Should there be term limits on US Congress?

Africanama

Rising Star
BGOL Patreon Investor
I think that it is time to get a lot of these Senators and Congress people need to leave office. They are the one partly responsible for what is going on right now. We need people who have fresh ideas and not the same old idea both parties are preaching. Another factor to that equation is that we do not have pay them a pension if they stay in office for a long period of time.
 
I agree that they do need to get term limits in congress. However, you do have to remember that if they do that, your congressman or senator would be replaced too.
 
I think that it is time to get a lot of these Senators and Congress people need to leave office. They are the one partly responsible for what is going on right now. We need people who have fresh ideas and not the same old idea both parties are preaching. Another factor to that equation is that we do not have pay them a pension if they stay in office for a long period of time.

Does it matter that 50% plus 1 of the voters in the congressional district want that person to represent them in Congress ? ? ?


QueEx
 
Does it matter that 50% plus 1 of the voters in the congressional district want that person to represent them in Congress ? ? ?

QueEx

No, it doesn't, much the same way that in 2000 the incumbent President was not allowed to be on the ballot even though he was popular and probably would have won the election. In 2016 Obama will still be hugely popular, almost surely meeting your 50% +1 criteria, and by law will not be allowed to run.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander. And, as someone else has already pointed out, most of the damage done with earmarks, pork etc is done by those in congress and the house.
 
Is it in the constitution? Some of you right wing republicans claim that somebody is always taking away your liberties and circumventing the constitution. There are no limits on federal congressional representative terms in the US constitution other than the president and that was only amended in 1951 in the 22nd amendment (some say that was limiting the rights of the people to elect who they wanted as long as they wanted). The US constitution can be changed with a ¾ majority of the states voting on an amendment, the last one (1992) limited congressional pay raises. The term limit argument is mostly raised by republicans, specifically so called conservative republicans. The same that claim that the constitution should be followed to the letter (THEIR interpretation of the constitution). The reality is that if you get your asses involved in the party of your choice (the right wing of the Republican Party is very engaged in their party, hence their domination of their party), go to the local meetings which set the rules for the national party and vote, not just during the presidential election but local elections, You would not have to worry about limiting representatives, because they would be scared of losing their seats each term if they didn’t respond positively to an engaged constituency. The problem is not that politicians are in their seats for too long, the problem is that voters don’t vote them out. The politicians that serve for long terms are voted in by someone. They seem to be served by those representatives. Despite what El Rushbo SAYS, the constitution allows us to make the country anything we want. He and his backers know this, but don’t want you to know it.
 
+1 to term limits, it aint right but, a mandatory course on monetary policy highlighting the actions of the Federal Reserve!
 
I am for 1 term. :eek: :eek: :eek:

That way you don't owe nobody shit, don't have to worry about reelection, and can get in there and do what is right for the people.

I bet most bullshit can be traced to 'reelection worries.' Imagine there wouldn't be an Iraq war if all the democrats weren't scared shitless about their political careers.

On everything. From DA on up to President. Eliminate some of this corruption.
 
We already have term limits - THEY ARE CALLED ELECTIONS!!!

That's pretty funny. You need to look no further than North Korea to see how effective elections are. :cool:

Besides, they are not our representatives.

They are representatives of the Federal government who we elect for our congressional districts.

Your congressmen/Senator represents Washington DC's interests in your community, not the other way around.
 
Correction: Selections
If ya'll thought Bush stole 2 elections, don't fool yourself into thinkin' the corruption just suddenly stopped.

Just get of your asses and participate and vote, or you get what you deserve. Everybody wants somebody else to do the heavy lifting. Time to get involved.
 
That's pretty funny. You need to look no further than North Korea to see how effective elections are. :cool:

Besides, they are not our representatives.

They are representatives of the Federal government who we elect for our congressional districts.

Your congressmen/Senator represents Washington DC's interests in your community, not the other way around.

We sure are like North Korea.:lol:
 
That's pretty funny. You need to look no further than North Korea to see how effective elections are. :cool:

Besides, they are not our representatives.

