Term Limits

[jimnyc]

Suppose there was a massive push from Americans, wanting all political positions to have a 2 term limit. Surely if we can hold the Presidency to this, we can do the same for congresspeople and others.

But since I'm clueless, what would it take to make this happen? I'm sure there would be bills, and votes in Congress - but what would it take in all for this change to be made into law? Anyone want to possibly layout what it would take to make this a reality?

[fj1200]

^Presumably a Constitutional amendment as for POTUS. Individual states have tried to impose term limits but they can't make it stick for the Federal. Now whether it's a good idea or not...

[DragonStryk72]

^Presumably a Constitutional amendment as for POTUS. Individual states have tried to impose term limits but they can't make it stick for the Federal. Now whether it's a good idea or not...

Actually, no. You would have to get it through Congress, but you could just expand the Amendment for the POTUS term limits to include the Congress as well.

[fj1200]

Actually, no. You would have to get it through Congress, but you could just expand the Amendment for the POTUS term limits to include the Congress as well.

I'm not so sure about that but I'd be happy to be wrong. Nevertheless Congress would be hard pressed to limit itself, see the 90's as example, and you can't amend amendments.

[DragonStryk72]

I'm not so sure about that but I'd be happy to be wrong. Nevertheless Congress would be hard pressed to limit itself, see the 90's as example, and you can't amend amendments.

Well they haven't had to pass a new Amendment to amend the 2nd, and lord knows they've played with that one enough.

It's really only in cases like the 18th and 21st Amendments where you need another Amendment in order to cancel out a prior Amendment.

[fj1200]

Well if you give me a few minutes I'll whip up a new amendment that will solve most of our problems, repeal the 17th, encourage third parties, include term limits, etc. then we'll just start an online campaign to get it ratified... Who's in?

[glockmail]

Congress won't police themselves. The states will have to call a Constitutional Convention in order to get term limits. I'd like to see that along with sweeping changes: term limits for SCOTUS, a strict interpretation of enumerated powers, re-vamp and reign-in all entitlements. If FedCo goes bankrupt we may have an opportunity for all that.

[fj1200]

Congress won't police themselves. The states will have to call a Constitutional Convention in order to get term limits. I'd like to see that along with sweeping changes: term limits for SCOTUS, a strict interpretation of enumerated powers, re-vamp and reign-in all entitlements. If FedCo goes bankrupt we may have an opportunity for all that.

How do you enforce a strict interpretation of enumerated powers? And I'm pretty sure I don't want entitlements codified in the Constitution.

[aboutime]

WHOA! Hold on a second. Think about it before demanding it.

If enough of the states today, based on the makeup of Congress, and the occupant of the White House, with his A.G. being his puppet, and the Missing, Brainless V.P. we have in power. Calling for a Constitutional Convention would be EXACTLY what everyone I just mentioned above WOULD WANT.

And, like it or not. The results of a Present Day C.C. would...most certainly be the FINAL straw that breaks the Camel's back...the camel being the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Once, and for all.

Giving those I mentioned above such an opportunity to freely destroy the Constitution IS NOT what most Americans would expect from such a Convention.

But..we cannot, and should not put anything past a HARRY REID, NANCY PELOSI, or BARACK INSANE OBAMA.

[jimnyc]

WHOA! Hold on a second. Think about it before demanding it.

If enough of the states today, based on the makeup of Congress, and the occupant of the White House, with his A.G. being his puppet, and the Missing, Brainless V.P. we have in power. Calling for a Constitutional Convention would be EXACTLY what everyone I just mentioned above WOULD WANT.

And, like it or not. The results of a Present Day C.C. would...most certainly be the FINAL straw that breaks the Camel's back...the camel being the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Once, and for all.

Giving those I mentioned above such an opportunity to freely destroy the Constitution IS NOT what most Americans would expect from such a Convention.

But..we cannot, and should not put anything past a HARRY REID, NANCY PELOSI, or BARACK INSANE OBAMA.

