Republicans introduce joint resolution proposing Congress Term Limit Amendment

[Marener]

that was the intent. You want to ignore the 2nd part because you want the State governments to be able to ban gun ownership.

What you should be advocating is repealing the 2nd amendment.

So what you’re saying is the original intent no longer matters.

I guess that knocks out about 90% of the bullshit conservative judges have been peddling for decades.

 

[martybegan]

So what you’re saying is the original intent no longer matters.

I guess that knocks out about 90% of the bullshit conservative judges have been peddling for decades.

I said nothing of the sort.

Once the 14th amendment passed, it became part of the document, and the intent of the passers of the amendment became part of the constitution as related to the amendment.

Not my fault you aren't smart enough to figure that out.

 

[Marener]

I said nothing of the sort.

Once the 14th amendment passed, it became part of the document, and the intent of the passers of the amendment became part of the constitution as related to the amendment.

Not my fault you aren't smart enough to figure that out.

If the intent matters, then the purpose of the 2nd amendment isn’t for unrestricted access to guns for a personal use, as conservative judges want us to think when they reversed longstanding precedent and invented a new purpose.

 

[martybegan]

If the intent matters, then the purpose of the 2nd amendment isn’t for unrestricted access to guns for a personal use, as conservative judges want us to think when they reversed longstanding precedent and invented a new purpose.

It was for the people to keep the right to keep and bear arms. The problem is leftists like you think people should be unarmed, and you don't have the balls to try to overturn the amendment.

Instead you use courts and state legislatures to ignore it.

What "longstanding precedent"?

 

[Marener]

It was for the people to keep the right to keep and bear arms

In order to maintain a militia. That’s the intent.

Until your conservative judges decided to rewrite the constitution and invent intent that isn’t in the text.

 

[martybegan]

In order to maintain a militia. That’s the intent.

Until your conservative judges decided to rewrite the constitution and invent intent that isn’t in the text.

No, the militas are for the States, the people were given RKBA.

If it was just militias, the militias would have been given the RKBA, not the people.

 

[Marener]

No, the militas are for the States, the people were given RKBA.

If it was just militias, the militias would have been given the RKBA, not the people.

So we can pass any law to restrict guns that doesn’t conflict with the purpose of maintaining a militia.

After all, that is the original intent.

 

[Independent thinker]

It's better than the current situation we have now. I'd rather risk loss of experience than continue people making 50 year careers over being a representative or a Senator.

Five things:

1. For a side who claims they believe in democracy and voting rights and not wanting to take people off the ballot, it seems odd to me that they would want to pass laws taking people off the ballots who would be reelected by their constituents if they were on the ballot. Many on the right want term limits but those very same people would often re-elect those who are in there now. For the record, I'm actually against presidential term limits.

2. We seem to be stuck with a two party system. So, the names of our Senators and representatives don't really matter much. You either have a democrat or a republican. Does it really matter if we replace Joe Schmoe with John Doe? We still get the same thing - either a democrat or a republican who would just be nothing but dittos of the previous person. And, in many cases, we just replace one party with the same party who favor the very same policies anyway.

3. When it comes to national security and intelligence issues, I don't think it is a good idea to have constant newbies. I would think that our adversaries would like that and take advantage of it.

4. We actually have term limits now - two for the House and 6 for the Senate. If we don't like what they're doing then they only get one term but in most cases we haven't been doing that because as much as we bitch and gripe about it, we still reelect them anyway - because we apparently like what they're doing.

5. Being in retail in the past, I can tell you that the fourth quarter is always a bitch. You have to hire a slew of people, with them knowing that after the season is over, they will be gone. So, many of them steal as much as they can in two months because they know their term limit will be over. So, if you're trying to end corruption and the taking of lobbyist's money, you may very well be hiring in temps who will steal as much as they can in one term because they know they will be gone after their term limit is over.

 

[martybegan]

So we can pass any law to restrict guns that doesn’t conflict with the purpose of maintaining a militia.

After all, that is the original intent.

No, you cannot, because the people retain the right, not the militia.

During colonial days in the soon to be United States, the idea that a law abiding citizen couldn't own a gun because the government didn't want him to would be considered crazy.

So where does Roe come into play with original intent?

 

[Captain Caveman]

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

MSN



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.

8 maximum is sufficient for any post

 

[Marener]

No, you cannot, because the people retain the right, not the militia.

During colonial days in the soon to be United States, the idea that a law abiding citizen couldn't own a gun because the government didn't want him to would be considered crazy.

So where does Roe come into play with original intent?

So you’re back to ignoring the intent.

I’m not an originalist, and apparently neither are you.

You’re a “make it up to suit your purposes” type, which really what all originalists actually are since none of you can read the minds of people who have been dead for centuries.

 

[martybegan]

Five things:

1. For a side who claims they believe in democracy and voting rights and not wanting to take people off the ballot, it seems odd to me that they would want to pass laws taking people off the ballots who would be reelected by their constituents if they were on the ballot. Many on the right want term limits but those very same people would often re-elect those who are in there now. For the record, I'm actually against presidential term limits.

