Michigan Votes Forum

 What a great idea!  Then we could get all the members of the brain trust known as the Michigan House and Senate for life!  Sorry but the argument that term limits are bad because our legislators never get to know the job well enough to "do any good" just does not wash.  Look at the damage the "experienced" members of the US congress do.

 Yes, repeal the term limits. We sometimes lose good congressmen with this law.

Do you know about elections? That's where you get rid of the poor performers. The trouble is people don't really look at voting records they just vote for a remembered name. 

Repeal Term Limits?  I don't think so.  Isn't strange how when they run for office they tell you how capable, experienced, learned and knowledgeable they all are.   B ut -- once they take their seat after taking their oath of office they say that they need more terms and time in office, because they aren't knowledgeable enough?  But, wait a minute -- that isn't what they said they ran for office.  They told us that they were more than capable of doing the job on our dime.  I would suggest that if they aren't up to the job that they please step down.

Make them part-time too!  Cut out the perks and benefits once they are out of office.  Cut the salaries for their part-time position, and force them to wind up living under all the convoluted legislation they have passed.  How many of them take the time to look up the their state and federal constitutions when they are putting forth legislation to make sure it falls within the confines of those documents?  What a novel idea!

Term Limits serve a purpose (look at our U.S. Senator Carl Levin who stays in office not because of his service to Michigan, but rather, because of a well organized political machine).   At the same time, good people are put out of office because of term limits. Rather than repealing them, it would be better to adjust them to allow for longer terms of service - but still with a limit (Just in case we were so unfortunent as to get someone like Carl Levin in our State Government). 

This is a good proposal that is right to the point and doesn’t get fancy with half steps and bringing in other issues.  It simply says to eliminate legislative term limitrs.

I agree fully with those who say the ballot is the right tool to use in replacing legislators with whom we are disenchanted.

Term limits in the Michigan legislature only have strengthened the hands of lobbyists and legislative staff members and political party operatives while weakening the hands of our own representatives and the voters at large.  They have not improved a thing in the way our legislature functions and, in fact, are believed by many to have made the situation worse than ever.

I support HJR L passage in the legislature and look forward to seeing it on an election ballot allowing me to vote “yes” on this badly needed state constitution correction.

 You want term limits ????

Its called an ELECTION !

Term limits usurp democracy and should be banned. They are UN-constitutional on thier face.

It is a surprise that we even speak of this in a supposed democracy.

 so why is  there a term limit in the constitution if it is unconstitutional?

haven't you challenged that in court?

oh.. i forgot... you dumbocrats write new laws to settle disputes. constitutionality be damned.

as long as the money rolls in and the social programs continue to buy votes, you're for it.

 all you gotta do is repeal the 22nd amendment to the united states constitution.

or doesn't that WILL OF THE PEOPLE thing mean anything to you?

obviously not.

pffft...

you're dismissed.

crazycajun:

 so why is  there a term limit in the constitution if it is unconstitutional?

Amendment XXII (ratified in 1951) does not legitimize term limits in general.  It speaks very specifically and exclusively to the office of President of the United States.  

 it speaks very specifically about term limits. it shows that if term limits are constitutional for the president, they are constitutional for every elected office, from president to council rep.

the constitution cannot prohibit what it expressly allows.

or haven't you learned that yet? obviously not.

crazycajun:

 it speaks very specifically about term limits. it shows that if term limits are constitutional for the president, they are constitutional for every elected office, from president to council rep.

Where does it say that in Amendment XXII?  Let's see the direct quotation, not one of your Humpty Dumpty-esque "interpretations" this time.  

 let's try this one about our michigan term limits.

"The federal District Court in Michigan ruled on February 5 that the 1992 term limits amendment to the Michigan Constitution does not violate the U.S. Constitution. The amendment sets lifetime limits of two four-year terms for the offices of governor, secretary of state, attorney general, and members of the Senate, and three two-year terms for members of the House. The term limits will affect 64 members of the House this election year. State senators and statewide elected officers won't be affected by the limits until 2002."

they were voted on by THE PEOPLE, and passed.

now you don't like them.

live with them. they are the will of the people.

the vox populi.

