By Jonathan E.P. Moore
‘IT’S TIME TO ‘TERM’-INATE AND ERADICATE THAT CANCER THAT COULD BECOME ‘TERM’-INAL IF NOT TREATED NOW!’
Why Congress and the Supreme Court Need Term Limits
The best solution to the increasingly politicized and unseasoned Court is to limit justices to 18-year terms.
Recent analyses have underscored the new reality of today's Supreme Court: It is polarized along partisan lines in a way that parallels other political institutions and the rest of society, in a fashion we have never seen.
As politics have become polarized and as two-party competition
intensified, control of the courts—which are increasingly making major policy
decisions—became more important. With lifetime appointments, a party in power
for two or four years could have sway over policy for decades after it left
power. But to ensure that sway meant picking judges who were virtual locks to
rule the way the party in power wanted. That meant track records in judicial
opinions, and that in turn meant choosing sitting judges to move up to the
Supreme Court. It also meant choosing younger individuals with more ideology
and less seasoning; better to have a justice serving for 30 years or more than
for 20 or less.
With a Court that is increasingly active in overturning laws passed by Congress and checking presidential authority when there is a president of the opposite party, that means nominations both to appeals courts and to the Supreme Court have become increasingly divisive and polarized, for both parties. And the policy future of the country depends as much on the actuarial tables and the luck of the draw for presidents as it does on the larger trends in politics and society. We could have one one-term president shaping the Court for decades, and another two-term president having zero appointments. And we could end up with a Supreme Court dramatically out of step for decades with the larger shape of the society, and likely losing much of its prestige and sense of legitimacy as an impartial arbiter, creating in turn a serious crisis of confidence in the rule of law.
If we could combine term limits for justices with a
sensitivity by presidents to find some judges who actually understand the real
world of politics and life, and not just the cloistered one of the bench, we
might get somewhere. ~~~ Norm Ornstein
THERE MUST BE TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!
Term Limits: The Only Way to Clean Up Congress!
It is clear that special interests do not believe term limits will help them.
Special interests oppose term limits because they do not want to lose their valuable investments in incumbent legislators.
Congressional term limits are a necessary corrective to inequalities which inevitably hinder challengers and aid incumbents. In an age where scores of federal agencies and special interests continually lobby for funding, there is a very real danger that Congressmen will become enmeshed in a culture that is overfamiliar with the federal government and insulated from the communities they ostensibly represent.
Term limits are a reality check.
Term limits minimize Members' incentives for reelection-related "pork- barrel" legislation.
Term limits would restore respect for Congress.
The best way to reinvigorate government is to bring in legislators with fresh outlooks, new ideas, and better incentives. Term limits are the only realistic way to change the culture of legislative careerism in Congress -- a culture that undermines the public interest.
When Americans are polled about their respect for the people
in charge of their major institutions, Congress consistently comes out next to
the bottom. Americans have fixed firmly on term limits as the solution to
problems in Congress, and will not easily be persuaded to change their minds.
The movement to limit political terms is steamrolling through American politics. Voters have approved term limits for Congressmen in each of the fifteen states where referenda have been held, with votes averaging over 66 percent in support, and another four to ten states will permit their citizens to vote on congressional term limits this November. If past elections and current polls are any indication, these proposals also will pass easily. In addition, eighteen states and hundreds of cities and counties across the country have adopted term limits for state and local officials.
Term limits are a powerful political force, as demonstrated by the results of numerous state referenda, state legislative outcomes, and candidate election results.
Term limits are a vital political reform that would bring new perspectives to Congress, mandate frequent legislative turnover, and diminish incentives for wasteful election-related federal spending that currently flourish in a careerist congressional culture.
Term limits as enacted on the state level are constitutional as a legitimate exercise of the states' power to regulate their own elections.
Term limits are opposed primarily by elected officials and
the special-interest groups that depend on them because the weakness of the
case against term limits does not appeal to the public.
Term limits have a promising future on numerous political fronts, such as candidate elections, state referenda, state and federal legislative action, and congressional and presidential politics.
The people of the United States have finally had it with Mr. and Mrs. Congress. When they make it about themselves, their party and their careers instead of service to the people of the United States as it was intended to be, it's time for a big change.
If the president has a term limit for fear of one person gaining to much power, that fear has come true with Congress. One third power to be shared (Separation of Powers between the three branches) says The Constitution mandates a separation of powers between the three branches of government, but the balance of power has been out of whack for a while now.
How can there be a balance of power when only one-third of the equation has a term limit? Americans are finally letting Congress know that we are fed up this election year. We have 27 constitutional amendments -- I say we need a 28th. ~~ Dan Greenberg
HOW DID HARRY REID GET RICH?
