Term Limits

[CG6468]

Think about this.

Do you really think the Senate would pass a Constitutional amendment limiting its own power, and 2/3 of all the state legislatures would pass an amendment destroying their own influence in the Federal government?

That's why I asked the beginning question, about enacting the term limits law without Congress.

[Hathcock]

So, a well-funded special interest with the goal of eliminating well-funded special interests.

Right?

No a large public ad campaign, something in main street America not Washington. gain so much public support that everyone is screaming at their reps for this to pass. with the 2014 elections coming up have the public demanding it or no incumbents will be re-elected.
 

[Hathcock]

I'm not saying this would be easy but It's possible.

[Big Dog]

That's why I asked the beginning question, about enacting the term limits law without Congress.

There are two processes to amend the Constitution:

a) Introducing an amendment in both houses of Congress as a Joint Resolution, which must pass both houses by 2/3; then passed by 3/4 of all State legislatures.

b) Constitutional Convention, called by 2/3 of all the State Legislature. This has not been done since the original convention of 1787.

Following "a", you would need the buy-in of both political parties in both houses and 3/4 of all State legislatures to remove power from their own hands.

Following "b", a Constitutional Convention would put everything on the table.  Which of your natural rights are you prepared to have infringed upon by our "enlightened" politicians, in the name of "good government"?

[Big Dog]

No a large public ad campaign, something in main street America not Washington. gain so much public support that everyone is screaming at their reps for this to pass. with the 2014 elections coming up have the public demanding it or no incumbents will be re-elected.
 

Who will lead this effort? Where will the money come from?

[Big Dog]

I'm not saying this would be easy but It's possible.

Is it possible? Realistically?

[CG6468]

I can remember what was called a "Con-Con," or a Constitutional Convention, years ago. But that was way before I was old enough to care about politics.

It was certainly after 1787 (I'm old, but not THAT old!  ); it was in the 1950s.

[Hathcock]

We'd have to find a very outspoken billionaire that isn't afraid to throw his/her name out there. a Trump or Buffet.

[Hathcock]

The 26th amendment was passed in 18 months in the 70's giving 18 year olds the right to vote. It was based off of a public support campaign and spread through word of mouth. It's possible.

[Big Dog]

The 26th amendment was passed in 18 months in the 70's giving 18 year olds the right to vote. It was based off of a public support campaign and spread through word of mouth. It's possible.

The 26th Amendment granted additional legal rights to citizens.

Your idea reduces the ability of citizens to serve in elected office, which limits a legal right (the right of Citizens to participate in self-government)

The argument against it is very easy to make.

[Big Dog]

We'd have to find a very outspoken billionaire that isn't afraid to throw his/her name out there. a Trump or Buffet.

So, you want a rich man to use his money and influence to change our government.

Isn't that the very thing you oppose?

[Big Dog]

I can remember what was called a "Con-Con," or a Constitutional Convention, years ago. But that was way before I was old enough to care about politics.

It was certainly after 1787 (I'm old, but not THAT old!  ); it was in the 1950s.

1933.

The 21st Amendment,repealing Prohibition, was passed in state conventions, but it originated in Congress.

There has not been a national Constitutional Convention since the first one.

[CG6468]

1933.

The 21st Amendment,repealing Prohibition, was passed in state conventions, but it originated in Congress.

There has not been a national Constitutional Convention since the first one.

It might have been for the Illinois Constitution. But there was one in the 1950s.

[Hathcock]

Your idea reduces the ability of citizens to serve in elected office, which limits a legal right (the right of Citizens to participate in self-government)

The argument against it is very easy to make.

Actually it increases the ability of citizens to serve in office. Instead of one guy becoming a lifetime politician you have multiple members of a district serving.

[Hathcock]

So, you want a rich man to use his money and influence to change our government.
Isn't that the very thing you oppose?

If it supports the idea proposed it's a means to an end. There could also be a drive for public donations but I know the fastest way to kick start an idea would be large amounts of cash.

[Big Dog]

Actually it increases the ability of citizens to serve in office. Instead of one guy becoming a lifetime politician you have multiple members of a district serving.

Yet it restricts the right of an individual Citizen to participate in self-governance.

Are you advocating restricting the rights of a Citizen for a nebulous "greater good"?

[Hathcock]

Yet it restricts the right of an individual Citizen to participate in self-governance.

Are you advocating restricting the rights of a Citizen for a nebulous "greater good"?

It doesn't restrict a citizen from being able to serve, it allows more opportunities to serve. It may help weed out the corruption of professional politicians and return the concept of a government of the people by the people.

