Tag: Term Limits

North Dakota Has The Right Idea

But it does not go far enough.

I have along with others have been saying that there needs to be age limits on our elected official as well as the Supreme Court….it is time to get the old farts with old ideas into a nursing home and find some fresh blood for our leadership.

Tuesday’s GOP primary in North Dakota is now over, and the victors are celebrating. Nestled in with those announcements is one regarding a “high-profile initiative” that voters also passed: Candidates out of the Peace Garden State can’t run for US Congress (so neither the Senate nor the House) if they would turn 81 years old at any point during their term, per the AP. Axios reports that this appears to be the first state to impose a measure like this, with both that outlet and the New York Times noting the vote comes against the backdrop of the conversation on how old President Biden (81) and former President Trump (turning 78 on Friday) are as they run for the Oval Office again.

The ballot measure would effectively amend the state’s constitution. Still, lawmakers concede that the move will likely be challenged in court, as a 1995 Supreme Court ruling determined that states “cannot impose additional restrictions, such as term limits, on its representatives in the federal government beyond those provided by the Constitution.” Although there are age minimums laid out in the US Constitution—25 for the House, 30 for the Senate—there’s no cap on the max end.

Jared Hendrix, a GOP politician from Fargo who helped spearhead the North Dakota initiative, thinks his state is only the first to move in this direction, especially since US opinion polls over the past few years show that a majority of Americans would be all for maximum age limits. “I think it’s very possible that if we pull this off here, other states will follow,” Hendrix said before Tuesday’s election, per the Times.

This should turn into a movement nationwide….I feel it would be best for the country.

Term limits also means number to times they can run for office…making so they cannot skip to another election to avoid the limits as well.

Then we need to work on making candidates resign from their present job to run for another office….that could open up some room for fresh blood.

The country needs help and the system as it is now is absolutely no help….time to take a hard look at change….real change not some vague BS they call change.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Could It Be Term Limits? (Again)

I am old enough, and believe me that is OLD, to remember back in the mid 90’s when the Congress was fighting Clinton tooth and nail……there was a call for our elected representatives to be put on term limits….but after things starting working well, as well as could be expected, then the calls grew more quiet……that is until this Congress starting acting like the bunch of spoiled kids with few adults.

Okay, what do I mean by term limits?

“Homesteading” in Congress, made possible by reelection rates that approached 100% by the end of the 20th century, brought about a popular insurgency known as the “term-limits movement”. The elections of 1990-94 saw the adoption of term limits for state legislatures in almost every state where citizens had the power of the initiative. In addition 23 states limited service in their delegation to Congress, with the general formula being three terms [six years] in the U.S. House and two terms [twelve years] in the U.S. Senate.

As they pertain to Congress, these laws are no longer enforceable, however, as a result of lawsuits filed by term limits foes including ousted Speaker of the House, Tom Foley. In 1995 the U.S. Supreme Court overturned congressional term limits.

Where rotation in the legislative branch has withstood court challenges, term limits continue to garner popular support. As of 2002 “U.S. Term Limits” found that in the 17 states where state legislators served in rotation, public support for term limits ranged from 60 to 78 percent.

As you read, it has been defeated and bad mouthed by anyone who is elected…..the reason should be obvious…..but with the shenanigans going on in Washington there is a renewed interest in the issue……polls show, not just one but as many as 19, say that the American people are sick of the political games being played…..Congress’ approval rating is running about 18%….now is the time for the American people to demand and get term limits from their elected officials….the Tea Party as well as the GOP and the Dems should support this issue….it will will make the slugs we elect more willing to work on something good and while we are at it….why not demand that no retired official be allowed to work as a lobbyist or even in a lobbying firm for 10 years after they leave Congress……

These people are getting rich on your dime….and how has that benefited you?  It is time for change in our system of exploitation and term limits would be a great place to start….But how?

The only way to get term limits for our elected people is through a Constitutional amendment….that is NO easy feat to accomplish…..and here is why…..

