Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 Well, today's news sez that we may soon be seeing not one, but two proposed Constitutional Amendments: One would set Supreme Court term limits; the other would remove immunity for presidents and certain other officeholders. The second follows in the wake of the court ruling in July that presidents cannot be prosecuted for "official acts" during their time in office. Wow. BTW - The last amendment (27th) was passed in 1992; it basically said that Congress could not give themselves a comensation increase - any raises approved could only take effect after the next election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eyesa Horg Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 Notice, no mention of their own term limits. 1 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 They can propose all they want. It takes a vote of 3/4 of the states to ratify them. Good luck there. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J-BAR #18287 Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 The Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 22 minutes ago, Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 said: BTW - The last amendment (27th) was passed in 1992; it basically said that Congress could not give themselves a comensation increase - any raises approved could only take effect after the next election. In 1789, 12 amendments to the Constitution were proposed. 10 were ratified and became the Bill of Rights. No time limit was attached to those proposed amendments. The 12th was eventually approved and became the 27th amendment. The one unratified amendment would have limited each congressional district to 50,000 citizens. Today districts average more than 750,000 people. 4 minutes ago, J-BAR #18287 said: The Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional. They can’t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tell Sackett SASS 18436 Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 The constitutional amendment we NEED is one that prohibits lying by a public official!! Penalty for breaking: DEATH! I’d extend it to members of the media too! This would cure a LOT of what’s wrong in this country! One of the worst problems we have is that there are no penalties in the constitution for violating someone’s rights!! How many politicians would vote for gun control if it was punishable?? Plus, wouldn’t you love to see who votes against the “Truth” amendment ? 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kloehr Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 I see no immunity from prosecution as such, the Constitution lays it out very clearly (see below). If convicted in impeachment, the president (and any other impeached individual) loses immunity from prosecution. I see it as preventing the court system from being used as a tool against the other branches. The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present. Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdeacon Joe Posted July 27 Share Posted July 27 (edited) How do you set term limits on a term that runs for life or until retirement? What we need at term limits for both Houses of Congress with a total combined time limit. Something like: Section 1. No person shall serve more than six (6) terms as a member of the United States House of Representatives, nor more than two (2) terms in the United States Senate, nor more than a combined total of fifteen (15) years in both. Section 2. No person having served in any federal capacity, excepting military service under the rank of Rear Admiral or General Officer, shall take employment with, nor act as a consultant for, any contractor, lobbying organization, political action committee, or similar organization for a period of twenty-five (25) years after leaving office or position. (I know, it needs to be tighghted up to take out any wiggle room, but I think my point should be clear enough for here) Edited July 27 by Subdeacon Joe 2 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Riot Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 Not biased politically at all. The people proposing this should be tarred and feathered and run out on a rail… out of the country. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 Posted July 28 Author Share Posted July 28 16 minutes ago, Pat Riot said: Not biased politically at all. The people proposing this should be tarred and feathered and run out on a rail… out of the country. Reuters: Biden will announce Supreme Court reform plans on Monday, Politico reports AP: House Democrat is proposing a constitutional amendment to reverse Supreme Court’s immunity decision I doubt that either was thought up by the President hisself... but hey, there's something calming about the fragrance of boiling tar accompanied by the squawk of chickens being plucked. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trailrider #896 Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 The idea of life terms for the members of SCOTUS was/is to serve as a counter to the vagaries of terms of Congress and the President and VP, although the latter are now limited to two terms. IMHO, term limits are an excuse for lazy voters. If people don't like what an elected official is doing, get together with those of like mind and vote them out! But if they are serving well, why limit them? What I would like to see would be a law or amendment that would prohibit campaign contributions to any candidate outside of where the contributor lives. The exception would, of course, be for presidential elections, but that might be severely limited in the amount that could be contributed by some of these multimillionaires to influence an election. I'd also like to see a prohibition of one representative from leaving his/her district to run in another in the same state just because the polls showed that individual losing, at least until two terms had elapsed! I don't like carpetbaggers, even if from the same party I am registered in! 