quote:

Originally posted by joel9507:
What is supposed to happen, is that incompetence/corruption/ignorance is to be corrected at the ballot box by an informed voter base.

JAllen argued this many times. As wise a man as he was, he was wrong. Incumbents have a >97% re-election rate for a reason.

The founders NEVER intended for representation to be a career.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

Yup, like clockwork. Always some folks who throw their hands up, "Never going to happen", before it even starts. I get it, the road is long and tough. But, if you keep pushing and pushing, year after year, with hopefully more new blood in Congress who are for it, then one day, we might just be successful. It may take years, or even decades, but it never hurts not to try. Because the status quo is not the solution.

Nobody said "Never".

The perfect is the enemy of the good

Is Katie Britt's and Ted Cruz's proposal perfect? No. I'd rather 12 years total congress + senate.

Is Katie Britt's and Ted Cruz's proposal good? Yes. According to Gallup, Congressional Critters have a 17% approval rating. However, 97% get reelected. The amount of fundraising necessary to unseat an incumbent has grown to asinine levels and if somebody is raising that much money they're likely selling out. I believe we're better off if Congress implements this good amendment.

If Katie Britt's and Ted Cruz's proposal doesn't work, there is a decade plus old grass roots initiative to originate this amendment from the state legislatures using Article V of the Constitution. Here is US Term Limits' website and here is their progress map as of today:

quote:

Originally posted by Paten:
Nobody said "Never".

You know exactly my meaning, when I wrote what I wrote, but you had to go meaninglessly nitpicking on a single word. Lol. Oh, let me rephrase it to make you happy.

quote:

Always some folks who throw their hands up, "Not going to happen"...

quote:

Originally posted by smlsig:
I too am in favor of no more than 12 years for both houses…

This, or you'll have some House rep serve his 3 deuces, and then run for Senate for 12 more years.

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
Gotta love the positivity!

There is some positivity in this thought process, we may not be able to get term limits, but it shows what is needed, campaign finance limits on incumbents. If every candidate was limited to a specific amount, one that was not out of reach for challengers, then you could have 10 million in your war chest but couldn't use it all,

McConnell, Graham, Schumer, Peloski win because they has a massive war chest that competitors can't meet.

Campaign finance limits would be a good first step although getting incumbent millionaires heavily funded people to vote that is is the problem.

If someone can explain why the House only gets 6 years and the Senate gets 12 years in this proposed Amendment, maybe this would make sense.

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
Gotta love the positivity!

Three certainties in life: death, taxes & a conservative who surrenders before the fight.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:

Three certainties in life: death, taxes & a conservative who surrenders before the fight.

Nobody is saying anything about surrendering. This is a proposed Amendment to the Constitution, not a bill for a new law. If they want support they should make it more plain in why it's been drafted with this language. I don't think anyone here doesn't want term limits but I'm going to need a better understanding of how this is supposed to work before I can support it. It's not like the modern Congress has a great track record composing legislation let alone Amendments and then communicating it to the constituents they are supposed to serve..

quote:

Originally posted by Paten:
If someone can explain why the House only gets 6 years and the Senate gets 12 years in this proposed Amendment, maybe this would make sense.

So the Senate can pass it and the House will kill it.
The Senate says “we tried”

Nothing but political theater

When I was a kid during the Eisenhauer administration, one of my school teachers said something to the effect that the Republicans were then regretting having supported the two-term limit for presidents. I.e., it was felt that he could have been elected for a third term.

Although I agree that it’s very unlikely to pass, sooner or later almost everyone will be thinking, “I wish it didn’t apply to him (or her).”

If the bastards can't cash in on all the graft and kick backs available to them in two terms then they are too stupid to be there to begin with.