Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because congress would have to pass the bill. They have a sweet gig and they know it.....They aren't going to cut their own throats regardless of party affiliation.
So it's the "leftists" who think that denying someone's rights is a bad idea?
No, it is just that the "leftists" noted that the Constitution established who was qualified to run for the House and the Senate, and that states laws couldn't alter the Constitution by adding qualifications (ie, not being an incumbent with X number of terms already served). After all, there's a reason that when we term-limited Presidents, the "rightists" in Congress (Republicans controlled both the House and Senate in 1947, when Amendment XXII was submitted to the States) didn't just pass a law -- they understood that the Constitution needed to be amended. Why? Because since the Constitution established a qualification threshold for the Presidency that didn't include being ineligible after two terms, it required not just a law but an amendment to the Constitution to change this. So the USSC ruled with Constitutional qualification thresholds for the House and Senate.
Of course, in that case -- U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (1995) -- the USSC wasn't just making up law, they were strictly adhering to the precedent in Powell v. McCormack (1969), when the USSC ruled that those who meet the qualifications for office listed in the Constitution cannot be denied election to that office.
The USSC got it exactly right. The remedy, if one supports term limits, is an amendment to the Constitution, no matter how hard that may be (and in this case, it is virtually impossible). Failing that, I guess whining about "leftists" will be substituted ...
The Founding Fathers couldn't predict the career politician phenomenon.
I agree..
The idea of elected officials who would want to spend many years away from their farms & law practices, choosing to make multiple (sometimes) long, treacherous trips to the capital would've probably seemed unlikely to the Framers.
The Confederate Constitution did forsee, and partially address the issue tho.. Their presidential term was confined to a single, 6-year term. And this was in an era when unlimited presidential terms were still a legal possibility in America. My understanding is that up until FDR, guys voluntarily left after 2 terms out of respect for Washington's example.. no term limit amendment was deemed necessary until FDR broke the mold & highlighted a potential problem.
But both the original American, & Confederate, Constitutions contained a blind spot when addressing the prospect of unlimited Congressional terms.
Always seemed grimy (& predictably self-serving) to me that Congress eventually harnessed the Prez, but allowed themselves the potential for unlimited time in power.. Hope we eventually see Constitutional, Congressional term limits.
The Founding Fathers couldn't predict the career politician phenomenon.
I have to disagree. They were certainly familiar with career politiciams with the Monarchy and House of Lords which were lifetime careers. Many of them warned against the tendency of elected officials becoming powerful unyeilding tyrants. They just naively wanted to believe that Americans were too enlightened to be so power hungry. At the time, there was not much personal financial gain from being in politics. Politicians had to go home and actually work for a living after serving a few years in politics.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why isn't there term limits for congress?
