Term Limits Temptation: Creating a Pretext for a Constitutional Convention

[rambone]

With all the newly elected senators & congressmen and the popular notion of term limits, the question arises of whether or not they will pursue the Term Limit amendment, if that is even a good idea, and if a Constitutional Convention will be sought to meet that end. A con-con is a decidedly bad idea for the reasons below. The quoted text describes it well.

I'm not convinced that Term Limits are a true solution to our woes either. More like a feel-good solution, when what is needed is for the public to be roused from their chemical-induced, propaganda-fed, television-watching, government school-attending, brain-dead zombie coma. Term limits will not replace the need for an educated populace.



Term Limits Temptation: Creating the Pretext for a Con-Con

The true goal is a con-con for any purpose, which instantly becomes a con-con for every purpose. Once a con-con begins, it can propose amendments upon any subject it chooses, and whatever limitations the state legislatures thought they had imposed on it may be ignored. Delegates to a convention would never face the voters to account for their actions; they would be accountable to no one. A con-con could make drastic changes in the Constitution involving radical redesign of the federal government. It could propose a truly national government with a parliament along the lines of Great Britain and European countries. It could propose whatever it likes. It could even alter the methods of ratification for the changes which it produces.

 

[Expat]

Mike Church is a big supporter of a Con-Con and is pretty convincing. Remember 3/4 of the States have to approve any changes. That would be highly unlikely to happen for any change at all, much less a crazy one. Certainly for any changes that would give more power to the Federal Government, the State legislatures would be very unlikely to approve.

 

[mrjarrell]

Nope. I'll pass on a Constitutional Convention. Too big a chance that idiots at all levels will wreak destruction on the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Relying on 3/4 of the states to do the sane thing got us Prohibition, the 16th and 17th Amendments. I cringe to think what could be done to us at a Convention. Would anyone care to see the 2nd Amendment tweaked to make it more palatable? No thanks.

 

[Coach]

Nope. I'll pass on a Constitutional Convention. Too big a chance that idiots at all levels will wreak destruction on the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Relying on 3/4 of the states to do the sane thing got us Prohibition, the 16th and 17th Amendments. I cringe to think what could be done to us at a Convention. Would anyone care to see the 2nd Amendment tweaked to make it more palatable? No thanks.

The 21st amendment is the only amendment after the original 10 to come from Constitutional Conventions in the states. The other were done by state legislatures.

The whole Constitution is not up for tweaking at such a convention. The state of Indiana held a referendum on the 21st to elect delegates that were bound to vote as the voters who elected them had voted. Such a convention would be the will of the people and that is the way it should be.

Term limits may or may not work but what we are doing now is not working.

 

[mrjarrell]

I'll pass on "the will of the people". That got us Obama. And Bush, twice. Best to leave things as they are. We're not a democracy.

 

[88GT]

I'll pass on "the will of the people". That got us Obama. And Bush, twice. Best to leave things as they are. We're not a democracy.

So it's the will of mrjarrell then?

 

[Coach]

I'll pass on "the will of the people". That got us Obama. And Bush, twice. Best to leave things as they are. We're not a democracy.

We are a republic and that is a form of democracy. If you don't want the will of the people there are plenty of other nations were you can go and live. Cuba is even warm.

Bush was elected without a majority of the vote in 2000 not the will of the people.

 

[mrjarrell]

So it's the will of mrjarrell then?

Nope. And I didn't say anything like that, as you well know. Some things are best left alone.

 

[Duncan]

I'll pass on "the will of the people". That got us Obama. And Bush, twice. Best to leave things as they are. We're not a democracy.

AGREED
The will of the people is just a mob rule ... I here so much about 55% want this 67% are against that .
The whole reason that the bill of rights are there is to limit government and protect the smallest minority .
The individual - one -singular .
Thanks
Duncan

 

[Leadeye]

Washington and it's culture is really the problem. A good start would be to make the capitol more of a museum and memorial and disperse the government. You needed things centralized when the country was started as communication was limited to how far you could shout. Confine legislators to thier districts and let them talk on the phone. Makes the lobbiests job harder and keeps the legislators where you can watch them. Disperse the bureaucracy and it makes it tougher on the beltway bandits.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

So it's the will of mrjarrell then?

We are a republic and that is a form of democracy. If you don't want the will of the people there are plenty of other nations were you can go and live. Cuba is even warm.

Bush was elected without a majority of the vote in 2000 not the will of the people.

Libtards don't actually want to create their own Libtopia. First, there won't be anything to be angry about anymore. Second, they want to force you to live in Libtardia with them too.

Sound familiar?

Edit: Thanks for the neg rep Libtard. I'll be wearing it as a badge of honor. As long as I find myself on the opposite side of ignorance and stupidity, I have nothing to complain about. As far as I'm concerned it's good to get neg repped by someone who doesn't know what the word stealing means.

 

[Compatriot G]

I would propose that we need to have age limits on office, not term limits.

 

[rambone]

Libtards don't actually want to create their own Libtopia. First, there won't be anything to be angry about anymore. Second, they want to force you to live in Libtardia with them too.

Sound familiar?

Hmm, familiar... no not really. I thought we were talking about why a Con-Con was a bad idea. But of course you jump at the chance to call people names. You're the same guy who wants to ban sitting on the sidewalk, right? Talk about a Libtopia....

 

[Ogre]

Hmm, familiar... no not really. I thought we were talking about why a Con-Con was a bad idea. But of course you jump at the chance to call people names. You're the same guy who wants to ban sitting on the sidewalk, right? Talk about a Libtopia....

 

[88GT]

Nope. And I didn't say anything like that, as you well know. Some things are best left alone.

Beggin' your pardon, then, just who's will should be the deciding one?

I get what you're saying, but the flip side of your thin little coin is either tyranny or anarchy.

 

[machete]

So it's the will of mrjarrell then?

Ill take him over Bush--Pelosi-Obama--Lugar--Cheney--Lautenberg--any fan of Lady Gaga or American Idol...

This system is designed to give us---a whole lot more of what we already got...and that dont look good...

A just king is usually a pretty free government... I dont think Jarrell would give us road checkpoints,,,or gonad airport inspections!!!

 

[machete]

Libtards don't actually want to create their own Libtopia. First, there won't be anything to be angry about anymore. Second, they want to force you to live in Libtardia with them too.

Sound familiar?

Edit: Thanks for the neg rep Libtard. I'll be wearing it as a badge of honor. As long as I find myself on the opposite side of ignorance and stupidity, I have nothing to complain about. As far as I'm concerned it's good to get neg repped by someone who doesn't know what the word stealing means.

All you do is call names...at some pretty smart and nice people... You must be a very angry person...

 

[mrjarrell]

Beggin' your pardon, then, just who's will should be the deciding one?

I get what you're saying, but the flip side of your thin little coin is either tyranny or anarchy.

It's neither. How hard is that to understand? Do nothing with the Constitution. Leave it alone. There's no tyranny or anarchy involved in doing nothing. The Constitution doesn't need fixing. The politicians and their supporters are the ones in need of fixing, and in the latter case that's a do it yourself project.

 

[dross]

We are a republic and that is a form of democracy. If you don't want the will of the people there are plenty of other nations were you can go and live. Cuba is even warm.

Bush was elected without a majority of the vote in 2000 not the will of the people.

Your example illustrates a difference between a republic and a democracy perfectly.

If we lived in a democracy, Gore would have been elected. Because we live in a republic, Bush was elected. It sounds like your beef is with the Constitution.