In 1998, Reid invested $400,000 in an undeveloped
residential property located on the outskirts of Las Vegas. Reid’s partner in
the deal was attorney Jay Brown, whom Ralston describes as a “master
manipulator.” Reid transferred his share of the property to a company Brown
controlled in 2001. By transferring the land to Brown’s firm, Reid avoided
legal liability and some taxes. But Reid didn’t note the transfer — or that he
had any stake in the company — in his financial disclosure forms, despite rules
requiring such transfers to be reported. By 2004, Brown’s company sold the
land, which had been rezoned for a shopping center, and Reid received $1.1
million. He reported the sale as if he had always had control of the property.
When the Associated Press asked Reid about the deal during a
2006 interview, he hung up on the reporter. A spokesman later said that “there
were several legal steps associated with the investment during those years that
did not alter Senator Reid’s actual ownership interest in the land.” However,
there was no physical proof that Reid had any stake in Brown’s company. The
story may have caused Reid public embarrassment — he amended his ethics reports
to include the full history of the property — but he walked away from the deal
some $700,000 richer.
That isn’t the only problematic land deal Reid was involved with at the time.
THE SECRET TO MITCH MCCONNELL'S MILLIONS!
The challenges Mitch McConnell is facing from the left and
right in his reelection campaign have at least one thing in common: Each
opponent is making an issue of the wealth the five-term incumbent has
accumulated in office. McConnell over the summer reported a net worth somewhere
between $9 million and $36 million (lawmakers are required only to list their
holdings in ranges) -- a substantial leap over the six-figure sums he reported
in his early Senate years and enough to make him the 11th-richest member of the
chamber.
HOW NANCY PELOSI GOT RICH! (CORRUPTION, ABUSE OF POWER ALERT)
Let’s just call the top Democrat in the House of Representatives
what she always has been: a dishonest thief, and like always has been: a
dishonest thief!
While Investing Millions in Exclusive Visa Stock Offering
Former Speaker of the House–and current Minority Leader–Nancy Pelosi apparently bought $1 million to $5 Millions of Visa stock in one of the most sought-after and profitable initial public offerings (IPO) in American history, thwarted serious credit card reform for two years, and then watched her investment skyrocket 203%.
WHAT'S WITH JOHN BOEHNER AND ALL THE CRYING?
It seems the
Republican Party’s Speaker of the House can’t seem to talk about anything
these days without an uncontrollable emotional outburst. He’s an unhinged
sobbing mess whether he’s on the House floor arguing a bill; talking about his
childhood during a victory speech; or reacting to his wife’s praise during
Sunday night’s 60 Minutes interview. Jeez, the guy cries more than my
6-year-old daughter.
The enigma of Boehner is this: The world assumes he has a surfeit of power, and yet if you look deep into his watery brown eyes, or see him crying when he should be chest-bumping Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, what you find is self-doubt, indecision, and impotence! As one Democratic aide told Rolling Stone: “He’s just sort of like, ‘Oh, how did I get here?’ I think of him sort of as a big Saint Bernard to [House Majority Leader] Eric Cantor’s yapping Chihuahua.”
Tales and speculation about Boehner’s failure to keep his drinking under control emerge from the Capitol on a regular basis. Stories have appeared over the last few years in Salon, Raw Story, The Daily Beast and Politics Daily, among others.
Former Congressman Bob Ney, the Ohio Republican who went to prison for his role in the Jack Abamoff lobbying scandal, says Boehner is a “party animal who would rather drink than govern.”
'HERE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY TERM LIMITS ARE VERY IMPORTANT!':
Contributions to House members from forces favorable to Obamatrade outnumbered those from those opposed by a factor of 8.6 times, $197,869,145 to $23,065,231. The differences were even more stark in the Senate, with a total of $285,225,162 in financial incentives being meted out from supporting groups and only $27,569,149 from the opposition, over ten times as much. There were 32 House members with over a million dollars in contributions and many who were just below that threshold. In the Senate, only five Senators were below the one-million-dollar mark, and two of those, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Mike Lee (R-UT) voted no, and against betrayal of their country.
The formula in the House seems fairly simple, at least as far as rewarding those in leadership positions. Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) got a cool $5 million and change, Mike McCarthy (R-CA) half that at $2.4 million, and Steve Scalise (R-LA) half again at $1.2 million. For Paul Ryan, the price of American sovereignty was $2.2 million.
Rep Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) was a member of the million-dollar
club at $1,053,646. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) collected $1.4 million, Cathy
McMorris Rogers received (R-WA) $900,732 and Mike Pompeo (R-KS) $949,708. Pete
Sessions, House Rules Committee chairman, was compensated to the tune of
$1,057,079, with his fellow Texan, Lamar Smith picking up $608K. Marsha
Blackburn (R-TN), who fought against illegal immigration, we thought, during
the amnesty battle, received $700,687 and voted for uncontrolled immigration
and the usurpation of domestic American rule.
Financial gain doesn’t appear to be the only reason behind surprising anti-American votes in favor of the three secret bills, a dictatorship and foreign control of our nation. Disappointing betrayals by supposed champion of conservatism, Steve King (R-IA), who received only $382K, Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) $358K, and Trey Gowdy at $305K still don’t make sense.
In the Senate the picture is even uglier, and much more blatant. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) $9.2 million, John Cornyn (R-TX) $5.3 million, and Orrin Hatch $4.2, the third member of the Senate trio of traitors forcing this upon us.
Marco Rubio pocketed $3.9 million for voting to tie us to a bill he never read, with his fellow presidential candidate Lindsey Graham $3.4 million. Candidate Rand Paul (R-KY) voted against the package both times it came up in the Senate. Ted Cruz (R-TX) first voted in favor of it but was eventually forced to recognize the will of the people in the interest of the survival of his campaign and cast a meaningless vote once the debate and outcome was determined.
According to a new Gallup poll, Congress gets a 10% approval
rating, which ties its all-time low for the past 4 decades, 83% disapprove of
Congress. What's more, Congress' approval rating is down among all political
groups... at 9% for Democrats, 11% for independents and 10% for Republicans.
While experts say it's hard to pinpoint exactly why Americans are so negative about Congress, the answer is probably "everything." Why do we keep doing this to ourselves? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.
‘IT’S TIME TO ‘TERM’-INATE AND ERADICATE THAT CANCER THAT COULD BECOME ‘TERM’-INAL IF NOT TREATED NOW!’
Why Congress and the Supreme Court Need Term Limits
The best solution to the increasingly politicized and unseasoned Court is to limit justices to 18-year terms.
Recent analyses have underscored the new reality of today's Supreme Court: It is polarized along partisan lines in a way that parallels other political institutions and the rest of society, in a fashion we have never seen.
With a Court that is increasingly active in overturning laws passed by Congress and checking presidential authority when there is a president of the opposite party, that means nominations both to appeals courts and to the Supreme Court have become increasingly divisive and polarized, for both parties. And the policy future of the country depends as much on the actuarial tables and the luck of the draw for presidents as it does on the larger trends in politics and society. We could have one one-term president shaping the Court for decades, and another two-term president having zero appointments. And we could end up with a Supreme Court dramatically out of step for decades with the larger shape of the society, and likely losing much of its prestige and sense of legitimacy as an impartial arbiter, creating in turn a serious crisis of confidence in the rule of law.
THERE MUST BE TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS!
Term Limits: The Only Way to Clean Up Congress!
It is clear that special interests do not believe term limits will help them.
Special interests oppose term limits because they do not want to lose their valuable investments in incumbent legislators.
Congressional term limits are a necessary corrective to inequalities which inevitably hinder challengers and aid incumbents. In an age where scores of federal agencies and special interests continually lobby for funding, there is a very real danger that Congressmen will become enmeshed in a culture that is overfamiliar with the federal government and insulated from the communities they ostensibly represent.
Term limits are a reality check.
Term limits minimize Members' incentives for reelection-related "pork- barrel" legislation.
Term limits would restore respect for Congress.
The best way to reinvigorate government is to bring in legislators with fresh outlooks, new ideas, and better incentives. Term limits are the only realistic way to change the culture of legislative careerism in Congress -- a culture that undermines the public interest.
The movement to limit political terms is steamrolling through American politics. Voters have approved term limits for Congressmen in each of the fifteen states where referenda have been held, with votes averaging over 66 percent in support, and another four to ten states will permit their citizens to vote on congressional term limits this November. If past elections and current polls are any indication, these proposals also will pass easily. In addition, eighteen states and hundreds of cities and counties across the country have adopted term limits for state and local officials.
Term limits are a powerful political force, as demonstrated by the results of numerous state referenda, state legislative outcomes, and candidate election results.
Term limits are a vital political reform that would bring new perspectives to Congress, mandate frequent legislative turnover, and diminish incentives for wasteful election-related federal spending that currently flourish in a careerist congressional culture.
Term limits as enacted on the state level are constitutional as a legitimate exercise of the states' power to regulate their own elections.
Term limits have a promising future on numerous political fronts, such as candidate elections, state referenda, state and federal legislative action, and congressional and presidential politics.
