Constitutional Amendment whose time has come?

[Apache]

Absolutely. And repeal term limits for presidents. ....

I can't believe I disagree with you on something :(

[CaughtintheMiddle1990]

I can't believe I disagree with you on something :(

Reagan felt the 22nd Amendment should be repealed too. By the way, did you know Reagan also was in favor of the Brady Bill?
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/op...rady-bill.html

[Odysseus]

I can't believe I disagree with you on something :(

Nobody's perfect. :D

The 22nd Amendment was a reaction to Roosevelt, and it was the wrong one. An originalist interpretation of the Constitution would have eviscerated the New Deal (as it did with the National Recovery Act), but the elites failed to enforce the standards of the Constitution. Instead, they amended it in order to prevent what the document already would have prevented, had they just had the courage and integrity to pursue it. Creating a bad law to fix the errors caused by not enforcing a good law is typical of those who only pretend to govern.

Reagan felt the 22nd Amendment should be repealed too. By the way, did you know Reagan also was in favor of the Brady Bill?
http://www.nytimes.com/1991/03/29/op...rady-bill.html

Reagan was right about so many things that we can forgive him his occasional error, and in this case, even though I disagree with him, much of his logic was sound. Reagan favored the waiting period provision because he favored background checks. Once those checks became instantaneous, the waiting period became pointless. His concerns about "heat of the moment" purchases have proven to be wrong, as most guns used in crimes are purchased well in advance of the crime (including John Hinkley's). Finally, the proposition that the feds have the standing to dictate sales of firearms within the states is of such dubious constitutionality that it's shocking that Reagan would have agreed with it, but given his deeply personal involvement with the circumstances surrounding the bill, it is understandable that his judgement in this one area was not as clear as it might have been.

[megimoo]

Absolutely. And repeal term limits for presidents. I'd much rather have term limits for legislators than executives. The logic is this: A legislator can spend years hiding in the anonymity of the house or senate, without any accomplishments, and unless his/her conduct is so egregious that their own party ditches them, or they are convicted of a felony, it's almost impossible to get rid of them. A president, OTOH, is held responsible for everything that happens on his watch, right or wrong. By way of example, in the last 50 years, LBJ, Ford, Carter and GHW Bush failed to secure second terms on their own, and Obama is looking increasingly like a one-termer.

For one thing term limits will never happen while the legislature gets to vote on it.Why should they cut their own throats when they can vote it down.As for presidential term limits the congress doesn't want a sitting president to stay in office for too long .The memory of FDR in office for over twelve years and limiting their possible runs will gall most of the egotistical congresses presendential contenders.

[Articulate_Ape]

term limits for senators and representatives, anyone?

A bad idea. While attractive on the surface, the unintended consequences would be ugly and painful enough to demand an uncertain repeal.

[Odysseus]

A bad idea. While attractive on the surface, the unintended consequences would be ugly and painful enough to demand an uncertain repeal.

If the results in NYC (the City Council is term-limited) are any indication, it would actually be a good idea. The pols hate it, and the constant turnover demands that the public evaluate new candidates on a regular basis. It hasn't made the NYC Council any less liberal, but it has cut down on the graft and corruption, as they don't have the time to get entrenched.

[noonwitch]

term limits for senators and representatives, anyone?

The courts have ruled against it for senators and representatives in the federal system. Michigan has term limits on governors and legislators. When that law was passed, it also included limits on US Congressional reps and Senators. I don't know which court struck down that part of the law (which was a ballot initiative), but it was struck.

It really sucked for those guys who were trying to get rid of Senator Levin with the law. That law might have been passed in 1990 (I'm not sure, but it was a big year for voter initiatives) , so they have had to suffer under 20 more years of oppression by a liberal Senator that the vast majority of voters have chosen to return to office several more times.

[Odysseus]

The courts have ruled against it for senators and representatives in the federal system. Michigan has term limits on governors and legislators. When that law was passed, it also included limits on US Congressional reps and Senators. I don't know which court struck down that part of the law (which was a ballot initiative), but it was struck.

It really sucked for those guys who were trying to get rid of Senator Levin with the law. That law might have been passed in 1990 (I'm not sure, but it was a big year for voter initiatives) , so they have had to suffer under 20 more years of oppression by a liberal Senator that the vast majority of voters have chosen to return to office several more times.

Actually, the courts have ruled against it being imposed by the states in the federal system. There is no reason that it cannot be imposed by amendment or even legislation at the federal level, not that this would happen. It would have to originate in the states as an amendment.

BTW, the best argument for term limits is that it limits the amount of times that a state can impose a Carl Levin on the rest of us, no matter how popular he is among his own. Even if you like Levin, you have to admit that there are members who have long outlived their usefulness (if they ever had any in the first place) and who would benefit from having to hold a real job for a change. Think Charlie Rangel, for example.

Another idea is that any member who exceeds a certain number of terms must be barred from the ballot, but can be voted for on a write-in vote, or that after so many years, they must win an up/down vote to be put on the ballot. That way, the party bosses have limited control over keeping incumbents in place.