Four Republican senators have introduced a constitutional amendment to limit senators to no more than two six-year terms in office, and representatives no more than three two-year terms. To become law, the amendment must be approved by two-thirds majorities of both the Senate and House, and by three-fourths of the states.
Senators Jim DeMint, South Carolina, Tom Coburn, Oklahoma, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Texas, and Sam Brownback, Kansas, are the co-sponsors.
The 22nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution limits presidents to no more than two terms in office. Fifteen states have term limits for various officials, as do many local governments across the country.
DeMint said the amendment is needed because the power of incumbency has grown so great:
“Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians. As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buyoff special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork – in short, amassing their own power,” DeMint said.
If only this amendment had a chance of passing. Unfortunately, there are few selfless politicians; none of the entrenched lifetime politicians like Robert Byrd or Steny Hoyer would ever vote for a bill that would put them out of a job.
Term limits are completely necessary, of course. Congress has become a disgusting oligarchy filled with cronyism and wrapped in corruption. I actually have advocated in dozens of political discussions the necessity of term limits on Congressional representatives and senators, and the numbers in this amendment are exactly what I want to see.
Consider this…if these limits had been in place, who would currently not have a seat in Congress? These would be notable Senators who have served more than 12 years (i.e. more than two terms) and notable Congressmen who have served more than 6 years (3 terms).
Just imagine how great this country would be WITHOUT these people running it. It’s like a laundry list of socialists and big-government advocates.
Senators:
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Max Baucus (D-MT)
Arlen Specter (D-PA)
Chris Dodd (D-CT)
John Kerry (D-MA)
Harry Reid (D-NV)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)
Russ Feingold (D-WI)
Olympia Snowe (R-ME)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Congressmen:
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Henry Waxman (D-CA)
Bobby Rush (D-IL)
Steny Hoyer (D-MD)
Barney Frank (D-MA)
John Conyers (D-MI)
John Dingell (D-MI)
Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
John Murtha (D-PA)
That’s literally the entire Democratic leadership. It should tell you something that their entire lead crew has been entrenched in Congress for years upon years (and in the case of people like Murtha, Dingell, Conyers, et al, decades).
Now, if term limits were put in place, would good members of Congress who actually help the country be kicked out of their seats prematurely? Absolutely, but unfortunately, we must sacrifice some time given by a few good apples to remove the hundreds of bad apples who are career politicians that care more about their personal agendas than their constituents.
Seems to me we fought a civil war about this some time ago…obviously the Federal government didn’t learn from their mistakes. They have become increasingly belligerent toward the states and continued to force compliance with a wide variety of laws that clearly were not given to the Federal government in the Constitution. Now, states are fighting back.
Fed up with Washington’s involvement in everything from land use to gun control to education spending, states across the country are fighting back against what they say is the federal government’s growing intrusion on their rights.
At least 35 states have introduced legislation this year asserting their power under the Tenth Amendment to regulate all matters not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution.
“This has been boiling for years, and it’s finally come to a head,” said Utah State Rep. Carl Wimmer. “With TARP and No Child Left Behind, these things that continue to give the federal government more authority, our rights as states and individuals are being turned on their head.”
The power struggle between the states and Washington has cropped up periodically ever since the country was founded. But now some states are sending a simple, forceful message:
The government has gone too far. Enough is enough.
Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer recently signed into law a bill authorizing the state’s gun manufacturers to produce “Made in Montana” firearms, without seeking licensing from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Similar laws are being considered in Utah, Alaska, Texas and Tennessee.
These Tenth Amendment bills are excellent in my opinion. If no one stands up to the Federal government, they will continue to steamroller their way over the states and continue to usurp authority and push their way into people’s lives. By reaffirming their rights under the Bill of Rights, these states are setting themselves squarely in the path of the oncoming Executive Branch train. Here’s hoping they stand their ground as the light gets bigger and bigger.
States’ Rights led to a bloody war 140 years ago. Let’s pray history is not forced to repeat itself and the Federal government can be reined in before it’s too late.