They are representatives of the Federal government who we elect for our congressional districts.

Your congressmen/Senator represents Washington DC's interests in your community, not the other way around.

A. That is not always the case (see Ron Paul. There are others like him).

B. When that is the case, you can always vote him/er out. Happens all the time.

C. They are to be our representatives to the Federal government, with what power the Federal goverenment is given. This is why I constantly wail against the excessive power we have often begged the Federal Government to use.
 
Correction: Selections
If ya'll thought Bush stole 2 elections, don't fool yourself into thinkin' the corruption just suddenly stopped.

Bush did not steal either one. In the first, Gore got the relief he asked for. He just didn't ask for all of Florida vto be re-counted. Even if he did, I am not sure he would have won (which is why he only asked for the county he thought he would have won).

Florida's fucked up votiing system is the fault of Floridians. Under Florida law, they have to allocate money specifically for the vote, and voting machines. They voted against the bonds that would have paid for it for close to 20 years, which by the time the 2000 election came around, they no longer could find parts for the machines, hence the hanging chads and so forth.

The police were there to keep people from getting in line after the polls closed. THat is what you are supposed to do. No credible evidence for police kicking eligible people off the line was found.

Now, the felon rolls were a fucked up thing to do, but that law was voted in by guess who, the Floridians. You can't not vote or be involved and think all of a sudden when you decide to wake up think all is going to be perfect for you.

Now in 04, different story. Ohio was on some scandalous shit, but so was Louisiana, New York, and Cali. THere are often "irregularities" inn voting, but they don't supposed to heavily favor either party. Shit, the worse offences in recent memory come from the Kennedy election back in 60. THat's were the term "vote early and vote often" came from.

DOn't be a parrot, brother. We can do better.
 
A. That is not always the case (see Ron Paul. There are others like him).

I meant to say that it doesn't matter how good their intentions in the beginning, by the time they assume office, they are useless to their constituents.

B. When that is the case, you can always vote him/er out. Happens all the time.

The United States is an incorporated entity based in Washington DC. It has jurisdiction over DC, its possessions and territories and its properties located in the states (docks, ports, parkland, military bases, and other "needful buildings").

The Congress and Senate make laws covering this area.
The respective State legislatures make laws covering their respective states.

It is irrelevant who you send to Washington DC. They serve the United States corporation, not you, the voter. That is the job of your state legislature.

C. They are to be our representatives to the Federal government, with what power the Federal goverenment is given. This is why I constantly wail against the excessive power we have often begged the Federal Government to use.

When you elect a representative to Congress, you are sending someone to become a public officer of the United States corporate entity.

Therefore, they represent the United States' corporate interests in your community, not the other way around.

Every time the United States (DC corporation) spends money in your community they create a dependency on this corporation and not on your state. In addition, any land the United States buys or appropriates in your community now falls under the jurisdiction of the DC and not your local community.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not apply under (United States) Washington DC jurisdiction.

So, the representative/Senator's allegiance is not to his so-called constituents but to the interests of the Federal government, Washington DC, and the United States corporate entity.
 
`
<font size="4">
Its not what you don't know that scares me;
Its what you do know that just ain't so.

</font size>
QueEx
 
There have been many battles in this country, but one of the most basic is between the states and the federal government.

As time has passed, the states have gotten weaker while the federal government has gotten stronger.

The federal government (existing to serve the states) changed into a national government (with the states as subjects) along with its national banks, national corporations, national currency, national law enforcement, etc.).

Term limits are necessary because they limit the power of the politicians (public officers) who consolidate and aggregate power in the federal bureaucracy, at the expense of the people (e.g. IRS, Federal Reserve, bank bailouts, War on Terror/Drugs/Poverty/Crime, etc).

The professional politician is a crime against the people.
 
Do we still need both houses of congress. Could we eliminate one and just let state reps do the work congressmen do. Does the president need a cabinet when senators head committees that pretty much do the same thing. Is it time to end the political parties. And shouldn't someone be talking about re-writing the Constitution, it's over 200yrs old and doesn't represent the world today.
 