I would rather see a movement get started and have political support, and have them install various limitations on themselves. Somehow, someway it needs to get done. If we are literally unable to change something that would be better for Americans, but maybe not better for those looking for a lifetime position in congress, then we are being held hostage. They already hold themselves to another set of rules than the rest of us. Somebody, and eventually many more, need to find the courage to stand up and do the right thing. It boggles the mind to think we have created government in such a manner that this cannot be changed without losing grip of our country. The money and power of a few are stronger than the rest of the nation as a whole. I'm not calling for something that will ruin us as a country, or call for bloodshed - but we can't continue to let those in charge continue to make themselves more and more powerful while the rest of us slowly lose more rights.

[glockmail]

How do you enforce a strict interpretation of enumerated powers? And I'm pretty sure I don't want entitlements codified in the Constitution.

I don't want entitlements either but many do so in order to be legal thaey need to be codified in an amendment. The beauty of that idea is that a super majority is required to pass it so it has to be written simply and with enough flexibility that both libs and conservatives want it.

I think the way to restrict GovCo to enumerated powers is to use language that destroys the arguments that there are no enumerated powers. Although I don't buy the lib argument for one bit, in fact the Federalist papers mocks that argument, the language has to be stronger than it is now. That is it needs to say no, no way, no how, these are what GovCo may do and nothing more unless this article is amended, and if legislators propose acts which ignore this it is an impeachable offense.

That's the other area of the Constitution that has to be addressed: impeachment. The legislature is loath to remove one of its own. We need to have a citizen body that likes to do it.

[glockmail]

WHOA! Hold on a second. Think about it before demanding it.

If enough of the states today, based on the makeup of Congress, and the occupant of the White House, with his A.G. being his puppet, and the Missing, Brainless V.P. we have in power. Calling for a Constitutional Convention would be EXACTLY what everyone I just mentioned above WOULD WANT.

And, like it or not. The results of a Present Day C.C. would...most certainly be the FINAL straw that breaks the Camel's back...the camel being the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Once, and for all.

Giving those I mentioned above such an opportunity to freely destroy the Constitution IS NOT what most Americans would expect from such a Convention.

But..we cannot, and should not put anything past a HARRY REID, NANCY PELOSI, or BARACK INSANE OBAMA.

No worries there, because a Con-con is representatives of the states, not the bozos that currently hold federal offices. Remember, we are the united STATES of America.

[Arbo]

Term limits across the board would be fantastic.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I would rather see a movement get started and have political support, and have them install various limitations on themselves. Somehow, someway it needs to get done. If we are literally unable to change something that would be better for Americans, but maybe not better for those looking for a lifetime position in congress, then we are being held hostage. They already hold themselves to another set of rules than the rest of us. Somebody, and eventually many more, need to find the courage to stand up and do the right thing. It boggles the mind to think we have created government in such a manner that this cannot be changed without losing grip of our country. The money and power of a few are stronger than the rest of the nation as a whole. I'm not calling for something that will ruin us as a country, or call for bloodshed - but we can't continue to let those in charge continue to make themselves more and more powerful while the rest of us slowly lose more rights.

No constitutional convention should be held as its fine as it is. However if were to be held to change it I'd want term limits installed at least a decade before such a great nation changing action took place! We do not need any damn career politicians involved in doing such an important change. In fact fighting to stop that would be imperative to many patriots. We simply can not give such an opportunity to the ffing powers that be now! I'd vote civil war/revolution before agreeing with HAVING A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION NOW UNDER THESE CURRENT CONDITIONS!! AND I'M DAMN SURE AGAINST HAVING A CIVIL WAR/REVOLUTTION!!--Tyr

[glockmail]

I run into this all the time. A Con-con doesn't mean that you get rid of the old Constitution. It means you do an amendment or amendments. Now that Congress and the President have decoded that they no longer have to go through this laborious process, the states need to step in and do a smack-down.