The Obama Administration’s shortlist to replace retiring Justice David Souter is a who’s-who list of radicals and liberal activists. None are worse, however, than Circuit Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor.
What’s wrong with her? On top of being a radical leftist, she absolutely exemplifies everything that is wrong with judges in today’s society. Instead of being content to perform the Constitutional job of interpreting the law in the context of, well, the Constitution, Sotomayor believes that the court should create policy. Oh yeah. It’s like that.
The court is where policy is made? Oh really? Could have fooled me. Here I was, thinking that the Founders created a country with three different branches of the Federal government that each serve a distinct function. In recent years, of course, these bodies have been merging together into one ugly conglomeration of overly powerful Federal government.
Circuit Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor would face a difficult time getting through the Senate if nominated to the Supreme Court, top Judiciary Committee Sen. Orrin Hatch (Utah) warned Thursday.
Hatch said that statements made by Sotomayor about judges making policy was a cause for concern that could hold up a potential nomination by President Obama.
“She would have, I think, a more difficult time if she was nominated because of statements like that and, of course, she has a whole raft of opinions that I think would have to be scrutinized very carefully,” Hatch said during an appearance on Fox News.
The comments are a warning shot against a nominee who, conventional wisdom has suggested, is a frontrunner to fill the vacancy left by retiring Justice David Souter.
Basically, Obama would pick her for two reasons: first, he wants to continue his pandering to the Hispanic demographic by selecting her. The second, of course, is the more obvious, which is just the simple fact that he wants to slide the court even further left. Remember what he had to say about his pick for SCOTUS?
We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.
The heart? The empathy? Are you kidding me? This isn’t a damn counseling session. This is the Supreme Court of the United States America. This is not a body of “empathy” or “heart.” This is a body of law, of order and of Constitutionality. Picking a judge based on these insane “qualifications” is stupid and naive, which really is par for the course with this administration.
Sotomayor thinks it’s funny that people get upset about judges legislating from the bench. I don’t think it’s so funny. The judicial branch was created to balance the other two, not work hand-in-hand with them to pass liberal legislation. They are supposed to interpret issues in the context of the Constitution, not create new laws. As Mark Levin is fond of saying, the Supreme Court has had a significant hand in destroying the fabric of America with judicial activism. Judges are not supposed to legislate, but it makes it much easier to further the agenda of socialism if you have justices who are willing to do just that.
The American Thinker has the disturbing facts: the Democrats are already moving to adopt a Big Brother-esque Internet “security” policy that gives the White House unprecedented power to regulate the Internet. I predicted this rise of totalitarianism, but not this soon. God help us all.
The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 would, for example, give the President unfettered power to shut down Internet traffic in emergencies or disconnect any critical infrastructure system or network on national security grounds. The bill would grant the Commerce Department the ability to override all privacy laws to access any information about Internet usage in connection with a new role in tracking cybersecurity threats.
The bill, introduced by Sens. John Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe, would also give the government unprecedented control over computer software and Internet services, threatening innovation, freedom and privacy. CDT President and CEO Leslie Harris said, “The cybersecurity threat is real, but such a drastic federal intervention in private communications technology and networks could harm both security and privacy.”
This cannot be allowed. If the Democrats are allowed to pass this obscene measure, it could spell the end of the Internet as we know it in the United States. The government would be free to regulate traffic and track users in a manner eerily reminiscent to what China does to its citizens. Political dissidents can be cataloged and tracked, their every move monitored and recorded. Every day citizens will be watched as they go about their lives.
Just picture the government being able to pull up your IP address and scroll through a list of every website you visit, every word you type and every email you send. Unnerved yet? You should be; government regulation of the Internet isn’t coming…it’s here and ready to be voted on.
Hello, Big Brother. Goodbye, privacy and freedom.
=======================================
One more thing…a good point made by a reader (@Bob_Clark) from Twitter: Didn’t Liberals complain about Bush doing the same thing?
Absolutely, they did…they went nuts about the Patriot Act “stealing their rights” for years, but now we haven’t heard a whimper from them about this piece of work. Double standard? Or stupidity? I say both.
Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides. Provides that the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner’s Identification Card previously issued under this Act if the Department finds that the person to whom such card was issued possesses or acquires a firearm and does not submit evidence to the Department of State Police that he or she has been issued in his or her name a liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Effective January 1, 2010.
What does this mean? Basically, right now in Illinois we have to have a Firearm Owner’s Identification card that “allows” us the right to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights. It’s quite nice of Illinois to allow us this privilege. Anyway.
This bill would require Illinois residents to own a million dollars of insurance on their guns, or get their FOID revoked. What is left unsaid is that if your FOID is revoked and you are in possession of a weapon, it’s a felony.
If the Democrats can’t take our guns by force, they will take our guns by proxy. This bill would make it so unbelievably expensive to own a gun that many gun owners would not be able to purchase the policy and would lose their “right” to own a weapon in Illinois. Of course, Illinois has no right to take the rights afforded to us by the 2nd Amendment, but why let a silly 200 year old document get in the way of progress?
This is actually pretty stunning. Obama must realize that the doctrine would do nothing but draw ire from everyone except the far left and he doesn’t want to commit political suicide (again, that is…he’s already tied his political future to the ill-fated porkulus bill).
President Obama opposes any move to bring back the so-called Fairness Doctrine, a spokesman told FOXNews.com Wednesday.
The statement is the first definitive stance the administration has taken since an aide told an industry publication last summer that Obama opposes the doctrine — a long-abolished policy that would require broadcasters to provide opposing viewpoints on controversial issues.
“As the president stated during the campaign, he does not believe the Fairness Doctrine should be reinstated,” White House spokesman Ben LaBolt told FOXNews.com.
Good news for us, bad news for Pelosi and Reid. I have this distinct feeling that Congress and the White House are headed for a number of high-profile head-butting sessions when the Speakers realize that Obama has his own idea of how to implement socialism.
See, both Obama and Pelosi want the country in the same place: the government owns everything, the Constitution is repealed and the word “profit” is not allowed to be spoken.
Fortunately for us, they disagree on how to get there, and they’ll tear each other to shreds before they sit and realize they are on the same side.
Well, it didn’t take long. The Far Left Congress, seeing an avowed Constitution hater taking over the Oval Office, has introduced legislation to completely hamper law abiding citizens’ ability to own guns. Enter H.R. 45 Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009.
It’s really not surprising that Bobby Rush introduced this thing, given his radical stance on guns.
Our intrepid march toward socialism has been marked by government takeovers of banks, fear mongering by our chief executive in an effort to weaken the resolve of a people already much too reliant on the government, and now members of the House seek to strip away our ability to defend ourselves. As one of my favorite Twitter people is fond of saying, the 2nd Amendment exists in case the government forgets the other ones.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(6) on the afternoon of May 10, 2007, Blair Holt, a junior at Julian High School in Chicago, was killed on a public bus riding home from school when he used his body to shield a girl who was in the line of fire after a young man boarded the bus and started shooting.
That situation, while tragic, could not be prevented by stricter gun laws. Gun control only affects law abiding citizens. Criminals will still get their weapons if they want, and what gun control does is prevent those of us who can legally possess a weapon from defending ourselves.
(8) an authorization by the applicant to release to the Attorney General or an authorized representative of the Attorney General any mental health records pertaining to the applicant;
Some other highlights of this bill include this gem, which allows the government to access your mental health records to determine if you are an acceptable choice for owning a weapon. But what is the criteria? First off, it’s none of their business, but second, who decides what kind of mental problems? How severe counts as unacceptable to them? What about when they add an amendment about physical issues? If you have a heart problem, would the government think that it’s bad for you to own a weapon? What if you are fine head-wise, but you’re on Obama’s political dissident list? This gives them far too much power and far too much subjectivity.
