My Rant. Senator Stevens, Alaska's AH representatives. My argument for term limits.

Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, recently convicted on 7 felony charges, could still represent AK. Its not just Stevens, Don Young has been under investigation over the past year as well.

Ill take a democrat senator if Uncle Ted is expelled from the senate but I will not vote for one. Give me a democrat congressman if Young is guilty as well.

The Jackhole Ted has representented AK for 40 years, he is out of touch with Alaskans. He has been convicted of 7 counts of corruption/taking bribes. His ego and arrogance has gotten in the way of proper representation of Alaskan citizens in the federal elections and he might actualy be the only felon as a Senator this term if my fellow Alaskans vote him in.

The arguments for keeping Stevens and Young in office are their seniority and the key pannels, boards, WTF ever they are called, they are on. They not only hold sway over cash coming here but cash going to other states.

We need term limits. We need to stop our representatives looking out for themselves and not looking out for us

Ive been asked to stop white posting, so if you dont like my spelling ( I know my spelling sucks) deal with it.

Why this has to do with non Alaskans...

Both Don Young And Ted Stevens have been in the Congressional branch for so long they are on key commitees that impact your lives in 1 way or another.

I do not want my representatives impacting your lives simply because of how long they have spent in public office. I want my representatives looking out for me, not their public power or what they can do for you.

This goal can best be achieved with term limits, and eliminating seniority positions in federal postings.

Ive had a long day , Im ranting, I needed a small vent, and I hope I made some point.

Oh, goodness! How could Alaskans keep re-electing them?

You have my sympathies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue

We need term limits. We need to stop our representatives looking out for themselves and not looking out for us

Why this has to do with non Alaskans...

Both Don Young And Ted Stevens have been in the Congressional branch for so long they are on key commitees that impact your lives in 1 way or another.

I do not want my representatives impacting your lives simply because of how long they have spent in public office. I want my representatives looking out for me, not their public power or what they can do for you.

This goal can best be achieved with term limits, and eliminating seniority positions in federal postings.

---

To obtain the term limits, the Constitution will have to be amended - just as it was in 1951, with the ratification of the 22nd Amendment. Since amendments are usually introduced by members of Congress, I'm thinking you might have a hard time getting this one started?

Article Five -

Quote:

---

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

---

blue, we have term limits on state offices here in ohio.( i'm pretty sure it was enacted in 1992.) and i voted for it. i am happy, mostly about how it has worked, BUT, and here is the biggest problems from my view point...1-some state wide issues are fairly complex and crafting solutions for them can be a multi year job (for example here in ohio the HUGE problem with widely variable educational levels for students) 2- by the time a legislator gets up to speed and knowledge and useful to work with other legislators way on a thorny complex issue, (like moving away from property tax funding of education to another equitable way to pay for the education of those students), they are at the end of their second term, and on their way out. that legislative knowledge goes with them and away from the state house. i am happy that there is always fresh brains coming up, (and some are brighter brains then others that is true) but we do lose something. sigh, sometimes throwing the bums out has a cost.

But what about "original intent"? It was not the original intent of the Founding Fathers to have term limits.

And...who votes for a convicted felon anyway?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

But what about "original intent"? It was not the original intent of the Founding Fathers to have term limits.

And...who votes for a convicted felon anyway?

---

The amendment process is part of the original intent. I doubt the Founding Fathers thought we would have career politions or polititians leading us down the road to socialism.

People who think keeping the positions that Stevens holds in DC is more important then 7 silly little felonies. I voted AIP this year, I couldnt bring myself to vote for Mark Begich and a damn sure wasnt voting for a founding member of The Corrupt Bastards Club.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue

The amendment process is part of the original intent. I doubt the Founding Fathers thought we would have career politions or polititians leading us down the road to socialism.

---

I suspect the Founding Fathers also did not know the US population would grow from about 5 million in 1800 to about 300 million today.

They most likely did not know that "arms" would go from hand loaded muskets to the high powered killing machines they are today.