Do we still need both houses of congress. Could we eliminate one and just let state reps do the work congressmen do.
Do you know the rationale behind two houses ???
If so, what; and why is that rationale no longer valid.


nittie said:
Does the president need a cabinet when senators head committees that pretty much do the same thing.
Since obviously you have no appreciation for (1) the separation of powers; and (2) the differentiation between legislative and policy creation functions and administrative and the execution of legislation and policy, why not just eliminate the presidency and congress as well and let the states, absent a central government, run things ???


nittie said:
Is it time to end the political parties. And shouldn't someone be talking about re-writing the Constitution, it's over 200yrs old and doesn't represent the world today.
No. Go much further. Just eliminate the Constitution. We don't need it anyway since each state has a constitution. Lets just have 48 independent fiefdoms and abandon Hawaii and Alaska since there would be no way to defend them anyway (or the 48 fuedal states for that matter).

QueEx
 
There have been many battles in this country, but one of the most basic is between the states and the federal government.

As time has passed, the states have gotten weaker while the federal government has gotten stronger.

Lets see . . .

There are many more battles between man and woman (than between the states and the federal government) and no battle is more basis than that. As time has passed, men's rights have gotten weaker while the recognition of women's rights has gotten stronger.

Hence, under your logic, we should abandon or detest the union of states under central government AND abandon or detest all unions of man and woman, whether under marriage, shacking, motel or other arrangment where they have come together to pursue their common goals, interests, needs and happiness.

QueEx
 
Lets see . . .

There are many more battles between man and woman (than between the states and the federal government) and no battle is more basis than that. As time has passed, men's rights have gotten weaker while the recognition of women's rights has gotten stronger.

Hence, under your logic, we should abandon or detest the union of states under central government AND abandon or detest all unions of man and woman, whether under marriage, shacking, motel or other arrangment where they have come together to pursue their common goals, interests, needs and happiness.

QueEx

I agree with the first part, central government (like all government) is a necessary burden. The less the better.

It would probably be a good idea to abandon the current federal (really national) government, write another constitution, and drastically limit the powers of the politicians in Washington DC.

Instead of the United States being its own corporation, each state would own a share or stock (untransferable/untradable) in the corporation and send representatives to its board of directors (instead of the the Federal government owning the States).

The checks and balances and separation of powers BS only serves to create a larger bureaucracy that no one outside of Washington DC can understand nor control.

Less is more.

Now, the second part has me confused. :confused:
 
I meant to say that it doesn't matter how good their intentions in the beginning, by the time they assume office, they are useless to their constituents.



The United States is an incorporated entity based in Washington DC. It has jurisdiction over DC, its possessions and territories and its properties located in the states (docks, ports, parkland, military bases, and other "needful buildings").

The Congress and Senate make laws covering this area.
The respective State legislatures make laws covering their respective states.

It is irrelevant who you send to Washington DC. They serve the United States corporation, not you, the voter. That is the job of your state legislature.



When you elect a representative to Congress, you are sending someone to become a public officer of the United States corporate entity.

Therefore, they represent the United States' corporate interests in your community, not the other way around.

Every time the United States (DC corporation) spends money in your community they create a dependency on this corporation and not on your state. In addition, any land the United States buys or appropriates in your community now falls under the jurisdiction of the DC and not your local community.

The Constitution and Bill of Rights do not apply under (United States) Washington DC jurisdiction.

So, the representative/Senator's allegiance is not to his so-called constituents but to the interests of the Federal government, Washington DC, and the United States corporate entity.



Please tell me on what you base the above statements.
 
Do you know the rationale behind two houses ???
If so, what; and why is that rationale no longer valid.

Let me guess...checks and balances. That might have been needed 200yrs ago when America was freeing itself from tyranny. But in today's world when checks and balances are normal business do we still need the bureaucracy and partisanship not to mention the money saved if we eliminated one. Wouldn't it be better to send that power back to states.



