Posted on 07/11/2021 10:15:25 AM PDT by JimRed
In this morning’s mail I received a fund raising request from Ted Cruz stating that he has officially introduced legislation to add a Term Limits Amendment to the Constitution. Now, I’ve been preaching term limits for about thirty years (see my tagline), so it definitely got my attention. BUT...this mailing is the first I’ve heard about the proposal. Have any other FReepers seen it reported?
Sure, he will introduce it knowing full well it will go no where. He’s just trying to raise money. So give him your money if you want, but don’t do it because of what his fund-raising email says.
This is his press release: https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=5563
A Term Limits Amendment to the Constitution will never happen
without an Article V Convention of States.
The professional politicians will never shoot themselves in the foot.
The same can be sail for Repealing the 17th Amendment.
There are indeed are many cretinous characters who certainly seem like permanent fixtures in Congress. But if Trump’s run in 2016 taught us anything - its the totally unelected, permanent deep-state and government bureaucracy who have vast power. Have people like John Brennan, James Clapper or James Comey ever faced an election or public debate and scrutiny? Yet they were at the heart of deciding who the next President would be, or hobbling one who was elected.
If Congress has term limits, they will just become tourists in government, even more than they are now. This will give even more power to the deep state. As bad as they are, Congressmen and Senators still must face elections, and its the last element of control average citizens have.
Want term-limits? First have a Constitutional amendment term-limiting every government agency and program to 10 years, which at that point, must be specifically re-authorized by Congress.
Term limits, how?
For those of you clamoring for term limits for members of Congress, watch what your asking for, you might just get it. The first obvious consideration is; why are term limits desired? Do you want to abdicate your responsibility as Government of the people, by the people, for the people? Are all elected Senators and Representatives corrupt? Are they all hungry for the power? Are they of a different political persuasion than yourself? Is it gender or race-related? Is it because they are independently wealthy? Is it because they are advocates for the designated hitter? Do they support/despise labor unions? Do they get too comfortable with their lot in life as a representative of their constituents? The desire for terms limits does nothing to satisfy any of the above. Perhaps you just want new blood now and then. Perfectly understandable. But what will term limits change? In and of itself term limits do not restrict their individual power, their pensions, their potential corruption; it does not force them to abide by the same laws the people (who are the Government) must obey. As a matter of fact, if facing a pre-determined end to their term they will work much harder in their own best interests rather than the interests of their constituents. A modification to the Constitution, implementing term limits, will have a multitude of unintended consequences. None of us are clever enough to foresee them and modify the constitution to address the hidden circumstances.
Check out Gerrymandering, if you want the real culprit.
Personally I think term limits as a law is a bad idea. It has not worked out very well for California. I completely empathize with the concept, but what ends up happening is that elected officials spend their 2 terms feeding at the trough and feathering a basket to land in when they leave office - they care even less about the people and the state than politicians did before term limits. There is no continuity of government, and projects that take time end up become money sinkholes because the sponsors of the project are termed out and the next crop of politicians have no personal interest in them.
Term limits are good when the voters are engaged and kick the jerks out of office. If they just get termed out by law, voters are even less engaged and more robbed.
I am not a fan of term limits. Terms are limited by the voters. The congressional system is ran in part by seniority.
Sure. I hate that some people in congress stay way past their shelf life (DiFi comes to mind) but she is representative of the voters that elect her.
I also hate that some congress critters are elected because of who they are. John Glenn and Mark Kelly come to mind as well as a few spouses of dead representatives and a few athletes. Voters are stupid. If anything is needed it’s a short test to vote and that will never happen.
Looks like he introduced it back in January this year?
Here’s the resolution on the Congress.gov website: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/3?s=6&r=1
Has Ted done anything since he’s been in the Senate?
Cruz has always supported term-limits.
NOT ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.
If we want free AND fair elections make laws that STOP ALL FORMS OF FAVORITISM FOR INCUMBENTS.
He hasn’t always supported the Constitution.
It says natural born citizen.
He ran for President while Canadian.
... which is one reason why I would prefer to see him get appointed to SCOTUS. Rather than just 8 years of service, I would like to get a lifetime of service from him.
When Senator Cruz pushes for the elimination of the Department of Education, then and only then, should anyone provide any money to any Politician
some people will always be obtuse - oh well, there is always the option of voting for the Rats
I will never understand why anyone would want someone on the court that thinks Anwar-al-Awlaki’s kids, born in Yemen to one citizen parent, are natural born citizens eligible to be President.
If he is, they are.
(they aren’t and neither is he and he knows it, he just wants to exploit the opening Obama’s usurpation created)
We do have other choices that are eligible, no need to violate the Constitution or vote for Rats.
“If he is, they are”...
***Does that mean, if Ted is NBC then AaA’s kids are Natural Born Citizens as well? Who cares? NBC is a requirement for only ONE position in guvmint: President.
The SCOTUS already refused to do their job by claiming no one in America has standing in the Berg vs. Obama case. That goose is already cooked.
Yes, I believe Ted just wants to exploit the opening that Obambam’s usurpation created.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.