2. We seem to be stuck with a two party system. So, the names of our Senators and representatives don't really matter much. You either have a democrat or a republican. Does it really matter if we replace Joe Schmoe with John Doe? We still get the same thing - either a democrat or a republican who would just be nothing but dittos of the previous person. And, in many cases, we just replace one party with the same party who favor the very same policies anyway.

3. When it comes to national security and intelligence issues, I don't think it is a good idea to have constant newbies. I would think that our adversaries would like that and take advantage of it.

4. We actually have term limits now - two for the House and 6 for the Senate. If we don't like what they're doing then they only get one term but in most cases we haven't been doing that because as much as we bitch and gripe about it, we still reelect them anyway - because we apparently like what they're doing.

5. Being in retail in the past, I can tell you that the fourth quarter is always a bitch. You have to hire a slew of people, with them knowing that after the season is over, they will be gone. So, many of them steal as much as they can in two months because they know their term limit will be over. So, if you're trying to end corruption and the taking of lobbyist's money, you may very well be hiring in temps who will steal as much as they can in one term because they know they will be gone after their term limit is over.

I have never claimed we are a Democracy, and most on the right do not either. We are a constitutional republic.

That requires other changes, less likely to happen than term limits.

we have newbies already, constantly, and maybe 18 years for a senator and 12 for a member of the house is a better idea.

Those aren't term limits, those are electoral limits.

Comparing federal governance to the Christmas rush at Macys is a bit of a stretch,

 

[martybegan]

So you’re back to ignoring the intent.

I’m not an originalist, and apparently neither are you.

You’re a “make it up to suit your purposes” type, which really what all originalists actually are since none of you can read the minds of people who have been dead for centuries.

No, the original intent was for the people to have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

That's it.

So you think the people Don't have the right, correct?

 

[Marener]

No, the original intent was for the people to have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

In order to maintain the militia. If they intended for the right to be completely open ended, they wouldn’t have explicitly stated their intent.

 

[para bellum]

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

The obvious problem, getting 2/3 of each house to agree on eliminating the permanent political class...

These people see politics as the "family business".

 

[TNHarley]

Changing the terms of Congress requires a Constiutional amendment.

This is just a show for the rubes.

This is an amendment. Learn to read, moonbat.

 

[martybegan]

In order to maintain the militia. If they intended for the right to be completely open ended, they wouldn’t have explicitly stated their intent.

They did, by giving the RKBA to the people and not to the Milita.

 

[martybegan]

The obvious problem, getting 2/3 of each house to agree on eliminating the permanent political class...

These people see politics as the "family business".

The other option is a Constitutional Convention, but many people fear the can of worms that might open up.

I for one do not.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I have a bizarre proposal. Make the House term 4 years offset to the midterm of the President. The House can serve three terms for a total of twelve years, and we limit the Senate to two six-year terms.

When you elect the President, you elect 1/3rd of the Senate, and two years later another 1/3rd with the Election of the House, and the final 1/3rd with the election of the next presidential term.

That almost guarantees that the House and Senate will be forced into gridlock except for truly bipartisan legislation, based on past history. Mid-terms would be the real deal when it comes to control of the House and prevents the constant gain or loss of seats in the midterms usually associated with presidential performance because it is the whole House still. You could restrict taxes to take effect only upon election of the next House term, making every Representative stand for reelection before the new tax rate takes effect.

To summarize: In 2028, we will elect 1/3rd of the Senate and the new President. In 2030, we elect the entire House and another 1/3rd of the Senate. In 2032, we would elect a new President and the final 1/3rd of the Senate.

I like it!

 

[Independent thinker]

I have never claimed we are a Democracy, and most on the right do not either. We are a constitutional republic.

That requires other changes, less likely to happen than term limits.

we have newbies already, constantly, and maybe 18 years for a senator and 12 for a member of the house is a better idea.

Those aren't term limits, those are electoral limits.

Comparing federal governance to the Christmas rush at Macys is a bit of a stretch,

I may sound like a lefty here but:

A consitutional republic just means one party control whereby we force the public to accept that party's laws and the public has no say in the matter. If it hadn't been for Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema, we would be living under that one party rule right now under Democrats. Fortunately, God was watching down on us and that didn't happen. While I prefer the conservative views on many things, I don't believe in one party rule, to hell with Americans.

We have two parties and most of them get reelected. The only real newbies are when there is a switch of parties. That has favored Senate Republicans this go around and again in the near future. I say we hold onto that and not give the other side an opportunity to flip seats with term limits. When you replace a republican with a republican or a democrat with a democrat, term limits mean nothing because all you get is a ditto. You're fooling yourself if that will be some kind of a change.

There ARE term limits now, as I said. If you don't like who we have then you make them a one term person. By denying a person to be on the ballot, as the left tried to do with Trump, you are minimizing elections and taking democracy away, which is why we vote, AKA democracy. The thing is, if people are so in favor of term limits then why do we just keep reelecting the same people over and over? The answer is those in favor of term limits are but a minority of voters and the majority wins.

Comparing term limits to the Christmas rush at Macy's isn't as far fetched as you think. Lobbysists are lobbysists and they will bribe anyone and everyone, whether there are term limits or not. And, you might be more apt to take more in bribes if you know your days are numbered.

I just think you are over simplyfying what you think the results of term limits would bring.