Mark Leven's proposal for constitutional amendments to term limits. What say you ATS

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


It is kinda what we have already. Neither Pelosi nor Feinstein represent any of my ideas, I have no means to vote them out, but they sure as hell have major influences over my life by pushing forward bills to become laws that effect me.

The benevolent part is up for debate but that pretty much defines a situation of tyranny. By defining term limits, those with a Berkley mindset have limits to how they can damage an area they have no comprehension over.

Prime example would be the gun debate. San Francisco doesn't often have a car hit a deer and have the wounded animal drag itself onto your property. It is a rather common occurrence around here. No guns means that putting the animal out of its suffering would have to be done by violently bashing its skull in with a baseball bat or slitting its throat until it slowly bleeds out. Nothing quick, painless and humane about that.




posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I've been saying we should have term limits in Congress for years now. It only makes sense. These ticks get so embedded into the system that rooting them out becomes a serious chore. The long term incumbents are the most corrupt and tend to do the most backwards things that have zero benefit for their constituents. Then to top it off, you have idiots in other states making sweeping, country-wide decisions that seriously hinders the lives of people no where near their district. These idiots aren't voted out because either they are voting along with how their district feels (supposedly) so they are happy and just vote them back in or they run unopposed because no one feels like they can uproot this tick. Meanwhile, the rest of the country is pissed off at these incumbents who are ruining their lives.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   
I'm all about term limits. 1 or 2 terms MAX. Although I lean toward 1. Also, no accepting of money from lobbyists, and you're not allowed to become a lobbyist when you leave office.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Aazadan
 


This is a new idea to me. I am going to have to think about this, and come back. Interesting.

I hope I see a return to productive democracy with the interests of the many at heart, in my lifetime. By 2070.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Of all the proposals that Levin is suggesting, repealing the 17th Amendment is the most important one. Removing the ability of "mob rule" to keep Senators in office would be a step closer to rule by the people....it's also the only way that a 3rd party can have an impact on the election process.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by wills120
 


I have had to educate myself on how the 17th amendment came to be ...from Wiki


The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established direct election of United States Senators by popular vote. The amendment supersedes Article I, § 3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures. It also alters the procedure for filling vacancies in the Senate, allowing for state legislatures to permit their governors to make temporary appointments until a special election can be held. Under the original provisions of the Constitution, senators were elected by state legislatures; this was intended to prevent the federal government from indirectly absconding with the powers and funds of the states. However, over time various issues with these provisions, such as the risk of corruption and the potential for electoral deadlocks or a lack of representation should a seat become vacant, led to a campaign for reform.



Critics of the Seventeenth Amendment claim that by altering the way senators are elected, the states lost any representation they had in the federal government and that, in addition to violating the unamendable state suffrage clause of Article V, this led to the gradual "slide into ignominy" of state legislatures, as well as an over extension of federal power and the rise of special interest groups to fill the power vacuum previously occupied by state legislatures.[1] In addition, concerns have been raised about the power of governors to appoint temporary replacements to fill vacant senate seats, both in terms of how this provision should be interpreted and whether it should be permitted at all. Accordingly, noted public figures have expressed a desire to reform or even repeal the Seventeenth Amendment.


So I am rethinking this one.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 08:40 PM
link   
I still say that it should be an honor to serve your country as a representative in the government. Their pay should be the same as military grade pay. First year elected should equal the pay of an Ensign or Lieutenant at the highest.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by liveandlearn
 


....as did I. It makes a lot of sense because the H.O.R. is elected by the people. In the case of a repealed 17th Amendment, the state legislatures would elect their two Senatorial representatives. This would not only encourage more civic involvement but make them ultimately accountable to their respective state legislatures as opposed to the party gridlock that control Washington politics.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Have been in favor of a one 6 year term for the President for awhile now.



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 10:35 PM
link   
For so long the ones who have designated themselves 'the elite' have been manipulating things for the benefit of their own family's destiny. They have done so by changing the essence of the Constitution of the United States. In order for this to happen they knew they had to make it so the citizens wouldn't be able to rally them out, by stealing an election here and there with men they wanted to do their bidding. Plus, they had the vision to carry out the plan methodically since the inception of those 13 states gained freedom from the English crown. They have patiently waited to install, in just palatable enough increments, the exact circumventions of certain hard rules the founders understood would sink a people who would seek to govern themselves rather than be governed by those who considered themselves gods. They adapted when they found ways to control education and were able to make the generations after the great society dumber. And they found ways to make circus events to occupy us away from the reality of the depth of their theft, and I am thinking they basically have used their influence to obtain riches for the purchase of vast sums of land and everything else a man would need to say to himself he is a 'god'. These senators and congressmen we send to protect our way of life are devoured in short order by these old families and their henchmen.

SO, I say Leven is on the right track and we are on the way to civil war over this liberal nanny state thinking by the Dems and a lot of Rino's if we can't simply get people to the polls and vote the corruption out.
edit on 20-8-2013 by Justoneman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 08:34 AM
link   
Buster is right, maybe in the 1800's having someone in office for 40 years was no big deal, but these days, we had a technological revolution that pushed us forward at a ridiculous rate in just 10 years -

If someone has been in office since 1973, they might still be using typewriters in there, you know? I mean... this could detrimentally affect their ability to make decisions that are relevant to society.


signature:





new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join