quote:

Originally posted by L0A1:

quote:

Originally posted by rayld2:

quote:

Originally posted by L0A1:

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:
shuman14
Posted Wed 01 July 2009 01:06 PM
No I think there needs to be term limits on every office.

Once you've been in DC too long it all becomes about personal power and not the public good.



While thats true,Its the majority of the people who would be reelecting him. Isnt that the whole concept of our system?

And it dont make him immune to losing an election every four years if he changes.

Then there is always the peoples tool granted by the founders as a safe guard to keep him in line if he changes mid term. Impeachment. Although rarely used is still available and a powerful tool.

There is a good reason for the 22nd . FDR is a great example. He became TOO powerful.
No it should not be taken away. If anything, we shold be adding term limits for congress.
Our founding Fathers never meant for Politicians to be a career move.

You are right the Presidency, the Senate and to some extent the House were designed to be restricted to rich land holders who had the time and money to serve as a hobby. The President and the Senators were also to be elected by other land holders not by the people.

Partly correct. The Senate were elected by the people. The Senate would then elect a president.

quote:

Article I, section 3, "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six Years;

quote:

Seventeenth Amendment - Popular Election of Senators

Clause 1. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

Clause 2. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

Clause 3. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

quote:

Originally posted by LineDoggie:
Actually,

FDR attempted to Pack the Supreme Court with Justices when he didnt get his way from their Rulings during the New Deal(Which by the way was truley a Fascist idea)

FDR did make US Citizens who owned gold into criminals under Executive Order 6102

FDR engaged in secret talks with the french to violate the Numerous US Neutrality Acts as early as 1938

Used the USS Greer to Attack a German U-Boat before Pearl Harbor until same U-Boat finally Torpedoed USS Greer. This was September 4th, 1941. He told Churchill he intended to be more provocative to as Churchill relates in his memoirs "everything was to be done to provoke an incident."

FDR did suppress US reports by his Special Emissary George Earle about the Soviets Murder of Polish Officers at Katyn, going so far as to Exile Earle to Samoa for the duration after realizing it wouldnt do to admit we were allied with Someone who could cold bloodedly execute 22,436 fellow Allies.


FDR did send 120,000 Americans to Concentration Camps due to their race, not due to their Actions, aka Executive Order 9066

FDR did Strike Break, Arrested Union Leaders(Before and During WWII).

FDR did make a deal with Organized crime, aka Operation Underworld. Deals with Frank Costello, Lucky Luciano, Meyer Lansky

FDR did Initiate Wiretapping without Warrants(even having Eleanor Tapped).


So, yeah, I consider him a Tyrant what do you call a Man who sends 120,00 Fellow citizens to Concentration Camps because of their race?

A Hero?

quote:

Originally posted by usa_girl:
Let me give you something to think about john..

How would you feel if Bush Jr was still in office?

Shoot, the lefties could not even handle the fact the majority voted him in two terms and we see that impeechment you talk about as a safe net is not a good thing, it gets abused too much like with Clinton and Bush.

You just want it right now because you like your guy which is fine.

But a career politician is bad bad bad.

And just because you are not in an office does not mean you can't go on to do great things for the people, right?

quote:

Could they have been removed other than by an armed revolt? Were they Democracies bound by a constitution?

quote:

Originally posted by LineDoggie:
Actually,

FDR attempted to Pack the Supreme Court with Justices when he didnt get his way from their Rulings during the New Deal(Which by the way was truley a Fascist idea)

FDR did make US Citizens who owned gold into criminals under Executive Order 6102

FDR engaged in secret talks with the french to violate the Numerous US Neutrality Acts as early as 1938

Used the USS Greer to Attack a German U-Boat before Pearl Harbor until same U-Boat finally Torpedoed USS Greer. This was September 4th, 1941. He told Churchill he intended to be more provocative to as Churchill relates in his memoirs "everything was to be done to provoke an incident."

FDR did suppress US reports by his Special Emissary George Earle about the Soviets Murder of Polish Officers at Katyn, going so far as to Exile Earle to Samoa for the duration after realizing it wouldnt do to admit we were allied with Someone who could cold bloodedly execute 22,436 fellow Allies.


FDR did send 120,000 Americans to Concentration Camps due to their race, not due to their Actions, aka Executive Order 9066

FDR did Strike Break, Arrested Union Leaders(Before and During WWII).

FDR did make a deal with Organized crime, aka Operation Underworld. Deals with Frank Costello, Lucky Luciano, Meyer Lansky

FDR did Initiate Wiretapping without Warrants(even having Eleanor Tapped).


So, yeah, I consider him a Tyrant what do you call a Man who sends 120,00 Fellow citizens to Concentration Camps because of their race?

A Hero?

quote:

Originally posted by LineDoggie:
So you advocate Dictatorship as long as its Democrats as the Dictators.....



Interesting

quote:

Originally posted by LineDoggie:
So you advocate Dictatorship as long as its Democrats as the Dictators.....



