Article

2012-02-28 Home Front: Politix

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2012-02-28 01:16|| || Front Page|| [11125 views ] Top

#1 amount of heavy metals in the California water supply is directly proportional to the insolvency of said state - mad hatters all? Ouch...

Posted by Water Modem 2012-02-28 02:30|| 2012-02-28 02:30|| Front Page Top

#2 Just remember that when Newt had the opportunity he failed to send to the states the Constitutional Amendment for term limits. As much as Ms. Pelosi has damaged America, she as enabled by a Trunk who is no less enamored of power.

Posted by Procopius2k 2012-02-28 08:44|| 2012-02-28 08:44|| Front Page Top

#3 If my meory is any good Contitutional Amendments have to be ratified by two thirds of the States (in addition of being ratified by two thirds of Congress). Couldn't it be that Newt kew all too well it had a snowball in hell chance of adoption?

Posted by JFM 2012-02-28 10:05|| 2012-02-28 10:05|| Front Page Top

#4 Its 2/3rds of the House and Senate [or Constitutional Convention] for proposal and 3/4 of the states for ratification. As to if you'd get enough states to vote yes, think about the opportunities presented to state politicians if incumbents in Congress were required to step down. It opens a viable career progression that is otherwise obstructed by sitting incumbents who accumulate lots of ~~bribes~~ 'campaign' contributions from national lobbyists that state personalities usually have no access.

Posted by Procopius2k 2012-02-28 10:19|| 2012-02-28 10:19|| Front Page Top

#5 @Procopius.

Stop day dreaming. First it has to get approval of 2/3 of the Chambers and I dion't think incumebents would vote for term limits unless you put a loaded gun on their heads. Then you have to get thirty eight states ratifying the Amendmnet. The fact is that either because they have a good chance of being next incumbent, party discipline or because of the incumbents network of influence it is dubious you get thity states ratifying the Amendment let alone thirty eight.

Now before you begin to tell American Constitution is flawed and should be reformed I will tell you that your Constitution is best thiung since sliced bread, that even if the rules for getting it ammended get in the way on this particular subject you shouldn't be in a hurry to make it easier to ammend: had it been in Europe at the time Democrats controlled both chambers Obama could have it had ammended at will. Your Founding Fathers knew too well what they were doing when they made this Constitution.

Posted by JFM 2012-02-28 11:03|| 2012-02-28 11:03|| Front Page Top

#6 What JFM said, with fireworks and a pretty girl dressed as Lady Liberty. The Founding Fathers designed the system to go slowly, so that all possible objections to a course of action would have the opportunity to bubble up from the primordial muck and block it. Politicians always want to do things, especially things that allow more power to accrue to them. So it's much more important to prevent bad ideas than to permit good ones.

Posted by trailing wife 2012-02-28 11:35|| 2012-02-28 11:35|| Front Page Top

#7 First it has to get approval of 2/3 of the Chambers and I dion't think incumebents would vote for term limits unless you put a loaded gun on their heads

Of course the French did come up with a solution, but it involved Madame Guillotine. However, forcing such a vote and getting the incumbents name clearly on the record makes him/her a future target for a replacement who would.

However, while agreeing to the greatness if imperfection of the Constitution, the failure to follow the acts called for in Article V by the Congress, has resulted in the Judiciary substituting their 'interpretations' by merely a majority of the Supremes. [Thus the down and dirty fight for nominations and the elevation of such nominations in the Presidential elections] The slow has for all intents and purposes been replaced by the connected who avoid the painful and necessary process as intended and in doing so has basically ended the need to engage in committing themselves to engage the population in the process.

Posted by Procopius2k 2012-02-28 12:32|| 2012-02-28 12:32|| Front Page Top

#8 Pelosi is reality in the hobbit city of SanFran. Those people are ALL insane and really need a lobotomy. I have been there before but you could not pay me enough to go back to those SCUMBAGS again.

I despise the left coast, their reps, and their view on life.

CURSE her, curse San Francisco, and Curse that evil wicked witch of the west.

FU

Posted by newc 2012-02-28 13:09|| 2012-02-28 13:09|| Front Page Top

#9 "Just remember that when Newt had the opportunity he failed to send to the states the Constitutional Amendment for term limits. As much as Ms. Pelosi has damaged America, she as enabled by a Trunk who is no less enamored of power." A better plan is to put it on the ballot in each state. If all 50 states adopt term limits the constitution doesn't need to be changed. I believe the constistion leaves election issues up to the states after all.

Posted by rjschwarz 2012-02-28 15:19|| 2012-02-28 15:19|| Front Page Top

#10 In fact a lot of laws should be handled that way. The GOP should be pushing for nearly identical laws in multiple states the way folks did with the medical marajuana. Keep trying and eventually the mindsets start to change and you capture more states.

Posted by rjschwarz 2012-02-28 15:20|| 2012-02-28 15:20|| Front Page Top

#11 Newc, hobbits are a lot more practical and sensible than San Franciscans. A better description of San Francisco would be the Land of the Lotus Eaters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus-eaters

Putting term limits on the ballot in every state? The idea has possibilities. Which state would have the guts to go first?

Posted by mom 2012-02-28 16:30|| 2012-02-28 16:30|| Front Page Top

#12 Having Nancy Pelosi and Debbie Wasserman Sultz as spokeswomen for the Dems is great for the Republicans.

If only Barney Frank wouldn't retire and if only Rev Al could become a spokesman too.

Posted by Lord Garth 2012-02-28 19:48|| 2012-02-28 19:48|| Front Page Top

23:56 rammer
23:31 Thosh Omugum4787
23:21 Thosh Omugum4787
23:20 CrazyFool
23:17 newc
23:05 Thosh Omugum4787
22:40 Frank G
22:36 rammer
22:14 gorb
22:14 rammer
22:09 rammer
22:06 Dale
21:55 RandomJD
21:48 Iblis
21:46 gorb
21:45 gorb
21:33 Pappy
21:29 Pappy
21:24 gorb
21:23 Chesney Shusoling7348
21:22 tu3031
21:21 Pappy
21:20 gorb
21:17 tu3031