Constitutional Convention....

This_person

Well-Known Member
Only one more state needs to have a Republican Governor and Legislature for this to possibly happen.....

I can the snowflakes running for their safe spaces now......

Will there be a new constitutional convention? - CBS News
https://apple.news/ADrBfJ9ABR-K149UslVKTSA

It takes 3/4 of the states to ratify. That means 38 states have to agree something is good.

But, it's a great discussion anyway. What would you change?

My first would be a repeal of the 17th to give states a say in federal government authority again. Next would be a balanced budget. Next would be term limits for Congressional elected representatives.


What say you?
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
Amendment XXVIII:

Henceforth all members of the Democratic, Socialist, Marxist or Communist Parties shall be purged from the Earth for all time.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
It takes 3/4 of the states to ratify. That means 38 states have to agree something is good.

But, it's a great discussion anyway. What would you change?

My first would be a repeal of the 17th to give states a say in federal government authority again. Next would be a balanced budget. Next would be term limits for Congressional elected representatives.


What say you?

As much as I hate some of the lifers, term limits are just a concoction brought up to get out people that you can't elect out.

Term limits, its called voting for the other guy.
 

Bird Dog

Bird Dog
PREMO Member
It takes 3/4 of the states to ratify. That means 38 states have to agree something is good.

But, it's a great discussion anyway. What would you change?

My first would be a repeal of the 17th to give states a say in federal government authority again. Next would be a balanced budget. Next would be term limits for Congressional elected representatives.


What say you?
Repeal the 17th
Term limits
Limit the powers and size of government...and a host of others.
Li
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
As much as I hate some of the lifers, term limits are just a concoction brought up to get out people that you can't elect out.

Term limits, its called voting for the other guy.

You have a point, but I would like to make a comment on your point.
Term limits are a concoction to get rid of people we cannot vote out.
But why can't we vote them out.?
IMO it is because of the perks they hold and not so much because the people like them.

First they have franking.
A way to send a message to all of their constituents all year long.----Free
Then they have certain powers to do favors, political and otherwise. The longer they stay the more power they have.
They have slush funds -treasure chests of left over campaign money , that they can give to their buds for votes, and receive from their buds for theirs.
They start off a new campaign with money, while their opponent must start with nothing.
The power of incumbency.

I believe term limits are necessary in order that we don't see a politician carried onto the floor in a stretcher and have his hand held up on a tight vote.
I also believe that we need age limits to keep people with Dementia, alzheimers, and brain tumors from voting.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Only one more state needs to have a Republican Governor and Legislature for this to possibly happen.....

I can the snowflakes running for their safe spaces now......

Will there be a new constitutional convention? - CBS News
https://apple.news/ADrBfJ9ABR-K149UslVKTSA

Why do I care about this?

That's a real question - you're smart and you posted it for a reason, so please explain to me why it interested you.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
As much as I hate some of the lifers, term limits are just a concoction brought up to get out people that you can't elect out.

Term limits, its called voting for the other guy.

Generally I agree. My dad once pointed out something a long time ago that is still largely true - if the same party keeps a seat, they usually keep the same staff.
They have the same people they work with in DC. So the person who holds elective office might change, but nothing else does.
Term limits would give the appearance of kicking them out without actually doing so, while the people who actually DO a lot of the work - they remain.

It's kind of moot, because they remain there no matter what. My dad was an observer of the "deep state" decades before it had a name.

ONE of my concerns is that a Senator or Representative becomes less responsive to his constituents the longer he remains in office.
I think this is especially true of House members - they must spend a great deal of their time fund raising.

We observed recently a couple members speak their mind because they KNOW they're not returning. If you are term limited - you don't have to be wishy-washy.
You're still out of office. I like the fact that Virginia governors have a term limit of ONE term - they can run later, but they can't run for consecutive terms.
I think it works fairly well.

I think things work well when there's diversity of opinion and competition for seats. We have anywhere from 20-30 seats in the House that are unopposed in an election, and about twenty more with only token opposition.
Still more for which the opposing party hasn't won in decades, if ever. I don't know how to correct that - I find it hard to believe there's good reasons for people to always align with a given party for decades at a time.