[Big Dog]

If it supports the idea proposed it's a means to an end. There could also be a drive for public donations but I know the fastest way to kick start an idea would be large amounts of cash.

So now, the end justifies the means, and the exercise of power and influence is OK, as long as it results in an outcome you desire.

Think about that for a minute. Does that sound right to you? Ethical? Representative of the America you want to live in?

OK, back to our discussion.

Make the pitch to me, the billionaire. Tell me why I should exert my influence and spend my money, in a scheme to eliminate my own influence.  What's in it for me?

[Big Dog]

It doesn't restrict a citizen from being able to serve,

False statement, It absolutely does.

Let me spell it out for you.

Citizen X served as a US Senator for the prescribed term, then returned to private life. Ten years later, Citizen X wants to run for President. He is prohibited from doing that by your amendment.

Citizen X's right to participate in self-government has been infringed.

[Hathcock]

So now, the end justifies the means, and the exercise of power and influence is OK, as long as it results in an outcome you desire.

Think about that for a minute. Does that sound right to you? Ethical? Representative of the America you want to live in?

As opposed to how things are now? our government is spying on us our POTUS is wiping his ass with the constitution od our elected "representatives" are doing nothing about it for fear they might not be re-elected. Our politicians sway with the wind changing opinions and direction based off what is likely to get them elected. and problems are kicked down the road because they don't want to deal with them.

[Hathcock]

False statement, It absolutely does.

Let me spell it out for you.

Citizen X served as a US Senator for the prescribed term, then returned to private life. Ten years later, Citizen X wants to run for President. He is prohibited from doing that by your amendment.

Citizen X's right to participate in self-government has been infringed.

No he's not look at what I suggested two terms for both house and senate and possible two terms for VP and PRES. they would have to be one hell of a leader to get the max of 24 years.

[Big Dog]

As opposed to how things are now? our government is spying on us our POTUS is wiping his ass with the constitution od our elected "representatives" are doing nothing about it for fear they might not be re-elected. Our politicians sway with the wind changing opinions and direction based off what is likely to get them elected. and problems are kicked down the road because they don't want to deal with them.

There's right, and there's wrong.

Doing the wrong thing for the right reason doesn't make it right.

[Big Dog]

No he's not look at what I suggested two terms for both house and senate and possible two terms for VP and PRES. they would have to be one hell of a leader to get the max of 24 years.

You are correct. I confused your idea with 24 years, with the other, more restrictive idea.

But the principle stands- 4 years, 10 years, or 20 years. Putting a time limit on serving in elected office infringes on the right of a Citizen to participate in his self-governance, and on the rights of voters to select the candidates of our choice.

[Hathcock]

OK, back to our discussion.

Make the pitch to me, the billionaire. Tell me why I should exert my influence and spend my money, in a scheme to eliminate my own influence.  What's in it for me?

Our system is broken, politicians and big government are spending us into oblivion. The Washington establishment is so out of touch with the rest of the US the power structure has to be changed. Politicians serve us, We don't serve them. If left alone they will continue to crush the value of the dollar and reduce our political influence in the rest of the world. As a billionaire you struggle with a government that can't maintain a constant course and if the economy does crash what will that do to your business and investments? The only way to change Washington is to take power away. We need strong capital to drive a public awareness campaign to institute term limits for all branches of Government. Once term limits are in place the government will become effective again problems can be addressed without the fear of not being re-elected.

[DumbAss Tanker]

The 26th amendment was passed in 18 months in the 70's giving 18 year olds the right to vote. It was based off of a public support campaign and spread through word of mouth. It's possible.

That 'Word of mouth' campaign also involved overwhelming support and promotion in the press, which was as opportunistic as ever and saw it all as part of the antiwar movement they had fallen in love with by then, so it wasn't maybe as grass-roots as you think.  You might try looking at this sort of thing rationally instead of emotionally, using something called "Interest analysis," which is a way of figuring out who wants what, who gains, and who loses in any outcome.  Prior to the recent departure of Seniletor Byrd to the Great Klan Rally in the Sky, do you seriously think the residents of West Virginia would have been inclined to give up their exceptional and disproportionate pipeline to the Federal treasury by kicking out the guy who kept the valve open?  Do you think the Washington press corps (And by extension the MSM for which they work) are going to be favorably disposed to having to constantly deal with a changing set of key players and relentlessly rebuilding relationships with them?  Incumbents from both sides are also going to be generally hostile, since it's not the game they bargained to play.

I like the idea myself, say something like a 24-year limit for each House, but its real appeal is to the populist faction of whichever Party is out of power at the moment, which is never going to get it off the dime.