Replies

No, but it will prevent the left from totally stacking the Supreme Court, thus rendering the Constitution meaningless. It will also help to prevent the left from using executive orders to circumvent the checks and balances put into place by the Constitution.

It already is meaningless (to the 3 branches) and it only prevents the left from circumventing checks and balances while the right is in office and does it. Sorry, the GOP is every bit as guilty (flame away but I'm still right).

>> Sorry, the GOP is every bit as guilty (flame away but I’m still right). >>

You have a point, but you are not “right.” Many in the GOP are guilty, but the worst Republicans are not “as guilty” as say Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, Obama, etc are.

If they were, we would already be a totalitarian society and you would no longer have the right to post to sites like Free Republic.

The answer is to not have a political ‘class’, and this can only be accomplished by having strict term limits. There is absolutely no legitimate reason not to have strict term limits. No one should ever, under any circumstances, be allowed to make a career out of elected office. No one, irrespective of whether we like them or not.

It's kind of ridiculous for us to expect career politicians (and those who want to be) to restrict their own power. When the Constitution gets in their way, they'll try to find a way to circumvent it - while rationalizing to themselves that they're acting in the publics’ best interest.

Having said that, it still matters that we prevent people like Obama from remaining in office, and there is a difference between Republicans and Democrats (although not a big enough difference).