Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Term Limits: No more Harry Reids and Arlen Spectors
The Conscience of Kansas radio program ^ | 08-06-12 | Dr. Paul A. Ibbetson

Posted on 08/07/2012 5:59:16 AM PDT by 1pitech

In this episode of the Conscience of Kansas radio program on KRMR The Patriot 105.7FM, Dr. Paul A. Ibbetson talks about Harry Reid's unfounded attacks on Mitt Romney and the need for term limits to reduce the corruption brought about by lifetime politicians.

(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: ibbetson; reid; spector

1 posted on 08/07/2012 5:59:24 AM PDT by 1pitech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 1pitech
Term limits are unconstitutional; you cannot diminish someone else's franchise because you don't like who they vote for.

The Kenyan must go.

2 posted on 08/07/2012 6:04:33 AM PDT by ex91B10 (We've tried the Soap Box,the Ballot Box and the Jury Box; ONE BOX LEFT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech

My boy Steny Hoyer has been in Government almost since the day he got out of colleghe. Sucking on the Government teat.

He has no idea that his constituency has to work for a living, unlike him.

Over 30 years in the House, for the last 10 years hardly breathing a breath of fresh air as he has his nose so close to Pelosi’s butt.


3 posted on 08/07/2012 6:06:39 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech

I would add John McCain, Orin Hatch, oh the list just goes on and on!


4 posted on 08/07/2012 6:21:30 AM PDT by parthian shot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex91B10

Let’s make them constitutional..............

But then, again—it’s the people we want to term limit that would have to get the legislation passed......somehow I don’t think that’s going to happen any day soon.


5 posted on 08/07/2012 6:22:19 AM PDT by basil (Second Amendment Sisters.org)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech

I am no longer convinced that the individual representatives are the problem, it is the Parties that have such a strangle hold on the system. Neither reid nor pelosi have the intelligence to generate such wide ranging controversy and legislative abuse on their own. Someone is directing them, i.e. the DNC, Soro, et. al.


6 posted on 08/07/2012 6:24:16 AM PDT by vet7279
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex91B10
you cannot diminish someone else's franchise because you don't like who they vote for.

You can for the POTUS apparently. Just not for these thieving Congresscritters.


7 posted on 08/07/2012 6:24:16 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ex91B10

Hmmmm.......then why is it constitutional to term limit the President?

Most likely you will say “because the Supreme Court said so”.

I think millions of us still clinging to the hope that our AR 15’s can forever stay packed away in their cases in the closet would agree. These “millions” would love to see US as a nation go over the Supreme Courts head and ammend the basic law of the land to have the Presidential term limit similarly imposed on our senators and representatives along with several other basics like Congress cannot declare itself exempt from its own laws to name just one.


8 posted on 08/07/2012 6:30:50 AM PDT by Cen-Tejas (it's the debt bomb stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech

Term limits for all of them..........


9 posted on 08/07/2012 6:31:18 AM PDT by Doofer (Still, a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex91B10

"Term limits are unconstitutional; you cannot diminish someone else's franchise because you don't like who they vote for."

Nice legalistic theory. The only problem is that many states and local government entities have term limits in place. Nobody seems to have a problem with those.

And if you introduce FEDERAL term limits by Constitutional amendment (which is the only way to implement them), your problem disappears. An amendent TO the Constitution cannot be "unconstitutional", by definition.

Term limits very good. "Unlimited tenure" breeds corruption in all sorts of ways. The longer a politician occupies an office, the more likely he is to become corrupt. That is so true as to be almost a "law of nature".

10 posted on 08/07/2012 6:33:19 AM PDT by Wonder Warthog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Doofer

Agreed. The House was supposed to be made of Representatives, i.e. the Barber, the Butcher, and the Baker, NOT career politicians.

We have gotten away from the governmental framework that our Founding Fathers laid for us.

Term Limits would be a great step back in the right direction.

I will be supporting candidates who favor a constitutional amendment for Term Limits.

Anyone have a list of such candidates?


11 posted on 08/07/2012 6:37:25 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech
Is Harry Reid still around? I would have thought that the reports about his orgies at Jerry Sandusky's house would have driven him underground by now.

Now, I'm not sure if those rumors are true, but if they aren't, Reid needs to provide evidence that he's not keeping a cage full of underage illegal boys in his basement for sex and cannibalism purposes.

Because HE HAS. Or that's what I heard anyway.

