Ted Cruz, Ron DeSantis Introduce Term Limit Amendment

[b23hqb]

Cruz, the ultimate DC outsider that enrages fellow senators and representatives from both parties with his attempts to live up to the Constitution and give power back to the states, along with DeSantis, a Fl republican, backed up their promise from last month to try and get this issue to the states.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cruz-introduces-term-limits-amendment/article/2610799

"D.C. is broken," Cruz said in a statement Tuesday evening. "The American people resoundingly agreed on Election Day, and President-elect Donald Trump has committed to putting government back to work for the American people. It is well past time to put an end to the cronyism and deceit that has transformed Washington into a graveyard of good intentions."

You wanted change, and in my humble opinion, Ted Cruz was the man for that.

 

[Kyle]

It'll never pass.

 

[Larry Gude]

What is wrong with these guys?

This is a perfect moment for Cruz to make noise about the next SCOTUS, seize the initiative on an issue that's supposed to be right in his wheel house. And this is what he comes to work with?

The House shoots itself in the foot. Now Cruz comes from left field? What next?

 

[This_person]

What is wrong with these guys?

This is a perfect moment for Cruz to make noise about the next SCOTUS, seize the initiative on an issue that's supposed to be right in his wheel house. And this is what he comes to work with?

The House shoots itself in the foot. Now Cruz comes from left field? What next?

Cruz has thought about the next SCOTUS (http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/12/...-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-justice-vacancy, http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/11/ted_cruz_for_scotus.html). He's talked about the next SCOTUS member.

Term limits are not all that "left field", are they? Granted, I would much rather see him talking about repealing the 17th, but this is good, too.

 

[Larry Gude]

Cruz has thought about the next SCOTUS (http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/12/...-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-justice-vacancy, http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/11/ted_cruz_for_scotus.html). He's talked about the next SCOTUS member.

Term limits are not all that "left field", are they? Granted, I would much rather see him talking about repealing the 17th, but this is good, too.

Term limits, as I say, as Trump said, like this Idjit move by the House, are on NO ones list of priorities. The court is up towards the top with the limbo created by Scalia's death and Mitch's refusal to do anything about it until the next potus is in office.

 

[This_person]

Term limits, as I say, as Trump said, like this Idjit move by the House, are on NO ones list of priorities. The court is up towards the top with the limbo created by Scalia's death and Mitch's refusal to do anything about it until the next potus is in office.

You recall the whole "drain the swamp" thing, right? It was part of the campaign, part of the reason Pres-elect Trump became Pres-elect.

 

[Larry Gude]

You recall the whole "drain the swamp" thing, right? It was part of the campaign, part of the reason Pres-elect Trump became Pres-elect.

Fine. Let Cruz do his revival. The sooner he talks himself back into irrelevance, the better.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Term limits, as I say, as Trump said, like this Idjit move by the House, are on NO ones list of priorities.

You may recall what Trump said during the primaries...

“If I'm elected president I will push for a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress. They've been talking about that for years,” Trump said in a speech in Colorado championing his new package of ethics reforms. “Decades of failure in Washington and decades of special interest dealing must and will come to an end.”

Of course, this requires a constitutional amendment, which ain't gonna happen.

 

[Clem72]

You may recall what Trump said during the primaries...



Of course, this requires a constitutional amendment, which ain't gonna happen.

Why would it necessarily require an amendment? I get that the supreme court ruled that states can't limit the terms of a federal employee, but does that mean that the federal government cannot limit them?

More importantly, couldn't the states limit access to the ballot? They already arbitrarily impose limits (must have so many signatures to be on the ballot, or belong to so and so party, or have residency for so long). Just require that the state will not recognize party affiliation on the ballots for more than x number of terms. They would then have to run as an independent. Or perhaps you could require any non-independent be elected by their party through a primary process, which would at least force incumbents to recompete for their parties support.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Why would it necessarily require an amendment? I get that the supreme court ruled that states can't limit the terms of a federal employee, but does that mean that the federal government cannot limit them?

SCOTUS ruled in 1995 in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton that states can't adopt limits beyond what's in the Constitution. Remember, the Constitution (Article 1, Section 2 and 17th Amendment) lays out the requirements to be a member of Congress. Granted, this case focused on individual states imposing limits but the heart of the ruling stated:

A plurality of the latter court concluded that the States have no authority "to change, add to, or diminish" the age, citizenship, and residency requirements for congressional service enumerated in the Qualifications Clauses, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and Art. I, § 3, cl. 3, and rejected the argument that Amendment 73 is constitutional because it is formulated as a ballot access restriction rather than an outright disqualification of congressional incumbents.

The power granted to each House of Congress to judge the "Qualifications of its own Members," Art. I, § 5, cl. 1, does not include the power to alter or add to the qualifications set forth in the Constitution's text. Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486, 540. After examining Powell's analysis of the Qualifications Clauses' history and text, id., at 518-548, and its articulation of the "basic principles of our democratic system," id., at 548, this Court reaffirms that the constitutional qualifications for congressional service are "fixed," at least in the sense that they may not be supplemented by Congress

So too, the Constitution prohibits States from imposing congressional qualifications additional to those specifically enumerated in its text. Petitioners' argument that States possess control over qualifications as part of the original powers reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment is rejected for two reasons. First, the power to add qualifications is not within the States' pre-Tenth Amendment "original powers," but is a new right arising from the Constitution itself...

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/514/779/case.html