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Chapo Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 6 hours ago, J-BAR #18287 said: The Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has zero authority to declare any amendment to the constitution "unconstitutional." An amendment to the constitution is by definition "constitutional." A modification to edit the President's immunity will never pass. We NEED the President to be able to make tough decisions. The whining now is all about them not liking who that president was. As to term limits for SCOTUS, good luck. I'm sure Reagan and Bush would have loved Stevens to have been term limited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Riot Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 I like mandatory sponsor patches on all public office personnel. Especially those in the House and the Senate. Like this: DISCLAIMER: This image was snatched off the internet. The likenesses in the image are not a reflection of the politicians featured. It is an example. Furthermore, I did not create this and I really don’t want to hear your views on those portrayed. This image is used to make a point. That is it. 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Chapo Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 7 minutes ago, Trailrider #896 said: The idea of life terms for the members of SCOTUS was/is to serve as a counter to the vagaries of terms of Congress and the President and VP, although the latter are now limited to two terms. IMHO, term limits are an excuse for lazy voters. If people don't like what an elected official is doing, get together with those of like mind and vote them out! But if they are serving well, why limit them? What I would like to see would be a law or amendment that would prohibit campaign contributions to any candidate outside of where the contributor lives. The exception would, of course, be for presidential elections, but that might be severely limited in the amount that could be contributed by some of these multimillionaires to influence an election. I'd also like to see a prohibition of one representative from leaving his/her district to run in another in the same state just because the polls showed that individual losing, at least until two terms had elapsed! I don't like carpetbaggers, even if from the same party I am registered in! I don't agree with any of your proposals, but if you really believe that contributions from outside that person's constituents ought to be legal, join me in criticizing people who live in state X and love to trash on state Y's representatives. Because it is foundational to republican government that we have NO say in who represents OTHER people who live somewhere else, and that's a feature, not a bug. Do I think foreign states pick crazy representatives? Sure. The solution is to send sane ones from your state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 48 minutes ago, Trailrider #896 said: term limits are an excuse for lazy voters. That's the trouble, most voters ARE lazy. Most voters are simply Party loyalists: They vote for whoever has the preferred letter by their name. Not that term limits would change that. Term limits would just force the Parties to replace their congresscritters more often. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 Posted July 28 Author Share Posted July 28 1 hour ago, Trailrider #896 said: What I would like to see would be a law or amendment that would prohibit campaign contributions to any candidate outside of where the contributor lives. The exception would, of course, be for presidential elections, but that might be severely limited in the amount that could be contributed by some of these multimillionaires to influence an election. I'd also like to see a prohibition of one representative from leaving his/her district to run in another in the same state just because the polls showed that individual losing, at least until two terms had elapsed! I don't like carpetbaggers, even if from the same party I am registered in! 1 hour ago, El Chapo said: I don't agree with any of your proposals, but if you really believe that contributions from outside that person's constituents ought to be legal, join me in criticizing people who live in state X and love to trash on state Y's representatives. Because it is foundational to republican government that we have NO say in who represents OTHER people who live somewhere else, and that's a feature, not a bug. Do I think foreign states pick crazy representatives? Sure. The solution is to send sane ones from your state. El Chapo, I think you may have mis-read Trailrider's post - he is NOT saying that "contributions from outside a person's constituents ought to be legal" - just the opposite. We see a LOT of that here in california - the "reigning party" very much plays monetary contributions like pieces on a chessboard. The party is known pay heavily to influence elections in other states. Also, they will make significant contributions to the minority party's weakest candidates within california, with the intent of ensuring that their own candidates will not have to face better qualified opposition at the polls. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984 Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 10 hours ago, J-BAR #18287 said: The Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional. The only way the Supremes would get involved would be if Congress did not follow proper procedures, which were previously established by Congress and specified in laws. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozark Huckleberry Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 Term limits is a limitation that people generally want imposed on OTHER people's politicians. Bring in term limits, and what you'll likely find is that when a politician you don't like gets term-limited out of office, the people who put him or her there would send another one you don't like. Democrats always seem to want a short term solution to their problems, that comes back to bite them later. One of the reasons they have a problem with SCOTUS is that Trump put three justices on it. Trump wouldn't have been able to do that, except for Harry Reid doing away with the filibuster rules regarding nominations and appointments in 2013. The legislators' desires for change are more about abandoning compromise and statesmanship in favor of hyperbole and perfidy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438 Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 It's hard to imagine 2/3 of both houses of Congress agreeing on anything. LL 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Riot Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 The more I think about this Amendment issue, the more I think that it’s a test. A test to see how far “they” can go in manipulating not only Congress as a whole, but also the state legislatures as a whole. I don’t think the Left has the juice to pull it off, but now they have planted a seed. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Jack Black Posted July 28 Share Posted July 28 14 hours ago, Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 said: Well, today's news sez that we may soon be seeing not one, but two proposed Constitutional Amendments: One would set Supreme Court term limits; the other would remove immunity for presidents and certain other officeholders. The second follows in the wake of the court ruling in July that presidents cannot be prosecuted for "official acts" during their time in office. Wow. BTW - The last amendment (27th) was passed in 1992; it basically said that Congress could not give themselves a comensation increase - any raises approved could only take effect after the next election. Never happen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J.D. Daily Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 SCOTUS's immunity majority opinion is just common sense. If the act violates the Constitution it isn't official so the federal court should allow the case to proceed. This case only expands a POTUS's civil immunity to criminal just as immunity Congress critters have for official acts. I don't see the point of Dementia Joe making a Oval Office speech proposing term limits for federal judges & removing immunity from POTUS. !st unless he is asking Congress to draft with 2/3's approval of the Senate & House an amendment it is so much hot air. 2nd this is campaign season so any proposed amendments will not be acted on until the lam duck session if then. 3. There are a least 13 states that wouldn't pass it. The term limits for federal judges has a better chance of being ratified if congress critters include term limits for members of Congress. However beware of what you wish for! Term limits for elected officials has made the bureaucracy dominant. At least at the federal level SCOTUS opinions have trimmed the the bureaucracy's power. WV v. EPA, Sackett v. EPA & Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, Cargill v. Garland. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watab kid Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 On 7/27/2024 at 4:30 PM, J-BAR #18287 said: The Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional. it is unconstitutional , they simply want to pack the court because it ruled against their favor - there is seperation of powers - all three elements are independent which is as it should be ...............this can get initiated by the crocked admin that hasn't got a lucid leader but it would take years , and court contest would stop it i think , OK i hope , the congress and the presidency should have no more control of the court than nomination and approval - after that HANDS OFF , just as the SC should not tell congress what to do , only what falls within the constitutional limits , there has to remain checks and balances , on the other hand the democrats on the court are the old ones .............oh yes they are grandfathered in arent they , sad and thats OK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sedalia Dave Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 The problem with not having congressional term limits is that both houses of Congress are all about seniority. If my state votes out the incumbent but other states don't, then my newly elected Congress person has zero seniority. They get treated like crap and have to kiss the ass of those with more seniority. Refuse and they can't accomplish anything. Play along and they end up just as corrupt as every other career politician. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Riot Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 1 minute ago, Sedalia Dave said: The problem with not having congressional term limits is that both houses of Congress are all about seniority. If my state votes out the incumbent but other states don't, then my newly elected Congress person has zero seniority. They get treated like crap and have to kiss the ass of those with more seniority. Refuse and they can't accomplish anything. Play along and they end up just as corrupt as every other career politician. I agree 100% I used to think term limits was a bad idea then one day I realized Congress is run like a Union. Seniority gets the perqs and the cushy offices. Also, I watched one Congressman in particular go from an honest, decent, principled man to a lousy underhanded money grubbing POS in 3 terms. Anyone that says term limits are in the voting booth is delusional or has bought that line of crap hook, line and sinker. Because if it worked it would have worked already. Who are the people in Congress that say term limits won’t work? The people in Congress! 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
