CENTURIES I tell you!
Nice job googling term limits for the first time. Keep reading.
NO specifics were offered and there's still none. My question from earlier you skipped, details of how it would look.. Nobody's really done ANY real work to sell it. It's only ever been just a useless buzzword.You said you haven't found anyone who supports it that has actually studied it.
Plenty of people have studied it, and it was included as part of Newt Gingrich's Contract with America but did not pass.
NO specifics were offered and there's still none. My question from earlier you skipped, details of how it would look.. Nobody's really done ANY real work to sell it. It's only ever been just a useless buzzword.
It's just populist crap, sounds good to people until they actually study it.
Not relevant. That's the executive, not the legislative branch. It's not even the same topic. Nice try at deflection though. You haven't given this any amount of thought at all. You don't know how it would be done, you don't even know the hurdles there are in getting it done. And you have no details even on what you would have it look like. You just want to trumpet it as a throw-around term which you have shown you really know nothing about.What's the 22nd Amendment about
Irrelevant. This would still be true and still IS true in states that have term limits for their legislators.To understand why elections aren’t term limits, we must first examine the number one determinant of electoral success: money.
You would have to include in your new amendment, a repeal of the 17th Amendment. Unless of course you still want to keep 6 year terms for senators?The only detail is how many terms you'd be limited to. The President has two terms for a potential total of 8 years, that seems like a good starting point to me.
It's not nearly as simple as you believe it is, and you believe it is simple because you know nothing about it and haven't studied it.WTF does that even mean for such a simple subject?
You should read in the federalist papers why our founders believed it was of paramount importance, not to have term limits for locally elected representatives and senators. And why they took steps to prevent it. The FF never intended for us to have telephones, computers and cellphones either. Never intended for us to have machine guns, either. Silly argument.The Founding Fathers never intended to have them and we should strive to eliminate them.
It is NOT simple to do!And yes, it is simple to do.
I thank the founders and framers every day, for having the foresight to make populist shit like this really really hard to ever accomplish.
You should read in the federalist papers why our founders believed it was of paramount importance, not to have term limits for locally elected representatives and senators. And why they took steps to prevent it.
You gotta amend the constitution to ever get this, slick. It ain't ever gonna happen. Gingrich knew this all along, and included this shit in his "contract" as simply bait for dolts. Read his fucking book where he talks about it. It was never even a firm belief of his.
It is worth examining what the Founders believed about term limits and what, fundamentally, has gone wrong with our modern government that has expanded far beyond its originally intended bounds. That most Americans believe their government to be dysfunctional and corrupt should be a tip-off that there are deep problems at the heart of our institutions.
‘Rotation in Office’
The idea of term limits, connected to the notion of “rotation in office,” was popular during the early days of the American republic.
Founding-era citizens viewed term limits as a means to prevent corruption and distant, entrenched interests staying permanently in power. They worried that a lack of change in higher office could be destructive to republican government.
Under the Articles of Confederation, term limits kept representatives to three terms in any six-year period. However, after considerable debate, the idea was abandoned during the construction of the Constitution because many Founders were skeptical of forced rotation’s usefulness—though there were certainly strong advocates in its favor.
For instance, a 1788 pseudonymous essay likely penned by noted anti-federalist Melancton Smith suggested that while limiting terms in local elections was probably unnecessary, limits would provide a useful check on the power of federal legislators, who were “elected for long periods, and far removed from the observation of the people.”
The essay’s author worried that without a mechanism to push national legislators out of office from time to time, lawmakers would become “inattentive to the public good, callous, selfish, and the fountain of corruption.”
He continued to warn readers that “Even good men in office, in time, imperceptibly lose sight of the people, and gradually fall into measures prejudicial to them.”
Thomas Jefferson was also wary of abandoning rotation, and wrote to his friend Edward Rutledge in 1788, “I apprehend that the total abandonment of the principle of rotation in the offices of president and senator will end in abuse. But my confidence is that there will for a long time be virtue and good sense enough in our countrymen to correct abuses.”
But some of the Constitution’s strongest advocates rejected the notion that sweeping out legislators by law would reduce corruption.
James Madison wrote that term limits might actually lead to government dysfunction. He wrote that frequent elections were a better check on power than forcing legislators out of office by law.
Those who stood against term limits argued that regular elections by the people could be a better check on corruption than constitutional limits and that such restrictions would create their own problems.
Madison wrote in Federalist 53 that the higher proportion of new representatives swept into office due to term limits could lead to poor decisions and corruption from a wave of inexperienced legislators.
Madison surmised that the “greater the proportion of new members, and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt will they be to fall into the snares that may be laid for them.”
Ultimately, the anti-term limits forces won out and the Constitution was ratified without them.
Nobody said they were. But the consensus was, this right needs to be protected and they took steps to do so. Just like they did for the 1st and 2nd Amendments. There wasn't universal agreement on those either.First off, the founders were not in universal agreement on it.
He's never going to stop trotting out a reliable populist notion. Read his book!As for Gingrich, I am looking for the article but he was just in the news in recent weeks supporting term limits.
Yeah. Read it! And keep reading and keep studying. They kept term limits OUT and made it really HARD to ever get them at a later time! FOR A REASON! LIBERTY!Clip on what Founding Fathers thought about term limits:
It might shock you to learn that this year we have had EIGHT incumbents LOSE their renomination - their own party primary ousted them! The fucking system is working and the people ARE empowered to kick bums out if they so choose!
Same argument the anti gun crowd uses against the 2nd amendment. Same argument creeping up lately, on the 1st amendment as well.I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers could ever foresee a time when...