Term Limits - US Constitutional Amendment

[sheri1449]

I just found out that I will not be able to do the Ballot Initiative
in my State of Florida to Limit Terms of our US Congresspeople &
Senators. It appears that State Sovereignty is not enough. This was
tried before in the State of Arkansas & the Supreme Court stated this
was unconstitutional:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1456.ZO.html

I have consolidated some of the information that has been presented so
far:

We now know that the only way to Limit Terms is through a US
Constitutional Amendment - which Senator DeMint has already
submitted. If you didn't see it:

http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=df3453ee-c1f0-e8d5-3fb3-77379823cf1c&Month=11&Year=2009&Type=

Someone will need to contact DeMint to get suggestions on how to best
pursue this. It would probably be better if someone from his home
state of South Carolina make this contact.

This is a much more difficult enterprise than a State Ballot
Initiative. In order to ratify a US Constitutional Amendment:

First, 2/3 of both Congresses (or a National Convention) must pass
this Amendment.

Then, 3/4 of each State Legislature (or State Convention) must pass
it.

3/4 of all the States must pass it.

Here is a link that explains the various options we have for getting
an Amendment passed.

http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html

One thing that makes it "slightly" easier is that it is a 1 state, 1
vote procedure. So, a populated State like California has the same
"power" as an unpopulated State like North Dakota. 12 States can vote
against the Amendment & it still can get passed.

Focusing on States that are more Conservative (Midwest, Central West,
South, & States "sitting on the fence") may be enough to get the
Amendment passed.

I believe that we should start to work on getting as many of our
Representatives & Senators to back this Amendment. We need to start
to find out where they stand on this & if they are against it, to try
to convince them to change their minds (or get them out of office &
elect someone who wants this also). The usual methods we have been
using should suffice: Emails, Phone calls, Faxing, Petitions etc.

There is a lot of work to do, for we not only have to convince our US
Representatives to vote for this but also our State Representatives.
This will be an uphill battle, as most US Representatives will
probably not look favorably on limiting the number of terms they can
serve.

The other option is to put together a National Convention -
circumventing going through our Congress. I don't believe this has
ever been done. This would be the better route if we believed that we
could not get it approved in the Congress.

Some questions: How would we go about choosing the Representatives
to go to this Convention? Is there a specific number of
Representatives required from each state? Can we base the number of
representatives on the Senate - equal power to each state?

There has been some discussion as to whether we should pursue Term
Limits - some people feeling that this will have some adverse
effects. Their arguments are sound - & I think we should continue
this discussion - weighing the pro's & con's. I think those of you,
who have been following this, know that I am for Term Limits - but am
open to hearing all sides to this issue.

What is most important is that if we want to get this Constitutional
Amendment ratified, we are going to have to get organized in every
State & establish a "game plan". The work involved & time needed to
be spent on this is gigantic. We will need a lot of people working on
this in every State.

[sheri1449]

I just found this - which gives an explanation of how a convention is
set up in a few different states. Each state has it's own procedure:

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_acon.html

On Nov 16, 1:40 am, sheri1449 <sheri1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I just found out that I will not be able to do the Ballot Initiative
> in my State of Florida to Limit Terms of our US Congresspeople &
> Senators.  It appears that State Sovereignty is not enough.  This was
> tried before in the State of Arkansas & the Supreme Court stated this
> was unconstitutional:
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1456.ZO.html
>
> I have consolidated some of the information that has been presented so
> far:
>
> We now know that the only way to Limit Terms is through a US
> Constitutional Amendment - which Senator DeMint has already
> submitted.  If you didn't see it:
>

> http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.De...

[Fritz]

Sheril: Good try. Lacking other venues, shouldn't this issue
(Congressional term limits) be included in the Contract From America? That
is, we require that a candidate agree to promote and support legislation to
limit the terms of current and future members of Congress. That would at
least highlight the importance of the issue.
Fritz

[Brian Bertha]

I agree Fritz

[sheri1449]

I definitely agree. Of course, Term Limits have been an issue for
years. It has been avoided - only because of the difficulty in getting
it passed. Getting the "right" people in Congress is definitely a
priority if we want to "make this happen". I think that although past
attempts have failed, we are in a different situation now. People are
starting to "wake up" & are starting to see what has been occurring in
our so-called "Representative" Congresses.

> > this in every State.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Jonathon Hill]

There is an initiative starting up to do just that. Check out
http://inspireandignite.com.

~ Jonathon Hill
Anderson, SC Tea Party

[sheri1449]

I think they are "getting it right". But, just signing the petition
will not get the amendment ratified. We still have to get it done
legally & as you know, there are only a few options for this.

There is one option that has never been tried - basically because no
knew how to do it. It is called the Popular Amendment. Here is a
section in this link - http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html -
that refers to this :


One other way of amendment is also not mentioned in the Constitution,
and, because it has never been used, is lost on many students of the
Constitution. Framer James Wilson, however, endorsed popular
amendment, and the topic is examined at some length in Akhil Reed
Amar's book, The Constitution: A Biography.

The notion of popular amendment comes from the conceptual framework of
the Constitution. Its power derives from the people; it was adopted by
the people; it functions at the behest of and for the benefit of the
people. Given all this, if the people, as a whole, somehow demanded a
change to the Constitution, should not the people be allowed to make
such a change? As Wilson noted in 1787, "... the people may change the
constitutions whenever and however they please. This is a right of
which no positive institution can ever deprive them."

It makes sense - if the people demand a change, it should be made. The
change may not be the will of the Congress, nor of the states, so the
two enumerated methods of amendment might not be practical, for they
rely on these institutions. The real issue is not in the conceptual.
It is a reality that if the people do not support the Constitution in
its present form, it cannot survive. The real issue is in the
practical. Since there is no process specified, what would the process
be? There are no national elections today - even elections for the
presidency are local. There is no precedent for a national referendum.
It is easy to say that the Constitution can be changed by the people
in any way the people wish. Actually making the change is another
story altogether.

Suffice it to say, for now, that the notion of popular amendment makes
perfect sense in the constitutional framework, even though the details
of affecting popular amendment could be impossible to resolve.


Question: In todays computer age, why can't people go online & vote
for this amendment? The problem has always been getting all the
people together in the nation to vote. There would have to be a way
to verify that the person is a registered voter - but a link to voter
registration in each state could be created. Even people who do not
have a computer can go to their local library to vote.

