Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 08/19/2025 6:40:22 AM PDT by Starman417
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
I’m actually not a fan of term limits. That is a two-edged sword. The only term limits should be elections.
1. Everyone wants to pay as little as possible for what they buy.
2. Everyone wants to get paid as much as possible for what they sell (and for most people, what they sell is their labor).
95% of the U.S. government is in place to help Americans pretend that this irreconcilable contradiction doesn't exist.
The Constitution doesn’t mention term limits because the founding fathers couldn’t conceive of professional grifters in politics .
The thought of democracy is repugnant. We are not that. We have a republican form of governance. Learn what that means. Put the choosing of senators back in the hands of state governments. Make all federal spending reduce to no more than they accumulate on an annual basis.
First: “...we can see things that might have been added. Number one is probably term limits.”
Followed by: “The House, the place from which spending originates, is the closest to the people and is elected every two years. The President, who executes the laws, has a term of four years. Then the Senate, originally the representatives of the state legislatures, serve staggered six-year terms.”
Those are term limits.
the founders counted on educated electorates to weed out grifters.
term limits are unnecessary if the electorate is well informed.
That's 92 years from 1933 to present....
That’s such a profound, succinct, and accurate way to describe the problems with government! Thanks for posting!
What the Founding Fathers never envisioned, however, was a permanent government, in either the elected officials or the bureaucracy. …Nope, and that’s what the Tenth Amendment was supposed to prevent. However, the communists had other ideas.
In America, where a democratic constitution has already been established, the communists must make the common cause with the party which will turn this constitution against the bourgeoisie and use it in the interests of the proletariat …The 16th Amendment, by abolishing the taxation protections in the original form of the Constitution, instead substituted one of the ten planks of communism: “A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.” Subsequent amendments and legislation put ice on the slippery slope.
The problem is, as John Adams correctly noted, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
The USA has become a nation of mostly IMMORAL people. Today’s Americans want no control over their worst human failings and sins. America is now a nation of narcissists.
That’s not a fair comparison. Drunken sailor’s spend their own money.
Also, when the Constitution was drafted, the average life expectancy was about half what it is now.
The war for independence was fought, and the Constitution formed as it was originally, because of the Founding Fathers’ awareness of grifters in politics.
The states’ governments were supposed to handle the matters of morality and punishment for crime, not the federal government, either way. The federal government was primarily for national defense.
Apportionment should never have changed. Count only citizens and adults and one rep per 30k. Yes, that would be a large number but it also would be more direct representation.
Also, the founders never conceived of plea bargaining, of being charged with hundreds of charges to be plead down with the threat of investigating family members and financial ruin defending yourself. They also never considered that we would face greater penalties if we exercised our right to a trial instead of pleading it out. Ask General Flynn about this.
Neither am I.
I've posted many times over the years that I believe the people have the absolute right to vote for whomever they want to represent them in the House of Representatives for however long they want those people to represent them.
I also believe that the state legislatures have the absolute right to select whomever they want to represent the state in the Senate for however many terms they want those people to represent the state.
I finally believe that the people have the absolute right to vote for whomever they want to represent them in their state legislatures, and consider whom they select for the Senate as a consideration when voting. If they don't like their Senator, they can vote for someone else for the state legislature.
The problem was that the 17th amendment broke the federalism between the states and the federal government. Once the legislatures no longer selected their Senators, the people no longer had that incentive when choosing their state legislators. This newly disinterested state voter also began to share that apathy with voting for their House representatives, too.
An alert and aware voter would have paid more attention if the direct line between their local vote and their federal vote had been maintained.
-PJ
Article IV, Section 4 is your control over deficit spending as it GUARANTEES to the states a “Republican” form of government by the Federal branch. This means that we the people exert OUR will upon the means we are governed through those WE elect to represent OUR interest. Someone not yet born is denied this guarantee when THEIR money is being spent WITHOUT THEIR ability to have THEIR intent represented. Passing OUR debt to them is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Amen.
Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment.
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.