Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
I don't plan on voting Repub or Dem any more; But I WILL vote
Topic Started: Jan 3 2010, 12:20 AM (653 Views)
QuantumIvory
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
ivorythumper
Jan 3 2010, 04:36 PM
QuantumIvory
Jan 3 2010, 12:56 PM
ivorythumper
Jan 3 2010, 12:39 PM
The bigger issue is that Federally imposed terms limits would be presumably unconstitutional, since it is a power of the state to decide how to elect their congressmen (subject to the 17th amendment). The only Constitutional limitations regard age and residency. It would take a Constitutional amendment to mandate term limits upon the States.

Good luck with that.
The Supreme Court in 1995 ruled (stupidly) that even the states don't have the authority to limit a congressman's term. But, you're right, it would still require a constitutional amendment. It would be interesting to see a poll on the issue. (Of voters, not congressmen.)
Do you know on what grounds SCOTUS determined that?
John Paul Stevens writing for the majority said:

"Finally, state-imposed restrictions, unlike the congressionally imposed restrictions at issue in Powell, violate a third idea central to this basic principle: that the right to choose representatives belongs not to the States, but to the people. ... Following the adoption of the 17th Amendment in 1913, this ideal was extended to elections for the Senate. The Congress of the United States, therefore, is not a confederation of nations in which separate sovereigns are represented by appointed delegates, but is instead a body composed of representatives of the people."

And Clarence Thomas, who I think makes much more sense, writing the dissenting opinion said that the Constitution's authority depends on "the consent of the people of each individual State, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the Nation as a whole," and argued that on the question of whether the qualifications clause is exclusive, "The Constitution is simply silent...And where the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the States or the people." [Emphasis mine]

In other words, if the Constitution doesn't specifically prohibit this power to the states it should be, according to the Constitution, "reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.'' Clearly, the majority ignored the Tenth Amendment here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind consciousness." -Max Planck

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Simple fix:

1. You must pay taxes, or you cannot vote.

2. You must register to vote at your county courthouse. You must be registered 6 months before you may vote.

3. With the exception of military personnel, no absentee ballots will be accepted through the mail. Absentee ballots will be maintained at your county courthouse and you will be allowed to vote no sooner than two weeks before the election date.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Improviso
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Bring back the Poll Tax! Now there's a tax I CAN live with! Yea Baby! :lol:
Identifying narcissists isn't difficult. Just look for the person who is constantly fishing for compliments
and admiration while breaking down over even the slightest bit of criticism.

We have the freedom to choose our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Quote:
 
John Paul Stevens writing for the majority said:

"Finally, state-imposed restrictions, unlike the congressionally imposed restrictions at issue in Powell, violate a third idea central to this basic principle: that the right to choose representatives belongs not to the States, but to the people. ...
This is essentially Quirt's point -- if it is the will of the people to continuously electing the same representative, over and over again for decades, why should the state (or the federation) be able to tell them they cannot?

(Of course, there's a double standard in the Constitution right there... there is term limit on the POTUS, so why not also on other elected office?)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuantumIvory
Member Avatar
Senior Carp
Axtremus
Jan 4 2010, 09:30 AM
Quote:
 
John Paul Stevens writing for the majority said:

"Finally, state-imposed restrictions, unlike the congressionally imposed restrictions at issue in Powell, violate a third idea central to this basic principle: that the right to choose representatives belongs not to the States, but to the people. ...
This is essentially Quirt's point -- if it is the will of the people to continuously electing the same representative, over and over again for decades, why should the state (or the federation) be able to tell them they cannot?

(Of course, there's a double standard in the Constitution right there... there is term limit on the POTUS, so why not also on other elected office?)
But the electorate in Arkansas voted for passage of a constitutional amendment which limited the number of terms their representatives could serve. So, wasn't it SCOTUS that, in fact, disrupted the will of the people?
"I regard consciousness as fundamental. We cannot get behind consciousness." -Max Planck

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
QuantumIvory
Jan 4 2010, 09:58 AM
Axtremus
Jan 4 2010, 09:30 AM
Quote:
 
John Paul Stevens writing for the majority said:

"Finally, state-imposed restrictions, unlike the congressionally imposed restrictions at issue in Powell, violate a third idea central to this basic principle: that the right to choose representatives belongs not to the States, but to the people. ...
This is essentially Quirt's point -- if it is the will of the people to continuously electing the same representative, over and over again for decades, why should the state (or the federation) be able to tell them they cannot?