The Amendment would have to written & placed on a website. It would
then have to be programmed to accept & tabulate the votes. It's not
an impossibility,


On Nov 17, 8:42 am, Jonathon Hill <jhill9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is an initiative starting up to do just that. Check outhttp://inspireandignite.com.

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Sam Mela]

Yes people have experimented with the "Popular Amendment" option in
othere countries. It's called a revolution; and tends to be bloody
and unpredictable.

If we can't win at the ballot box then, in my opininion, we don't
deserve to win. If we are able to win at the ballot box, we can amend
the Constituti9on the same way it has been amended 27 times before.

Which process do you trust? One that has been tested numerous times
in the past, or one that is vague, poorly defined, and has never
succeeded?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm

And at this point, so far as the political process is concerned, I
think we should all arm ourselves -- arm ourselves with facts that is.

The only reason citizens need guns right now in America is target
practice, hunting, personal defense, and legitimate militia; they are
NOT a part of our political process and I, for one, would like to keep
it that way.

Teach yourself to communicate our principles with a deadly aim and
accuracy; and go out, armed with your communication skills, and start
changing minds in America one at a time.

Hope this doesn't p*ss anyone off.

On Nov 17, 9:51 am, sheri1449 <sheri1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think they are "getting it right".  But, just signing the petition
> will not get the amendment ratified.  We still have to get it done
> legally & as you know, there are only a few options for this.
>
> There is one option that has never been tried - basically because no
> knew how to do it.  It is called the Popular Amendment.  Here is a

> section in this link -http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html -

[Correa, Richard A Sr SGT RET]

Sam;

Though I am prepared to take 'extraordinary measures' to restore the constitution, like you I prefer the ballot box and amendments to the constitution that will restrict the power of all three branches of the federal government and the peaceful elimination of the professional political class. Your advise is sound and all of us should follow it.

Any other course should only be followed when all other options are exhausted.

This movement has the potential to restore sanity in our nation. We must continue to use logic, reason and facts to win over those that are not fully indoctrinated into the progressive/liberal mind set and we must challenge those that are 'solidly' progressive/liberal at every opportunity.

All of us must remember, each one of us is the face of the TEA Parties and the 9/12 project. The people we meet and speak to will decide on whether we are what we claim to be or the ill informed 'idiots' the lame stream media and our opponents say we are. Always be prepared to discuss any of the topics we find important at any time. Maintain your cool. Do not react in anger to provocation and 'know when to walk away'.

Let's go out there and make a difference.

Rick C

[sheri1449]

I totally disagree with you. The chance of our getting a Term Limits
Amendment passed through our regular legislative process is almost
impossible. Even those who we manage to get elected in 2010 - to oust
the incumbents - may not vote for it. Why should they bite their nose
to spite their face?

Power is addictive & contagious. Politicians tell us what we want to
hear (didn't we learn from Obama?). Those newly elected
Congresspeople in 2010 will hopefully follow what they say in their
campaigns - but there is no guarantee. We have to wait until 2012 to
get rid of the Senators. The Amendment proposed by DeMint will
probably go through various committees, debates, etc. It may get
postponed for all kinds of reasons thought up by the representatives.
By the time it comes up for vote, many may change their mind.

Just because it has never been done, does not mean it should not be
tried. We The People need to take back our power.

It was a virtual impossibility years ago to do this because there was
a lack of communication between the different parts of the nation.
People had to go through their legislature - there was no other option
- but that is not the case anymore.

If we managed to do this, to avoid a "challenge", we would still have
to adhere to what the Constitution requires: 3/4 of the voters in
each state would have to approve & 3/4 of the states.

I do not understand your comment about winning at the ballot box. A
vote online is just an alternative to the more antiquated system.
Strange how we accept the votes that are made on "Dancing with the
Stars" & other programs like that.

I don't know if this is a possibility. But, I am open to any option
that will circumvent going through our legislature. It could actually
be done fairly quickly - with the communication available online.

The time involved in getting a Constitutional Amendment ratified
through the usual process takes many years - years to get it approved
in the US Congress & many more years to get it approved in the State
legislatures. Personally, I would like to get this done a lot more
quickly.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Sam Mela]

I stand corrected. The method you describe is legitimate and
constitutional; and could be done at Warp Speed if it is marketed
properly. Your ideas are good.

[sheri1449]

I want to say one more thing. A comment was made that going with a
popular amendment is the same as starting a revolution. Our
forefathers rebelled against tyranny & unfortunately, we are finding
ourselves in the same situation again.

In 1776, would anything have been accomplished by turning to the
English government & asking for them to treat us differently? Would
they have given us what we wanted? Would they have respected our
rights? Would they have stopped taxing us?

We are fighting right now, what is similar to a Monarchy. Our system
is not working the way our forefathers envisioned. So, unfortunately,
we may need to start our own little "revolution" - unarmed, of course.

[Brian Bertha]

Sam
I have a right to self defense but none to not being pissed off. Thats called the first Amendment
Say whats in you heart and say it loudly and often. As another American Patriot has said
"Any place I am standing is a free speech zone"

[sheri1449]

One more comment: Excuse me for getting on my "Soap Box".

Getting a vote online may not accomplish getting the Amendment
ratified. We may not get enough votes in enough States to get it
passed. Or even with getting enough votes, we may discover some
"glitch" which keeps it from happening.

But, as mentioned before, we can do this fairly quickly - probably
within a month or so. We would need to contact each State Division of
Elections & arrange for them to have a link to their voter
registration (they would confirm it & send it back to us). We would
need to put up the website. The vote would only occur on one day -
like our regular elections - again, so there is no way to "challenge"
the results.

But, there is another advantage to having this vote - even if it
doesn't get the Amendment ratified. We will have MILLIONS OF VOTERS
who are stating that they want this Amendment. There is no way that
are Representatives can ignore this & will have to think twice about
voting against it.

[Sam Mela]

And?

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[sheri1449]

Oops! Spelling error: "our" Representatives not "are"

[Fritz]

Agreed. Welcome to the Second American Revolution!

[Fritz]

I think you overlook the Civil Rights movement, Sam. It was not very bloody
and fairly predictable. I recently heard a speaker provide guidance to the
Tea party movement in two words, 'Rosa Parks.'

