- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Is it time to revisit US Term Limits, Inc vs Thornton with the Supreme Court
Posted on 1/31/26 at 7:23 am
Posted on 1/31/26 at 7:23 am
"Constitutional amendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution denied ballot access to any federal Congressional candidate having already served three terms in the U.S. House or two terms in the U.S. Senate. (Such a candidate was not barred from being written in and winning by that method.)"
1995
Majority Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Concurrence Kennedy
Dissent Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia
Imagine how different our Congress might look had one judge in the majority dissented. I have no doubt that in the last 30 years most states would've passed such an amendment.
What, in your opinion, might be different today? Can we try this again? Which State is most likely to do it?
1995
Majority Stevens, joined by Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Concurrence Kennedy
Dissent Thomas, joined by Rehnquist, O'Connor, Scalia
Imagine how different our Congress might look had one judge in the majority dissented. I have no doubt that in the last 30 years most states would've passed such an amendment.
What, in your opinion, might be different today? Can we try this again? Which State is most likely to do it?
4
Posted on 1/31/26 at 7:33 am to Gee Grenouille
You said Kennedy twice.
Problem is you can't have states creating extra requirements for federal office. It would open a bad can of worms.
You'd need to amend the Constitution and that requires either the swamp rats agreeing or a constitutional convention which is high risk.
Problem is you can't have states creating extra requirements for federal office. It would open a bad can of worms.
You'd need to amend the Constitution and that requires either the swamp rats agreeing or a constitutional convention which is high risk.
Posted on 1/31/26 at 7:34 am to Gee Grenouille
I get the arguments for term limits, but the real problem is the ungodly retardation of voters.
We need poll tests, not new crops of groomed politicians that will just carry on the status quo.
We need poll tests, not new crops of groomed politicians that will just carry on the status quo.
Posted on 1/31/26 at 7:37 am to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
Problem is you can't have states creating extra requirements for federal office. It would open a bad can of worms.
The only true federal office is P/vP.
Otherwise, reps and senators serve for their states.
If a house or senate seat is vacated in term, different states have different methods and requirements for filling such seats. How is what GG brought up any different?
Posted on 1/31/26 at 7:38 am to stuntman
quote:
We need poll tests
I think ID and same day, in person voting would suffice. Oh, and, election materials/instruments only in friggin English.
Posted on 1/31/26 at 7:40 am to Bestbank Tiger
The swamp rats would never agree to this. It would have to be done militarily, Constitution amended, elimination of current congress and staff and having new elections.
I forgot one of the biggest factors:
Make lobbying and corporate contributions illegal.
My preference:
REPS: 3 terms @ 2 years each
SEN: 2 terms @ 3 years each
PRES: 2 terms @ 4 years each
Would force them to govern together.
And then I woke up.
I forgot one of the biggest factors:
Make lobbying and corporate contributions illegal.
My preference:
REPS: 3 terms @ 2 years each
SEN: 2 terms @ 3 years each
PRES: 2 terms @ 4 years each
Would force them to govern together.
And then I woke up.
This post was edited on 1/31/26 at 7:45 am
Posted on 1/31/26 at 7:41 am to SallysHuman
quote:
I think ID and same day, in person voting would suffice. Oh, and, election materials/instruments only in friggin English.
That would be an improvement for sure, but I want waaay less people voting. This idea that everyone whose eligible should vote is batshit crazy to me.
If you don't know the role/limits of government, you should have zero say in who runs it.
Posted on 1/31/26 at 7:42 am to stuntman
This as well.
Posted on 1/31/26 at 7:47 am to stuntman
quote:
That would be an improvement for sure, but I want waaay less people voting. This idea that everyone whose eligible should vote is batshit crazy to me. If you don't know the role/limits of government, you should have zero say in who runs it.
Me too... the biggest problem is harvesters rolling up disinterested voters. Honestly, stupid people don't care and wouldn't go vote if it weren't for people filling their ballots and mailing them.. or those voter drives where they round up hobos to take to the polls.
Oh, and get rid of voter registration drives. They are not necessary. Go to the DMV or election office.
Posted on 1/31/26 at 8:03 am to SallysHuman
quote:
The only true federal office is P/vP.
true dat
we need to go back to having the states determine their senators rather than allow popular vote.
BUT - if it is going to continue as popular vote, then make them run every two years, just like the representatives.
The whole purpose of the Senate was to provide some insulation of the legislative process from the momentary whims of the 'public.'
Posted on 1/31/26 at 8:06 am to SallysHuman
quote:
a house or senate seat is vacated in term, different states have different methods and requirements for filling such seats. How is what GG brought up any different?
That’s only the senate. The house has special elections.
Posted on 1/31/26 at 8:07 am to Gee Grenouille
If it’s the case I’m thinking of, this is my favorite Thomas opinion.
Posted on 1/31/26 at 8:18 am to Gee Grenouille
Term limits would just make unelected congressional staff and lobbyists more powerful than they already are
Posted on 1/31/26 at 8:33 am to Indefatigable
quote:
That’s only the senate. The house has special elections.
Different states do different things with us house seats in the special elections or if it even gets the special election before the regular election cycle.
My point being that states already have some latitude on senate and house processes.
Posted on 1/31/26 at 10:38 am to SallysHuman
quote:
My point being that states already have some latitude on senate and house processes.
Processes, yes.
Eligibility requirements are age, citizenship, and residency and those are universal.
I'd like to see the House changed to ban consecutive terms. The same two people would still be able to pass the seat back and forth but they have to come home in between and live in the real world. Even better if it's 2 years on and 4 off.
Posted on 1/31/26 at 10:41 am to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
I'd like to see the House changed to ban consecutive terms. The same two people would still be able to pass the seat back and forth but they have to come home in between and live in the real world.
I like this.
These seats weren’t intended to be careers in the beginning of our history.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News