Term Limits Amendment

[Syriusly]

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?

Sounds like a huge boon for lobbyists.

 

[Syriusly]

Useless, as it ignores the actual problem, which is that politicians can be bought. They'll be bought just as thoroughly when they serve short terms.

If you want to drain the swamp, ban campaign contributions and have all elections publicly financed. Nearly every other Western democracy does that to some degree, and it works very well.

Naturally, all conservatives are opposed to that. They want that swamp chock full o' corruption. Oddly, they also declare that the words "money is free speech" are part of the Constitution, even though nobody except some conservative activist judges are ever able to find such words.

The problem is, ANYONE can be bought. You can't ban campaign contributions because that eliminates free speech.

We could ban campaign contributions through the very same amendment process that is being proposed for term limits.

 

[yiostheoy]

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?

Cruz is an incredible dumbazz.

What Federal Senator or Representative is going to vote themselves out of a job ??

Especially now that the GOP owns both the Senate and the House Of Reps ??

 

[Dale Smith]

Useless, as it ignores the actual problem, which is that politicians can be bought. They'll be bought just as thoroughly when they serve short terms.

If you want to drain the swamp, ban campaign contributions and have all elections publicly financed. Nearly every other Western democracy does that to some degree, and it works very well.

Naturally, all conservatives are opposed to that. They want that swamp chock full o' corruption. Oddly, they also declare that the words "money is free speech" are part of the Constitution, even though nobody except some conservative activist judges are ever able to find such words.

Does that include all the super PACS and NGOs that the likes of George Soros finances?????

Until we get rid of the "Deep State" created by the foreign owned Federal Reserve, all of this bickering about the corporate officers and how long they serve is irrelevant.

 

[Boss]

Cruz is an incredible dumbazz.

What Federal Senator or Representative is going to vote themselves out of a job ??

Especially now that the GOP owns both the Senate and the House Of Reps ??

Well, I guess we'll get to see... Trump has said he supports it... Ryan says he supports it... 74% of the general public supports it according to Rasmussen.

And here's the thing... the American people don't have to wait for Congress to propose this amendment, they can use an Article V convention of the states to do it. I think Cruz is kind of doing Congress a favor here by giving them an opportunity to do this first. But if they don't want to... it can still get done.

 

[EverCurious]

Hell that might give us a chance to shake off Young - Dude's literally been in office since before I was born... I think he snoozes through everything these days...

Don Young, a Republican, has been the representative for Alaska's at-large district since Jan 3, 1973.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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?

After two terms in Congress can one run for Senate? That would be a total of 16 years.

 

[Boss]

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?

After two terms in Congress can one run for Senate? That would be a total of 16 years.

"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."

2x6=12 ...3x2=6 ...6+12=18.

 

[mamooth]

The problem is, ANYONE can be bought. You can't ban campaign contributions because that eliminates free speech.

Again, "Money is free speech" is conservative PC constitutional activism. It's not in the Constitution.

Now back to the problem.... ANYONE can be bought

Not if they're not allowed to take money.

It is OUR responsibility to nominate and elect candidates who are above reproach and cannot be bought. Somewhere along the way, we got off the tracks.... we stopped electing the candidate with the most honor and integrity... the kind of person we could trust... the kind of person who couldn't be bought off... We started electing people who looked sharp... sounded good... spoke eloquently... said what we wanted to hear.

Yep, we don't do such things. You making impassioned speeches won't change that. Hence, you're advocating doing nothing, and continuing the corruption.

I'm advocating an actual solution that works. It's that liberal thing.

 

[Boss]

The problem is, ANYONE can be bought. You can't ban campaign contributions because that eliminates free speech.

Again, "Money is free speech" is conservative PC constitutional activism. It's not in the Constitution.

Now back to the problem.... ANYONE can be bought

Not if they're not allowed to take money.

I really don't understand what it takes to get through granite-like heads. Lots of axioms are not in the Constitution... it doesn't make them less truthful. Printing costs money. Radio and TV ads cost money. Bumper stickers cost money. Rallies cost money. Transportation costs money. PA systems cost money. Bunting and posters cost money. Facilities cost money. You cannot run for a political office without spending some money. I'm sorry if you think we live in some other kind of universe.... we don't.

Not if they're not allowed to take money.

Since when does banning something make it less important? We've already established, in this universe, it costs money to run for office. So if someone is not allowed to accept money, then how are they to fund their campaign? Their own wealth? Only millionaires can run for office? How do you stop them from taking money? If they haven't yet announced they plan to run for office, you can't really do anything about money they receive. So people would just not announce their candidacy until they had built up enough money. You see, there is ALWAYS a way around whatever kind of restriction you impose. The bottom line is, it's going to still cost money to run for office.

You've still not addressed this very true reality. And okay, let's say we come up with some way to allow people to run for office without spending money... then it will become a matter of who can get the most stuff for free. Someone else will buy the commercials, bumper stickers, posters and bunting... it will be the same thing. The successful politician will become the one who can get the most donations of free stuff.

It is OUR responsibility to nominate and elect candidates who are above reproach and cannot be bought. Somewhere along the way, we got off the tracks.... we stopped electing the candidate with the most honor and integrity... the kind of person we could trust... the kind of person who couldn't be bought off... We started electing people who looked sharp... sounded good... spoke eloquently... said what we wanted to hear.

Yep, we don't do such things. You making impassioned speeches won't change that. Hence, you're advocating doing nothing, and continuing the corruption.

I'm advocating an actual solution that works. It's that liberal thing.