[Sam Mela]

It was bloody for some people, but as Martin Luther King said to the
nation on August 28, 1963 re the Emancipation Proclamation -- "100
years later we must face the tragic fact that the Negro still is not
free".. 100 years of that. Imagine.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Brian Bertha]

Point: So you piss off some people so what? Thats called free speech it was a "dont worry about it" comment

[Brian Bertha]

Sam I think today we are ALL negro's

[John Jr Dummett]

> I want to say that those elected in 2010 as a response to kick out
incumbents should be willing to sign a contract. If they fail to
introduce legislation and vote for term limits then they automatically
should be forced to step down. You are absolutely right. Politicians
are just that. Another word for politician is liar. This is why it is
imperative that we rid this nation of all incumbents one at a time
until they are all gone and all that is left are true representatives
of the people. The biggest problem isn’t finding those willing to serve
under those conditions. The problem is getting the support from those
who talk the talk but can’t walk the walk. Common people like myself
has stood up and raised our hand and said “ I will take on this burden”
but then not a single word of support comes from the people who gripe.
Vote me in and see what you get. You will get true representation,
that’s what you will get. Carry on with what you are dong now will just
get you more of the same.

[sheri1449]

If we decide to go forward with this, this is the "game plan" I have
come up: You may have better ideas.

Before we do anything, it may be a good idea to contact a
Constitutional Lawyer to get feedback & hopefully, offset any future
problems.

1) We need to decide on the wording of the Amendment. Do we use the
one DeMint has already made up, use one of the ones that has shown up
on the internet, or possibly look at "what is out there" & make up our
own?

2) A form letter should be made up to go to each State's Division of
Elections. This would explain what we are doing & the need for us to
link to them. It probably should be sent regular mail, hard copy,
rather than email - for legal purposes. Possilby, a pdf copy of the
form letter can be emailed to someone in each State who can enter
specific information & mail it out. It should be sent out even if we
haven't set a Date for the Vote - as they may need time to get this
arranged. Because there is a need to link to each State, people will
only be able to vote during the time their State office is open.

3) We need to find someone who can put together the website & get a
server - hopefully at no charge.

a) The website will initially need a form for the voter to put in his
Name, Address, City, State & Voter Registration # - which will link to
the Voters Registration Office in that State (ony one link to the
State Office should be required - links to specific offices, if
necessary, can be done by the State).
b) After the State sends confirmation that the voter is "legit",
another page with the actual Amendment would come up - & voters would
choose either Yes or No to approve the Amendment.
c) The vote would go into our database for a tally & also would be
sent to the State so they can confirm our totals.

4) Once a Date is determined, notices would have to go out - through
as many different avenues as possible - announcing the vote. Besides
anouncements on the internet, we would need to find people in each of
the 50 States + District of Columbia to do this.

5) Once the votes are tallied, we will have to announce the results -
again through as many avenues as possible. We also need to find out
who we send these results to.

[Brian Bertha]

Please start with this contract see attached

[Brian Bertha]

I would support Jim DeMints amendment

[sheri1449]

Here is the link to the Amendment:

http://demint.senate.gov/public/_files/TermLimitsForAll.pdf

Scroll down to the very bottom - Section 3 - which I believe was put
in so that there is a better chance to get the Amendment passed.

It states that the terms will start when the Amendment is ratified.
No prior terms will be counted. So, a Senator who has been re-elected
- let's say 4 times & has served 24 years - will be able to serve
another 2 terms - or 12 years.

I'm not happy with that section. I would rather that it states that
prior terms will be counted - or as a compromise - that if they have
served the allotted terms, they will only be allowed to serve for one
more term.

[Fritz]

The best is the enemy of the good.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
This group is created for discussing national issues to stop the current
administration from transforming this country into something not intended by
the founders. Any discussions that are not relevant to that topic will be
deleted.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Tea Party Patriots" group.
To post to this group, send email to tea-party...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tea-party-patri...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tea-party-patriots?hl=en?hl=en

For more information on Tea Party Patriots, please visit
http://www.teapartypatriots.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

[sheri1449]

If I am interpreting that statement correctly - I found it a little
confusing - you are stating that even though at first, DeMint's
Amendment appeared to be the best option - it is in fact, quite the
opposite.

If I have misinterpreted it, please clarify.

[Fritz]

Sorry for the rather glib response. I should have been clearer. DeMint's
amendment is sound, and on the table. It s a good proposal. Efforts to
revise it (make it better) only confuse and delay. Or to put it another ay,
we need to rally behind a good amendment without trying to make it perfect.
Fritz

--

[sheri1449]

DeMints amendment will stay the way it is when voted on - unless the
Congress chooses to change it through whatever procedure they have.
"We the People" can't change an Amendment that is submitted to & voted
on in the Congress - only elected representatives can do so.

But, the Amendment that we place on the website to be voted on BY THE
PEOPLE can be adjusted to fit what we want. We can use the complete
Amendment that he submitted but change Section 3.

Any Amendment that we present to the people through the website is
"our" Amendment. We are not obligated to use DeMint's - although it
is easiest to use his - as it is already written. But, we can "amend"
it any way we want. We can also "steal" statements that we like from
other proposed amendments that we may find & add it on to DeMint's
original Amendment.

In other words, the Amendment that we present to the people to vote on
can cover more items than is on DeMint's amendment. We might actually
be able to make the Amendment more "encompassing".

We DO NOT have to officially get the Amendment approved by the
Congress - should we decide to offer a revised version to vote on
through the website. A Popular Amendment is completely independent of
the Congress. It is a "We the People" document.

[Jonathon Hill]

There is a third option: threatening a Constitutional Convention could
get us some (but probably not all) the amendments we want. For details
on how this strategy could work, see http://tinyurl.com/czwdc4 and
http://federalismamendment.com

~ Jonathon Hill
Anderson, SC Tea Party

http://nonstandardpolitics.com

On Nov 17, 9:51 am, sheri1449 <sheri1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think they are "getting it right".  But, just signing the petition
> will not get the amendment ratified.  We still have to get it done
> legally & as you know, there are only a few options for this.
>
> There is one option that has never been tried - basically because no
> knew how to do it.  It is called the Popular Amendment.  Here is a

> section in this link -http://www.usconstitution.net/constam.html -

[sheri1449]

I doubt that "threatening" a Constitutional Convention would have that
much effect on our Congress - only because they know how difficult it
is to put together such a Convention. I don't know the exact
procedure - but I do know that each State must approve this - through
their legislature. Anything that involves depending on legislatures,
guarantees a time-consuming event.