The authority to amend the Constitution of the United States is derived from Article V of the Constitution. After Congress proposes an amendment, the Archivist of the United States, who heads the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. 106b. The Archivist has delegated many of the ministerial duties associated with this function to the Director of the Federal Register. Neither Article V of the Constitution nor section 106b describe the ratification process in detail. The Archivist and the Director of the Federal Register follow procedures and customs established by the Secretary of State, who performed these duties until 1950, and the Administrator of General Services, who served in this capacity until NARA assumed responsibility as an independent agency in 1985.

The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA’s Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal “red-line” copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.

The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures. In the past, some State legislatures have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for preservation.

Yes, a lengthy process and  we know how well the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) did, huh?  Another big problem is that it will be up to politicians to cut their own throats and we know what a cowardly bunch they really are, right?

The only thing that could possibly work in the favor of such a move could be the ineffectiveness of the elected officials to get anything accomplished, other than some minor legislation like the naming of Post Offices….ineffectiveness, partisanship, corruption, bribery and blackmail run rampant in the US Congress….if we cannot give them term limits….then I say arrest them all and employ temps to do the country’s business until we get a new batch of lawmakers (and that is the key word)…..but all that is a post for another day……

Term Limits? Again?

As I have told my readers for a long time…I am an old hippie radical…..I have seen so many of the “new” ideas that are nothing but rehashes from the past….Term limits that is being talked about In Washington these days is just one of those rehashes.

I believe it was in the days of Clinton, when the GOP was in a minority roll that the term”term limits” became a major talking point…it seems that the GOP thought it would be a good idea if members of Congress could only stay in Washington for 3 terms (do not quote me on that figure….my mind may be playing tricks on me…)  But guess what?  It is back and being put forth by some in the GOP….btw, are they not in the minority again?

This time it comes from Sen. DeMint of South Carolina…oh yeah…..he is a Repub….go figure……

In Washington, the rules of the game are rigged — in favor of bigger government, higher taxes, more debt, and the time-honored system of political back-scratching of “go along to get along.”

Fifteen years ago, Republicans — who had been out of power in Congress for forty years – made term limits a centerpiece of their “Contract with America” agenda.

The term limits constitutional amendment ultimately failed, in part because so many new reform-minded congressmen imposed term limits on themselves. After six or eight years, these members voluntarily went home, leaving behind those Republicans and Democrats who fully intended to make a career inside the beltway.

In 1996, when the GOP became the majority again…this idea was not so damn important and that is what will happen again if the GOP is lucky enough to return to the majority in 2010.

For a constitutional amendment to succeed it will have to pass the combined houses of the Congress and then go to the states for ratification….a time consuming agenda at best and it will most likely crap out long before it gets to the States.

My question is:  Does having old farts stay in Washington for 30…40…50 years really make it good for the country or does it hinder the  pursuit of any change or reform?

Bloomberg Gets Challenged

A new law that allows New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to seek a third term to help the city deal with the global economic crisis is an illegal “end run” around New York voters, a lawsuit filed on Monday says.

Last week, Bloomberg signed a law increasing the term limit for elected officials to three four-year terms from two. The law runs counter to two public referendums, held in 1993 and 1996, that imposed the two-term limit.

Bloomberg, a former Wall Street trader and self-made billionaire who was elected mayor in 2001 and again in 2005, has said his financial experience would be invaluable when the city is bracing for lean times.

But in a civil rights lawsuit filed in federal court in Brooklyn, a group of elected officials and voters said that the term limits law denied voters “meaningful participation in the political process” because it overturns the two referendums by a legislative act, rather than by putting it to a public vote.

The law effectively discourages New Yorkers from voting and from participating in future voter referendums because voters can no longer be certain that their votes will count, said Norman Siegel, one of the lawyers, told reporters.

The lawsuit names Bloomberg, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, the city Board of Elections and the board’s president, James Sampel. It seeks an injunction to stop the law from taking effect.

I believe that the law that states that a mayor could only serve two terms was voted on by the people, if so, then they should be the ones to overturn the law.  Not in some backroom filled with fat cats wanting to be in control, or shopuld I say want to remain in control?