Feingold: Change Constitution to end Senate appointments

Then I expect to see you in the FairTax Thread, and spreading the word my brotha. We are at 999 Posts, care to make it 1000?
 
I hope it held more relevant conversation than the one you just posted....*smiles*
 
*smiles* lets get back to the topic of the thread.
 
I'd be fine with Russ' plan if it included Congressional term limits as well. You know, since appointments are so very much in contradiction to a democracy, aren't politicians who can use their office to ensure continued re-election also agaisnt the nature of a democracy? Of course if that were added, I imagine that would be shot down pretty quickly. Hell, Feingold probably won't even vote for it.
Term limits, That's what I want to see. People like Sen, Bird and others shouldn't be allowed to stay in office till they are so old they don't know where ther are.

4 six year terms should be the limit IMO. If the President has a term limit then IMO Congress should have term limits as well.

It will never happen though.:csad:
 
The Constitution didn't Condone or Legalize Slavery, or Women Rights being infringed. You should know that Jman. Especially if you read the thing.

Did I say it condoned slavery? No. It did, however, consider African Americans to be less than a single person and contained no specific liberties for women within the text.

The Bill of Rights are basic Rights, of course you can grow from it, but that doesn't mean that Rights Change from day to day. Those things are infallible. You always have the Right to Life, Liberty and your Property. That is it. Each of the Right laid out in the Bill of Rights just explain different Variations of your Right to Life, Liberty and Property.

The Bill of Rights pertained to society as it existed in the late 1700s, and was designed to refute what the founders had endured during colonial America. I highly doubt that the Founding Fathers foresaw an era where men could carry assault rifles on to a commuter train and gun down multiple passengers. I highly doubt that the Founding Fathers foresaw an era where people conspired to wipe out entire cities and races from the planet in a single act, and that forfeiting certain aspects of the first amendment was a necessary evil to combat such problems. And I highly doubt that the Founding Fathers foresaw an era where the same dynastic and corrupt politics they sought to escape found themselves reborn at the hands of governors and state legislatures which appointed Senators to represent their own interests rather than the interests of both the state or the people within that state.

That last part, I think, is something you fail to see, so I will repeat it: The same dynastic and corrupt politics which spoiled the political system in colonial America were reborn at the hands of governors and state legislatures. Basically, Senators were doing the very same thing you criticize right now: They were representing the best interests of those who appointed them to office, and cared just as much-- or more-- about their political future than their states in general.

So, for you to claim that senators ought to be appointed because that way they'll represent the interests of the state is so vastly absurd to a point of deft historical ignorance that it is hard for me to understand what kind of argument you are trying to make. Because with that view, you either 1) support the same corruption and bastardization of the political system you claim to be against, or 2) you support an ideal which eventually failed to exist as the Founding Fathers saw fit.

Either way, your opinion is flawed.
 
J, let's watch your tone....
 
So........ sentences which neither bash the poster, bait the poster, nor show "political intolerance" but sound "stern" feature a tone worthy of reprimand?
 
so vastly absurd to a point of deft historical ignorance that it is hard for me to understand what kind of argument

There was no need for this, I simply call it as I see it....and that was the call.

You want to take it further, take it to PMs...I won't discuss it further and derail the thread.
 
Lets get rid of term limits all together then. That way, we can re-elect Bill Clinton. :up:
 
Presidential term limits were a partisan ploy supported by Republicans who didn't like the fact that the Democrats had an unbeatable president in the form of FDR, and Democrats who felt Roosevelt was preventing them from advancing their own self-righteous quest for power. That is probably the most disturbing amendment made to the United States constitution, as it limits the democratic process and the will of the American people.
 
Yeah, but it just scares the hell out of me that there could be people as doofus as those that voted for Strom Thurmond...

When making decisions, man the future possibilities have got to be considered....and even the possibility of a Strom Thurmond being in office for the length of Fidel Castro's tenure.....scares the hell outta me.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong Jman, but wan't it a Democratic Congress when that Amendment past?
 
America isn't a democracy, no matter how much they want you to think it is. America is an imperialistic government that wants to brainwash the country into believing in their ideals.
 
America isn't a democracy, no matter how much they want you to think it is. America is an imperialistic government that wants to brainwash the country into believing in their ideals.


Well ok then.............
 
America isn't a democracy, no matter how much they want you to think it is. America is an imperialistic government that wants to brainwash the country into believing in their ideals.
Yes Meta, two wolves, one sheep.
 
lol.....................................oh my goodness. I think he is.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"