I watched the video & I like the idea of the 10 amendments all being
considered at the same time at such a Convention. It would be
phenomenal if we could put this together. But, I don't think it is
very feasible. Although nothing is impossible.

What I like about the Popular Amendment - which has never been done
before - is that it is totally a "people" action - avoiding the need
for approval by any Congress - both Federal & State. The people of
the US directly vote for the Amendment - & if the requirements are met
(3/4 of voters in each state must approve the amendment & 3/4 of all
states) - the amendment is ratified.

Where before this was virtually impossible to put together - with the
advent of the internet, a vote can now be taken online. It is a
relatively simple process - although there is some programming
required for the website. In terms of time, the vote could be
accomplished in a matter of months - not years.

If this "works" & the Term Limit Amendment passes, we would have a
means to easily get other Amendments passed. We are focusing on
limiting the power of our government. Relying on our representatives,
who enjoy this power, to pass such Amendments, is probably an
unrealistic approach.

We could, of course, remove all our incumbents & elect representatives
who agree with us - but we are still talking about a long process to
get an amendment passed - following the traditional procedures that
have always been used.

My concern is that we can't let what is going on - keep going on for
much longer. With each horrific bill that is passed, we get closer to
losing our Republic completely. Conventional approaches are very time-
consuming. By the time we accomplish getting these amendments
ratified, so much damage may be done that it is virtually
irreversible.

There is a time element involved, & unfortunately, we are running out
of time. I, personally, feel a strong sense of urgency.

On Nov 17, 11:10 pm, Jonathon Hill <jhill9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is a third option: threatening a Constitutional Convention could
> get us some (but probably not all) the amendments we want. For details

> on how this strategy could work, seehttp://tinyurl.com/czwdc4andhttp://federalismamendment.com
>
> ~ Jonathon Hill
> Anderson, SC Tea Partyhttp://nonstandardpolitics.com

[LauraBoatright]

OK, food for thought.

1) Real life scenario: congress is considering Unconstitutional
legislation. The power we have against such an act is to threaten to
vote them out of office. Without that, lame duck legislators will do
what they want with us.

This is happening before our eyes, RIGHT NOW. *IF* the Dems didn't
have super-majorities (because of the GOP abject FAILURE to stand for
anything when they had the majority) our objections would carry much
more weight.

With term limits we would have no strength whatsoever.

The problem lies with the electorate...term limits will result in
what? The same kind of people being elected, in the same districts
they always are...why? THE ELECTORATE.

We want to tackle the problem head-on? SCHOOLS. A better educated
electorate will produce a better govt. (Outlaw anti-American
indoctrination. Bust the Unions.)

2) Con-con is a hideous idea. It is NOT limited to "this", "that", and
"the other". Hello! We had a Constitution BEFORE the present one,
called the Articles of Confederation....the very first Con-con tossed
ALL OF IT, and produced our current Constitution.

Same thing goes for any Con-con. In addition, the Majority STILL
controls the process.

Read this: http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/dec08/08-12-19.html

[Incumbents Be Gone]

There is a state-wide Tea Party scheduled for March 6th, 2010, here in
South Carolina. It's going to be held at our state Capitol of
"Columbia". This may be a good time to have something set up to
distribute, or better yet; Contact the person organizing the event.
We are organizing a CARAVAN to the event from our local area of:
Hilton-Head, Sun City, Bluffton, and surrounding areas. More info. on
the event www.teapartypatriots.org. Click on Events, then South
Carolina.

[Incumbents Be Gone]

I live in South Carolina, and after reading your post I made the phone
call to Demints office, and left a message for Wesley Denton; who is
the contact name on the release. This is an area of interest to me.

On Nov 16, 1:40 am, sheri1449 <sheri1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I just found out that I will not be able to do the Ballot Initiative
> in my State of Florida to Limit Terms of our US Congresspeople &
> Senators.  It appears that State Sovereignty is not enough.  This was
> tried before in the State of Arkansas & the Supreme Court stated this
> was unconstitutional:
>
> http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1456.ZO.html
>
> I have consolidated some of the information that has been presented so
> far:
>
> We now know that the only way to Limit Terms is through a US
> Constitutional Amendment - which Senator DeMint has already
> submitted.  If you didn't see it:
>
> http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.De...
>
> Someone will need to contact DeMint to get suggestions on how to best
> pursue this.  It would probably be better if someone from his home
> state of South Carolina make this contact.
>
> This is a much more difficult enterprise than a State Ballot
> Initiative.  In order to ratify a US Constitutional Amendment:
>
> First, 2/3 of both Congresses (or a National Convention) must pass
> this Amendment.
>
> Then, 3/4 of each State Legislature (or State Convention) must pass
> it.
>
> 3/4 of all the States must pass it.
>

[sheri1449]

Our power lies in our ability to vote incumbents out of office. This
is how it has always been & will always be.

Unfortunately, the longer a person is in office, the more he becomes a
POLITICIAN. They become embroiled in the system & lose touch with
their constituents.

We definitely need to work to educate the people & our children. As a
former teacher, I am well aware of this.

I am a pollworker & am appalled at what I have observed. People come
in to vote with no idea of who is running or where the candidates
stand on issues. Often they ask me about the candidates, which, of
course, I can not comment on.

No matter how altruistic a person is when he initiially runs for
office, he runs the risk of being influenced by the power that comes
with being in office. Limiting the terms of office is a means to keep
this from happening - or at least, will remove those who have
"forgotten" why they were initially elected.

Always, the political party that has a majority will have the power in
the Congress. This is a fact of life. But, by working to remove
those who do not serve us - either through voting them out or removing
them through Term Limits - there is a greater chance that legislation
that goes against what we want is not passed.

[LauraBoatright]

I know that's is a popular view.

I just don't happen to agree with it, for the reasons I stated, with
real-life example of what's happening now, not just hypothesis.

