Obama 3rd Term?

[StoopTroup]

After hearing that heart warming speech today in Boston it seems apparent that Brach isn't done running the race he started. Do we really need term limits on the POTUS when Congress or the SCOTUS don't really have such restrictions? I think it's time for real eqality.

OBAMA 2016

[SicEmBaylor]

Holy ****ing ****.

[NCSooner18]

Yeah, we do. We just need them on Congress too.

[REDREX]

Two terms will do enough damage

[StoopTroup]

What about SCOTUS? Should these folks stay at their job while on Life Support or if they require a Staffer to tell them what's going on?

[StoopTroup]

Two terms will do enough damage

Not sure about that. GW's little War is still going on.

[REDREX]

GWB's war was stupid-----Barack's spending will bankrupt the country

[StoopTroup]

Was also thinking that maybe Congress could Vote on whether or not we should fund any Federal Assistance for West, TX in Obama's 4th Term. :D

[SicEmBaylor]

What about SCOTUS? Should these folks stay at their job while on Life Support or if they require a Staffer to tell them what's going on?
Yes.

[SicEmBaylor]

Was also thinking that maybe Congress could Vote on whether or not we should fund any Federal Assistance for West, TX in Obama's 4th Term. :D

There sure as hell shouldn't be a dime of Federal assistance to West.

[rock on sooner]

After hearing that heart warming speech today in Boston it seems apparent that Brach isn't done running the race he started. Do we really need term limits on the POTUS when Congress or the SCOTUS don't really have such restrictions? I think it's time for real eqality.

OBAMA 2016

Ummm, 22nd amendment handles the prez so I think that BOTH
congress and SCOTUS should have limits. SCOTUS should be like
the FBI Director...10 years...senators..2, MAYBE 3 terms and Reps
not more than 5 2 year terms...imo...

[olevetonahill]

Ummm, 22nd amendment handles the prez so I think that BOTH
congress and SCOTUS should have limits. SCOTUS should be like
the FBI Director...10 years...senators..2, MAYBE 3 terms and Reps
not more than 5 2 year terms...imo...

i could get behind this deal.

[SicEmBaylor]

Ummm, 22nd amendment handles the prez so I think that BOTH
congress and SCOTUS should have limits. SCOTUS should be like
the FBI Director...10 years...senators..2, MAYBE 3 terms and Reps
not more than 5 2 year terms...imo...

Each state should be able to determine any term limits on its US Senators since a United States Senator is still, theoretically, the representative of the states as a whole. If the state of Oklahoma only wants its US Senators to serve two terms then that should be their business.

The House is another matter....In general, I do favor term limits but there is something to be said for the fact that the people ought to have the right to elect whomever they wish for as long as they wish. It certainly helps keep bad officials from staying in office for an eternity, but it also deprives some districts of phenomenal representation.

As for the Supreme Court, electing judges nationally would be a horrible horrible idea. I support lifetime appointments, but if a term limit was going to be implemented then the only way to acceptably do that would be to continue to require Senate confirmation and Presidential nomination.

[StoopTroup]

^ Holy ****ing ****!

[SicEmBaylor]

^ Holy ****ing ****!

I don't see what's particularly astounding about that, but I'm sure you were waiting for an excuse to parrot. You should have held off a little longer because chances are I'll say something far more "holy ****ing ****" worthy soon enough.

[rock on sooner]

i could get behind this deal.

Welp, Ima keep my back to tha wall...:highly_amused:

[rock on sooner]

Each state should be able to determine any term limits on its US Senators since a United States Senator is still, theoretically, the representative of the states as a whole. If the state of Oklahoma only wants its US Senators to serve two terms then that should be their business.

The House is another matter....In general, I do favor term limits but there is something to be said for the fact that the people ought to have the right to elect whomever they wish for as long as they wish. It certainly helps keep bad officials from staying in office for an eternity, but it also deprives some districts of phenomenal representation.

As for the Supreme Court, electing judges nationally would be a horrible horrible idea. I support lifetime appointments, but if a term limit was going to be implemented then the only way to acceptably do that would be to continue to require Senate confirmation and Presidential nomination.