watab kid Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 (edited) i agree as well congress both house and senate should have term limits - thats how it all started it was to be a job outside your life job , originally unpaid volunteer and not to be held for extended period , but it has become a profession that makes them rich , we should start there - biden is an excellent example of why , along with a lot of others on both sides of the aisle - im not only pointing fingers at biden , its just that he keeps telling us he has been there of 50+ years and he has ..............so have some others Edited July 29 by watab kid 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texas Joker Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 Repeal the 17th amendment. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Riot Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 41 minutes ago, Texas Joker said: Repeal the 17th amendment. That would just expand cronyism. We already have enough of that. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Chapo Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 On 7/27/2024 at 11:39 PM, Hardpan Curmudgeon SASS #8967 said: El Chapo, I think you may have mis-read Trailrider's post - he is NOT saying that "contributions from outside a person's constituents ought to be legal" - just the opposite. We see a LOT of that here in california - the "reigning party" very much plays monetary contributions like pieces on a chessboard. The party is known pay heavily to influence elections in other states. Also, they will make significant contributions to the minority party's weakest candidates within california, with the intent of ensuring that their own candidates will not have to face better qualified opposition at the polls. Sorry but that should have said "illegal." I don't buy the argument that money = votes, either. Money doesn't buy votes either. Money just tends to go to those who were going to win anyway. That said, as I previously implied, I don't care how the people in California govern themselves. I won't be going there or giving them my money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eyesa Horg Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 (edited) Sure money buys votes. If you buy a huge bunch of people pizza, give them a place to live, groceries, and phones etc. Who do you figure they're going to vote for?? Seen it happen at the local level many times to win a vote on something. Buy the minority pizza and bus them to the polls for the third revote and viola the blue politicians win what they wanted with only a few thousand spent. Those who work for a living generally vote with thoughts of their wallet, not what they get handed to them. Edited July 29 by Eyesa Horg Otto 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Chapo Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 1 hour ago, Eyesa Horg said: Sure money buys votes. If you buy a huge bunch of people pizza, give them a place to live, groceries, and phones etc. Who do you figure they're going to vote for?? Seen it happen at the local level many times to win a vote on something. But the minority pizza and bus them to the polls for the third revote and viola the blue politicians win what they wanted with only a few thousand spent. Those who work for a living generally vote with thoughts of their wallet, not what they get handed to them. I'm talking about money going to candidates, not politicians giving money to individuals. Of course people are going to vote what they perceive to be their best interest. If I could vote for people who would take all of your money, property, and resources and give them to me, I would, too. Obviously I wouldn't want to live in a world where everyone did that to me, but if I believed that the money and resources would only come from you and to me, I'd be a fool to vote otherwise. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokin Gator SASS #29736 Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 Biden announced the things he going to do to reform the Supreme court. Imagine the reaction if the Supreme court came out and announced what they were going to do to reform the executive branch. 2 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicken Rustler, SASS #26680 Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 49 minutes ago, Smokin Gator SASS #29736 said: Biden announced the things he going to do to reform the Supreme court. Imagine the reaction if the Supreme court came out and announced what they were going to do to reform the executive branch. It's the voters' job to reform the Executive branch. It's the Supreme Court's job to reform the Supreme Court but they won't do it. Still, there's one good reason to not support this change. Everybody who wants it is saying it's good because it's the only way to get the "right" result on controversial rulings, and nobody is saying to do it because it will make the Court better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smokin Gator SASS #29736 Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 1 hour ago, Chicken Rustler, SASS #26680 said: It's the voters' job to reform the Executive branch. It's the Supreme Court's job to reform the Supreme Court but they won't do it. Still, there's one good reason to not support this change. Everybody who wants it is saying it's good because it's the only way to get the "right" result on controversial rulings, and nobody is saying to do it because it will make the Court better. Well that's the thing. When the Democrats get a ruling from the Supreme Court that supports their beliefs and agenda, that's it. No one is supposed to complain because the vaunted Supreme Court has ruled. However when a ruling comes out that doesn't support them all of a sudden the Supreme Court is a disaster, biased and they will follow their "whatever it takes" mantra to get what they want. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeb Stuart #65654 Posted July 29 Share Posted July 29 (edited) On 7/27/2024 at 3:28 PM, Sgt. C.J. Sabre, SASS #46770 said: They can propose all they want. It takes a vote of 3/4 of the states to ratify them. Good luck there. Deleted Edited July 29 by Jeb Stuart #65654 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.