So Lets Talk About Term Limits

[THEBIRD]

My post on Term Limits got deleted because it mentioned Ron Paul in a non-Paul area I guess.

So lets talk about the FIRST CONGRESSMAN who introduced term limits. It was RON PAUL!

I just want the facts to be told. If your a fan of Term Limits, then you should know that RON PAUL is the only Congressman to really work for them and vote for them in office when others in both parties have either fought against them or simply ignored his efforts to pass them.

"Serving in Congress from 1976 to 1984, Paul was the first person in modern history to introduce a term limits measure."
LINK: http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press97/prfeb12.htm

Paul has refused to participate in the congressional pension plan, and has long favored abolishing it. He said that when politicians realize they do not have taxpayer-funded benefits for life, their time in public office will be quickly reduced.

The Truth shall set you free. :thumb:

[Rhino]

Your post was not deleted. It's right here:

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/showthread.php?t=53562

[Elgalad]

So lets talk about the FIRST CONGRESSMAN who introduced term limits. It was RON PAUL!

Actually..

The subject of Congressional term limits was brought up during the Constitutional Convention in 1787 (http://www.jbs.org/node/498), so.. unless Ron Paul was around back then, I'm gonna have to cry foul here. :shame:

Of course the case could be made that he has been around in Washington (as in insider) an Awful long time now, so.. who knows? Maybe he was! :roar:

What a pity then, that while he is apparently such a staunch advocate of the idea, he just isn't willing to demonstrate leadership by example.

That's right, Mr. "nine terms in Congress" Ron Paul (or is it ten now? lost count, heh).. do what you say, not what you do. Check. :smirky:

I just want the facts to be told. If your a fan of Term Limits, then you should know that RON PAUL is the only Congressman to really work for them and vote for them in office when others in both parties have either fought against them or simply ignored his efforts to pass them.

Perhaps because they are inherently Unconstitutional?

Term limits are already set by the United States Constitution, anyway; 2 years for Congressmen and 6 years for Senators.

It is the sole responsibility and right of the constituents of each Congressional District and State to decide who will be their elected representatives and them alone. Not the Federal Government, not citizens of another State or District, ONLY the citizens in that District/State.

But don't take my word for it.. let's hear what the Founding Fathers had to say, shall we?

"Nothing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more ill-founded upon close inspection, than a scheme which in relation to the present point has had some respectable advocates, I mean that of continuing the chief magistrate in office for a certain time, and then excluding him from it, either for a limited period or forever after. This exclusion, whether temporary or perpetual, would have nearly the same effects, and these effects would be for the most part rather pernicious than salutary." (http://jim.com/federalist/fed72.htm)

You go, Alex. :thumb:

"A few of the members, as happens in all such assemblies, will possess superior talents; will, by frequent reelections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. 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." (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa53.htm)

:D

"Frequent elections are necessary to preserve the good behavior of rulers. They also tend to give permanency to the Government, by preserving that good behavior, because it ensures their re-election." (http://books.google.com/books?id=oMxnOghrf7gC&pg=PA168&lpg=PA168&dq=frequent+elections+are+necessary+to+preserve+th e+good+behavior+of+rulers&source=web&ots=lgcyhGMPhX&sig=1Fn9GYBe2No22wtH5eXw8NnVCq8)

In other words, if a Representative can't run for office again (because of term limits) why should he even care about the voters? He/she would actually be much more vulnerable to lobbyists! :rolleyes:

"There is no right clearer, and few of more importance, than that the people should be at liberty to choose the ablest and best men, and that men of the greatest merit should exercise the most important employments; yet upon the present supposition, the people voluntarily resign this right, and shackle their own choice.. (T)hey must all return to private life, and be succeeded by another set, who have less wisdom, wealth, and virtue, and less of the confidence and affection of the people." (http://books.google.com/books?id=QZM8AAAAIAAJ&printsec=titlepage&dq=%22must+all+return+to+private+life%22#PPA52,M1)

Don't know about you, but I'm not for giving up ANY part of my voting franchise. If I like my guy and think he's doing a good job, I Want him to go back. And yeah, experience and seniority Do matter in Government.

But they aren't everything.

Ask Tom Foley (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Foley) about that. :rotflmbo:

Now I'm no Founding Father, but I'll add one of my own:

Elections are for getting rid of politicians who Aren't doing their job. Term limits are for getting rid of politicians who Are. If you don't like Your guy or gal, feel free to vote them out. But until you to move to my home town, don't even Think about touching MY guy.

Hey, that guy's good! :biggrin:

Okay, moving on...

The Truth shall set you free. :thumb:

You think that one up yourself?

Oh no, I guess not. You just forgot to quote the source..

Here, I'll help ~


The Holy Bible

John 8:32
"And you will know the Truth, and the Truth will make you free."

See, you forgot that first part.