Answer the question you were asked about Amendment XXII to the United States Constitution.  

 i will when YOU answer the dozens of questions YOU have been asked about.

turnabout is fair play.

 you understand NOTHING, yet you cackle on.

how can you NOT understand that if the constitution says it's allowable to term limit the president, then TERM LIMITS THEMSELVES ARE CONSTITUTIONAL?

what's important is that it DOESN'T say they are NOT constitutional for other offices.

allowed for one + not specifically prohibited for others= allowed for all = constitutional.

read my post about the federal courts upholding our OWN term limits as constitutional.

it's amazing how INCONVENIENT democracy gets to a democrat when he isn't getting his way.

Just answer the question, cajun:  

You have claimed that Amendment XXII to the United States Constitution states that all term limits are constitutional.  Where does it say that?  Give us the specific language.

Of course you can't answer that question.  Not without incriminating yourself as a liar.  The reason is that you lied about the content of Amendment XXII.  Lied like a rug about it.  Lied deliberately and with bald face. 

No such provision is contained in Amendment XXII to the United States Constitution, which speaks specifically and exclusively to the office of President of the United States.

Incidentally, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that states cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of the U.S. Congress stricter than those specified in the United States Constitution. The decision invalidated the Congressional term limit provisions of 23 states, including Michigan’s.

It is established that Michigan's Constitutionally mandated term limits on its own elected officials is a state matter, and does not violate terms of the United States Constitution.  That is why we have HJR L before us in this legislative session.  Its adoption will place a question on the state election ballot as to whether to amend the Michigan Constitution by eliminating limits placed on the number of terms a State legislator may serve.  

Note that the term limits now in place got there by amending the Constitution by a vote of the people of Michigan in November 1992.  The amendment proces permits us to make mistakes, as we did in 1992, and to correct them, as we will do in the future.

Term limits have delivered none of the benefits their backers promised, and have created new problems of their own, including a tightening of the strangling grip on government held by special interest lobbyists, legislative staffers, the entrenched bureaucracy, and political party operatives, none of whom are accountable to the voting public.

The time has come to dump that miserable experiment and return to voters the power of choice as to who will represent them in the legislature.  Adoption of HJR L is the first step in restoring democracy to our state.      

SaneMichigander:

Just answer the question, cajun:  

You have claimed that Amendment XXII to the United States Constitution states that all term limits are constitutional.  Where does it say that?  Give us the specific language.

<read the amendment. it's there.>

Of course you can't answer that question.  Not without incriminating yourself as a liar.

<of course you can't read.>

  The reason is that you lied about the content of Amendment XXII.  Lied like a rug about it.  Lied deliberately and with bald face. 

<i don't have a bald face... i may have a BOLD face...>

No such provision is contained in Amendment XXII to the United States Constitution, which speaks specifically and exclusively to the office of President of the United States.

<what ABOUT the president? it speaks that he is TERM LIMITED. if HE can be term limited, term limits are not unconstitutional.>

Incidentally, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that states cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of the U.S. Congress stricter than those specified in the United States Constitution. The decision invalidated the Congressional term limit provisions of 23 states, including Michigan’s.

<and in 1997, courts reversed and remanded, including scotus. that's why we have term limits today.>

It is established that Michigan's Constitutionally mandated term limits on its own elected officials is a state matter, and does not violate terms of the United States Constitution.

<now how can  term limits NOT violate the constitution and still be unconstitutional? only in YOUR MIND.>

 That is why we have HJR L before us in this legislative session.  Its adoption will place a question on the state election ballot as to whether to amend the Michigan Constitution by eliminating limits placed on the number of terms a State legislator may serve.

<which means that the term limit laws ARE CONSTITUTIONAL, or else all the legislature would have to do is VOID THEM ON THEIR FACE AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. proof of constitutionality.>  

Note that the term limits now in place got there by amending the Constitution by a vote of the people of Michigan in November 1992.  The amendment proces permits us to make mistakes, as we did in 1992, and to correct them, as we will do in the future.

<that's TWO amendments you have to tackle. a mighty tall order to keep democrats in office, don't you think? what, electing them in the regular way getting too expensive?>

Term limits have delivered none of the benefits their backers promised, and have created new problems of their own, including a tightening of the strangling grip on government held by special interest lobbyists, legislative staffers, the entrenched bureaucracy, and political party operatives, none of whom are accountable to the voting public.

<oh. i don't know.. it's kicking out our two term loser governor. that is a benefit.>

The time has come to dump that miserable experiment and return to voters the power of choice as to who will represent them in the legislature.  Adoption of HJR L is the first step in restoring democracy to our state.

