- 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
re: The Executive needs a way to limit Congressional terms.
Posted on 5/30/26 at 5:33 pm to scrooster
Posted on 5/30/26 at 5:33 pm to scrooster
quote:
They should all be held to the same standards with the possible exception of the SCOTUS where rule of law, knowledge and wisdom should be valued above petty politics.
I do agree with the above and I also firmly believe the US Senators must be elected by their respective state legislators. Terms of House and Senate should be decided by the respective states.
0
Posted on 5/30/26 at 6:35 pm to DeBoar
All the way down to the mother pusser cleaning toilets.
Posted on 5/30/26 at 6:47 pm to BozemanTiger
Ignorance is a powerful thing.
Posted on 5/30/26 at 7:19 pm to dafif
Actually, the Constitution originally provided for the state legislatures to select us senators. That got changed by the 17th amendment, which contributed to the imbalance of power we’ve seen over the last century.
Posted on 5/30/26 at 7:27 pm to DeBoar
quote:
It is absolutely crazy the executive is limited but the legislative and judicial branches aren’t. They all need term limits.
The executive is most likely to become king like without term limits seeing as it’s consolidated into 1 man.
that being said, I strong support term limits for Supreme Court Justices and Congress.
Wouldn’t you like to know going into an election how many justices at a minimum are going to be replaced?
Posted on 5/30/26 at 9:01 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
that being said, I strong support term limits for Supreme Court Justices and Congress.
Wouldn’t you like to know going into an election how many justices at a minimum are going to be replaced?
If you want to COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY FUBAR this country and make it Constitutionally unrecognizable ... put term limits on the SCOTUS Justices.
Posted on 5/30/26 at 9:15 pm to LSUbest
quote:
It's not balanced power.
The three branches are not equal, and Congress - the voice of the people and the States - is intended to have the most power.
Congress can fire members of the Executive and Judicial branches, which right away makes Congress more powerful.
Congress can over ride Presidential vetoes, and if its laws are ruled unconstitutional it can enact new laws or begin the Amendment process.
Congress is unable to wield this power very effectively right now due to party politics, but I think this is a feature and not a bug.
Im not convinced the 17th Amendment is as harmful to our process as sone people believe. But I do think Congress should expand, as originally intended. We have been stuck at 435 for over a century. We should probably have over 1200 Representatives by now.
Term limits would be less of a concern if we were re-electing 1200+ Representatives every two years. Individual Congressmen would be far less powerful and would need to form coalitions to be effective. We would have so many knuckleheads running around DC, the age of a few of them would be the inconsequential.
Posted on 5/30/26 at 9:43 pm to LawTalkingGuy
You make a reasonable point but too far in the extreme, imho.
I do agree that there should be more Reps in The House provided:
1 - They ensure that only legal citizens are allowed to vote.
2 - The ensure that only legal citizens are counted in The Census.
3 - They go back to the old system of only paying legislators when they are in The House, working. (Eliminate their ability to amass wealth while serving and eliminate their ability to insider trade while serving.)
4 - They set limits on these outrageous lifetime pensions.
5 - Make it less attractive for grifters to want to make a career out of grifting.
6 - End foreign influence via the PAC and lobbying loopholes.
7 - Make it so that instate legislators can recall and impeach federal reps from their states for violating strict, but individual, state defined standards. (The same should apply to senators.)
8 - Do away with the Huntington-Hill methodology for determining Reps per state.
9 - Conduct a Census every five years, rather than ten. (They already do this by electronic surveillance means BTW, every year.)
10 - Enforce the no-racial gerrymandering law.
I do agree that there should be more Reps in The House provided:
1 - They ensure that only legal citizens are allowed to vote.
2 - The ensure that only legal citizens are counted in The Census.
3 - They go back to the old system of only paying legislators when they are in The House, working. (Eliminate their ability to amass wealth while serving and eliminate their ability to insider trade while serving.)
4 - They set limits on these outrageous lifetime pensions.
5 - Make it less attractive for grifters to want to make a career out of grifting.
6 - End foreign influence via the PAC and lobbying loopholes.
7 - Make it so that instate legislators can recall and impeach federal reps from their states for violating strict, but individual, state defined standards. (The same should apply to senators.)
8 - Do away with the Huntington-Hill methodology for determining Reps per state.
9 - Conduct a Census every five years, rather than ten. (They already do this by electronic surveillance means BTW, every year.)
10 - Enforce the no-racial gerrymandering law.
quote:
Each state is constitutionally guaranteed at least one Representative, regardless of size. The remaining 385 seats in the 435-seat House are distributed among the 50 states using the method of equal proportions (also known as the Huntington–Hill method). This mathematical formula assigns seats based on a priority value calculated by dividing a state’s population by the geometric mean of its current and next potential number of seats.
Posted on 5/30/26 at 11:18 pm to LSUbest
What we need are free, honest and fair elections. With that, term limits would take care of themselves.
Posted on 5/30/26 at 11:23 pm to Coastal Tiger
quote:
There are term limits now.
They are called elections.
I am for defined term limits, but this is truth here.
We all bitch about government, yet keep re electing the same people, so it's is our own dang fault.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 10:57 am to Archives
quote:
I am for defined term limits, but this is truth here.
We all bitch about government, yet keep re electing the same people, so it's is our own dang fault.
You're correct, to some degree.
However, there are external influential factors involved these days that do have a direct affect on outcomes.
1 - Open primaries should be closed.
2 - Foreign funded PACs should be outlawed.
3 - Lobbyists' money should be heavily regulated at least, banned at best.
Case in point, Lindsey Graham.
Miss Lindsey has amassed a massive warchest over the years that his re-election apparatus puts into play each election cycle. It dwarfs all of his opponents ... combined.
Miss Lindsey receives 10s of 1000s of primary votes from transplanted carpet bagging northern democrats in our open primary.
Miss Lindsey is heavily funded through PACs that receive money from lobbying interests. For examples, Tire Manufacturing is huge in SC, we are the tire manufacturing capital of the country. And Graham receives hundreds of thousands of dollars from them over the course of his every six year term. That's just one example. He receives lobbyist money from big corp all over the country ... and from Israel, China, and Europe.
Bottom line is that many voters are swayed by savvy campaign commercials ... paid for by foreigners and lobbyists. Additionally, transplanted democrats see Miss Lindsey as a moderate Republican. He's in line with their moderate Democrat values.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 11:33 am to LSUbest
quote:
They check the executive often
Not really. In the last 50 years Congressional members have become cheerleaders for whatever their party’s presidential agenda is. They almost never check their power these days. You’re seeing it in small doses with members like Massie or Thune. And you’d think they were traitors the way some people describe it
Posted on 5/31/26 at 12:11 pm to LSUbest
We need term limits and age limits in all three branches of the federal government.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 12:27 pm to ragincajun03
quote:
age limits
That's a very very slippery slope.
Ageism is a real thing.
Some elders are far more capable than others. Trump vs Biden is just one example.
But, when you make age an issue you immediately open up the door to eliminate minium age requirements as well. In theory that could lead to a wet behind the ears snot nosed brainwashed far left wing Marxo-Commie 25 year old female feminist with big tits and a nice arse being elected POTUS.
Leave it up to voters to determine how old an office holder representing them should be.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 12:31 pm to scrooster
Sorry. I’m just of the opinion that if you’re President, VP, member of Congress, or a Supreme Court Justice, all your shite needs to be packed up and moved out on your 80th birthday.
Go home.
Go home.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 12:45 pm to ragincajun03
quote:
if you’re President, VP, member of Congress, or a Supreme Court Justice, all your shite needs to be packed up and moved out on your 80th birthday.
Go home.
So Trump should be aged out of office two weeks from today ... in your opinion?
Posted on 5/31/26 at 12:49 pm to scrooster
Minimum age limits are set in the Constitution. Good luck changing them.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 1:01 pm to Brosef Stalin
quote:
Minimum age limits are set in the Constitution. Good luck changing them.
I don't need the luck ... I'm not advocating for making age an issue when it comes to term limits.
Thomas Sowell is proof that age affects everyone differently. He's 95.
Trump is another example of being mentally sharp at an advanced age.
This twatwaffle below, however, should have been run out of office ten years before he was inserted into the presidency.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. Posted on 5/31/26 at 1:24 pm to scrooster
quote:
So Trump should be aged out of office two weeks from today ... in your opinion?
Sure.
JD would do just fine as President, so the country would be fine. I’m not partisan in my desire to not have DC be a defacto nursing home.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News