| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Politix | |
| De Mint introduces Constitutional amendment requiring term limits | |
| 2009-11-11 | |
A Republican senator on Tuesday introduced a Constitutional amendment that would mandate term limits for all federal lawmakers.
"Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians," said DeMint in a statement. "As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward...amassing their own power." Two thirds of the House and Senate as well as three quarters of the states would need to vote for DeMint's amendment for it to become a part of the Constitution. Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) cosponsored the bill. Coburn has long supported term limits. He retired from the House in 2000 after being elected in 1994, pledging only to serve three consecutive terms. Coburn then ran for Senate and won in 2004. Brownback is stepping down from the Senate in 2010 to run for governor, citing his support for term limits. Hutchison is running for governor against incumbent Rick Perry (R), who is running for a third term in 2010. If elected, Perry will become the longest serving governor in Texas history. | |
| Posted by:Fred |
| #21 Or Vandenberg, George, Holland, Goldwater or Russell Lawzie dems wuz de dayz! Whitewallz on de tires and on de sides of de menz hedz. Burgers wuz alla five centz and commies wuz de real thang. No pinkos doing dere vacayshun thang with Fidel evah year. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2009-11-11 20:38 |
| #20 End congressional pensions and find a better way to set district boundaries. Someone at Hot Air mentioned using zip codes. I like that idea. Start adding zip codes together till you get enough people to fill one district, then start adding the next bunch to get the next district, etc. |
| Posted by: crosspatch 2009-11-11 19:45 |
| #19 They get their two terms in Senate, twelve years is enough even for a Goldwater. Only a fool or an idiot royalist looks at it that way which is how we got into this mess. I would trade all Goldwater and other good senators extra terms for getting ourselves rid of termites like Kennedy and Byrd far sooner. In the long run the latter are far more destructive than the former are constructive. History shows the truth of it. No government position is meant to be permanent nor long standing. George Washington set that example. |
| Posted by: Bolshoun 2009-11-11 16:01 |
| #18 Also a convention cannot be constrained by 'rules' or limits. They can do whatever the heck they want. Abolish the constitution. Institute Sharia law. Whatever. A lot would depend on how the delegates to a convention are chosen. If by direct vote - I think we'll be screwed since people will vote for whoever will promise them the most (see Obama). If chosen by the separate legislatures... we might have a little hope. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-11-11 14:07 |
| #17 ..or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, Says the states can call it themselves. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-11-11 13:44 |
#16 It's not clear to me, per the Constitution, who runs a constitutional convention:Article V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress ... It seems to me that the Congress calls the convention, and that implies that the Congress sets the rules and runs it. Now the convention could do what the last one did. Recall that the Congress (under the Articles of Confederation) had called a convention with the charge of finding ways to improve the Articles. First thing the new convention agreed to was to toss the Articles and write a new constitution. Would we win or lose if a new convention did that today? |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-11-11 13:23 |
| #15 None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by Constitutional Convention. However, there is always a first time. If enough States go broke because of Federal mandates and bone-headed Federal legislation, a Constitutional Convention may become a reality. I'd be in favor of an Amendment limiting the terms of Congress members. Now that's change I can believe in. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2009-11-11 13:05 |
| #14 Only the consituents have the right to vote out their representatives. The reps have an impact on the ENTIRE country. Term limits is how we remove the corrupt reps from other districts. Do it now. |
| Posted by: Hellfish 2009-11-11 12:32 |
| #13 In California we had a ballot proposition to limit terms for state legislators. Of course, there was no way the legislators would enact such a law themselves. I voted for it at the time because the state assembly speaker was flaming liberal Willie Brown and I couldn't see any other way to ever get rid of him. The ballot proposition passed and we now have term limits but, sadly, I don't think it has made much difference. The legislature is still overwhelmingly liberal, corrupt and irresponsible. I think glenmore said it best, voters get a chance to vote these people out of office every two or six years but we don't do it. That's the problem. |
| Posted by: Abu Uluque 2009-11-11 11:55 |
| #12 You really believe that given the opportunity the state governments and the state parties would allow the beltway boys to dictate the convention. There was no beltway at the original convention. It was all handled by the states. The states, federalism, would suddenly be something other than a submissive subordinate administrative unit to the beltway. You don't think they'd take the first opportunity to kill unfunded federally directed mandates that suck their budgets dry? You really believe they'd give the central government more power that would mean the end to the states themselves? All politics is local. They're going to cover their own posteriors. Once the process begins, each state is equal. Wyoming is just as important as California or New York. While the existing powers may control the big boys, there are enough little boys out there to put the hurt on the those concentrated in coastal urban areas. What you fear is already evolving right before your eyes without the convention. Take council of your fears and just watch it happen anyway. It's the one 'out' we have. You really think that the Trunks running the beltway are going to massively alter what has been put in place by the Donks. You show me one department they've removed from the federal hierarchy. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-11-11 11:37 |
| #11 --- I would prefer an amendment allowing for the recall of elected federal lawmakers. It's more to the point. --- A Constitutional Convention would be subject to exactly the same forces giving us the current dog's breakfast of congressional representation. --- It is true than the electorate repeatedly has chosen NOT to enforce term limits. We need a better quality electorate. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2009-11-11 10:35 |
| #10 Procopius, As good an idea as that is, a Constitutional Convention today would be an ever-loving disaster for this nation, and would probably insure its collapse. It would take months just to determine who is going to be represented - and can you imagine the ind of people that the current Congress and administration would insist on seating as delegates? Put another way - do you want people like Saul Olinsky helping write our Constitution? An amendment is probably the best - and only realistic way - to deal with the problem. A full convention, sadly, might only be truly possible if the current system has failed to the extent that the only option is to start over. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2009-11-11 10:08 |
| #9 The only way this will come to pass is by the states instituting a Constitutional Convention and sending it back home for ratification. The best way to press it is to include it as one of many amendments that will be addressed in such a convention. When you get within a handful of states to make the convention a reality, then you'll see whether the beltway will reform or perish. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-11-11 08:49 |
| #8 Byrd or Thurmond or Kennedy or Stevens. Or Vandenberg, George, Holland, Goldwater or Russell |
| Posted by: Rubber Ducky 2009-11-11 08:45 |
| #7 We can enforce term limits every two to six years but consistently choose not to. It is the fault of We the People. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-11-11 08:38 |
| #6 I have no hope this will pass. Can you see Pelosi, Byrd, et al endorsing it? Even if 90% of the voters wanted it, they will never give up their power. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2009-11-11 07:21 |
| #5 I have hope for this change. |
| Posted by: newc 2009-11-11 06:39 |
| #4 A thousand times, Yes. |
| Posted by: GirlThursday 2009-11-11 05:21 |
| #3 Love it. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2009-11-11 00:38 |
| #2 The single most meaningful thing that can be done to fix the out of control government and the corruption of that feeds off it. |
| Posted by: ed 2009-11-11 00:17 |
| #1 Good for him. We need this. No more permanent congressional Reps like Pelosi - or Delay. Nor more eternal senators like Byrd or Thurmond or Kennedy or Stevens. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2009-11-11 00:12 |