Posted on 11/11/2016 3:17:45 AM PST by DoodleDawg
Link Only
He had no interest in combatting Obama’s policies either.
Jack ass
President 2 Terms of 4 years each
Senate. 2 Terms of 6 years each
House 4 Terms of 2 years each
Courts 1 Term of 14 years each
Can't.
Yes, yes. The Uniparty blocks the proposed amendment in Congress, Trump and the People invoke Article V.
And primary everyone in Congress who votes no.
Purple tie? No coincidences in DC...I think we see where his support lies.
If we are going to amend the Constitution, however, let us do it by repealing the Seventeenth, and return the selection of U.S. Senators to the legislatures, and make them answerable to their legislatures again.
Not only would this end the general elitist nature of the U.S. Senate, it would return toward the Constitution guaranteeing to the states a REPUBLICAN FORM of government, as it is supposed to.
Put the turtle on a fense post.
Upside down.
Well Mitch get on board or you will be voted out
Forgive the rant. McConnell and Ryan are pukes. I want to see them gone. I am sick and tired of republicans caving in every damn time we get the upper hand. If this happens again, with the mandate Trump has, I am finished.
Not for four more years, if ever.
Term limits are a BAD idea. Congress, for all its faults, is still the main representative of the people
Term limits will simply give more strength to Fed.gov unseen, massive, leftist bureaucracy, which never changes, and the cronies connected to them. It will make the governtment and Left even stronger
Want term limits? How about first term-limiting every federal agency and bureau? If not specifically re-authorized by law, every agency should have a built in end-date of 10 years
Drain the swamp.
Most of the negatives about an Article V Convention hinge on a “runaway” convention that would erase/rewrite the Constitution. Hogwash. A vote of three-quarters would be needed for ratification, and that won’t happen.
The Convention of the States would be called for the sole purpose of debating and passing ONE Amendment. We could call another Convention for another Amendment, when the need arises. Or quarterly Conventions, if they have too much on their plate.
The best defense against shenanigans at the Convention would be the choice of chairman. Newt would be a good choice, with a solid grounding in Constitutional issues. I think Ted Cruz would be another good choice to chair an Article V Convention.
I’m going to do my part to term-limit mcconnell the next time he comes up for election.
I understand Mitch’s dilemma. I could go for a term limit bill that grandfathers present incumbents because they really have no idea on how to get a real job.
BUT
Guaranteed lifetime pensions and perks must stop for newbies.
And with republicans in control, democrats in state house would be more open to passing this amendment. A good thing for all.
Instead of career politicians, We would have spokesmen for the people elected to the House, and senior statesmen serving the Senate with wisdom, the initial intent.
Not one single person on the planet is surprised by their opposition to term limits.
At the state level, set requirements for eligibility on the ballot limiting term in office.
Term limits will be used AGAINST you not for you! So how many terms would you want a man like Ronald Reagan limited to? The constitution already has term limits that work just fine. This is procedural solution to a problem that is much, much deeper than we realize.
The power of the purse is in the hands of the people’s House. They and only they ought to originate all the spending. There are too many ways that this vital constitutional principle is violated, and no one is proposing any reasonable way to term limit the Bureaucracy to which they have delegated all the real power. No one is proposing term limits for judge’s orders or court mandates. Anything law or rule or mandate that requires spending is absolutely null and void unless the House originates and passes the bill to fund it.
Representatives were elected every 2 years because they were supposed to have the power of the purse. This was Jefferson’s big idea. He thought this would keep them close to the people and responsive to their wishes while avoiding the pitfalls of pure democracy. The complete failure of every attempted so-called government shutdown, proves that there is a problem here.
If we are debating a procedural change that might make a real difference in controlling the corruption of the members of the House, then let us consider a change that is already envisaged in that great document. I am not talking about the provision for a constitutional convention which can only revisit the questions which the founders already debated and decided. Instead consider the single most important fundamental and unspoken principle in the document, the only question to which Washington himself ever expressed an opinion during the tortuous path to ratification:
One representative for every 30,000 persons!
You will say that we cannot do that because they would have to meet in a football stadium. So then build whatever building you need. That is a truly hollow objection.
There is absolutely NO excuse for the apportionment as it stands now. They could make it one for every 70,000 citizens. Make it one for every 140,000 even. Guess what it is now...
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.