TexasCHLforum.com

Since the Constitution doesn't require that a Speaker be a sitting congressman, Hannity is trying to start a "draft Newt" movement for the speakership. Not sure what to make of that. I do know what to make of Hannity. His nasally whine irritates the crud out of me.

anygunanywhere wrote:The people get the government they vote for. They deserve it and I hope they get it good and hard.

True dat, Mr. Mencken, but the problem is that they are bringing me and mine down along with them.

Gohmert has just thrown his hat in the ring for the speakership: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/01 ... hners-job/

JALLEN wrote:"The only thing new in the world is history you don't know." -- Harry S Truman

What makes you think any of this is new? Congressmen have had detractors since the 1st Congress.

Term limits prevents the people from choosing who they want to represent them. If the voters want to choose Charles Rangel, or Paul Ryan or Sheila Jackson Lee, or Whatzizname, that comedian, why should they not be able to, assuming the person meets the Constitutional requirements and is willing to endure the abuse?

As attractive as it seems, it hasn't worked out in practice, in California where I experienced it, or any place else I've heard of.

The better approach is to figure out how to eliminate the appalling gerrymandering that goes on.

I would urge caution in tinkering with the system the geniuses of the Constitution came up with, that has worked so well thus far.

This is exactly the kind of defense of no-limits that I referenced in my previous post. I understand your point, but I disagree with it. And normally, I would agree with your last sentence, but then following FDR's historic FOURTH election, it was determined that the 22nd Amendment was a very good idea. Can you imagine a THIRD Obama term? So we actually have an example already of term limits and their necessity from history, enshrined in a Constitutional amendment. I'd like to see an amendment to repeal the 17th Amendment which has perhaps more than anything given senators the fatuous notion that they are not beholden to their states' interests once they hit DC. Perhaps with a repeal of the 17th, imposition of term limits on senators might cease to be necessary. But pending a repeal, then a 28th amendment limiting congressional terms seems more and more necessary.

I would have normally disagreed with the notion that SCOTUS justices ought to be subjected to term limits on the grounds that it would serve to further politicize their office. BUT.... the way that presidents try to use their SCOTUS appointments to impose their ideology on us LONG after they are no longer in office. And that strikes me in its megalomania as distinctly un-American. So the more I think about it, the more I wonder if SCOTUS justices ought not be limited by amendment to 6 year terms, with three of them being replaced every 2 years, and limited to 2 appointments. That way, presidents would not be able to have such a lasting impact on the future of constitutional litigation. And since the justices would be term-limited, they might be forced to look more strictly at an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Yes, the court would remain politicized, but no more so than it already is, and the justices would be forced to confront their lack of connection to The People.

bnc wrote:That problem can be mitigated, but not eliminated, by allowing several terms. I think 3-4 terms for the House and 2-3 for the Senate would be reasonable

Actually, you're describing every term-limit scheme I've heard of lately..... 8 years (4 terms) for a representative, and 12 (2 terms) for a senator. 18 years for a senator is too long.

ShootDontTalk wrote:I find it simply amazing that so many howl in indignation whenever the phrase "term limits" comes up. Surely there are enough good Americans, men and women, to guide this nation that we don't need to construct a "ruling class" because there are not enough good people to hold offices?

After a lifetime of watching politicians, I am convinced by one simple truth. No one, and I mean no one, is untouched by the potent elixir of power and prestige that befalls those elected and reelected over and over to public office. I think it is high time those who seek public office are forced into retirement after two terms - without lifetime pensions.

I pretty much agree with you. The only reasonably intelligent argument I've heard against term limits are the notions that (a) people ought to have the right to elect whomever they want to, (b) running for office is protected political speech which gets squashed if one is barred by term limits from running again. My response to (a) is "you DID get to vote/elect whomever you wanted! Enough already!" My response to (b) is "not everybody gets to run for office. When they can't, they vote for someone else to represent them. Welcome to reality for the rest of us."

Politicians for the past 100 years are pretty much solely responsible for creating the archetype of the crooked pol themselves, without any help from the governed; but the spineless gut-buckets currently "serving" have elevated feckless venality to a new level. DC is a toilet, and it needs to be flushed and disinfected.

Regularly.

anygunanywhere wrote:Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy will be the next speaker. No change.

That's the most likely outcome, I agree. McCarthy has been described as "a Boehner clone".

Middle Age Russ wrote:The question is not whether the Republicrats can elect a person of character and principle to lead the majority, but rather WILL they? The Establishment corporatists in the ranks have a remarkable ability to close ranks on the issue of retaining power.

We absolutely NEED a "Like" button for this forum!

Confirming article: http://dailysignal.com/2015/09/25/john- ... -congress/.

Apparently, he will both step down as Speaker AND resign from Congress at the end of October.

Personally, I think that this is good news for republicans. Now they can get a standard bearer who will actually FIGHT for their platform, instead of doing a continuous cave-in before a House democrat minority, and a squishy "RINO" senate majority that lets the democrat minority there run the Senate.

The last few years have shown the most inept leadership on the republican side that I've ever seen.

Edited to add: AND..... I MOST sincerely hope that McConnell reads this headline and gets the message and either cleans up his shop or resigns as Senate majority leader.