The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: 1Buckshot on July 27, 2011, 11:01:36 AM
-
I know this will never happen because Congress is the only ones that could vote on it .We all know that would never happen :'(
-
I voted for shorter term limits although I am "philosophically" opposed to them, preferring, instead, for the voters to carry the responsibility of keeping good ones and dumping bad ones.
As Tom B. has had opportunity to point out on so many occasions, that simply ain't gonna happen until we come up with a reality/game show that highlights the best qualities of a good politician. Of course, with Hollywood running the programming, "good" politicians would be just the ones we need to lynch.
So, toss out the baby with the bath water and we will be better off keeping these scum bags from getting established.
-
I voted for longer terms. I think the first term is spent learning how to play the game, so the next two could be spend getting some work done (yeah, yeah, I know!).
Here's my problem with term limits: If the terms are too short then the actual power of the office is shifted down to the aids and managers (who are not elected) that seem to stay on forever, moving from office to office. While newly elected congress critters do bring some of their own staff with them they also augment it with "lifers" that know the ropes. Too much of that crap goes on the way it is now.
Still, holding elected office should not be a career.
-
I used to hate the idea with a fiery passion. Not only is it Unconstitutional, but anti-democratic. After all, we have term limits. Its two years for a Congressman and six for a Senator. At that point its up to the voters. Ahh, youth..... :-\. Now, I am so fed up with the money machine that breeds a 95% reelection rate in normal years that I do think term limits are a good idea. Sadly, they will require a Constitutional amendment.
FQ13
-
I voted NO.
Not because I oppose term limits, I think it's a good idea.
But because I disagree with "Say one 8 year term for both houses with elections for half of each house every four years".
The constitution specifies term lengths and frequency of elections. I go along with a total of 12 years, that's 3 for one house and 2 for the other, or just 2 terms, regardless of length.
-
We've got term limits now, we just can't get the fools to vote the "gentlemen and ladies" OUT of office.
Pecos
-
We've got term limits now, we just can't get the fools to vote the "gentlemen and ladies" OUT of office.
Pecos
What "gentlemen and ladies" ?
I thought we were talking about politicians. ???
-
We live in a technological age so we could try this.
Each member of Congress is fitted with an explosive collar the day they assume office.
An ongoing Approval Survey is continuously by a neutral agency, say the NRA...ok...so they can't have the job.
When your approval rating falls below a certain, to be determined, % (maybe 60%?), the collar gives a beep and a slight tingle to the wearer.
Each day the rating is below the set %, you receive the beep and tingle as a reminder.
After a few weeks (number to be determined) of ratings below the %, the collar explodes and a special election is held.
The office holder can resign and have the collar removed at any time.
As an option, the voting could be done on a weekly Television show. where the contestants Congress-members can explain their performance.
At the end of the show, the results are tallied and signals sent to the collars.
Should a collar be instructed to explode, it will first relay it's location so the mess can be cleaned up with as little additional burden to the citizens as possible.
Edited as an after thought.
This will provide a popular vote on how the citizens "like" the member. Perhaps votes of those in the members state/voting region will count extra...maybe 2 instead of 1. This will allow some local support without taking away the necessity on severing the country.
Additionally. a Constitutional Judging Panel could be in place. 3 members strict, conservative, interruption, 3 members liberal interruption, and 3 members a neutral, or "on the fence" interruption. If this panel rules that you have violated the Constitution, it overrides the popular vote and you fail. ..... zzzzzzttt...booom
You must act within the Constitution before pleasing the electorate is even considered.
-
+101
Finally a new reality show this fool country can participate in and do some good with. ;D
-
+101
Finally a new reality show this fool country can participate in and do some good with. ;D
You are talking about the same fool country that elected these clowns to begin with. They are all to squeamish to push the button. Ergo, nothing changes.
-
Everybody wants term limits for everyone except the guys they like. What we need is better voter education. Term limits are a restriction of my right to choose the representatives I want. If my district likes the same guy for 30 years, then so be it.
