Term Limits: No more Harry Reids and Arlen Spectors

The Conscience of Kansas radio program ^ | 08-06-12 | Dr. Paul A. Ibbetson

[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.

[RobinOfKingston]

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?

[privatedrive]

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.

[11th Commandment]

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.

[rockrr]

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.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

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.

[ridesthemiles]

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

[ConradofMontferrat]

Don’t need term limits for senators.

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

[LibFreeUSA]

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

[servantboy777]

>>Term limits are unconstitutional<<

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

[hattend]

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.

[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

[ex91B10]

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

The Kenyan must go.