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

[joycenalex]

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.

[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?

[blue]

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.

[Edwina's Secretary]

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.

[moosmom]

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

My thoughts exactly.

[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. 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.

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.

[Edwina's Secretary]

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.

[blue]

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.