Since obviously you have no appreciation for (1) the separation of powers; and (2) the differentiation between legislative and policy creation functions and administrative and the execution of legislation and policy, why not just eliminate the presidency and congress as well and let the states, absent a central government, run things ???

If it was up to me...one house of congress would be gone and replaced with a computerized system where people could voice their opinions to state legislators, have their voices heard and thereby decide their fate. Twitter shows how a system like that could be implemented.



No. Go much further. Just eliminate the Constitution. We don't need it anyway since each state has a constitution. Lets just have 48 independent fiefdoms and abandon Hawaii and Alaska since there would be no way to defend them anyway (or the 48 fuedal states for that matter).


Re-write the thing. Make it reflective of today's world. Does the press need censorship? What about gun rights, campaign financing. There's so many positions that need to be re-considered we could not do it 5yrs.

QueEx

Just somethings to think about in a ever changing world.
 
District of Columbia is created and in subsequent acts, incorporated.

United States Constitution, Article I. Section 8. Clause 17.

Washington DC and Georgetown are abolished. A new District of Columbia corporation is created.

District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871
What did it do?

Okay, who are citizens and nationals of the United States?

14th Amendment Section 1

Under Federal Statutes, the United States IS the United States. Yeah, that makes sense. :rolleyes:

8 usc 1101 Definitions. Section 36 and 38 are inconsistent. One includes the District of Columba as a "state" while the geographic definition of the United States does not.

What is the United States?

Maybe this should give you some idea why I say the Federal government (United States) is an entity/corporation (today) outside of the united "States of America". The "United States" is located in DC that has subjected the united "States of America" under its authority (rather than the other way around).

The Federal government serves the interests of other masters and not the interests of the states, their nationals, and the voters.

If you want more sources, ask away.
 
Last edited:
District of Columbia is created and in subsequent acts, incorporated.

United States Constitution, Article I. Section 8. Clause 17.

Washington DC and Georgetown are abolished. A new District of Columbia corporation is created.

District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871
What did it do?

Okay, who are citizens and nationals of the United States?

14th Amendment Section 1

Under Federal Statutes, the United States IS the United States. Yeah, that makes sense. :rolleyes:

8 usc 1101 Definitions. Section 36 and 38 are inconsistent. One includes the District of Columba as a "state" while the geographic definition of the United States does not.

What is the United States?

Maybe this should give you some idea why I say the Federal government (United States) is an entity/corporation (today) outside of the united "States of America". The "United States" is located in DC that has subjected the united "States of America" under its authority (rather than the other way around).

The Federal government serves the interests of other masters and not the interests of the states, their nationals, and the voters.

If you want more sources, ask away.

You are so wrong in so many ways, it took me a minute to have time to disassemble it.

1. The District is created. This law is drafted in order to make sure that the Federal Government has primary jusrisdiction in the nations capitol. That's all. If they didn't do that, no one would have any authority, as the Distgrict could not belong to a state. It is a political subdivision type of corporation, not a business corporation. I am in the process of trying to get the town I live in to incorporate. Does that make it a business ? No.

2. If you studied statutory construction (most folks don't, and I don't blame you, it's very boring), you would know that in order to give meaning to the statute, you have to define terms. That is why prior to calling DC a state, the previous words say "for the purposes of THIS STATUTE(emphasis added)...". They also called Purto Rico, Guam, and the Marshall Islands states, but there are still only 50 states. And besides, you can only become a state if the other states let you, see Article 4, Section 3 of the same constitution you cited earlier.

3. The Federal government does what it does because it can. If we don't want it to do what it does, we should stop clamoring for it to have even more power to "do something".
 
The United States is a Federal Corporation.

Answer this, what is a Federal Corporation?

28 usc 3002 15

You are so wrong in so many ways, it took me a minute to have time to disassemble it.