(Of course, there's a double standard in the Constitution right there... there is term limit on the POTUS, so why not also on other elected office?)
But the electorate in Arkansas voted for passage of a constitutional amendment which limited the number of terms their representatives could serve. So, wasn't it SCOTUS that, in fact, disrupted the will of the people?
They were binding the choices not just of themselves, but of future generations.

You can say that about most laws and constitutional amendments, of course.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Jan 4 2010, 10:02 AM
QuantumIvory
Jan 4 2010, 09:58 AM
Axtremus
Jan 4 2010, 09:30 AM
Quote:
 
John Paul Stevens writing for the majority said:

"Finally, state-imposed restrictions, unlike the congressionally imposed restrictions at issue in Powell, violate a third idea central to this basic principle: that the right to choose representatives belongs not to the States, but to the people. ...
This is essentially Quirt's point -- if it is the will of the people to continuously electing the same representative, over and over again for decades, why should the state (or the federation) be able to tell them they cannot?

(Of course, there's a double standard in the Constitution right there... there is term limit on the POTUS, so why not also on other elected office?)
But the electorate in Arkansas voted for passage of a constitutional amendment which limited the number of terms their representatives could serve. So, wasn't it SCOTUS that, in fact, disrupted the will of the people?
They were binding the choices not just of themselves, but of future generations.

You can say that about most laws and constitutional amendments, of course.
That is a meaningless objection, as you seem to realize with your qualification.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
ivorythumper
Jan 4 2010, 12:25 PM
QuirtEvans
Jan 4 2010, 10:02 AM
QuantumIvory
Jan 4 2010, 09:58 AM
Axtremus
Jan 4 2010, 09:30 AM
Quote:
 
John Paul Stevens writing for the majority said:

"Finally, state-imposed restrictions, unlike the congressionally imposed restrictions at issue in Powell, violate a third idea central to this basic principle: that the right to choose representatives belongs not to the States, but to the people. ...
This is essentially Quirt's point -- if it is the will of the people to continuously electing the same representative, over and over again for decades, why should the state (or the federation) be able to tell them they cannot?

(Of course, there's a double standard in the Constitution right there... there is term limit on the POTUS, so why not also on other elected office?)
But the electorate in Arkansas voted for passage of a constitutional amendment which limited the number of terms their representatives could serve. So, wasn't it SCOTUS that, in fact, disrupted the will of the people?
They were binding the choices not just of themselves, but of future generations.

You can say that about most laws and constitutional amendments, of course.
That is a meaningless objection, as you seem to realize with your qualification.
/ignore
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Jan 4 2010, 09:30 AM
Quote:
 
John Paul Stevens writing for the majority said:

"Finally, state-imposed restrictions, unlike the congressionally imposed restrictions at issue in Powell, violate a third idea central to this basic principle: that the right to choose representatives belongs not to the States, but to the people. ...
This is essentially Quirt's point -- if it is the will of the people to continuously electing the same representative, over and over again for decades, why should the state (or the federation) be able to tell them they cannot?

(Of course, there's a double standard in the Constitution right there... there is term limit on the POTUS, so why not also on other elected office?)
Quirt's notion that the will of the people can somehow be exerted despite the political party system is naive. Entrenched political machines are geared toward self survival, and accrue massive warchests, manpower and political momentum, and have methods of internal selection to promote the right sort of like-minded people as well as leveraging political capital of incumbents to keep out competition.

And it is not a double standard at all, since the legislative is not the same sort of body as the executive. Different standards are properly applied to different sorts of things. You may well question the wisdom of term limits for the executive, no term limits for the congress, and life appointments for the SCOTUS, but it would be muddled thinking to approach that as a question of "double standards".

But the heart of the problem is in Stevens' category of "the people" as not being self determining within the State. It is the people who vote for legislatures that make state laws under state constitutions, which govern local elections for Federal offices. This is clearly delineated in the US Constitution, subject as I already mentioned to the 17th Amendment.
Quote:
 
Section 4

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.