FWIW, I worked to elect the first Republican to represent our district in 140+ years. Whether it's single party control or single candidate control, the voting booth is an effective way to bring change when the voters want it, or when the "minority" party/candidate shows up in sufficient numbers.
Education is a far better solution than legislation.
-
We live in a technological age so we could try this.
Each member of Congress is fitted with an explosive collar the day they assume office.
An ongoing Approval Survey is continuously by a neutral agency, say the NRA...ok...so they can't have the job.
When your approval rating falls below a certain, to be determined, % (maybe 60%?), the collar gives a beep and a slight tingle to the wearer.
Each day the rating is below the set %, you receive the beep and tingle as a reminder.
After a few weeks (number to be determined) of ratings below the %, the collar explodes and a special election is held.
The office holder can resign and have the collar removed at any time.
As an option, the voting could be done on a weekly Television show. where the contestants Congress-members can explain their performance.
At the end of the show, the results are tallied and signals sent to the collars.
Should a collar be instructed to explode, it will first relay it's location so the mess can be cleaned up with as little additional burden to the citizens as possible.
Edited as an after thought.
This will provide a popular vote on how the citizens "like" the member. Perhaps votes of those in the members state/voting region will count extra...maybe 2 instead of 1. This will allow some local support without taking away the necessity on severing the country.
Additionally. a Constitutional Judging Panel could be in place. 3 members strict, conservative, interruption, 3 members liberal interruption, and 3 members a neutral, or "on the fence" interruption. If this panel rules that you have violated the Constitution, it overrides the popular vote and you fail. ..... zzzzzzttt...booom
You must act within the Constitution before pleasing the electorate is even considered.
How is this any different than the current method of popularity contest ?Doing what is popular instead of what is right is what got us into this mess.
Everybody wants term limits for everyone except the guys they like. What we need is better voter education. Term limits are a restriction of my right to choose the representatives I want. If my district likes the same guy for 30 years, then so be it.
FWIW, I worked to elect the first Republican to represent our district in 140+ years. Whether it's single party control or single candidate control, the voting booth is an effective way to bring change when the voters want it, or when the "minority" party/candidate shows up in sufficient numbers.
Education is a far better solution than legislation.
+10
-
Everybody wants term limits for everyone except the guys they like. What we need is better voter education. Term limits are a restriction of my right to choose the representatives I want. If my district likes the same guy for 30 years, then so be it.
FWIW, I worked to elect the first Republican to represent our district in 140+ years. Whether it's single party control or single candidate control, the voting booth is an effective way to bring change when the voters want it, or when the "minority" party/candidate shows up in sufficient numbers.
Education is a far better solution than legislation.
Education is a nice thought, but even education won't overcome apathy and greed.
-
How is this any different than the current method of popularity contest ?Doing what is popular instead of what is right is what got us into this mess.
+10
My interpretation of what is "right" leans to what is covered in the Constitution. Don't know how to prevent folks, like the SCOTUS, from screwing up what is intended by the Constitution, but if it could be done, I'd let the popular vote be taken on that. I'll let Tom or FQ tell me what could be screwed up within the bounds of the Constitution.
-
My interpretation of what is "right" leans to what is covered in the Constitution. Don't know how to prevent folks, like the SCOTUS, from screwing up what is intended by the Constitution, but if it could be done, I'd let the popular vote be taken on that. I'll let Tom or FQ tell me what could be screwed up within the bounds of the Constitution.
As long as activist judges are allowed to make it up as they go along pretty much everything can be screwed up under non specific clauses such as the "Commerce clause".
Are you aware the Dems are now encouraging Obama to bypass congress and use the 14th Amend. to"solve" the budget crisis ?
Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
-
All true, Tom.
I've spoken, in particular, against the Commerce Clause before.
But I think we have more of a chance getting the Constitutional interpretations back on track than we have of educating voters to Just Say No to government handouts and those who will provide them.
I think you have pretty much said the same thing before.