12 posted on 08/07/2012 6:39:26 AM PDT by Kenton (Pssst - I just heard from a guy that Harry Reid isn't just corrupt, he showers with kids!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech

or Robert Byrd


13 posted on 08/07/2012 6:44:51 AM PDT by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex91B10
The Constitution is (or was) a living, breathing dynamic document and guideline for our system. It is not written in stone and it can be modified. The time is LONG OVERDUE that there be term limits for both the House and Senate. There is no logical claim that a Senator or Representative who has been representing his/her state since the Eisenhower administration remains a politician who is loyal to the original purposes the People put him/her there in the first place. Most folks have to retire at or around 65. Why are elected officials (with all their perks) allowed to remain in their terms until they require mummification. By allowing them to remain in the seats of power or committees for 25-50 years they are, by definition, corrupted. Setting terms would only invigorate the American system and infuse it with new blood, new ideas and...hey wait a minute, this sounds like “Change” and BHO. Hold on, if the results in the House and Senate can possibly lead us to another Obama, then leave the laws as they are (sarc).
14 posted on 08/07/2012 6:48:32 AM PDT by Netz (Netz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: parthian shot
I would add John McCain, Orin Hatch, oh the list just goes on and on!

Barney Frank!

He'd be running for a 17th term (and winning, without a doubt!) if not for redistricting.

15 posted on 08/07/2012 6:50:15 AM PDT by BlatherNaut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ex91B10

One of the real problems the Founders likely didn’t see is the way that society has become segregated by political affiliation.

So you get congressional districts that will NEVER elect anybody but an ardent leftist. Then as people like Pelosi, Waxman, etc get entrenched for life and build up super seniority, they become committee chairs.

When their party gets power (2009) these extreme libs are in charge of making policy.


16 posted on 08/07/2012 6:53:07 AM PDT by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech
To break up the tenure that career politicians have on office, allow people to vote multiple times for their favorite political “critter” and to give career politicians are reason to support this, I propose the following for term limits

1. Two Terms in the Senate (12 years) then sit out a term (6 years)to regain Senate eligibility's.

2. Six terms in the House (12 years) then sit out 3 terms (6 years) to regain House eligibility.

By forcing a period where the political careerist goes home and is “governed” instead of doing the “governing” would be very educational for them. (yeah I would like an "100 miles exclusion' zone ringing DC for these clowns during their period of ineligibility. But that's probably too much too ask!) Also it lets the career politician have a “political career”, his/her “groupies” could support the critter in other political offices, Governor, County Commissioner, state legislature, mayor. Maybe the critter should “dare I say it!” get a job in the private sector. Even George McGovern admitted that his “private sector” experience was a real “eye opener” regarding the problems of government imposed regulations.

17 posted on 08/07/2012 6:59:31 AM PDT by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

That’s why they are all millionaires.


18 posted on 08/07/2012 7:08:28 AM PDT by DWC (historian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech

No more than 2 terms for either House or Senate, and a maximum age limit of 82. No retirement bennies for either.


19 posted on 08/07/2012 7:09:07 AM PDT by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

You want to ensure that dhimmicrats rule us in perpetuity? Then you want term limits. Term limits favor the left. Why? Because leftists are interchangeable. Yes, term limits would restrain dingy harry but there would be an endless string of cookie-cutter dingy’s right behind him.

Have you ever noticed how difficult it is to find good conservative candidates to support? Many good conservatives watch the bloodsport that the MSM wages against conservatives and decide that it is too much to expose their families to. Consequently we find candidates who are drawn to the pomp and circumstance of political office, not because they want better government. Leftist candidates.

Term limits favor the left.


20 posted on 08/07/2012 7:13:19 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex91B10
Term limits are unconstitutional; you cannot diminish someone else's franchise because you don't like who they vote for.

To (roughly) quote N Pelosi: Your kidding, right?

21 posted on 08/07/2012 7:18:36 AM PDT by RobinOfKingston (The instinct toward liberalism is located in the part of the brain called the rectal lobe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

Totally disagree. Term Limits favor the People.

I honestly think that if we picked out 535 names at random from the phonebook, that we’d be better off.

At least we’d have a chance at getting people who represent US, instead of their own self-serving agenda.

And that goes for the RINO’s like McConnell and Boehner too.

TERM LIMITS NOW!

Does the Tea Party have this as a plank in the platform? If not we should!

And if Mittens had the b@lls to come out in favor of term limits, I think he would cruise to victory.


