republican Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Deb Fischer (Neb.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Thom Tillis (N.C.) and David Perdue (Ga.).
Ted Cruz and Ron DeSantis officially propose term limits amendment
Sara Gonzales
Jan 4, 2017 10:33 am
Ted Cruz and Ron DeSantis officially propose term limits amendment
Sara Gonzales
Jan 4, 2017 10:33 am
Ted Cruz and Ron DeSantis officially propose term limits amendment
There is not a chance their proposed constitutional amendment will be considered with a straight face:
. . . long-serving Democrat senators implement more of their personal agenda than any five presidents you can name. Ninety–five percent of the New World Order’s plan for the world is being instituted by long-serving Democrats and RINO traitors in the Senate. Traitors control the Senate —— and the Constitution by extension —— simply because of their seniority. By the time well-meaning senators get a second term they are already part of the problem.
XXXXX
In truth, the call for term limits is related to lifetime tenure. Unelected bureaucrats, conspiring with their friends in the Ministry of Propaganda, want term limits imposed on elected officials, but not on themselves or their relatives. Interestingly, the term limits chorus never calls for repealing the XVII Amendment even though repeal would effectively impose term limits on US Senators.
Arizonians Can Make A Difference
XXXXX
In truth, the call for term limits is related to lifetime tenure. Unelected bureaucrats, conspiring with their friends in the Ministry of Propaganda, want term limits imposed on elected officials, but not on themselves or their relatives. Interestingly, the term limits chorus never calls for repealing the XVII Amendment even though repeal would effectively impose term limits on US Senators.
Arizonians Can Make A Difference
XXXXX
I must admit that I agree with term limits for the president because too much power in the hands of one person for any length of time is always dangerous. The fact that one person can lay a hand on all of that presidential power to begin with is all the more reason to place term limits on presidents.
Eight years is long enough to launch a few clean surgical strikes aimed at collectivism’s strongholds when the day arrives for that first president to openly oppose all of the evils of collectivism. Presidents who take office after Socialism is on the run can pick off the stragglers.
In addition:
The Founding Fathers did not place term limits on presidents and congressmen. For all practical purposes they effectively placed term limits on senators. The NEVER RATIFIED XVII Amendment changed everything for the worse. The XVII Amendment gave the country long-serving pieces of garbage like Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and a number of other Democrats. With the possible exception of FDR no president was able to implement one tenth of his personal agenda the way Kennedy turned almost all of his destructive hatred into legislation. Had he lived longer he would have gotten it all.
I can see limiting the president to eight years in order to guard against:
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad man. John Emerich Edward Dalberg, 1st Baron Acton (1834–1902)
There is one unsolvable problem with the XXII Amendment. Ronald Reagan would surely have gotten a third term. The problem is separating a good man like Reagan from bad men like FDR, Clinton and Hussein.
Frankly, I never understood why senators are allowed to get away with the things the public fears in dictator-presidents. As I said in 2009, Hussein’s Administration is a Senate Administration. Look at the UN-loving traitors that went from the Senate to the Executive Branch if you doubt me.
Finally, media moguls are guilty of the evils done by long-serving senators. Media paymasters would fight to the death before they would allow the XVII Amendment to be repealed. Proof: It is the media that is making serving in the Senate a required gradation to the presidency. It was the media that guaranteed a sitting senator would become president in 2008. It mattered not which party he or she came from.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/296140-one-of-the-good-ones.html
Eight years is long enough to launch a few clean surgical strikes aimed at collectivism’s strongholds when the day arrives for that first president to openly oppose all of the evils of collectivism. Presidents who take office after Socialism is on the run can pick off the stragglers.
In addition:
The Founding Fathers did not place term limits on presidents and congressmen. For all practical purposes they effectively placed term limits on senators. The NEVER RATIFIED XVII Amendment changed everything for the worse. The XVII Amendment gave the country long-serving pieces of garbage like Ted Kennedy, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and a number of other Democrats. With the possible exception of FDR no president was able to implement one tenth of his personal agenda the way Kennedy turned almost all of his destructive hatred into legislation. Had he lived longer he would have gotten it all.
I can see limiting the president to eight years in order to guard against:
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad man. John Emerich Edward Dalberg, 1st Baron Acton (1834–1902)
There is one unsolvable problem with the XXII Amendment. Ronald Reagan would surely have gotten a third term. The problem is separating a good man like Reagan from bad men like FDR, Clinton and Hussein.
Frankly, I never understood why senators are allowed to get away with the things the public fears in dictator-presidents. As I said in 2009, Hussein’s Administration is a Senate Administration. Look at the UN-loving traitors that went from the Senate to the Executive Branch if you doubt me.
Finally, media moguls are guilty of the evils done by long-serving senators. Media paymasters would fight to the death before they would allow the XVII Amendment to be repealed. Proof: It is the media that is making serving in the Senate a required gradation to the presidency. It was the media that guaranteed a sitting senator would become president in 2008. It mattered not which party he or she came from.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/congress/296140-one-of-the-good-ones.html
Does anyone really believe that members of Congress will rape the media:
100 senators run for election over 6 years —— 435 representatives run every two years. Winners AND LOSERS advertise. That amounts to television raking in roughly 100 billion advertising dollars every six years. That does not include the money television gets from state and local elections. My best guesstimate says that television pockets a TRILLION political advertising dollars every 10 years. And they get it for doing nothing more than sell the filth in government. Had a majority of Americans purchased medicine as poisonous as the Clintons, and the Chicago sewer rat, the parasites in television would be the only ones still alive.
Incidentally, a substantial chunk of political advertising money is spent on presidential elections. In addition to political ads, ask yourself “Who the hell is paying for all of the political campaign bullshit filling up the air time in-between product advertising?”
Break It Off In Cookie Cutters
Incidentally, a substantial chunk of political advertising money is spent on presidential elections. In addition to political ads, ask yourself “Who the hell is paying for all of the political campaign bullshit filling up the air time in-between product advertising?”
Break It Off In Cookie Cutters
Last edited: