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

[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.

[Edwina's Secretary]

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.

[Edwina's Secretary]

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.

[blue]

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.