22 posted on 08/07/2012 7:25:31 AM PDT by privatedrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech
I have studied term limits. For the most part, they did not accomplish what conservatives hoped they would. California has term limits and they are in a big mess. The reason is because California's assembly is very small and members have huge districts. Thus, like congress, the citizen legislator is dead. What happens, when one hack is term limited out, the unions and the special interest just bring in the next hack.

Studies show that states with the highest freedom index have the lowest legislator to citizen ratio. See my tagline... very interesting.

However, since Senators represent the State's Republican interest in Congress and are not proportional, they should should be limited to no more than one term. The idea that a Senate seat is a promotion for a Governor or Congressmen is absolutely ridiculous. If the limit was one term, this idea would stop.

23 posted on 08/07/2012 7:44:35 AM PDT by 11th Commandment (http://www.thirty-thousand.org/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: privatedrive
I honestly think that if we picked out 535 names at random from the phonebook, that we’d be better off.

I agree. Just try to get them through the process and elected. There's the rub.

Leftists are monolithic - interchangeable. Seen one, you've seen them all. Candidates from the right are not. They represent a broad spectrum of thinking from moderate to conservative. Even a casual look at the threads on FreeRepublic shows the difficulty we have with supporting our own because of people being considered "insufficiently conservative".

The left have almost no corresponding difficulties. It therefore becomes statistically easier for them to be elected than it is for us.

24 posted on 08/07/2012 8:04:46 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech

Trouble is that there is a paradox. It cannot be done except by constitutional amendment, which would be even less popular to congressmen and senators than the balanced budget amendment.

But there may be another way. To approach it like the 17th Amendment, at the state level.

Compel the political parties to refrain from nominating the same congressman or senator more than a limited number of times. If they run again, they must run as an independent.


25 posted on 08/07/2012 8:06:22 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech

NO more Orrin Hatch—Diane Feinstein—Nancy Pelosi—Barbara Boxer—Sheila Lee—I could go on & on.


26 posted on 08/07/2012 8:13:23 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex91B10

Don’t need term limits for senators.

Repeal the 17th amendment, grab a bowl of popcorn, sit back and watch the action.


27 posted on 08/07/2012 8:27:09 AM PDT by ConradofMontferrat (According to mudslimze, my handle is a Hate Crime. Hope they don't like it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 1pitech

2 Terms for Senate (12 yrs total)
5 Terms for House (10 yrs total)
2 Terms for President (8 yrs total)


28 posted on 08/07/2012 8:41:42 AM PDT by LibFreeUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ex91B10

>>Term limits are unconstitutional<<

So, is it unconstitutional to limit the president to two four year terms?


29 posted on 08/07/2012 8:45:10 AM PDT by servantboy777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: servantboy777; ex91B10
So, is it unconstitutional to limit the president to two four year terms?

Not if you pass an amendment to said Constitution...as they did in 1947.

See 22nd Amendment

Congress passed the amendment on March 21, 1947. It was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 27, 1951.

30 posted on 08/07/2012 11:51:45 AM PDT by hattend (Firearms and ammunition...the only growing industries under the Obama regime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Reily

correcting my typo

To break up the tenure that career politicians have on office, allow people to vote multiple times for their favorite political “critter” and to give career politicians a reason to support this, I propose the following for term limits
1. Two Terms in the Senate (12 years) then sit out a term (6 years)to regain Senate eligibility’s.

2. Six terms in the House (12 years) then sit out 3 terms (6 years) to regain House eligibility.

By forcing a period where the political careerist goes home and is “governed” instead of doing the “governing” would be very educational for them. (yeah I would like an “100 miles exclusion’ zone ringing DC for these clowns during their period of ineligibility. But that’s probably too much too ask!) Also it lets the career politician have a “political career”, his/her “groupies” could support the critter in other political offices, Governor, County Commissioner, state legislature, mayor. Maybe the critter should “dare I say it!” get a job in the private sector. Even George McGovern admitted that his “private sector” experience was a real “eye opener” regarding the problems of government imposed regulations


31 posted on 08/07/2012 6:05:19 PM PDT by Reily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: servantboy777
No it isn't. It's spelled out in the 22nd amendment.

The Kenyan must go.

32 posted on 08/08/2012 4:51:04 PM PDT by ex91B10 (We've tried the Soap Box,the Ballot Box and the Jury Box; ONE BOX LEFT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson