levin On Convention of states (Page 4): That's an excellent reason for the Article V Convention of States.

Blade_Runner Loc: DARK SIDE OF THE MOON

Larry the Legend wrote:

I don't see the irony. Would you expect them to pass a measure limiting themselves?

That's an excellent reason for the Article V Convention of States.

samtheyank

JimMe wrote:

Ironic that the same body, the US Congress (who passed what proved to be the 22nd Amendment limiting the Executive Branch's chief Officer, the President, to 2 full terms) has never passed a measure to the States to Ratify the Constitution to limit Congress' terms!!!

It is coming Old Man! It is just a matter of time.

Loki Loc: Georgia

samtheyank wrote:

It is coming Old Man! It is just a matter of time.

Lots of politicians pay lip service to term limits. When it comes time to get serious, you can always find them willing to discuss anything else. One of the stupidest things the US electorate ever did was to ratify the 17th Amendment. Until 1913, Senators were chosen by state legislatures rather than popular vote, and no state legislature, (who only serve 2 year terms, AND their constituents know where they live)) would stand for a US Senator taking up space in DC for 30 or 40 years. In the Senate, much more than the House, it is nearly impossible to unseat an incumbent, and you can bet when he or she retires that his or her replacement has been handpicked by the good ol' boys on both sides of the aisle.

okie don

We're working on changing this Loki in ratifying a 28th Amendment.
[ 11 States already did back in the 1899's ]
It will set term limits and bring these 'lobbiest loving' elected representatives
back to the States that elected them so they can be ' monitored.
Check it out: www.americaagain.net

okie don

Back in the 1800's KY,MD,NC,NH,NJ,NY,PA,RI,SC,VA, & VT.
CT DID TOO BUT FOR SOME REASON IT WASN'T ' RECORDED'.
THEY THINK THE WAR OF 1812 'SIDETRACKED' the completion and it was ' shelved'.
All this was accomplished between 1789 and 1792.

Now it's up to us to unify and " get-R-Done' for the benefit of our progeny.
www.americaagain.net

JimMe

Larry the Legend wrote:

I don't see the irony. Would you expect them to pass a measure limiting themselves?

I understand your point... Without expecting Congress to pass term limits for themselves, the irony is lost...

But I do see the irony simply because I see Congress as openly narrowing Executive Branch's rights and maintaining the same rights for themselves...

samtheyank

JimMe wrote:

I understand your point... Without expecting Congress to pass term limits for themselves, the irony is lost...

But I do see the irony simply because I see Congress as openly narrowing Executive Branch's rights and maintaining the same rights for themselves...

I think there is a movement to use Article Five of The Constitution to send amendments to the States to vote on and possibly ratify-Convention of States. The great thing about it bypasses Congress, The Courts and the Executive Branch. I would love to see this happen. I would love to get rid of the Supreme Court's lifetime appointments with term limits and have a easier way to reverse a bad court decision. This branch of government has way too much power and I repeat way too much power

JimMe

samtheyank wrote:

I think there is a movement to use Article Five of The Constitution to send amendments to the States to vote on and possibly ratify-Convention of States. The great thing about it bypasses Congress, The Courts and the Executive Branch. I would love to see this happen. I would love to get rid of the Supreme Court's lifetime appointments with term limits and have a easier way to reverse a bad court decision. This branch of government has way too much power and I repeat way too much power

The idea of the Supreme Court Justices not having term limits is sound... It allows for a more independent Court when deciding the Constitutionality of Laws passed and signed by the other 2 Branches of the USA Government... However, I see age limits of 65 or 70 as justified because after 65, human brain power is considerably weaker than it once was, and only gets weaker as time goes on...

bahmer

JimMe wrote:

The idea of the Supreme Court Justices not having term limits is sound... It allows for a more independent Court when deciding the Constitutionality of Laws passed and signed by the other 2 Branches of the USA Government... However, I see age limits of 65 or 70 as justified because after 65, human brain power is considerably weaker than it once was, and only gets weaker as time goes on...

Maybe that would help in the Senate and House of Representatives as well if we can't get term limits lets start with age limits.

samtheyank

JimMe wrote:

The idea of the Supreme Court Justices not having term limits is sound... It allows for a more independent Court when deciding the Constitutionality of Laws passed and signed by the other 2 Branches of the USA Government... However, I see age limits of 65 or 70 as justified because after 65, human brain power is considerably weaker than it once was, and only gets weaker as time goes on...

A Rebuttal,

That was the way it was intended since the founding. Today, there have been far too many judicial decisions handed down that ignore or violate the American Constitution. Having term limits will solve the age problem and it will be far easier to get rid of judges who don't honor the Constitution by legislating from the bench instead of interpreting it. I am also strongly in favor of applying a remedy that if the Supreme Court, nine men and women, hand down a decision that forces Americans to do and accept things that is totally contrary to our traditions and values, we should have a way to reverse it. The bottom line is something has to be done. The age requirement does not address the misuse of power by the Supreme Court or legal decisions that violate the The American Constitution.