Republicans introduce joint resolution proposing Congress Term Limit Amendment

[martybegan]

I doubt that it will go anywhere, but this is the right way to do things.

MSN

The amendment would limit U.S. senators to two six-year terms and U.S. House members to three two-year terms. The two-page resolution states that after the amendment is passed by Congress and ratified by the states, the amendment would go into effect “within seven years after the date of its submission by the Congress.”

They make it a 7 year delay to avoid any ex post facto implications.

Personally I would allow 12 years in congress, but this is a good start.

 

[Oddball]

Better to repeal the 17th Amendment...This would have the effect of defacto term limits in the Senate.

Addition by subtraction.

 

[martybegan]

Better to repeal the 17th Amendment...This would have the effect of defacto term limits in the Senate.

Addition by subtraction.

Only if the States government changes parties.

 

[Marener]

It would almost certainly make Congress less functional, not more.

A less functional Congress leads to a more authoritative executive, which I oppose.

 

[JohnDB]

Then there's the case that could be made that the big businesses would be more in charge than bought off senators.

 

[Oddball]

Only if the States government changes parties.

Happens a lot more often than turnover in the District of Criminals.

 

[martybegan]

It would almost certainly make Congress less functional, not more.

A less functional Congress leads to a more authoritative executive, which I oppose.

Congress is already non-functional, and has already given up much of it's power to the executive.

Which is why Chevron deference had to die.

 

[Marener]

Congress is already non-functional, and has already given up much of it's power to the executive.

Which is why Chevron deference had to die.

Chevron deference is a power grab by the judiciary when it was a balance between Congress and Executive.

Term limits almost certainly worsen the weakness of Congress. It’ll make it even more partisan than it currently is.

 

[martybegan]

Chevron deference is a power grab by the judiciary when it was a balance between Congress and Executive.

Term limits almost certainly worsen the weakness of Congress. It’ll make it even more partisan than it currently is.

No, its telling congress to write more specific laws and stop delegating to the executive things that belong to the legislature.

 

[JohnDB]

Chevron deference is a power grab by the judiciary when it was a balance between Congress and Executive.

Term limits almost certainly worsen the weakness of Congress. It’ll make it even more partisan than it currently is.

Agreed.
What the problem is, is voting for senators to begin with.

If they were appointed by Govenors instead of elections it would help the situation to some degree.

 

[Nostra]

Chevron deference is a power grab by the judiciary when it was a balance between Congress and Executive.

Term limits almost certainly worsen the weakness of Congress. It’ll make it even more partisan than it currently is.

Good. Congress needs to be weaker. All of government needs to be weaker.

 

[JohnDB]

Good. Congress needs to be weaker. All of government needs to be weaker.

Three part government....

But we have Congress acting like judges, judges writing law, and an executive branch acting like they can do anything.

We have "sentencing guidelines" enacted by Congress.

Unfunded federal mandates are laws created by courts.

And regulatory agencies creating new laws on whims of their leadership.

 

[22lcidw]

It would almost certainly make Congress less functional, not more.

A less functional Congress leads to a more authoritative executive, which I oppose.

Joe is the result of the 17th amendment.

 

[1srelluc]

Congress is already non-functional, and has already given up much of it's power to the executive.

Which is why Chevron deference had to die.

I don't think many people appreciate the "freedom fruit" that decision will bear as more and more fed courts start tossing agency "rules".

 

[buckeye]

Then there's the case that could be made that the big businesses would be more in charge than bought off senators.

Or that senators would be less beholden to big business when they don't need the constant injection of cash.

 

[1srelluc]

Chevron deference is a power grab by the judiciary when it was a balance between Congress and Executive.

How can I tell you hate Freedom?

 

[TimFitz]

Changing the terms of Congress requires a Constiutional amendment.

This is just a show for the rubes.

 

[JohnDB]

Or that senators would be less beholden to big business when they don't need the constant injection of cash.

Well, it would be a change of BB tactics....instead of senators getting the money directly in their pockets they would be heavily lobbied. Including state govenors.

Big business won't ever stop....the question is "How do we keep them from being influential?"

 

[Marener]

How can I tell you hate Freedom?

Power grabs by unelected, unaccountable lifetime appointees is freedom?

 

[martybegan]

Changing the terms of Congress requires a Constiutional amendment.

This is just a show for the rubes.

Next time read the fucking article. This is a resolution PROPOSING an Amendment you dumb fuck.