Let's just say that 1/3 were terming out...what leverage would *we*
have AT ALL? I really don't see how tying our hands is empowering us.

There is also a difference between a simple majority and a super
(filibuster-proof) majority. As we have seen, they are able to
"protect" the ones who are coming up for re-election by "sacrificing"
those votes that weren't needed to gain passage.

In 2006 and 2008 we did exactly what we should have done, voted people
out of office for breaking their word (Republicans)...problem was, we
didn't replace them with BETTER.

This is an important issue and deserves to be given a lot of thought.

[Correa, Richard A Sr SGT RET]

It is a conundrum, isn't it.

The lame duck argument is the main reason I do not support term limits.

It is a difficult problem to resolve. But the problem exists because we (myself included) were to busy making a living and did not watch the clowns in Washington to ensure they behaved. Now we are in quite a pickle.

The first, and most important step to resolve this problem is to accept our own responsibility in this and to resolve to never cease to be vigilant and to teach our children and grandchildren about our mistake and to impress upon them the importance of keeping the clowns from running the circus.

The second step is to make sure, as far as humanly possible, that the people we vote for are people of good character. We should no longer consider party etc. but instead consider the character of the individual and where that person stands on keeping the government in check and behaving itself.

Next, and to continue beating my 'dead horse', we need to amend the constitution to:

1) Limit the members of the house and senate to only be paid when congress is in session and/or they are performing a legitimate congressional investigation (and not gambling in Monte Carlo).

2) Limit an annual session of congress to 3 - 4 months duration except in time of war or national emergency (thought I'd add this to stress the only get paid when congress is in session).

I hope it is obvious that members of congress will then have to earn a living the same way we do when congress is not in session. This forces them to not be in DC most of the time and to actually feel the impact of the laws they pass.

3) No retirement. Not for a member of congress, not for the president, not for a member of the supreme court, not for a governor etc.

4) Repeal the law that gives them automatic pay raises and restrict their pay increases to the rate of inflation.

5) Make sure their pay is limited so they don't get a six figure salary for 3 - 4 months work. I guess the place to start here is to tek their current salary, divide by 52 weeks and set that as the starting weekly salary.

6) Just thought of this one, they do not get to keep any money raised for their campaign for office.

Now, would any of you want to keep a job with these restrictions for twenty or thirty years? Even if you were a power hungry, money grubbing leach I think you would look for other career opportunities. Add to this:

7) No bill may be longer than 100 pages including amendments.

8) No bill may pertain to more than one topic/subject. This will get rid of those omnibus budget bills and force them to pass each departments budget individually and expose what we're really paying for.

9) All amendments to a bill must pertain to that subject or topic.

10) No bill can give money to any non government business, bank, association or interest group that is not actually contracted to perform work for the federal government. No bill can give money to any non US Government entity such as a foreign government or the UN other than paying our UN dues (as much as I would love to dissolve that organization I think we need to stay on the security council in order to keep those idiots in check).

I can keep going here but I think this is enough for now. I think if we put these restrictions on the clowns they'll voluntarily leave the circus. It also makes it possible to keep people that do an exceptional job in performing their duties for as long as they are willing to operate under these restrictions.

> On Nov 18, 7:26 am, LauraBoatright < wrote:
> > OK, food for thought.
> >
> > 1) Real life scenario: congress is considering Unconstitutional
> > legislation. The power we have against such an act is to threaten to
> > vote them out of office. Without that, lame duck legislators will do
> > what they want with us.
> >
> > This is happening before our eyes, RIGHT NOW. *IF* the Dems didn't
> > have super-majorities (because of the GOP abject FAILURE to stand for
> > anything when they had the majority) our objections would carry much
> > more weight.
> >
> > With term limits we would have no strength whatsoever.
> >
> > The problem lies with the electorate...term limits will result in
> > what? The same kind of people being elected, in the same districts
> > they always are...why? THE ELECTORATE.
> >
> > We want to tackle the problem head-on? SCHOOLS. A better educated
> > electorate will produce a better govt. (Outlaw anti-American
> > indoctrination. Bust the Unions.)
> >
> > 2) Con-con is a hideous idea. It is NOT limited to "this", "that", and
> > "the other". Hello! We had a Constitution BEFORE the present one,
> > called the Articles of Confederation....the very first Con-con tossed
> > ALL OF IT, and produced our current Constitution.
> >
> > Same thing goes for any Con-con. In addition, the Majority STILL
> > controls the process.
> >
> > Read this:http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/dec08/08-12-19.html
>

[sheri1449]

I'm a little confused by your comments & will have to think about it.
A representative who has served the maximum number of terms, will be
replaced with someone else. If he has done a phenomenal job & has not
been influenced by the power associated with the office - the voters
will know this & will probably stick with the political party that he
is associated with. If they vote for a person of a different
political party, then they are making a "statement" as to what they
want.

It appears that your comment is made out of fear that there is a
possibility that someone who is not "desirable" will get elected.
That is always a risk. "The Devil we know is better than one we don't
know". It is an attitude that many people have - which is why
incumbents continually get re-elected.

True, we don't know what a person will do once he gets into office.
But, the Congress is not & should not be a "stagnant" enterprise.
Change is good - as new people bring in new ideas & attitudes.

If there is a new "name" on the ballot, voters have to think a little
more about who they are voting for. They may actually "investigate"
the stands each candidate is making.

[sheri1449]

I totally agree with you on your supposed "dead horse". These are all
things that we need to address - the "perks" that go along with being
in office, the procedures they have that stall getting legislation
through, etc. Everything you have listed needs to be changed. It's a
long list - which will require many different amendments to take care
of.

Voting the "best" person into office is a priority & I agree, should
not be associated with a particular political party. Personally, I
would love to see people from many different political parties in our
Congress. It definitely would "shake things up" & make for
interesting debates.

Our forefathers were not happy with the concept of political parties -
although they recognized that this would probably occur. It would be
wonderful for a person to run just as a "regular person" - but
unfortunately, there is a thing called "finances" which needs to be
considered.

I still believe in Term Limits - because I believe in change (not the
"change" that Obama talked about to get elected!). Our nation is
continually evolving & our representatives need to grow along with
it. Those who remain in office tend to become "fixed" in their
attitudes - unopen to new ideas.