<term limits ARE democracy. as they were voted in by the people. if it is a mistake, it is a mistake that a great majority of the people made. i suppose you even supported term limits once upon a time. again i say, it's amazing how INCONVIENENT democracy becomes when a democrat isn't getting his way.>

so tell me. who is it you wish to see in office longer? granholm?       

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, Cajun, all your incoherent ranting is to no avail.

You tried to conflate term limits on fdereal office holders and state office holders by bringing up Amendment XXII to the US Constitution, which you falsely claim makes all term limits “constitutional.” 

The fact is, Amendment XXII address only the presidency of the United States.  So you are a liar on that score.

Now, in 1992 Michigan voters approved an amendment to their State Constitution that set term limits on officials elected to state office, and on members of the US Congress from Michigan. 

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that states cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of the U.S. Congress stricter than those specified in the United States Constitution. The decision invalidated the Congressional term limit provisions of 23 states, including Michigan’s.

You claim that this decision subsequently was set aside, overturned or reversed.  But that claim is another falsehood.

Despite your claims, crazycajun, the 1995 SCOTUS decision in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton has not been or reversed, and it remains the law of the land. 

It is acknowledged that term limits on elected state officeholders in Michigan is constitutionally permissible.  Our State Constitution was amended in 1992 to establish those term limits.

The term limits experiment has been a flop.

So now we have HJR L, which very simply proposes to remove term limits from state legislators in Michigan, by amending the State Constitution.  HJR L is elegantly simple and unambiguous. I hope to see HJR L or its equivalent adopted by the legislature, so, as Michigan voter I have opportunity to vote for correcting the 1992 term limits error by amending our State Constitution.

 simple statement.

if it's CONSTITUTIONAL to term limit the president. term limits are constitutional per se.

you wouldn't understand that. because you don't.

 if term limits WERE unconstitutional, the state wouldn't have to repeal any laws, just proclaim the law unconstitutional and be done with it.

they DIDN'T proclaim it unconstitutional, as you assert, so it MUST NOT BE.

your arrogance can't change that fact.

your wishes are irrelevant, the people have spoken.

don't like it, do you?

vox populi.

crazycajun:

your wishes are irrelevant, the people have spoken.

Ah, but the opera is not yet over.  HJR L is in the hopper, to provide the people of Michigan an opportunity to speak again and correct their constitution to get rid of term limits for state legislators.  

Thus, my wishes in respect to eliminating term limits are very relevant.  You simply are whistling in the dark, telling your cowardly self more lies because you simply cannot accept that democratic processes are very relevant in Michigan.

You seem to be having a rough day in your little LaLa Land, cajun.  

 this gets tried every year, and it fails every year.

what has changed?

possibly the DISSATISFACTION WITH THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION?

yeah.. that would do it.

it's amazing how inconvenient democracy becomes when a democrat doesn't get his way.

 i also notice that you are not supporting challenging term limits on constitutional grounds.

why not? YOU say they are unconstitutional, go ahead and PROVE IT in a court of law.

good luck with that...

crazycajun:

 i also notice that you are not supporting challenging term limits on constitutional grounds.

why not? YOU say they are unconstitutional, go ahead and PROVE IT in a court of law.

good luck with that...

I have made myself perfectly clear as to my understanding (and the appropriate courts' understandings) of the constitutionality issues involved in term limits.  

If you, crazycajun, are too stupid, or so wrapped up in your own fantasy world and lies that you can't sort out this rather simple thing, then so be it.  Remain stupid and enmeshed in your own lying.  The only person you fool is yourself.  

Michigan voters agreed in 1992 to amend their State Constitution by adding term limits provisions for elected state officials and members of the state's (federal) Congressional delegation.

In 1995 the United States Supreme Court ruled that states could not impose term limits on members of their federal Congressional delegation.  That decision stands, and negates Michigan's Constitutional provision limiting the terms served by members of the state's Congressional delegation.  (Interestingly, there is another joint legislative resolution in the hopper to clean up that and other clearly unconstitutional provisions in the Michigan Constitution.  I support that resolution, as well as this one.)   

A federal district court decision in 1998 determined that term limits placed on officials elected to state office in Michigan were permissible, under the Constitution of the United States.

Two different rulings, addressing two different aspects of the term limits mess.

So now, the way we change things and get rid of term limits in Michigan is to amend the State Constitution.  That is precisely what HJR L proposes.  I support HJR L because term limits have served only to limit the voters' choices in respect to who will represent and serve them in Lansing, and have accomplished nothing of any benefit to the public.