Imposing term limits

The place to discuss political issues.

User avatar
alpha
mega power poster
mega power poster
Posts: 3587
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 6:12 pm
Location: damned, or in The dam!

Imposing term limits

Postby alpha » Thu Feb 09, 4:34 am

One of the Donald's campaign promises involved term limits for members of the house and senate, which isn't likely to come from the lazy members of either congress, but apparently it doesn't have to.

Caroline Baum wrote:The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1951, limited the president and vice president to two terms in office. The only elected officials immune to term limits, it seems, are members of Congress. Self-interest argues that the thrust to impose them will have to come from the states.

Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides the guidelines for amending the original document in either of two ways. Congress may propose amendments, with the approval of two-thirds of both Houses, or the legislatures of two-thirds of the states may call a convention for that purpose. To date, the states have never exercised that option.


Perhaps it's time to get the states to exercise that option? I, like this author were still skeptical, but apparently there has been precedence.

Caroline Baum wrote:I am skeptical that these lifers will legislate themselves out of office. But Blumel cites a precedent: the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, which established the popular election of two senators from each state for a six-year term.

Prior to 1913, senators were elected by state legislatures. The House had passed several measures proposing an amendment on the direct election of senators, but “the bills could not get out of Senate committee,” Blumel says.

Then the states got into the act. Once 30 states had passed applications for a convention to amend the Constitution — close to the 32 needed at the time — Congress wrote and passed its own amendment.

“It took a decade back then,” Blumel says. Things happen a lot faster nowadays, which means “we’ll know in the next five years whether it’s going to happen or not.”


There's an excellent quote in the write-ins at the end of the article.

O C Sure wrote:An appropriate source for Term Limits since both the Constitution and Declaration of Independence owe their origins to this man:

"The short tenure of office prevents oligarchies and aristocracies from falling into hands of families; it is not easy for a person to do any great harm when his tenure of office is short, whereas long possession begets tyranny in oligarchies and democracies." — Aristotle, Politics, 1308a16-1308a21

Cujo04
mega power poster
mega power poster
Posts: 5456
Joined: Fri Aug 27, 5:14 pm

Re: Imposing term limits

Postby Cujo04 » Thu Feb 09, 6:06 pm

Most people seem to agree that our Congress sucks. When asked for specifics however, they will claim the problem lies with the representatives from the other 49 states.

Change begins at home

User avatar
Dazzler
mega power poster
mega power poster
Posts: 15265
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2:45 pm
Location: Among the six billion.
Contact:

Re: Imposing term limits

Postby Dazzler » Sun Feb 12, 11:49 am

Encouraging even more short-term planning and thinking? Sounds perfect.

slither
super poster
super poster
Posts: 919
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 4:09 am
Location: Trace my IP and see

Re: Imposing term limits

Postby slither » Tue Feb 14, 9:12 pm

alpha wrote:One of the Donald's campaign promises involved term limits for members of the house and senate, which isn't likely to come from the lazy members of either congress, but apparently it doesn't have to.

Caroline Baum wrote:The 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1951, limited the president and vice president to two terms in office. The only elected officials immune to term limits, it seems, are members of Congress. Self-interest argues that the thrust to impose them will have to come from the states.

Article V of the U.S. Constitution provides the guidelines for amending the original document in either of two ways. Congress may propose amendments, with the approval of two-thirds of both Houses, or the legislatures of two-thirds of the states may call a convention for that purpose. To date, the states have never exercised that option.


Perhaps it's time to get the states to exercise that option? I, like this author were still skeptical, but apparently there has been precedence.

Caroline Baum wrote:I am skeptical that these lifers will legislate themselves out of office. But Blumel cites a precedent: the 17th Amendment to the Constitution, which established the popular election of two senators from each state for a six-year term.

Prior to 1913, senators were elected by state legislatures. The House had passed several measures proposing an amendment on the direct election of senators, but “the bills could not get out of Senate committee,” Blumel says.

Then the states got into the act. Once 30 states had passed applications for a convention to amend the Constitution — close to the 32 needed at the time — Congress wrote and passed its own amendment.

“It took a decade back then,” Blumel says. Things happen a lot faster nowadays, which means “we’ll know in the next five years whether it’s going to happen or not.”


There's an excellent quote in the write-ins at the end of the article.

O C Sure wrote:An appropriate source for Term Limits since both the Constitution and Declaration of Independence owe their origins to this man:

"The short tenure of office prevents oligarchies and aristocracies from falling into hands of families; it is not easy for a person to do any great harm when his tenure of office is short, whereas long possession begets tyranny in oligarchies and democracies." — Aristotle, Politics, 1308a16-1308a21


Regardless, an amendment requires the approval of two-thirds of both houses and thirty-seven states.

Good luck with that.


Return to “All Politics”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests