Term Limits? How Would That Affect the so-called "Deep State"?

[Catsnmeters]

I can't make you understand your own quote.

You mean you can't make me understand your misunderstanding of my own quote?

What part of this confuses you?

"...will by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing..."

 

[Votto]

False

Democracy is being able to vote for whomever you want to vote for.

Well, it's okay...you're a blob supporter; nobody is going to expect anything from you except halitosis.

306>232. scoreboard.

Well lets see, I want to vote on term limits...............................................

Yay for me and for 80% of America cuz we will never get the opportunity to do so.

 

[Burgermeister]

You mean you can't make me understand your misunderstanding of my own quote?

What part of this confuses you?

"...will by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing..."

The full quote, as you know because you quoted it, is "[A] few of the members of Congress will possess superior talents; will by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; .."

Yes, he thought there would be a few exceptional representatives who would get re-elected and become longer term. That's not what we have.

It's always interesting to ponder whether some people are really that obtuse or just pretending.

 

[Catsnmeters]

It's always interesting to ponder whether some people are really that obtuse or just pretending.

Nice deflection.

Just admit the founders expected, even hoped, for at least some career politicians and you were wrong.

It's ok to admit you are wrong. Pull up your big boy pants and make the leap. You can do it.

 

[Catsnmeters]

Well lets see, I want to vote on term limits...............................................

Yay for me and for 80% of America cuz we will never get the opportunity to do so.

That pesky constitution.

 

[Pellinore]

I am against them for a very simple reason: Senior Congressional leadership is often one of the few things that can check the President. If we take away the most experienced members of Congress — whether it's a Pelosi or a McConnell, whichever way you lean — it will serve to give more power to whoever the President is. The office of the President has been steadily gaining power for the last few decades; the last thing we need is to give it more.

I also think that if we are talking term limits, let's spend our energy on the Judicial branch first. Why would we concentrate on those elected every 2 or 6 years, rather than those who are elected never and can currently serve an entire generation without any restrictions or realistic chance at recall, ever?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

My question is this. Shouldn't there be "term limits" for these folks too--all government employees? Postal workers, teachers, the lady at the DMV, the guys in the NRO, CIA etc

They are not elected officials. They have no power. Government bureaucrats should be removed with ever new administration. At least the executive branch should have that power

 

[DudleySmith]

The Constitution’s Article V requires that an amendment be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It is up to the states to approve a new amendment, with three-quarters of the states voting to ratify it.

Correct.

Prohibition was repealed because the govt. wanted the tax revenues.

 

[Kondor3]

There is currently a discussion about term limits. I'm against term limits. The reason is two fold. First off...if you look at the folks who were in charge when you were growing up 30-40 years ago and you look at the elected officials of today; you'll find that with very few exceptions there are new faces and new names. Did the "corruption" go away with new faces? Nope. So thinking that it will go away if you force by statute a revolving door of new faces is rather silly. In fact, it will likely make corruption more of an issue since, if you want to look at it from the standpoint of an employer, employees who remain at their job longer are less apt to become corrupt and corrupt employees are usually discovered pretty quickly and terminated. The second reason is this. If I like my rep; I want to continue voting for her or him.

Most of the silly angst I hear on this board is usually about something those on the right call "the deep state." It has become their crutch (aka excuse) to explain whatever outcome they don't favor. You can't get a straight answer from anyone about what the "deep state" is but most often it is called the un-elected appointed officials who remain at their jobs and are able to make all sorts of mischief counter to the wishes of whatever conservative overlord is installed.

My question is this. Shouldn't there be "term limits" for these folks too--all government employees? Postal workers, teachers, the lady at the DMV, the guys in the NRO, CIA etc...

Insofar as one equates Government Bureaucracy with the so-called Deep State... there would quite probably be Zero Impact.

Elected Leadership Roles certainly would benefit from Term Limits, with respect to Vision, Policy and Execution, as well as Consistency and Strategy and Tactics.

Deep State membership generally EXCLUDES Elected Leadership and is relatively immune from such parlor tricks.

 

[billyerock123]

You think a fact is anything you say? I saw no back up for your ridiculous pablum….

I am not here to prove me wrong you are ... your post isn't any kind of response to what I said ...nor is it any kind of proof that my facts are made up ... the majority of my post come from a government document or a conservative fact checker ...this is how you ignorant Republicans handle a fact ... you want me to prove me wrong ... I'm here to say I just prove me ri how ???ght... because you could show one place in my post where I was wrong ... you're a typicial repub-lie-tard ... all hot air with nothing to back your statements up ...

 

[billyerock123]

democrats don't try and change the words of the second amendment, stupid, they claim it doesn't mean that a person can own a firearm.

no, they don't ... I've never heard any Democrat claim it doesn't mean that person can own a firearm.... where dop you insane republicans get this shit from ...