Not talking about electing the judges, let the prez nominate and Senate
confirm. As to Senators, imo has to be national, too much power would
go to a state that wants long(er) term...imo.

[OU_Sooners75]

What about SCOTUS? Should these folks stay at their job while on Life Support or if they require a Staffer to tell them what's going on?

Really?

So you are in favor or making judges of the highest courts politicians?

Congress needs term limits more so than the president!

[SicEmBaylor]

Not talking about electing the judges, let the prez nominate and Senate
confirm. As to Senators, imo has to be national, too much power would
go to a state that wants long(er) term...imo.

That's precisely the point -- if a state wants to put a gun to its head and pull the trigger by term limiting senators and destroying its seniority within the chamber then why stand in their way? That's what they want.

You're just wanting to nanny-state the states.

[SicEmBaylor]

The Confederate Constitution did a fantastic job of tweaking some of the particulars of the US Constitution without fundamentally changing the underlying concepts and principles of how the government worked, the relationship between branches, or the relationship between the states and the national government.

For example, they limited the President to a single six-year term which I have always thought was a great idea.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

After hearing that heart warming speech today in Boston it seems apparent that Brach isn't done running the race he started. Do we really need term limits on the POTUS when Congress or the SCOTUS don't really have such restrictions? I think it's time for real eqality.

OBAMA 2016hoo boy!!!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Two terms will do irreparable damageFIFY

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Ummm, 22nd amendment handles the prez so I think that BOTH
congress and SCOTUS should have limits. SCOTUS should be like
the FBI Director...10 years...senators..2, MAYBE 3 terms and Reps
not more than 5 2 year terms...imo...Only problem is they still have their agenda. Could push harder to implement it in less time. I'm more interested in cutting the pensions drastically, maybe totally.

[rock on sooner]

That's precisely the point -- if a state wants to put a gun to its head and pull the trigger by term limiting senators and destroying its seniority within the chamber then why stand in their way? That's what they want.

You're just wanting to nanny-state the states.

Flip side of that is that if the states have their seniorty way
then you're looking at Cali or New York or Texas or Florida
really entrenching themselves and pushing stuff through. Just
look at those four states and think about each agenda now...

[TAFBSooner]

Reagan and B Clinton both expressed a longing for one more term, and Bush the Lesser said things would be easier if he was dictator. Apparently the power of the presidency, as it is, isn't enough for some people. We should fight to hold on to the 22nd amendment as strongly as we do the 2nd, and for similar reasons.

[OU_Sooners75]

Reagan and B Clinton both expressed a longing for one more term, and Bush the Lesser said things would be easier if he was dictator. Apparently the power of the presidency, as it is, isn't enough for some people. We should fight to hold on to the 22nd amendment as strongly as we do the 2nd, and for similar reasons.

Got a link to where W said such a thing?

[TAFBSooner]

Got a link to where W said such a thing?

Oh, yeah.

About 12.2 million of them:
https://www.google.com/search?q=Bush%20easier%20if%20i%20was%20dictator&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&source=hp&channel=np

Much as I disliked Bush, there is really more of a time series progression of losing our freedoms, with 44 worse than 43, 43 worse than 42, and 42 worse than 41 (Bush the Greater), who defended the jack-booted thugs.

There is no D or R switch on the pot, just a steadily increasing temperature. Ribbit.

[SicEmBaylor]

Flip side of that is that if the states have their seniorty way
then you're looking at Cali or New York or Texas or Florida
really entrenching themselves and pushing stuff through. Just
look at those four states and think about each agenda now...

I think you're over-estimating the number of states that would term-limit themselves while other states do not. Nonetheless, I don't base what I think is the correct procedure based upon the possibility of undesirable results.

[SCOUT]

Each state should be able to determine any term limits on its US Senators since a United States Senator is still, theoretically, the representative of the states as a whole. If the state of Oklahoma only wants its US Senators to serve two terms then that should be their business.

The House is another matter....In general, I do favor term limits but there is something to be said for the fact that the people ought to have the right to elect whomever they wish for as long as they wish. It certainly helps keep bad officials from staying in office for an eternity, but it also deprives some districts of phenomenal representation.