That said, I can see a theory of law whereby someone who enjoys rights granted Constitutionally cannot be deprived of them at the State level. If the Constitution allows for 25 year olds to hold the office of Representative, it seems a violation for the state to restrict that to someone who is 26 years old. So if the Constitution does not prohibit the indefinite reelection of congressmen, then perhaps the state cannot restrict. But that was not Stevens' framed argument.

The question would center around whether the intent of the Constitution was to enshrine "the will of the people" to not have term limits. That is hardly obvious. The Articles of Confederation required rotation. Comparing the 2nd Congress to the 8th Congress, we see that only 3 senators remained in office, and 5 representatives. There is some theory in the Federalist papers about term limits, which Madison of course would have rejected anyway and argued against, and some other early legislators also making Quirt's argument about limiting the choice of the people in the golden age before party politics and entrenched political machines.

But it is all moot given that SCOTUS has ruled, and there is not much likelihood of a Constitutional amendment.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
QuirtEvans
Jan 4 2010, 12:32 PM
ivorythumper
Jan 4 2010, 12:25 PM
QuirtEvans
Jan 4 2010, 10:02 AM
QuantumIvory
Jan 4 2010, 09:58 AM
Axtremus
Jan 4 2010, 09:30 AM
Quote:
 
John Paul Stevens writing for the majority said:

"Finally, state-imposed restrictions, unlike the congressionally imposed restrictions at issue in Powell, violate a third idea central to this basic principle: that the right to choose representatives belongs not to the States, but to the people. ...
This is essentially Quirt's point -- if it is the will of the people to continuously electing the same representative, over and over again for decades, why should the state (or the federation) be able to tell them they cannot?

(Of course, there's a double standard in the Constitution right there... there is term limit on the POTUS, so why not also on other elected office?)
But the electorate in Arkansas voted for passage of a constitutional amendment which limited the number of terms their representatives could serve. So, wasn't it SCOTUS that, in fact, disrupted the will of the people?
They were binding the choices not just of themselves, but of future generations.

You can say that about most laws and constitutional amendments, of course.
That is a meaningless objection, as you seem to realize with your qualification.
/ignore
/IGNORE FAIL
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
ivorythumper
Jan 4 2010, 01:28 PM
QuirtEvans
Jan 4 2010, 12:32 PM
ivorythumper
Jan 4 2010, 12:25 PM
QuirtEvans
Jan 4 2010, 10:02 AM
QuantumIvory
Jan 4 2010, 09:58 AM
Axtremus
Jan 4 2010, 09:30 AM
Quote:
 
John Paul Stevens writing for the majority said:

"Finally, state-imposed restrictions, unlike the congressionally imposed restrictions at issue in Powell, violate a third idea central to this basic principle: that the right to choose representatives belongs not to the States, but to the people. ...
This is essentially Quirt's point -- if it is the will of the people to continuously electing the same representative, over and over again for decades, why should the state (or the federation) be able to tell them they cannot?

(Of course, there's a double standard in the Constitution right there... there is term limit on the POTUS, so why not also on other elected office?)
But the electorate in Arkansas voted for passage of a constitutional amendment which limited the number of terms their representatives could serve. So, wasn't it SCOTUS that, in fact, disrupted the will of the people?
They were binding the choices not just of themselves, but of future generations.

You can say that about most laws and constitutional amendments, of course.
That is a meaningless objection, as you seem to realize with your qualification.
/ignore
/IGNORE FAIL
/ignore
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Improviso
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Jan 4 2010, 01:28 PM
QuirtEvans
Jan 4 2010, 12:32 PM
/ignore
/IGNORE FAIL
:popcorn: This could get interesting.
Identifying narcissists isn't difficult. Just look for the person who is constantly fishing for compliments
and admiration while breaking down over even the slightest bit of criticism.

We have the freedom to choose our actions, but we do not get to choose our consequences.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Improviso
Jan 4 2010, 01:33 PM
ivorythumper
Jan 4 2010, 01:28 PM
QuirtEvans
Jan 4 2010, 12:32 PM
/ignore
/IGNORE FAIL
:popcorn: This could get interesting.
Doubtful.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
/Interesting fail
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2