 

[billyerock123]

thats why there are lobbyists if you don't like the lobbyist bill ,vote for the other guy ... I mean not they republican guy ...
...

now point out all the nonfacts here if you can otherwise zip it skippy ...
The Constitution’s Article V requires that an amendment be proposed by two-thirds of the House and Senate, or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. It is up to the states to approve a new amendment, with three-quarters of the states voting to ratify it.
The one instance of an amendment appeal, the 21st Amendment, shows how this unusual process works. The 18th Amendment ratified in 1919 prohibited “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors” nationwide under most circumstances. By the early 1930s, Prohibition had become unpopular and Congress passed the 21st Amendment, with its repeal provision, in February 1933 just before Franklin Roosevelt became President. The amendment proposed for ratification included language never used before but permitted under Article V: state conventions (and not state legislatures) would be called for ratification votes, out of fear the temperance lobby would influence state lawmakers.
When Utah became the 36th state to approve the amendment in December 1933, the ratified 21st Amendment not only repealed the broad prohibition on alcohol, it also added language to the Constitution that states had the ability to define alcohol laws within their borders.

 

[billyerock123]

You think a fact is anything you say? I saw no back up for your ridiculous pablum….

pablum seems you have a problem with spelling ...

 

[billyerock123]

The founders didn't implement congressional term limits for a reason.

And as already pointed out, they would violate the constitution so would take an amendment.

i agree with ya ... there was a reason ...
The Founding Fathers considered—and rejected—the idea of term limits for Congress. A majority of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 felt that the longer they served, the more experienced, knowledgeable, and thus, effective members of Congress would become. As Father of the Constitution James Madison explained in Federalist Papers No. 53:


"[A] few of the members of Congress will possess superior talents; will by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members of Congress, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they are to fall into the snares that may be laid before them," wrote Madison.


Delegates who sided with Madison in opposing term limits argued that regular elections by the people could be a better check on corruption than constitutional term limits and that such restrictions would create their problems. Ultimately, the anti-term limits forces won out and the Constitution was ratified without them.


So now the only remaining way to impose term limits on Congress is to undertake the long and uncertain task of amending the Constitution.


This can be done in one of two ways. First, Congress can propose a term limits amendment with a two-thirds “supermajority” vote. In January 2021, Senators Ted Cruz of Texas, along with Marco Rubio of Florida and other Republican colleagues, introduced a bill (S.J.Res.3) calling for a constitutional amendment that would limit senators to two six-year terms and House members to three two-year terms.


In introducing the bill, Senator Cruz argued, “Though our Founding Fathers declined to include term limits in the Constitution, they feared the creation of a permanent political class that existed parallel to, rather than enmeshed within, American society.


Should Congress pass the bill, which as history has proven, is highly doubtful, the amendment would be sent to the states for ratification.



If Congress refuses to pass a term limits amendment, the states could do it. Under Article V of the Constitution, if two-thirds (currently 34) of the state legislatures vote to demand it, Congress is required to convene a full constitutional convention to consider one or more amendments.


so far they have never been able to pass it ... so good luck with that Republican losing issue ...

​

 

[billyerock123]

Why term limits?

Because about 80% of the country want them?

you got proof for that statement skippy

Oh, that's right, the Left hates democracy

My bad.

Well guess what, democracy hates the democrats.

seems you know a lot about nothing that Democrats have ever said ... we democrats hold the majority of the voters in this country who are not for term limits ... so there goes your 80% figure of yours and hell many Republican voters don't like the idea as term limits ... man skippy you seem to be what one might say, "full of it" ...

 

[RetiredGySgt]

no, they don't ... I've never heard any Democrat claim it doesn't mean that person can own a firearm.... where dop you insane republicans get this shit from ...

LOL sure thing they haven't claimed that the second means a collective not a personal right not I suppose have they claimed that ownership is tied to belonging to a militia right retard?

 

[j-mac]

I am not here to prove me wrong you are ... your post isn't any kind of response to what I said ...nor is it any kind of proof that my facts are made up ... the majority of my post come from a government document or a conservative fact checker ...this is how you ignorant Republicans handle a fact ... you want me to prove me wrong ... I'm here to say I just prove me ri how ???ght... because you could show one place in my post where I was wrong ... you're a typicial repub-lie-tard ... all hot air with nothing to back your statements up ...

Ok, link the so called documents that you believe back up your so called “facts”….

 

[j-mac]

pablum seems you have a problem with spelling ...

Are you some kind of English teacher? Those who revert to calling out spelling errors, are weak debaters …. You sir are a clown.

 

[braalian]

Fool, term limits only affect the political hand-puppets in Washington who put a false face on the deep state---- the actual deep state are not elected nor subject to any term limits; to affect them, you have to attack the institutions and agencies they work through.

How convenient

 

[billyerock123]

LOL sure thing they haven't claimed that the second means a collective not a personal right not I suppose have they claimed that ownership is tied to belonging to a militia right retard?

you repub-lie-tards are ridiculous ... no democrats have ever tried to stop any legal citizen from owning a gun, period ... if you want to believe stupid shit fine Ipne can't help ya ... name one democrat that has said you can't own a gun just one if you can ... retard