As for the Supreme Court, electing judges nationally would be a horrible horrible idea. I support lifetime appointments, but if a term limit was going to be implemented then the only way to acceptably do that would be to continue to require Senate confirmation and Presidential nomination.

Well said.

[Soonerjeepman]

Ummm, 22nd amendment handles the prez so I think that BOTH
congress and SCOTUS should have limits. SCOTUS should be like
the FBI Director...10 years...senators..2, MAYBE 3 terms and Reps
not more than 5 2 year terms...imo...
AMEN...HELL yes there should be limits...and good Lord I hope you were joking about a 3rd term

[cleller]

He's already got his own religion well under way, he can just run that after this term. Lay hands on his followers, etc.

[StoopTroup]

Got a link to where W said such a thing?

Well per Snopes a lot of talk to repeal the 22nd happened during GW's two terms although it was brought up during the Clinton and again now in the Obama administration. Thing is that both Major Parties have had Leaders within their Party bring it up and as far as the Senate is concerned Mitch McConnell was one of the Repubs that has brought it up. Given Mitch's Position and years in the Senate, I would find it very hard to believe the GW didn't know anything about a push for repeal. Also I challenge you to find a link where he was against a repeal.


http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/termlimits.asp

[StoopTroup]

He's already got his own religion well under way, he can just run that after this term. Lay hands on his followers, etc.

Maybe you should read this....

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/06/new-york-congressman-introduces-bill-to-abolish-presidential-term-limits/

[Midtowner]

What about SCOTUS? Should these folks stay at their job while on Life Support or if they require a Staffer to tell them what's going on?

When billions are spent annually in political campaigns and with the disasters we've seen from a political judiciary as in West Virginia, the judiciary needs to remain as neutral as possible. Hell, I'd even be in favor of limiting the President's choices by using an Oklahoma style Judicial Nomination Commission where political influence could be reigned in.

As for the Presidency, no, I think real power starts to accumulate there and folks with vested interests are going to tend to favor the status quo, no matter what that may be.

[SicEmBaylor]

When billions are spent annually in political campaigns and with the disasters we've seen from a political judiciary as in West Virginia, the judiciary needs to remain as neutral as possible. Hell, I'd even be in favor of limiting the President's choices by using an Oklahoma style Judicial Nomination Commission where political influence could be reigned in.

As for the Presidency, no, I think real power starts to accumulate there and folks with vested interests are going to tend to favor the status quo, no matter what that may be.
A retention system is not a horrible idea though very few people take the time to learn about each judge. Even I don't.

Texas elects all of its judges all the way from the Texas Supreme Court (which interestingly only handles civil cases) to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (which handles criminal cases) all the way down to Justice of the Peace.

[SicEmBaylor]

I conducted and participated in a hell of a lot of candidate interviews as a member of a certain Texas political organization. They were in private so the candidates would feel free to speak a bit more candidly.

Anyway, interviewing the judicial candidates was always frustrating as hell. They wouldn't talk about any subject that may come before their court; therefore, you were left with just basic biographical information to go off of. It was horrible.

[Midtowner]

A retention system is not a horrible idea though very few people take the time to learn about each judge. Even I don't.

I'm even uneasy about that. The Oklahoma Chamber of Commerce has recently begun efforts to do away with "anti-business" judges by releasing ratings on our appellate court judges based upon some Byzantine formula which somehow grades each of their decisions.

[SicEmBaylor]

I'm even uneasy about that. The Oklahoma Chamber of Commerce has recently begun efforts to do away with "anti-business" judges by releasing ratings on our appellate court judges based upon some Byzantine formula which somehow grades each of their decisions.

I'm fine with that. I've worked on legislative ratings (our organization was the only one to rate Texas legislators for decades)....the formulas are not great but they're really best used as a guide for obtaining more information rather than an end-product meant to definitively approve of one candidate or the other.

The biggest issue I had was when a particular legislator voted our way on an issue but they did so for reasons that were decidedly anti-conservative. Their reasoning was very much to the left of ours yet they got credit for a "conservative" vote.

[Midtowner]

I'm fine with that. I've worked on legislative ratings (our organization was the only one to rate Texas legislators for decades)....the formulas are not great but they're really best used as a guide for obtaining more information rather than an end-product meant to definitively approve of one candidate or the other.

The biggest issue I had was when a particular legislator voted our way on an issue but they did so for reasons that were decidedly anti-conservative. Their reasoning was very much to the left of ours yet they got credit for a "conservative" vote.

Precisely. My problem with the Chamber is their rebranding of "conservative." How on Earth is it conservative to make sure businesses can't be held accountable when they hurt people?

[okie52]

I'm even uneasy about that. The Oklahoma Chamber of Commerce has recently begun efforts to do away with "anti-business" judges by releasing ratings on our appellate court judges based upon some Byzantine formula which somehow grades each of their decisions.

The Oklahoma Chamber of Commerce along with the US Chamber of Commerce should never be associated with any judgement on "conservatives". They have supported illegal immigration and fought conservative legislation to thwart it for many years now.

These "Chambers" would sell out the country if there was a buck in it.

[okiewaker]

Looking forward to how many ever terms the turd wants. The more the better,,IMHO. Faster we get back to where we outa be.

[badger]

After hearing that heart warming speech today in Boston it seems apparent that Brach isn't done running the race he started. Do we really need term limits on the POTUS when Congress or the SCOTUS don't really have such restrictions? I think it's time for real eqality.

OBAMA 2016

I think presidential term limits are fine. I wish that Congress and SCOTUS had them as well, perhaps not two terms like the president, but limits nonetheless. A lot of Congressional members use their longevity as pork and pay-to-play clout. You hardly ever hear of 1-term, 2-term Congressmen.

Term limits have seemed to work in Oklahoma. I love that we're getting new faces in leadership roles, I love that longterm state Senate/House members are pushed out of their comfort zone to try for different offices after their "tenure" (it's 12 years, regardless of whether you're in the House/Senate or both) is up. It also sends the clear message to our state reps that they are in office for a limited time, so don't just sit back in your first term or two to observe and learn from the old farts --- represent your district NOW. Get legislation going NOW.

[OU_Sooners75]

Term limits:

President stay the same...two 4 year terms.
But I would throw in that a vice president that served two terms must be removed from that office for at least four years before being allowed to run for President.

House: 5 two year terms. If a representative is elected to a second term, then he/she must wait one Senate term (6 years) in order to run for Senate.

Senate: 2 six year terms. Once a Senator is elected they must wait two representative terms (4 years) before being allowed to run for the House.

SCOTUS: A limit of 12 years on the bench. They are not elected, but appointed just as they are now.

Then lets make all politicians earn their money. They get paid a per Diem. Any pay raises must be brought to a National General Election and can only be voted on once ever 4 years. No more salaried politicians within the federal government! They are elected public servants, not professionals...or at least that was not the intentions of the constitution.

[C&CDean]

Y'all worry/think about this **** too much. IDGAS. If somebody needs to go then vote him out. If you can't vote him out then you're stuck with him. IDGAS.

[OU_Sooners75]

Y'all worry/think about this **** too much. IDGAS. If somebody needs to go then vote him out. If you can't vote him out then you're stuck with him. IDGAS.


Generally I would agree. However, term limits would make it impossible for someone being a career politician....and that is what is wrong with our nation right now. Too many career politicians in Washington! Needs to be a bigger turnover rate in Washington DC

[C&CDean]

Generally I would agree. However, term limits would make it impossible for someone being a career politician....and that is what is wrong with our nation right now. Too many career politicians in Washington! Needs to be a bigger turnover rate in Washington DC

I disagree. What's wrong with America is stupid ****ing people who vote for worthless **********s over and over again. Hell, I don't blame somebody for wanting a 20-30 year gig with all the bennies. I blame the ignorant masses.

[StoopTroup]

I don't get the Secret Service Detail for Presidents and VPs not available for the life of an Ex-POTUS. I think they should be given protection for life.