You've not advocated anything that will eliminate the money it takes to run for office. You've still not explained how that is supposed to work. You want to eliminate campaign contributions... okay, here's the keys to a Bentley and a $50 million mansion in Boca Raton.... feel free to move your stuff in and live there because we like you and want you to run for Senate. See how easy that was? You simply switched the system from money to bartering... it's still the same thing.

AGAIN.... because you're a thick head... the SOLUTION here is to nominate and elect people of high integrity who have principles that can't be bought. That's OUR responsibility and it used to be the prerequisite. Now, it's about who looks sharp, who makes great speeches, who has the most charisma, who can promise the most to be biggest demographic, who can raise the most money... honesty and integrity take a back seat. If you START with who is honorable and has integrity above reproach, they can't be bought or bribed. It's just not in their character.

 

[Borillar]

As far as I'm concerned, they can also make USSC justice positions have terms. Mandatory retirement at 75. Make it retroactive too.

 

[Care4all]

I oppose it as the people should choose how long someone stays in the congress. That is democracy.

We're NOT a democracy.

yes we are, we are a Constitutional/Democratic Republic, which is a form of democracy, Canada is a parliamentary form of democracy, there are no Nations in the whole world, that are pure democracy...all the democracies in the world's nations are forms of democracies that have representatives.

 

[Care4all]

PLEASE,

THIS is simply for SHOW

NOTHING will ever come of it...

EVER.

they would never ever get enough votes to pass this amendment in congress and the senate, let alone the 2/3's of the states...

it's another waste of time and tax payer's money, ALL FOR NOTHING.

AND as mentioned earlier, STOP campaign donations, then they can't be BOUGHT.... go to gvt funded elections.

easy peasy

this act of cruz's is just a gimmick, to get us off the track of eliminating the real corruption, lobbyists and their money

 

[Boss]

I oppose it as the people should choose how long someone stays in the congress. That is democracy.

We're NOT a democracy.

yes we are, we are a Constitutional/Democratic Republic, which is a form of democracy, Canada is a parliamentary form of democracy, there are no Nations in the whole world, that are pure democracy...all the democracies in the world's nations are forms of democracies that have representatives.

LMAO.... You just contradicted your own statement. We're NOT A DEMOCRACY! We are a representative republic. Representative republics use a form of democracy to elect representatives. Not all countries are representative republics.

 

[Boss]

PLEASE,

THIS is simply for SHOW

NOTHING will ever come of it...

EVER.

they would never ever get enough votes to pass this amendment in congress and the senate, let alone the 2/3's of the states...

it's another waste of time and tax payer's money, ALL FOR NOTHING.

AND as mentioned earlier, STOP campaign donations, then they can't be BOUGHT.... go to gvt funded elections.

easy peasy

this act of cruz's is just a gimmick, to get us off the track of eliminating the real corruption, lobbyists and their money

It's fine for you to have this opinion and we'll see. I happen to think there is a lot of public support for this. Rasmussen seems to support what I think, they find that number to be around 74% in their last survey. Now, when 3/4 of the people are in favor of something, it's kind of mindless to decry it as "for show" and DOA.

As for money in politics, I just finished addressing one hard head on that... I don't have the time to address each of you individually. I don't support your idea of stopping campaign contributions and unfortunately, you're not the Queen. Now... whenever your party regains a majority in Congress and again has some political control of the agenda, you can introduce your idea and we'll see how fast that gets shot down.

 

[Care4all]

I oppose it as the people should choose how long someone stays in the congress. That is democracy.

We're NOT a democracy.

yes we are, we are a Constitutional/Democratic Republic, which is a form of democracy, Canada is a parliamentary form of democracy, there are no Nations in the whole world, that are pure democracy...all the democracies in the world's nations are forms of democracies that have representatives.

LMAO.... You just contradicted your own statement. We're NOT A DEMOCRACY! We are a representative republic. Representative republics use a form of democracy to elect representatives. Not all countries are representative republics.

a democratic republic...is considered and counted as a democratic nation...

we are not simply a republic, like The Republic of China...

 

[Boss]

they would never ever get enough votes to pass this amendment in congress and the senate, let alone the 2/3's of the states...

Again... according to Rasmussen, 74% are in favor, 13% oppose.

So you are among the 13% who oppose this... care to explain to the rest of us WHY you oppose this?

 

[Boss]

a democratic republic...is considered and counted as a democratic nation...

we are not simply a republic, like The Republic of China...

We are not a democracy and if you read the Federalist papers and a bit of history you'll understand our framers had great contempt for democracies. I am sorry that you are too stupid to get this... maybe you need to stick with baking cookies, sweetheart?

 

[Care4all]

Democracy Index is an index compiled by the UK based Economist Intelligence Unit, that measures the state of democracy in 167 countries, of which 166 are sovereign states and 165 are UN member states. The index is based on 60 indicators grouped in five different categories measuring pluralism, civil liberties, and political culture. In addition to a numeric score and a ranking, the index categorizes countries as one of four regime types full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes and authoritarian regimes.

 

[Care4all]

a democratic republic...is considered and counted as a democratic nation...

we are not simply a republic, like The Republic of China...

We are not a democracy and if you read the Federalist papers and a bit of history you'll understand our framers had great contempt for democracies. I am sorry that you are too stupid to get this... maybe you need to stick with baking cookies, sweetheart?

because it's a guise, it won't solve the problem of money in Washington from lobbyists and the monied/the wealthy, paying off congress critters for what they want...

follow the money....

not this silly dog and pony show.....

making elections, gvt funded, like that dollar or two we check to contribute to the presidential fund, would eliminate the need for congress critters spending their whole time trying to get campaign funds and selling their souls to lobbyists to get it.

it would not take 5 or 10 years, and more than likely never, to solve the problem!