1. The District is created. This law is drafted in order to make sure that the Federal Government has primary jusrisdiction in the nations capitol. That's all. If they didn't do that, no one would have any authority, as the Distgrict could not belong to a state. It is a political subdivision type of corporation, not a business corporation. I am in the process of trying to get the town I live in to incorporate. Does that make it a business ? No.

I am not saying it is a business, per se.

I am saying the Organic Act of 1871 created an entity that does not exist to serve the interests of the people of the united States of America, as you'll see in the following.

The District of Columbia already existed (District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801).

http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/drohrabacher062304.pdf

"H.R. 3709, the District of Columbia Voting Rights Restoration Act, simply restores the federal voting rights of D.C. residents that Congress took away by enacting the Organic Act of 1801 ten years after the District of Columbia was formed. Once again, D.C. residents would be able to vote for, run for, and serve as, U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, and presidential electors from Maryland. It accomplishes this by undoing the disenfranchisement effects of the Organic Act that was enacted pursuant to Article I, Section 8."

"Organic Act may refer to any Act of the United States Congress that establishes a territory of the United States or an agency to manage certain federal lands."

How can you have two Organic Acts for the same territory?

And, the first Organic Act was created to implement the Constitution. What was the purpose of the second?

Organic Act... a statute by which a municipal corporation is organized and created is its "organic act" and the limit of its power, so that ALL ACTS beyond the scope of the powers there granted are void." - Black's Law Dictionary

So, either the second Organic Act violated the constitution or it violated the first Organic Act.

Also...

municipal corporations do not have constitutional protection. 1907 Supreme Court decision - Hunter v. Pittsburgh

2. If you studied statutory construction (most folks don't, and I don't blame you, it's very boring), you would know that in order to give meaning to the statute, you have to define terms. That is why prior to calling DC a state, the previous words say "for the purposes of THIS STATUTE(emphasis added)...". They also called Purto Rico, Guam, and the Marshall Islands states, but there are still only 50 states. And besides, you can only become a state if the other states let you, see Article 4, Section 3 of the same constitution you cited earlier.

To me, this still does not explain why under section 38 it says GEOGRAPHICALLY...

Code:
The term “United States”, except as otherwise specifically herein provided, when used in a [B][COLOR="DarkRed"]geographical[/COLOR][/B] sense, means the continental United States, Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands of the United States.

Is this implying that geographically, the District of Columbia does not exist or that the entirety of all the states of the United States are under the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia?

My assertions are...

the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 created a new federal corporation, the United States, rather than the united States of America.

This corporation was formed as a muncipal corporation with no geographic location, but rather a district called the District of Columbia.

This District of Columbia contains the states, territories, and possessions of the United States.

The states no longer are a federation, but are now a federal agency or instrumentality (28 usc 3002 15) of the municipal corporation of the District of Columbia. These are now called the United States (rather than the united States of America prior to 1871).

The District of Columbia, as a municipal corporation, has no constitutional protections.

Therefore, the states, possessions, and territories of the District of Columbia have no protection under the constitution.

14th amendment citizens are citizens of this new construction. Since non-whites are specifically listed as not having voting rights nor human rights under the constitution, we as non-whites must be satisfied with this new political entity resulting from the Civil War.

However, this new political entity simply transferred one owner (former slavemasters) for a new one (the new national government, which is nominally called a Federal corporation), the United States.

3. The Federal government does what it does because it can. If we don't want it to do what it does, we should stop clamoring for it to have even more power to "do something".

I certainly agree with you about this. :yes:
 
Yep...all for it...thought about this when the bailout mess started...My proposal would have been 4 term maximum(16 years) one individual can hold a congressional seat...if he is voted out before his 16 year max has hit, he can still legitimately run again to fill the remainder that will count up to the total 16 years...

People need to remember the constitution allows for amendments so that in the event of certain circumstances, things like this would be voted in as amendment...the founding fathers had enough foresight to know that what applied in their time frame wont necessarily apply in future time frames, therefore amendments would have to added to the constitution to refelct changes in generational attitudes, viewpoints, and lifestyles.

I understand the concept that if a person is seen to be well liked and competent as a political figure, then he or she should be allowed to run for office as much as possible until they die or are voted out..Under those circumstances, theodore roosevelt, Reagan, Clinton, you name it would have god knows how many terms...Theres nothing wrong with that premise, but how if you are for the opposite party...How if we did allow for this to happen..Reagan could have effectively been in office until the mid nineties...And there is a reason why I cited Reagan specifically...

From saying that, there are politicians who are really for the cause of their constituents(the Ron Pauls) but most politicians now and days are there for the paychecks and kickbacks...Part of the problem stems from the fact that there is no oversight of congressional members unless the infraction is severe...not just that, we are essentially getting recycled political leaders...just as importantly as having term limits, there needs to be a more powerful 3rd or 4th political option to rival the dems and repubs...Although you have the liberterians and greenies, the concentration of power is still based in the repubs and dems...thats why corruption is so rampant in our government...Thats why I tell folks, instead of complaining about what your govt does, put your name on a ballot and run for office...You dont have to be harvard or yale educated to run for political office...heck they do the worst job at running shit(not all lol)...

John McCain has been in office since the 80's...its time for him to retire or go...but he is staying put...point blank sitting on capitol hill should not be a career choice...Just like being the president isnt a career choice...
 
You are so wrong in so many ways, it took me a minute to have time to disassemble it.

1. The District is created. This law is drafted in order to make sure that the Federal Government has primary jusrisdiction in the nations capitol. That's all. If they didn't do that, no one would have any authority, as the Distgrict could not belong to a state. It is a political subdivision type of corporation, not a business corporation. I am in the process of trying to get the town I live in to incorporate. Does that make it a business ? No.

2. If you studied statutory construction (most folks don't, and I don't blame you, it's very boring), you would know that in order to give meaning to the statute, you have to define terms. That is why prior to calling DC a state, the previous words say "for the purposes of THIS STATUTE(emphasis added)...". They also called Purto Rico, Guam, and the Marshall Islands states, but there are still only 50 states. And besides, you can only become a state if the other states let you, see Article 4, Section 3 of the same constitution you cited earlier.

3. The Federal government does what it does because it can. If we don't want it to do what it does, we should stop clamoring for it to have even more power to "do something".

Thank you. Good job. Even without resorting to the rules of statutory construction, the statute (Title 28 Section 3002) most clearly begins with a "qualifier" -- (as you aptly noted) that "As used in this chapter" the words and phrases defined therein would have the meanings therein ascribed.

For Mr. Cruise: that does not mean that the definitions have a universal application -- and they should not be used in other context unless there is a statute or judicial interpretation expressly providing so.

QueEx
 
<font size="3">

As F.A.Y. said, you are all wrong:</font size>

The United States is a Federal Corporation.

Answer this, what is a Federal Corporation?

28 usc 3002 15

The section of the U.S. Code that you cited, Title 28 § 3002, relates to Fraudulent Conveyances (a fraudulent conveyance is an attempt by a debtor to hide, secret or otherwise prevent his assets from being subject to the debt collection process).
For example, you are found to have negligently caused an accident and plaintiff has recovered a 100K judgment against you. In order to prevent Plaintiff from having your house/cars, etc., sold to collect her 100K, you transfer your home to your minor daughter, for less than fair market value or you sell your cars to your friend, again for less than fair market value - - that is, you attempted to hide your assets by committing "fraud" because there really was no real sale of the assets. A court, under most state fraudulent conveyance statutes, would set-aside the transfer of the house and cars (undo the fraud) and put them back in your name so that Plaintiff would be able to try to collect the 100K.​
Section 3002 provides the federal rules (which are similar to many state rules) of dealing with fraudulent transfers. The term "federal corporation" referred to in 3002 (15)(a) relates to the various quasi-governmental corporations that are allowed to be created for various purposes, i.e., the Resolution Trust Corporation and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Hence, the fraudulent conveyance rules apply to the RTC and FDIC and a host of other federal corporations.

QueEx
 
Back
Top