HOWEVER -

The fact remains that people in office very rarely get voted OUT. They hold too much power, once ensconced. When 90-95% of the House gets re-elected - and the Senate, similarly - you're talking too much power.
It's scary to think that in many parts of this country and at the national level, good people don't run for a lot of reasons, but one is, their opposition is just too powerful and has too big a war chest (money) to challenge.
Think of it this way - in another time, you might hesitate to run against a Washington or Jefferson, simply because you believe they're national icons and people respect them too much.
But imagine if it was fear against an Andrew Johnson - because he just had too much money?

It would be good overall, for the country - to get new blood in there. To get men who are there to make a difference, not to secure a career.
 

Restitution

New Member
As much as I hate some of the lifers, term limits are just a concoction brought up to get out people that you can't elect out.

Term limits, its called voting for the other guy.

It was thought of as important enough to implement on the Presidential elections. And, the POTUS doesn't even make laws in this country!
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
As much as I hate some of the lifers, term limits are just a concoction brought up to get out people that you can't elect out.

Term limits, its called voting for the other guy.

While I agree with you conceptually, gerrymandering has made "the other guy" a virtual non-entity. Now, you could argue that is simply because their ideas are not as good to a particular populace, but that population is specifically chosen because of the ideas to which they are most likely to agree.

Politicians do not fear an election opponent, they fear a primary opponent. And, who picks whether or not there will be a primary opponent but their party. So, if a D/R gets cocky with their party, the D/R will be primaried. The D/R is not afraid of a R/D coming at them, but their own party.

Do we, the people, have control over this? Technically yes, but in practice, not really.
 

Bird Dog

Bird Dog
PREMO Member
Why do I care about this?

That's a real question - you're smart and you posted it for a reason, so please explain to me why it interested you.

The Trump election showed that our country desires change. There are parts of the Constituon that have withstood the test of time and I believe our founding fathers were guided by a higher source.
....but our Federal government and Congress have served its own self interest for too long.
I believe the the most important amendment is the 10th and it’s been abandoned.
Congress is not going to change, both Republicans and Democrats are no longer representing “We, the people”
A Constitutional Convention is the only way to make changes that really count.
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
There isn't a single state controlled by Democrats that would ever favor a Convention.
 

Rommey

Well-Known Member
The fact remains that people in office very rarely get voted OUT. They hold too much power, once ensconced. When 90-95% of the House gets re-elected - and the Senate, similarly - you're talking too much power.
Which begs the question: How does a group with an approval rating consistently less than 20% consistently get reelected?
 

Bird Dog

Bird Dog
PREMO Member
Which begs the question: How does a group with an approval rating consistently less than 20% consistently get reelected?

Gerrymandering and campaign coffers chock full of special interest money. How could anyone outspend Steny for example?
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
The Trump election showed that our country desires change. There are parts of the Constituon that have withstood the test of time and I believe our founding fathers were guided by a higher source.
....but our Federal government and Congress have served its own self interest for too long.
I believe the the most important amendment is the 10th and it’s been abandoned.
Congress is not going to change, both Republicans and Democrats are no longer representing “We, the people”
A Constitutional Convention is the only way to make changes that really count.

Do you think Republicans would really do that? There's so much party in-fighting that I can't imagine them coming together as one to amend our Constitution. I read the CBS story and what it sounds like to me is that they're trying to frighten liberals so that they'll come our hard to defeat Ed Gillespie. Then at the bottom it says:

So regardless of what happens on Tuesday, we should not assume that a rewriting of the Constitution is imminent, although it is arguably becoming more plausible.

They had just spent a whole story telling us that a rewriting of the Constitution IS probable, based on the writings of....Mark Levin. :crazy: I'm guessing today and tomorrow we'll be hearing more about this constitutional convention thing and how it means Republicans (boo! hiss!) will repeal the 13th and perhaps 14th amendments.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
Which begs the question: How does a group with an approval rating consistently less than 20% consistently get reelected?

It is because people hate "congress" as a group but don't mind their own representative. They do a very good job in creating a boogey man that gets the hate instead of them.

Like someone else said if there were term limits mostly all that would change would be the name of the rep/senator.
 

PeoplesElbow

Well-Known Member
Gerrymandering and campaign coffers chock full of special interest money. How could anyone outspend Steny for example?

Several years ago Charles Lollar should have ran as a Democrat and pasted his face all over election signs in PG county.
 
Top