(4) a clear thumb print of the applicant, which shall be made when, and in the presence of the entity to whom, the application is submitted
So, the bill calls for a thumbprint to be added to the ID card. Great idea, Bobby Rush. So now, the government can run the prints from any crime scene through the database and possibly catch you for a crime you did not commit. Let’s say you go to the Sack-o-Suds and buy 22 specific items off the shelf. You pay, you leave, and another man walks in and kill the clerk. The Fed runs the prints on the counter, finds yours and sees that you’re a gun owner, and hunts you down and arrests you.
That’s not a far-fetched scenario, folks. It’s like getting your face in a mug shot lineup; every person who pages through that book has a shot at accidentally fingering you, and the fingerprint is even worse, because literally any crime committed at any place you’ve ever been has a chance of catching you in the net.
(7) a certificate attesting to the completion at the time of application of a written firearms examination, which shall test the knowledge and ability of the applicant regarding–
This section goes on to detail this massive testing procedure involving gun law, firearms storage and a whole host of other insanity. The government can’t do this. We have a little thing called the 2nd Amendment, which reads something like this:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Somehow, this sort of strikes me as “infringing.”
(b) Sense of the Congress- It is the sense of the Congress that–
(2) it is in the national interest and within the role of the Federal Government to ensure that the regulation of firearms is uniform among the States, that law enforcement can quickly and effectively trace firearms used in crime, and that firearms owners know how to use and safely store their firearms.
So much for States’ rights. Didn’t we fight a civil war about this sort of garbage not too long ago? It’s not within the rights of the Federal Government to enact overarching laws that strip away the rights provided to citizens through the Bill of Rights. That document wouldn’t be worth much if the government could strip it all away for no reason.
Giving medical records access to the government and allowing them to search your home means that this takes away your 4th Amendment rights whenever you try to exercise your 2nd Amendment rights. It’s absurd, it’s unconstitutional and completely incomprehensible.
You know, the one that talks about Presidential term limits? Yeah, THAT amendment. It’s clearly a radical that is attempting the consolidate the Democratic power behind newly crowned King Obama the Arrogant. It won’t pass, of course, but it’s disgusting it was even proposed and sent to committee.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. SERRANO introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
‘Article–
‘The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.’.
What is interesting is the fact that it is a common thought among everyone on the left that now is the time to strike and attempt to create a new 40 years of Democrat control. Obviously that would lead to the destruction of the country and is a stupid thing for anyone to strive for, but no one said liberal politicians were smart. After all, they think the porkulus bill is going to HELP the country.
Russ Feingold is introducing a Constitutional amendment to end Senate appointments by state governors, following Burris/Blago and Paterson/Kennedy/Gillibrand:
His release:
“The controversies surrounding some of the recent gubernatorial appointments to vacant Senate seats make it painfully clear that such appointments are an anachronism that must end. In 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the Constitution gave the citizens of this country the power to finally elect their senators. They should have the same power in the case of unexpected mid term vacancies, so that the Senate is as responsive as possible to the will of the people. I plan to introduce a constitutional amendment this week to require special elections when a Senate seat is vacant, as the Constitution mandates for the House, and as my own state of Wisconsin already requires by statute. As the Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, I will hold a hearing on this important topic soon.”
Of course it should be the vote of the people; that seems almost elementary. One good proposal doesn’t take back all the bad garbage he’s done over the years, but I side with him this one time.
Isn’t this rich? We all knew Obama was going to be subverting the Constitution, but what I didn’t predict was that he was going to be challenging it before he even took office.
The biggest obstacle facing Hillary Clinton’s Senate confirmation as President-elect Barack Obama’s top diplomat may not be her husband’s wheeling and dealing abroad for his foundation, as many suspected.
Instead, it could be the U.S. Constitution.
According to an emolument clause in the Constitution, no lawmaker can be appointed to any civil position that was created or received a wage increase during the lawmaker’s time in office.
President Bush ordered Cabinet salaries raised to $191,300 from $186,600 by executive order early this year, while Clinton was senator.
Obviously, they are going to find some way around it, but it’s just funny to see the Obamadministration already at odds with our founding document, especially considering his low opinion of it.