We need to adhere to the original concepts of our forefathers. But,
they were wise enough to speak in more general terms - to assure that
our government adjusted to changing conditions. Our Constitution is a
phenomenal document that has stood the test of time. Major emphasis
is on limiting the power of the federal government - which means that
we have to assure that no one can dictate to us through antiquated
ideas that no longer "fit".

On Nov 18, 12:52 pm, "Correa, Richard A Sr SGT RET"

> > For more information on Tea Party Patriots, please visithttp://www.teapartypatriots.org- Hide quoted text -

[Correa, Richard A Sr SGT RET]

Change is inevitable. The question is 'is it the right kind of change'. I hate the professional politician class and all they stand for. Removing them from office is my top priority.

We seem to disagree on term limits. For us that is a small area of disagreement and so we go forward to restore our nation to the correct course.

----- Original Message -----
From: sheri1449 <sher...@yahoo.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:25
Subject: Re: {Tea Party Patriots Disclaimer upd} Re: Term Limits - US Constitutional Amendment
To: Tea Party Patriots <tea-party...@googlegroups.com>

> > > Our power lies in our ability to vote incumbents out of office.  This
> > > is how it has always been & will always be.
> >
> > > Unfortunately, the longer a person is in office, the more he
> > > becomes a
> > > POLITICIAN.  They become embroiled in the system & lose touch with
> > > their constituents.
> >
> > > We definitely need to work to educate the people & our children.  
> > > As a
> > > former teacher, I am well aware of this.
> >
> > > I am a pollworker & am appalled at what I have observed.  People come
> > > in to vote with no idea of who is running or where the candidates
> > > stand on issues.  Often they ask me about the candidates, which, of
> > > course, I can not comment on.
> >
> > > No matter how altruistic a person is when he initiially runs for
> > > office, he runs the risk of being influenced by the power that comes
> > > with being in office.  Limiting the terms of office is a means to keep
> > > this from happening - or at least, will remove those who have
> > > "forgotten" why they were initially elected.
> >
> > > Always, the political party that has a majority will have the power in
> > > the Congress.  This is a fact of life.  But, by working to remove
> > > those who do not serve us - either through voting them out or removing
> > > them through Term Limits - there is a greater chance that legislation
> > > that goes against what we want is not passed.
> >

> > > On Nov 18, 7:26 am, LauraBoatright <> > > OK, food for thought.

[sheri1449]

It appears that people are split on Term Limits - although I believe
that more people are for it than against. That is why it would be
good to vote on it - where the people can voice their opinion about
the issue.

If the vote shows that the majority do not want Term Limits then "We
the People" have spoken. No matter how much I may want this Amendment
to pass, I believe in our system & that we have to respect the wishes
of the majority. That is how our system works & I'm definitely not
the one to change it.

I still like the idea of going with a Popular Amendment - only because
it avoids having to go through the Congress - & can be executed
quickly. All the suggestions that you made for other amendments can
go through this process. It would be a matter of getting them written
up - & I wager to guess that a number of your suggested amendments can
be consolidated into one.

Possibly, instead of focusing on term limits right now - as the
amendment has already been submitted to the Congress - we can always
do it later on - we should come up with an Amendment that has not been
submitted - using some of your suggestions.

On Nov 18, 1:31 pm, "Correa, Richard A Sr SGT RET"

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Fritz]

My mother used to have a post in her kitchen that said, "One person with
courage is a majority." Go for it!

Fritz


-----Original Message-----
From: sheri1449 [mailto:sher...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:26 AM
To: Tea Party Patriots

[Fritz]

We have term limits in our state legislature here in CA. Only in effect for
a few years, it is difficult to ascertain the long term impact. But I can
report that term limits have shaken up the establishment in Sacramento by
requiring politicians to move on. My own assemblyman is term limited out of
his job and, there being no State senate seat available to him, will run for
the US Senate in 2010. If he fails, he'll be forced to find a real job.

We've also seen a 'move up' model in which a popular official, such as my
congressman, goes from state assembly to state senate to US Congress. That
seems to work well for qualified people the voters support.

I think the point is that term limits provide the voters with frequent
chances to express their desires and offer the opportunity for new people to
run for office, giving the voters more choices. Such limits also reduce the
power of [a]incumbency, [b] seniority and [c] special interest money and
influence. Good legislators rise to the top: less desirable ones fall out.
I maintain that the shakeup is a healthy part of the democratic system.

Fritz




-----Original Message-----
From: sheri1449 [mailto:sher...@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 10:05 AM
To: Tea Party Patriots
Subject: Re: {Tea Party Patriots Disclaimer upd} Re: Term Limits - US
Constitutional Amendment

[Fritz]

Rick: Can you point to instances where lame duck officials (those voted out
of office) do dastardly things during the last months of their term? There
may be some- but insufficient to prove the case you make. It seems to me
the mischief you foresee is miniscule compared to the harm done by overly
powerful people, beholden to special interest lobbyists, in high office
doing their own business rather than the nation's.
Fritz

[sheri1449]

Except for a lame duck President who is not going to pursue another
political office, Representatives have many orther positions that they
can run for. There is no reason why a House Representative can not
run for a Senate position or go back to his State & run for an
executive position such as Governor or Lieutenant Governor. There are
many different options. He can always run for President!

I doubt that a Representative leaving office would deliberately do
something harmful at the end of his term - especially with the fact
that he will probably want to run for another office & his record is
available for all to see.

They will be upset that they no longer can hold this office, but
politicians are "survivors," who will be projecting forward into the
future - analyzing the best actions so that he can pursue his next
objective.

> > For more information on Tea Party Patriots, please visithttp://www.teapartypatriots.org

>
> --
> This group is created for discussing national issues to stop the current
> administration from transforming this country into something not intended by
> the founders. Any discussions that are not relevant to that topic will be
> deleted.
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Tea Party Patriots" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tea-party...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tea-party-patri...@googlegroups.com

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/tea-party-patriots?hl=en?hl=en
>
> For more information on Tea Party Patriots, please visithttp://www.teapartypatriots.org- Hide quoted text -

[sheri1449]

Although I definitely would like to "go for" a Popular Amendment, I
can't do it alone.