First, you have to KNOW the truth. :smirky:



-Elgalad

[Naturalized-Texan]

Of course, Ron Paul lied when he claimed that he decided not to run for reelection in 1984 because of his term limits. The truth is that he was gerrymandered out of office by the Democrat legislature in the redistricting following the 1980 Census. He did not leave voluntarily!

[THEBIRD]

Elagad, the first time Ron Paul introduced term limits was in 1984....the same year HE LEFT OFFICE.

All of my sources which I did quote by the way (you just didn't pay attention...like most on here) say that he is the only policitian in modern history to introduce term limits on actual bills. His first as I stated was in 84 but has submitted term limit bills a number of times afterwards.

He went back to private practice for a number of years and then decided to see if he could make a change and came back to Washington.

Say what you want about the Founders but they DID NOT want career politicians in government. That was evident by their numerous writings on the subject of corruption.

Ron Paul is a doctor first and a politician second.

[Rhino]

Say what you want about the Founders but they DID NOT want career politicians in government. That was evident by their numerous writings on the subject of corruption.That I can agree with, but what Elgalad posted didn't really run contrary to this. What the founders envisioned was citizen representatives with years of experience in government. Career politicians are not the same thing as citizen representatives, and you are correct that the founders did not want them. But that isn't the same thing as wanting term limits. They wanted the possibility of long service in Congress, but they didn't want that service to be by career politicians. The fact that career politicians are just about all we have to choose from today is what makes this debate really interesting.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

What the founders envisioned was citizen representatives with years of experience in government. Career politicians are not the same thing as citizen representatives, and you are correct that the founders did not want them. But that isn't the same thing as wanting term limits. They wanted the possibility of long service in Congress, but they didn't want that service to be by career politicians. The fact that career politicians are just about all we have to choose from today is what makes this debate really interesting.

Great point, and I agree!

[Lazarus]

That I can agree with, but what Elgalad posted didn't really run contrary to this. What the founders envisioned was citizen representatives with years of experience in government. Career politicians are not the same thing as citizen representatives, and you are correct that the founders did not want them. But that isn't the same thing as wanting term limits. They wanted the possibility of long service in Congress, but they didn't want that service to be by career politicians. The fact that career politicians are just about all we have to choose from today is what makes this debate really interesting.But above all, first and always, they held the freedom of the people to choose above their personal ideal of how they wanted the people to behave... They never presumed to be able to legistlate responsibility into the souls of the people - That they always considered to be the providence of God, not government...

Elgalad is right - the 2 year limit on Congressmen and 6 years on Senators was as close as the Founding Fathers wanted the law to approach Term limits... It forces the people to periodically reconsider their choices of representatives, but stops short of creating a tyrannical law to rule over the people - They still respected and held sacred the freedom of the people to choose and determine their own paths as the highest possible protocol...

[Teenager]

My post on Term Limits got deleted because it mentioned Ron Paul in a non-Paul area I guess.

So lets talk about the FIRST CONGRESSMAN who introduced term limits. It was RON PAUL!


I dislike the idea of term limits, and therefore I dislike Ron Paul just a little bit more...


But above all, first and always, they held the freedom of the people to choose above their personal ideal of how they wanted the people to behave... They never presumed to be able to legistlate responsibility into the souls of the people - That they always considered to be the providence of God, not government...

Elgalad is right - the 2 year limit on Congressmen and 6 years on Senators was as close as the Founding Fathers wanted the law to approach Term limits... It forces the people to periodically reconsider their choices of representatives, but stops short of creating a tyrannical law to rule over the people - They still respected and held sacred the freedom of the people to choose and determine their own paths as the highest possible protocol...


I'm glad that we're in the same boat. :D

[DoctorDoom]

As I wrote in a related thread, term limits on the federal level are long overdue. All the rah-rah about the freedom of the people to elect whomever they please evades the fact that the RAT-voting imbeciles of the blue-state electorates impose their choices on the entire country.

My senators are Kennedy and Kerry, two of the most loathsome, must useless, most dangerous piles of worm-ridden dog dung in WDC. And the idiots in MA have the power to continue to inflict those parasites on America indefinitely.

I ask the opponents of term limits to consider whether they would vote for the bastards. No? Well, it doesn't matter, because the morons in MA will reëlect them regardless of what the people of the other 49 states think, and the two scumbags will continue to impose their hyperleftist notions on the entirety of the USofA.

This our course applies to all of the senile dinosaurs that have turned the Senate and the House into a pathetic parody of government.

As for experience, that proves what? That they know the best ways to f*** America while serving themselves? The amount of time that those SOBs spend in Washington has no bearing whatever on their worthiness to be there. Their longevity in Congress in most cases proves only that the voters in their states are too stupid to live.

[Naturalized-Texan]

He went back to private practice for a number of years and then decided to see if he could make a change and came back to Washington.
Ron Paul did NOT return to private practice voluntarily! He was gerrymandered out of office by the Democrat state legislature.

[Elgalad]

As I wrote in a related thread, term limits on the federal level are long overdue. All the rah-rah about the freedom of the people to elect whomever they please evades the fact that the RAT-voting imbeciles of the blue-state electorates impose their choices on the entire country.

I do respect your stance on this and I strongly agree that some sort of Changes are overdue, but I still must disagree that these changes include term limits. "All the rah-rah about the freedom of the people, etc" IS the issue in my opinion, and while I may absolutely hate the choices my fellow citizens make at election time (Which (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold) I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Kind) Do! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herb_Kohl)), I will continue to staunchly defend the present system of electing them.

I have my vote, and I have my voice, and I have the unassailable right and freedom to do all that I can to change my neighbors' minds about who should represent us. But by no means whatsoever do I believe that You, or anyone else outside my district and State should have any say to tell my neighbors and I who we can and cannot choose. That is Our choice.

You see this as Blue Staters imposing our will on the rest of the country. How is limiting our choices through an arbitrary (time-based) restriction any less imposing on us?

My senators are Kennedy and Kerry, two of the most loathsome, must useless, most dangerous piles of worm-ridden dog dung in WDC. And the idiots in MA have the power to continue to inflict those parasites on America indefinitely.

I'll see your K's and Call you with a Feingold and a Kohl. Without meaning to belittle your plight, Things Are tough all over. :smirky:

Maybe we should both join Maggie in Idaho..? :question:

Nah, too many Bigfeets (Bigfoots? Bigfetes? Gah! :rolleyes:)

I ask the opponents of term limits to consider whether they would vote for the bastards. No? Well, it doesn't matter, because the morons in MA will reëlect them regardless of what the people of the other 49 states think, and the two scumbags will continue to impose their hyperleftist notions on the entirety of the USofA.

With all due respect, please demonstrate how either Kennedy or Kerry has any more say than anyone else's Senator?

I know that they both (well at least Ted the Swimmer http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/8210/whalevk8.gif) head some powerful Committees. But is that really thanks to your fellow citizens of Massachusetts? Or is it instead thanks to the cluelessness of the RNC, et al, for squandering a Republican Senate Majority in 2006?

I honestly do not believe that it's wise to change the rules after we've suffered this loss. There Is a workable process for obtaining Legislative power and restoring it to responsible hands. We did it once, and we will do it again. We the voters (that's collectively, in Every State) are as much to blame for putting the Dems in power as the jokers who squandered our Majority. We elected them, after all. We need to own that, admit our mistake, learn from it, and move on; this time (hopefully) a little wiser for the lesson.

This our course applies to all of the senile dinosaurs that have turned the Senate and the House into a pathetic parody of government.

It's easy to generalize when faced with examples such as this doddering old relic..
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/672/bushbyrdqv7.jpg
"pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty!"

But did you feel the same way when this gentleman was in the Senate?
http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/8939/strommw2.jpg

And if so, from your statement, then isn't your real issue with the age, rather than the seniority of the persons in question?

As for experience, that proves what? That they know the best ways to f*** America while serving themselves? The amount of time that those SOBs spend in Washington has no bearing whatever on their worthiness to be there. Their longevity in Congress in most cases proves only that the voters in their states are too stupid to live.

Again with all due respect.. that is not true and you know it. Seniority Does matter a great deal when it comes to committee memberships and leadership posts. These are the Only things that differentiate Senators from each other, since each remains, ostensibly anyway, an equal representative of one of the fifty States.

It's very easy obviously to lambast familiarity with the Washington (Federal Govt.) environment and suggest that it makes corruption easier. There is a great deal of evidence to back this up as well. But here I am going to argue (just like James Madison) that the less collective "information" (read knowledge, experience) possessed by the bulk of members, the more susceptible they will be to falling into the same "snares that may be laid for them".

A Senior Senator may indeed be experienced enough to work the system to line his own pockets, but nevertheless a Junior Senator may be fool enough to believe he is too pure of influence to be corrupted the entire time he's being worked By the system.



Doc, I don't expect to change your mind here. I realize you're convinced that term limits are long overdue and I respect that. There are many others here who feel the same way as well, and that is totally understandable. Congress has for decades (perhaps centuries) been regularly overstepping their Constitutional duty and it's very hard not to want a change, Now. Term Limits are a concept that is easily understood by most people, it's a populist notion, and it would represent a significant Change.

I just do not believe that it would be a Good one.


-Elgalad

[THEBIRD]

Ron Paul did NOT return to private practice voluntarily! He was gerrymandered out of office by the Democrat state legislature.

No, he lost in a bid for the US senate and then he returned to being a medical doctor. Do you know anything?

Google is your friend...and you obviously need one.