The people of the United States have finally had it with Mr. and Mrs. Congress. When they make it about themselves, their party and their careers instead of service to the people of the United States as it was intended to be, it's time for a big change.
If the president has a term limit for fear of one person gaining to much power, that fear has come true with Congress. One third power to be shared (Separation of Powers between the three branches) says The Constitution mandates a separation of powers between the three branches of government, but the balance of power has been out of whack for a while now.
How can there be a balance of power when only one-third of the equation has a term limit? Americans are finally letting Congress know that we are fed up this election year. We have 27 constitutional amendments -- I say we need a 28th. ~~ Dan Greenberg
HOW DID HARRY REID GET RICH?
That isn’t the only problematic land deal Reid was involved with at the time.
THE SECRET TO MITCH MCCONNELL'S MILLIONS!
HOW NANCY PELOSI GOT RICH! (CORRUPTION, ABUSE OF POWER ALERT)
While Investing Millions in Exclusive Visa Stock Offering
Former Speaker of the House–and current Minority Leader–Nancy Pelosi apparently bought $1 million to $5 Millions of Visa stock in one of the most sought-after and profitable initial public offerings (IPO) in American history, thwarted serious credit card reform for two years, and then watched her investment skyrocket 203%.
WHAT'S WITH JOHN BOEHNER AND ALL THE CRYING?
The enigma of Boehner is this: The world assumes he has a surfeit of power, and yet if you look deep into his watery brown eyes, or see him crying when he should be chest-bumping Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, what you find is self-doubt, indecision, and impotence! As one Democratic aide told Rolling Stone: “He’s just sort of like, ‘Oh, how did I get here?’ I think of him sort of as a big Saint Bernard to [House Majority Leader] Eric Cantor’s yapping Chihuahua.”
Tales and speculation about Boehner’s failure to keep his drinking under control emerge from the Capitol on a regular basis. Stories have appeared over the last few years in Salon, Raw Story, The Daily Beast and Politics Daily, among others.
Former Congressman Bob Ney, the Ohio Republican who went to prison for his role in the Jack Abamoff lobbying scandal, says Boehner is a “party animal who would rather drink than govern.”
'HERE IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY TERM LIMITS ARE VERY IMPORTANT!':
Contributions to House members from forces favorable to Obamatrade outnumbered those from those opposed by a factor of 8.6 times, $197,869,145 to $23,065,231. The differences were even more stark in the Senate, with a total of $285,225,162 in financial incentives being meted out from supporting groups and only $27,569,149 from the opposition, over ten times as much. There were 32 House members with over a million dollars in contributions and many who were just below that threshold. In the Senate, only five Senators were below the one-million-dollar mark, and two of those, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Mike Lee (R-UT) voted no, and against betrayal of their country.
The formula in the House seems fairly simple, at least as far as rewarding those in leadership positions. Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) got a cool $5 million and change, Mike McCarthy (R-CA) half that at $2.4 million, and Steve Scalise (R-LA) half again at $1.2 million. For Paul Ryan, the price of American sovereignty was $2.2 million.
Financial gain doesn’t appear to be the only reason behind surprising anti-American votes in favor of the three secret bills, a dictatorship and foreign control of our nation. Disappointing betrayals by supposed champion of conservatism, Steve King (R-IA), who received only $382K, Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) $358K, and Trey Gowdy at $305K still don’t make sense.
In the Senate the picture is even uglier, and much more blatant. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) $9.2 million, John Cornyn (R-TX) $5.3 million, and Orrin Hatch $4.2, the third member of the Senate trio of traitors forcing this upon us.
Marco Rubio pocketed $3.9 million for voting to tie us to a bill he never read, with his fellow presidential candidate Lindsey Graham $3.4 million. Candidate Rand Paul (R-KY) voted against the package both times it came up in the Senate. Ted Cruz (R-TX) first voted in favor of it but was eventually forced to recognize the will of the people in the interest of the survival of his campaign and cast a meaningless vote once the debate and outcome was determined.
While experts say it's hard to pinpoint exactly why Americans are so negative about Congress, the answer is probably "everything." Why do we keep doing this to ourselves? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.
PLEASE DO ME A FAVOR, COPY AND PASTE, REFORMAT, ADD YOUR OWN 2 CENTS AND TAKE OWNERSHIP OF THE ‘WHILE YOU WERE SLEEPING’ WORDS, ONLY IF YOU AGREE, AND IF YOU DO AGREE TAKE THE TIME TO SUPPORT ‘AMERICA FIRST’ AND ‘MAKING AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!’
Don't forget to follow While You Were Sleeping on Facebook and our Page also Pinterest , Twitter , tumblr PLEASE help spread the word by sharing our articles on your favorite social networks
No comments:
Post a Comment