First, we need to decide which Amendment to pursue. If we choose to
go for Term Limits, then it would be best to use DeMint's Amendment
with Section 3 revised. I came up with one possible revision:


"Upon the date of ratification of this Amendment, all Representatives
who are serving their third term in office and all Senators who are
serving their second term in office, may serve one more term. All
Representatives & Senators who have served more than the maximum
number of terms, at the end of this term, may not serve any more in
that capacity."


Someone may come up with something better. I am "allowing" one more
term only to be fair - to 'balance", to a certain extent, the number
of terms served - with those who have served more terms. But, we
could make the revision more "severe" by not allowing any additional
terms for anyone who has served the maximum. The main thing is that
whatever revision is made, it must be "tight" - where it is clear &
can not be misinterpreted.

OR, we can focus on a totally different Amendment. This is more
difficult as we will have to write it up ourselves. But, all legal
documents are written by looking at those that "came before". No
lawyer "starts from scratch".

After making the decision concerning which Amendment to pursue, we
would then need to find someone who can put the website together.
This is something that I have no ability to do. Someone would have to
"come forward" to do this.

I can make up a form letter to be sent out to each State Division of
Elections. That is relatively easy. As the Tea Party Patriots are in
every State, there should be no problem finding someone in each State
to communicate with their State's office. Any problem with linking
the website to a State Office would have to be rectified.

The above are the major steps needed. What would remain would be
determining the Date for the Vote & "getting the word out".

[Fritz]

Sheril: The change you propose seems logical and well written. Why not
send it to DeMint's office and see what kind of response you get. Then, I
suggest you go with DeMint's version- he's probably found language
acceptable in Washington (assuming one agrees with the idea in the first
place).

[sheri1449]

I just took a closer look at the Inspire & Ignite Amendment. I just
emailed them pointing out what I consider to be "loopholes":



Maybe you deliberately wrote Section 1 with these loopholes, but I am
not thrilled with them.

"No person shall be elected to the House Of Representatives (FROM THE
SAME CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT) for more than 3 (CONSECUTIVE) full
terms."

The way this is written, a person can move to another congressional
district & serve again for 3 terms.

Also, the way it is written, a person can serve 2 consecutive terms -
take a break for one term & then go back for another 2 terms.

I think you should remove the statements I placed in parentheses. It
should read:

No person shall be elected to the House of Representatives for more
than three full terms.

PERIOD!

On Nov 17, 8:42 am, Jonathon Hill <jhill9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> There is an initiative starting up to do just that. Check outhttp://inspireandignite.com.
>
> ~ Jonathon Hill
> Anderson, SC Tea Party
>
> On Nov 16, 2:39 pm, sheri1449 <sheri1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I definitely agree.  Of course, Term Limits have been an issue for
> > years. It has been avoided - only because of the difficulty in getting
> > it passed.  Getting the "right" people in Congress is definitely a
> > priority if we want to "make this happen".  I think that although past
> > attempts have failed, we are in a different situation now.  People are
> > starting to "wake up" & are starting to see what has been occurring in
> > our so-called "Representative" Congresses.
>
> > On Nov 16, 10:30 am, "Fritz" <fjm...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> > > Sheril:  Good try.  Lacking other venues, shouldn't this issue
> > > (Congressional term limits) be included in the Contract From America?  That
> > > is, we require that a candidate agree to promote and support legislation to
> > > limit the terms of current and future members of Congress.  That would at
> > > least highlight the importance of the issue.
> > > Fritz
>
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: tea-party...@googlegroups.com
>
> > > [mailto:tea-party...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of sheri1449

> > > Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 10:51 PM
> > > To: Tea Party Patriots
> > > Subject: {Tea Party Patriots Disclaimer upd} Re: Term Limits - US
> > > Constitutional Amendment
>

> > > I just found this - which gives an explanation of how a convention is
> > > set up in a few different states.  Each state has it's own procedure:
>
> > >http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_acon.html
>

> > > > this in every State.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[sheri1449]

Someone from South Carolina has already stated that they have
contacted DeMint's office about this - although it was before I wrote
the revision. I think it can be written a little better. I'm not a
lawyer & don't know "legalese". But, I would be more comfortable if
someone from South Carolina contacted him about this.

My instincts are that this section was deliberately written this way
to get senators/representatives to vote for it. Writing it with the
restriction of no more terms for those who have served more than the
maximum would probably defeat the amendment (as there are so many
career politicians in both houses).

If I, who am neither a lawyer or politician, saw the implications of
Section 3 - it would be obvious to them & would probably assure many
more years for them in Congress.

[sheri1449]

I just got a reply about my comment about the "loopholes" in the
Amendment that "Inspire & Ignite" wrote:


"I understand your position and it is not without merit.

The "loopholes" you have identified are intentional. It is my
intention that is, all representation should ultimately be
democratic. If a Congressman could step aside for a term and then
defeat the incumbent 2 years later, the voters will have had their
way. And, if the Congressman changes districts in order to remain in
DC, he/she will have the convince a whole new set of voters to elect
him/her.

In both cases, the power of incumbancy to automatically guarantee
reelection has been removed.

Thanks for your input...let's make a difference!
Jim"


The points he made are valid as there is no guarantee that the person
will be re-elected - either after he has been gone for a term - or he
has moved into a new district.

In my area, Broward County, Florida - because we are heavily
populated, we have 5 Congressional Districts. They basically "merge
together" in a relatively small area. Although we can only vote for
the representative who is in our district, most voters are familiar
with the names of the representatives in the other districts. For
weeks before an election, you can drive around & see signs with the
names of people running for office - many not in your district.

To move from one district to another, is relatively simple - often
involving a move of no more than 5-10 miles. We can ask: How many
people will make a move to run for office? With enough money, a
person who wants to run for office in another district can buy another
home to establish residency. And most politicians have money. One of
our Representatives actually lived in another state but established
residency in our county.

Other areas in the US are different. Some states are not that heavily
populated & only have a few Congressional Districts. Each District
covers a large area which probably makes moving to a different
district more difficult. But, because there are a small number of
districts, there is more of a chance that voters throughout the state
are familiar with their names. Name recognition is all important to
get elected.

I have mixed feeling about this & am going to "cogitate" this for a
while. My main concern has always been representatives staying in
office too long & getting too much power. But, in this case, they
will have to "prove themselves" again - either by leaving for a term -
where he is not as "visible" - or having to get re-elected in a
district that has new demographics.