As you so ably point out...things are very different today than over 200 years ago.

Quote:

---

And...who votes for a convicted felon anyway?

---

My thoughts exactly.

Yet the difference between us is you would like to see unconstitutional laws enacted to circumvent the Constitution, and I would like to see the Constitution amended according to the original intent of our Founding Fathers. A law limiting the amount of terms a Congressman or senator can serve would be as unconstitutional as any law restricting the Second Amendment.

This country amended the Constitution to limit the amount of terms a person can serve as President can serve to two, Amendment 22.

Quote:

---

Amendment 22 - Presidential Term Limits. Ratified 2/27/1951. History

1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

2. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

---

It would take another amendment to enact term limits for federal senators and congressmen, and I wouldnt have it any other way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue

Yet the difference between us is you would like to see unconstitutional laws enacted to circumvent the Constitution, and I would like to see the Constitution amended according to the original intent of our Founding Fathers.

---

Gosh darn it...there you go again. How do you know what I want is unconstitutional laws? Maybe I want a constitutional amendment to modify the Second amendment!

When did you meet the Founding Fathers? I am always in awe of folks who know what they intended. Time travelers? What they intended, as you have pointed out, did not take into consideration the world we live in today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

Gosh darn it...there you go again. How do you know what I want is unconstitutional laws? Maybe I want a constitutional amendment to modify the Second amendment!

When did you meet the Founding Fathers? I am always in awe of folks who know what they intended. Time travelers? What they intended, as you have pointed out, did not take into consideration the world we live in today.

---

I made the assumtion on the fact that you support laws banning or restricting firearms, my bad. Any law restricting the Second Amendent is unconstitutional. Even the hard left knows there is not enough votes to pass an amendment restricting the 2nd Amendment.

What the founding Fathers intended is well documented. The Founding fathers did take into account the world Americans would live in long after they where dead and they wrote provisions for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue

What the founding Fathers intended is well documented. The Founding fathers did take into account the world Americans would live in long after they where dead and they wrote provisions for it.

---

I would like you to show me where the Founding Fathers predicted what the United States would be like in 200 years? Please?

You know, 50 states stretching from ocean to ocean...the end of slavery, the emancipation of women, the Civil War, electricity, telephone, automobiles, trains, planes, two world wars, an increase in population from a few million to 300 million, transformation from agrarian to urban, life expectancy doubled just to name a few. The end of monarchy as they knew it, the end of many of deadly diseases -- small pox, typhoid, polio and the cure for others.

The atom bomb.

Where are these provision for these?

The Founding Fathers were just men. Men who created a great document, yes. But they were not Supermen who could predict the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue

Any law restricting the Second Amendent is unconstitutional.

---

Oh yeah. I don't agree with you. Unless of course, you share my interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Since I first started this thread I have been trying to word a petition to start a grass root effort to amend the constition to add term limits for our representatives. Term limits would greatly reduce the influence of lobbiests, would eliminate commity seats based on seniority, and would streamline the learning curve for freshmen representatives.

With shortenned, finite term limits the urge to vote for $$$ might increase so corruption laws would need to be re-evaluated both for detection of corruption and punishment on conviction of corruption. I dont see how this part would be in a possible amendment but Ild be interested if anybody could make an argument for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

Oh yeah. I don't agree with you.

---

Care to explain why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

Where are these provision for these?

---

Article V of the United States Constitution.

Term limits could also shorten the time it would take to enact needed legislation rather then bogging it down in commities for years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

I would like you to show me where the Founding Fathers predicted what the United States would be like in 200 years? Please?

---

Show me they thought things would stay the same?

They didnt make predictions, they knew things would change. It didnt matter if the change was 5 years or 500, they knew things would change. Do you think Thomas Jefferson thought we would go to the moon and back?

Quote:

---

You know, 50 states stretching from ocean to ocean...the end of slavery, the emancipation of women, the Civil War, electricity, telephone, automobiles, trains, planes, two world wars, an increase in population from a few million to 300 million, transformation from agrarian to urban, life expectancy doubled just to name a few. The end of monarchy as they knew it, the end of many of deadly diseases -- small pox, typhoid, polio and the cure for others.

---

So you think the Government gave us electricity, telephone, planes, trains, and automobiles? You think the 2 World Wars werent worth fighting for? You dont think the Founders would think that the Country they helped found wouldnt prosper and flourish? You think the government was the cause of ending deadly diseases

Quote:

---

The atom bomb.

---

Think of how many lives that the atom bomb has saved compared to how many its killed.

Quote:

---

Where are these provision for these?

---

Article V of the United States Constitution.

Quote:

---

The Founding Fathers were just men. Men who created a great document, yes. But they were not Supermen who could predict the future.

---

They didnt predict it they provided for it.

Blue, I do not agree (although that doesn't seem to be something allowed here much these days!)

The Founding Father were men, some slave owners, all very intelligent. They wrote a great document.

I do not believe they were supermen who could imagine the world today. Any more than we can imagine what the world will be like in another 200 years.

To fall back on the "original intent" (when it works in your favor) just doesn't work for me. The original intent was for that time and that place. We need to be intelligent enough to adapt it to fit the world we live in.

But one last question before I leave you to your original intent...why do you label people who hold different opinions than you do? Why the "leftie" crap?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Edwina's Secretary

Blue, I do not agree (although that doesn't seem to be something allowed here much these days!)

The Founding Father were men, some slave owners, all very intelligent. They wrote a great document.

I do not believe they were supermen who could imagine the world today. Any more than we can imagine what the world will be like in another 200 years.

To fall back on the "original intent" (when it works in your favor) just doesn't work for me. The original intent was for that time and that place. We need to be intelligent enough to adapt it to fit the world we live in.

---

Of course you dont agree, but you never explain why you dont agree.

The Founders knew they couldnt predict the future, that is why they wrote the amendment process into the Constitution. The Constitution, as they wrote it, is the base of our laws to be added to as needed not to be interpretted to mean things not intended by the writers. They intended the doccument itself to change, not its meaning.

They werent supermen, they were smart men.

Now show me where Original Intent works against my favor.

Quote:

---

But one last question before I leave you to your original intent...why do you label people who hold different opinions than you do? Why the "leftie" crap?

---

It is a good generalization of those on the left, same as right wing nut job is a good description for Rush, Hannity and O'Reilly

The 9th Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted December 15, 1791.

This is often referred to as the forgotten Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I find this extremely interesting.

The 9th amendment may be the forgotten amendment, but I refer to the 10th as the trashed amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grace

The 9th Amendment to the United States Constitution, adopted December 15, 1791.

This is often referred to as the forgotten Amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

I find this extremely interesting.

---

Nice catch.

Quote:

---

Standing alone, the Ninth Amendment does not make any specific law unconstitutional. It is an explanation, not a command -- like the FAQs found on many Web sites. In this case, the Frequently Asked Question is: "The Bill of Rights provides a list of specific rights that are protected from invasion by the federal government. Does this mean that the federal government can violate other rights if they aren't on the list?" The Ninth answers, "No. The Bill of Rights is not complete. Other rights exist, and the federal government must respect them." Indeed, as a supporter of the Constitution pointed out at the Pennsylvania ratification convention, "Our rights are not yet all known," so an enumeration was impossible. While it is true that history often fails to provide clear proof of what the Framers believed, there are exceptions. The Ninth Amendment is one of them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lady's Human

. . . . . but I refer to the 10th as the trashed amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

---

I agree.

Quote:

---

Standing alone, the Ninth Amendment does not make any specific law unconstitutional. It is an explanation, not a command -- like the FAQs found on many Web sites. In this case, the Frequently Asked Question is: "The Bill of Rights provides a list of specific rights that are protected from invasion by the federal government. Does this mean that the federal government can violate other rights if they aren't on the list?" The Ninth answers, "No. The Bill of Rights is not complete. Other rights exist, and the federal government must respect them." Indeed, as a supporter of the Constitution pointed out at the Pennsylvania ratification convention, "Our rights are not yet all known," so an enumeration was impossible. While it is true that history often fails to provide clear proof of what the Framers believed, there are exceptions. The Ninth Amendment is one of them.

---

Not sure where that quote is from. What I find interesting is that it seems so vague, yet can encompass a multitude of interests.

In combination with the 14th, it seems to infer a right to privacy. Justice Goldberg used it as the centerpiece for his concurring opinion in Griswold vs. Connecticut back in 1965.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grace

Not sure where that quote is from. What I find interesting is that it seems so vague, yet can encompass a multitude of interests.

In combination with the 14th, it seems to infer a right to privacy. Justice Goldberg used it as the centerpiece for his concurring opinion in Griswold vs. Connecticut back in 1965.

---

I found the quote here, clicky.

Thank you.

Kind of a bittersweet end for me and other Alaskans. Source.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ADN

More than half the absentee and questioned ballots still to be counted in Alaska's U.S. Senate race come from areas of the state that backed Democrat Mark Begich on Election Day.

That's not a good sign for Republican Sen. Ted Stevens as he seeks to overcome Begich's 814-vote lead when counting resumes today of just over 41,000 remaining ballots. A Daily News analysis, based on data provided by the state Division of Elections, shows that 56 percent of those ballots come from districts that favored Begich on Nov. 4.

---

While I am glad Stevens seems to be losing his seat I am saddened by Mayor Begich taking it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue

While I am glad Stevens seems to be losing his seat I am saddened by Mayor Begich taking it.

---

Care to explain why you feel that way?

Its now official, with a bigger lead then votes left to count, Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich is now JR Senator for Alaska in the United States Senate.

Begich will now have to Go Along To Get Along in the Senate, maybe if he votes "present" enough he can be the next president.

ETA: Now, do to seniority, some other AH will controll Ted's committee seat.

Do we really want people controlling appriation spending based on how long they have been able to stay in office, over their merits and ideals?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue

While I am glad Stevens seems to be losing his seat I am saddened by Mayor Begich taking it.

---

Why??

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lizbud

Care to explain why you feel that way?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grace

Why??

---

Because he is going to be expected to go along to get along. Because Alaska has lost its seat on the Appropriations Committee.

That is only the tip of it, and thats all Im going to give. You all dont seem to care senior seats in the senate mean more then actual qualifications. Alot of Alaskan's dont seem to care either, it seems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blue

That is only the tip of it, and thats all Im going to give. You all dont seem to care senior seats in the senate mean more then actual qualifications. Alot of Alaskan's dont seem to care either, it seems.

---

I'm confused. From your earlier statement, I gathered that you don't necessarily approve of seniority either?

Quote:

---

Do we really want people controlling appropriation spending based on how long they have been able to stay in office, over their merits and ideals?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Grace

I'm confused. From your earlier statement, I gathered that you don't necessarily approve of seniority either?

---

I dont at all, no necessarily about it.

Alot of Alaskan voted for Stevens because of his seniority. We need to get rid of seniority for seats on key committees, term limits would be a good start in that direction.

Since Dave Cuddy wasnt on my ballot I voted against both Stevens and Begich.

You did seem to imply that Stevens was ok with having seniority &
handing out money for his district, but it was wrong for another Senator
to replace him & do the same thing.:confused:


Did you know that Ted Stevens was a Hoosier?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lizbud

You did seem to imply that Stevens was ok with having seniority &
handing out money for his district, but it was wrong for another Senator
to replace him & do the same thing.:confused:

---

Please show me where I implyed it was OK. Stevens seniority is part of the problem, as is the seniority of any of the career polititians.

TO put it to you simply, Mark Begich may be my representative, he does not represent me. For that matter neither did Stevens.

Quote:

---

Did you know that Ted Stevens was a Hoosier?

---

And I should care why?