Interesting

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:

quote:

Originally posted by LineDoggie:
So you advocate Dictatorship as long as its Democrats as the Dictators.....



Interesting

What I find interesting is you calling it a dictatorship while we have a constitution that prevents such, limits presidential authority, and puts the power directly in the peoples hands. Unlike the Hitler and moussilin dictators that you compare FDR to.

quote:

What I find interesting is you calling it a dictatorship while we have a constitution that prevents such, limits presidential authority, and puts the power directly in the peoples hands. Unlike the Hitler and moussilin dictators that you compare FDR to

quote:

Originally posted by jack_flats:
Yes definitely it should. I'd like to see George Bush serving a 3rd term ... lol

quote:

Originally posted by LineDoggie:

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:

quote:

Originally posted by LineDoggie:
So you advocate Dictatorship as long as its Democrats as the Dictators.....



Interesting

What I find interesting is you calling it a dictatorship while we have a constitution that prevents such, limits presidential authority, and puts the power directly in the peoples hands. Unlike the Hitler and moussilin dictators that you compare FDR to.

Peoples hands?

Yet it didnt stop FDR from doing whatever he felt like , did it?

He still sent innocent people to Concentration Camps because if their Race, not their actions

He still ordered US forces to provoke incidents (Sort of like a US Gleiwitz incident)

He still violated Numerous Neutrality acts

He still attempted to usurp the Supreme Court by threatening the Judiciary (in fact succeeeding in doing so)

The People wanted nothing to do with War in Europe. FDR did everything he could to provoke one. Was that the Peoples will?


Face it, your boy was a tyrant who died in office much like petty tyrants who are power mad world wide. He couldnt give up the power

He had the FBI tap his wife

He never even told his VP about the Manhattan Project, Compartmentalizing information.

quote:

How about we adopt our version of Iran's Guardian Council, to pre-screen candidates for suitability to run for office

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:

quote:

Originally posted by Frank_A_Valdez:
yeah, I agree. Term limits is a good thing.

In a nation of 300 million people, there's got to be more than one person who knows what they're doing.

Of course there is except there not part of the good old boys club. And not rich enough.

Political campaigns are expensive and its not what they say its what they do while in office. So when you get a keeper why not keep him if he's doing the job?

quote:

Originally posted by shuman14:
Personally, I think we should go back to the State's appointing the Senators.

It was part of the original checks and balances the founding fathers put in place.

It insured Federalism, it insured that States had a direct say in the Federal Government.

It helped control an over-reaching Executive Branch.

Now, under the 17th, we do have Term limits on the President, but the States lost a major piece of control that they were granted under the Constitution.

Now we just have another cult of personality contest every 6 years.

Senators are now no longer answerable to the States, only to the "cult" that elects them.

Look at BHO in Senate. The Cook County Machine got him elected and Cook County could give a rat's @zz about the rest of the State of Illinois.

If he had been appointed, he'd have been answerable to the Illinois House, where the Cook County Machine is only one voting block and he would have to give a care about Downstate Illinois or he wouldn't have gotten re-appointed.

quote:

Originally posted by LineDoggie:
So you advocate Dictatorship as long as its Democrats as the Dictators.....



Interesting

quote:

Originally posted by strobelvets:

quote:

Originally posted by Grachus:

quote:

Originally posted by LineDoggie:

quote:

Originally posted by john2x:
Was it a good Idea to introduce the 22nd Ammendment? Whats wrong with the idea of a President whos doing the job well, is loved and respected by the people, being elected for more than two terms? After all he is being elected by the majority so why shouldnt the majority have a choice in who runs the nation after 8 years, as the original constitution called for? Wouldnt that make the opposing party work harder? Agree or disagree?

*http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/limbaugh_obama_third_term/2009/07/01/230937.html?s=al&promo_code=8294-1*

This isnt Uganda, or Haiti where one could be President for Life. Most of those who serve for so long are tyrants

Idi Amin
Papa Doc Duvalier
Baby Doc Duvalier
Bokassa
Tito(not Tito Jackson)
Sukarno
Kim Il Sung
Kim Jong Il
Mobutu
FDR

All tried to hold power forever

How nice and patriotic of you to compare Idi Amin with FDR and Kim Il Sung.

No doubt we all remember that millions of people that FDR murdered, the Republican Party members rounded up and shot. His closing down of the free press, and most of all his refusal to lose a free and fair election.

I'm truly touched by your objectivity...

Dave

Personally Dave...I can understand the Republican fears at the moment...although I'm not a Republican...

The MSM speaks of the demise of the Repub Party...OR defacto one party rule...

Our markets and economy are collapsing...as we all witness it...

Unemployment rises...and recovery bucks are not only slowly released...but not targeted to key economic sectors of our economy...

Re foreign policy...We seem to be tip-toeing thru the tulips...afraid to voice our principles...

Socialized Medicine is on the table.

Government controls major banks and manufacturing concerns ...formerly deemed inviolable...sancrsanct...such as GM...

NOW, there is the question of extending the relatively unproven Presidents term beyond two terms???

Why would anyone have concerns?