I am going to reserve judgment for a while.

[Jonathon Hill]

You're overlooking the fact that anything that comes out of a
constitutional convention is totally non-binding until it is ratified
by three-fourths of the states, and I believe that if the product of
the convention is terrible that it would not be ratified.

~ Jonathon Hill
Anderson Tea Party

[Jonathon Hill]

I did not write the draft amendment but I am a believer in consecutive
term limits because 1) it does not limit the freedom of the people to
choose who they want and 2) a mandatory break is a good thing. We
don't send our troops to the battlefield indefinitely; they take
breaks. This would shake up congress which we badly need. We have a
situation where our ability to _vote them out_ is being rendered
theoretical through the amassing of power, political clout, and money
via their elected position.

~ Jonathon Hill
Anderson Tea Party

[sheri1449]

For the most part, I dislike the idea of a Constitutional Convention.
What would it accomplish? A bunch of people complaining that our
Constitution is not being followed? We know that. We don't want to
change it in any major way - it is well written & is a wonderful
document.

Amendments to limit the power of the Federal government would be
useful. But, as Jonathon states, any Amendment must be voted on -
usually through the Congresses but also, as I have been promoting -
through a Popular Amendment.

A Convention, for all practical purposes, is probably a waste of
time. What may come out of it, though, are a few well-written
Amendments that can be voted on. We'll have to wait & see how
productive they are.

If they want to totally rewrite our Constitution or make some major
alterations, I will fight it with every ounce of breath I have!

> > Read this:http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/dec08/08-12-19.html- Hide quoted text -

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

The term "Pandora's Box" comes to mind.

--
This group is created for discussing national issues to stop the current administration from transforming this country into something not intended by the founders. Any discussions that are not relevant to that topic will be deleted.

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Tea Party Patriots" group.
To post to this group, send email to tea-party...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
tea-party-patri...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/tea-party-patriots?hl=en?hl=en

For more information on Tea Party Patriots, please visit http://www.teapartypatriots.org

--
United Eagle & Lagwolf merchandise
http://god.spreadshirt.com/us/US/Shop/Index/index/page/1
www.andrewiandodge.com
www.martydodge.com
http://www.amazon.com/Gathering-Dark-other-tales-Collection/dp/0595495478/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206710312&sr=1-3
(Gathering Dark & other Tales)
Twitter: @lagwolf

[John Jr Dummett]

>


We must notnot forget.... The people chise Barrack Obama.

[Correa, Richard A Sr SGT RET]

I definitely agree, a Con-Con is a very dangerous event.

----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Ian Dodge <lag...@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 21:52
Subject: Re: {Tea Party Patriots Disclaimer upd} Re: Term Limits - US Constitutional Amendment
To: tea-party...@googlegroups.com


> The term "Pandora's Box" comes to mind.
>

> > > > Read this:http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2008/dec08/08-12-19.html-Hide quoted text -

[Brian Bertha]

Amendment to limit the power of the government ALREADY EXIST IN THE CONSTITUTION
but they are IGNORED!!!!!!!!!!

[Correa, Richard A Sr SGT RET]

If this is the route we choose to go I absolutely agree. As you all know I am not a supporter of term limits but if in the end that is the direction we go Sherri is right on the money.

----- Original Message -----
From: sheri1449 <sher...@yahoo.com>
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 17:20
Subject: Re: {Tea Party Patriots Disclaimer upd} Re: Term Limits - US Constitutional Amendment
To: Tea Party Patriots <tea-party...@googlegroups.com>

> I just took a closer look at the Inspire & Ignite Amendment. I just
> emailed them pointing out what I consider to be "loopholes":
>
>
>
> Maybe you deliberately wrote Section 1 with these loopholes, but I am
> not thrilled with them.
>
> "No person shall be elected to the House Of Representatives (FROM THE
> SAME CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT) for more than 3 (CONSECUTIVE) full
> terms."
>
> The way this is written, a person can move to another congressional
> district & serve again for 3 terms.
>
> Also, the way it is written, a person can serve 2 consecutive terms
> -
> take a break for one term & then go back for another 2 terms.
>
> I think you should remove the statements I placed in parentheses. It
> should read:
>
> No person shall be elected to the House of Representatives for more
> than three full terms.
>
> PERIOD!
>

[Fritz]

Closing the loopholes may not be best in the long run. We need help from
DeMint's staff to find out what language is most likely to pass muster- both
legislative and legal. If the bill is too tight, it may not go anywhere-
that's just one of the facts of political life.

Suppose, as a worst case, that we had to grandfather all currently sitting
Congressmen. That would delay the effect of the amendment, but it would
accomplish the objective in the long run. Depersonalizing the amendment in
this way might just help it get through.

Fritz

[sheri1449]

Now that I have had a little time to "cogitate" this, I also am
leaning more in the direction of allowing these "loopholes". The main
thing is to get the Amendment passed. These "loopholes" will give
Representatives a chance to get back in office, through the election
process.

If we are too severe, we could lose completely.

I going to tell all of you a little "story" about myself, if you don't
mind:

My father was a very intelligent man, who loved a debate. When I was
growing up, he would initiate a debate with me. If I said "white" ,
he would say "black" just to get an argument going. He expected me to
defend my point of view through logical assertions. Just when I
thought I was "winning", he would say something that would destroy all
my wonderful arguments, & I would have to start over again!

I am phenomenally grateful to my father as he taught me how to think.
He showed me that everything can be looked at through many different
perspectives. Although there are usually obvious "Black & White"
points of view, there are many different shades of grey.

I have learned to "look" for alternatives, to be open to other ideas,
& be willing to change my opinion if a "shade of grey" appears.
Although I have strong beliefs, I will always listen to other opinions
& will revise my opinions if necessary.

> > For more information on Tea Party Patriots, please visithttp://www.teapartypatriots.org

>
> --
> This group is created for discussing national issues to stop the current
> administration from transforming this country into something not intended by
> the founders. Any discussions that are not relevant to that topic will be
> deleted.
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Tea Party Patriots" group.
> To post to this group, send email to tea-party...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> tea-party-patri...@googlegroups.com

> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/tea-party-patriots?hl=en?hl=en

>
> For more information on Tea Party Patriots, please visithttp://www.teapartypatriots.org
>

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -