I just read that the Congressional approval rating has dived to an all time low of 5%.
What does this mean? It means that the states should rise up NOW and push through a Constitutional Amendment to limit Congressional terms.
What we need is flush the filth out even if new filth is let in. What we need are not career intractable politicians who hold all the power and have no chance of being ousted from their seats continuing to dominate and screw up the system.
12 Oct 13
Originally posted by whodeycut their pay in half for starters
I just read that the Congressional approval rating has dived to an all time low of 5%.
What does this mean? It means that the states should rise up NOW and push through a Constitutional Amendment to limit Congressional terms.
What we need is flush the filth out even if new filth is let in. What we need are not career intractable politicians who hold a ...[text shortened]... have no chance of being ousted from their seats continuing to dominate and screw up the system.
12 Oct 13
Originally posted by whodeySo you are saying the Congress should agree to get rid of themselves? How does that work?
It means that the states should rise up NOW and push through a Constitutional Amendment to limit Congressional terms.
The question I would ask is how they keep getting re-elected if their approval rating is so low. Maybe you should look at that rather than just the term issue.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
12 Oct 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere are two related reasons for people to support their own representative while rating the overall congress low.
So you are saying the Congress should agree to get rid of themselves? How does that work?
The question I would ask is how they keep getting re-elected if their approval rating is so low. Maybe you should look at that rather than just the term issue.
One is that each individual rep sends pork (jobs, etc.) to his/her home district. This is endemic in congress.
The other is that as my rep spends more time in congress, his/her stature and power within congress increase. Why replace him with a newby who will have less power to get things for me and mine?
We had a long-term. powerful rep die and be replaced by a newby. She freely admits she has little power to effect change.
12 Oct 13
Originally posted by JS357So shorter terms would make everyone newbys and put everyone on a more level playing field, not just in terms of elections but also in terms of what they can get done once elected.
The other is that as my rep spends more time in congress, his/her stature and power within congress increase. Why replace him with a newby who will have less power to get things for me and mine?
12 Oct 13
Originally posted by whodeyTerm limits will not happen. Instead, the GOP will take the brunt of this, and lose seats in the House and Senate.
I just read that the Congressional approval rating has dived to an all time low of 5%.
What does this mean? It means that the states should rise up NOW and push through a Constitutional Amendment to limit Congressional terms.
What we need is flush the filth out even if new filth is let in. What we need are not career intractable politicians who hold a ...[text shortened]... have no chance of being ousted from their seats continuing to dominate and screw up the system.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
12 Oct 13
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI think that follows.
So shorter terms would make everyone newbys and put everyone on a more level playing field, not just in terms of elections but also in terms of what they can get done once elected.
I think there is something fundamentally unconstitutional about term limits (U.S.)
Six states have ruled it unconstitutional, but that's for state offices, ruling under the states' respective constitutions. It has been argued that states aren't allowed to set term limits on federal offices but I don't find a ruling.
The Constitution defines qualifications for office. Anyone meeting them should be allowed to run and serve. I wouldn't have this objection if there were a constitutional amendment.
Here's a reference:
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/23/us/high-court-blocks-term-limits-for-congress-in-a-5-4-decision.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Originally posted by whodeyThe whole driving force for this was the effort of the Tea Party filth to bypass the legislative democratic process to defund or kill the ACA. What is funny is that the ACA is gaining in favorability. The Republican pollster call it the boomerang effect. The Tea Party idiots with their current fiasco are lessening the chance of ever repealing the ACA.
I just read that the Congressional approval rating has dived to an all time low of 5%.
What does this mean? It means that the states should rise up NOW and push through a Constitutional Amendment to limit Congressional terms.
What we need is flush the filth out even if new filth is let in. What we need are not career intractable politicians who hold a ...[text shortened]... have no chance of being ousted from their seats continuing to dominate and screw up the system.
The Tea Party radicals shutdown the government and threaten a US default, and in the process, reduce their chance of every having the ACA repealed. The genius Tea Party ideologues.
12 Oct 13
If all the elected representatives in Congress are greenhorns, then the unelected staffers and bureaucrats working behind the scenes will run the show even more completely than they do now.
Anyway high turnaround does not necessarily a better, more effective Congress make. Turnaround in the last few elections has been higher than usual, and what do we have to show for it? A small cadre of amateur demagogues -- roughly 30 in the House who are mostly newcomers -- are wreaking havoc on world economies and markets with their daily temper tantrums and clown-circus buffoonery. Getting rid of them with term limits would only usher in a like-minded crop, because they come from districts comprised disproportionately of nutters and fruitcakes thanks to blatantly illegal gerrymandering.
13 Oct 13
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo, no, that would be like asking a drunk to give himself an intervention. It simply will never happen.
So you are saying the Congress should agree to get rid of themselves? How does that work?
The question I would ask is how they keep getting re-elected if their approval rating is so low. Maybe you should look at that rather than just the term issue.
In Mark Levin's book, "Liberty Amendments", we are shown a provision in article V where states of a 2/3 majority can rise up and amend the Constitution apart from the federal government in any way, shape, or form. That means not one vote from Congress will be granted, nor from the President.
All that is needed is for state legislatures to rise up.
Originally posted by KilgoreTrout15What is needed to be included in the amendment is for retirement packages to be completely stricken as well as for their exemptions out of Obamacare. Make them live in the world that they create.
cut their pay in half for starters
Make it like jury duty.
Originally posted by moon1969You dolt. The approval rating is down to 5%!. That means that things like acne, strep throat, and diarrhea have more appeal.
The whole driving force for this was the effort of the Tea Party filth to bypass the legislative democratic process to defund or kill the ACA. What is funny is that the ACA is gaining in favorability. The Republican pollster call it the boomerang effect. The Tea Party idiots with their current fiasco are lessening the chance of ever repealing the ACA.
Th ...[text shortened]... process, reduce their chance of every having the ACA repealed. The genius Tea Party ideologues.
Is this a democracy or an insane asylum?
What the hell is your solution moon? One party rule? How about a one man rule and eradicate all obstructionism altogether. That way people in Obama's own party that rail against him as being an unconstitutional dictator for doing things like waging war against Libya without Congressional approval can all be done away with.
Originally posted by JS357Why is it we never hear progressives give a damn about the Constitution unless it steps on the toes of those who violate the Constitution?
I think that follows.
I think there is something fundamentally unconstitutional about term limits (U.S.)
Six states have ruled it unconstitutional, but that's for state offices, ruling under the states' respective constitutions. It has been argued that states aren't allowed to set term limits on federal offices but I don't find a ruling.
The Constitut ...[text shortened]... 05/23/us/high-court-blocks-term-limits-for-congress-in-a-5-4-decision.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
What of the NDAA? Do you think that detention without representation is Constitutional? Who passed that gem? Hmm?
You people make me violently ill.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
13 Oct 13
Originally posted by whodey"Why is it we never hear progressives give a damn about the Constitution unless it steps on the toes of those who violate the Constitution?"
Why is it we never hear progressives give a damn about the Constitution unless it steps on the toes of those who violate the Constitution?
What of the NDAA? Do you think that detention without representation is Constitutional? Who passed that gem? Hmm?
You people make me violently ill.
So you admit you would be violating the constitution to enforce term limits on the US congress without a constitutional amendment. Well, I am sorry that this requirement steps on your toes.