“Should support of Term Limits BE REQUIRED to participate in the Candidate Selection Sessions?”

So again we just change the question? The header at the top of the CANDIDATE SCREENING QUESTIONNAIRE CLEARLY STATES

“Participants are required to truthfully answer "yes" to each of Screening Criteria question if they wish to to particpate in the GOOOH process. Unlike the questionnaire, where there are no right or wrong answers, you must answer affirmatively to each of these questions to participate.”

It says nothing of the GOOOH Candidate Selection Sessions. Or that you would just not be allowed to run. It says PARTICIPATE! This would mean to me that I should not go to a GOOOH rally or recruit members. Technically I should not even be allowed on this site. If you want to ban me then call it what it is.

Should we ban all members that do not support Term Limits? That should end the debate real fast.

So in order to get Term Limits in (an amendment you’re not even going to be able to do even if GOOOH scores 100% of everything they want in 2010 because you need 66% of the House and 66% of the Senate). You want to BAN somewhere between 30%-40% of your members. All for Term Limits that has not proven effective in doing any of what you say it will do.

I say let the debate rage on and let’s not BAN people from a movement that has not even gotten started yet.

I have no problem with the question on the CANDIDATE QUESTIONNAIRE because if I answer NO I do not get BANNED.

edub “The process IS_AND_ONLY_IS the Candidate Selection Sessions. They are one in the same. Everything else related to GOOOH - website membership, filling out the Questionnaire, recruitment, forum participation, and everything else - is ancillary to the Candidate Selection Session process”

Oh I get it now so I will only be BANNED from what GOOOH IS_AND_ONLY_IS. I will be an ancillary member of GOOOH. Not helping select candidates. Thanks I will feel great about devoting my time to a group that is into REPRESENTATION without PARTISAPATION. I have that now and it is not working for me.

Although it is true that prohibition was removed in a short time, there is an amendment about term limits which has stood since it was enacted.

Term limits help to limit corruption and help to prevent power from being kept by a small group of people. Term limits won't stop corruption, but they will help to see it and to limit it. It will still be up to us, the people, to watch for it and to get rid of it when it appears.

Part of the reason I like GOOOH is because of term limits. We will accomplish nothing if we replace those in power with someone just as bad. Look what happened when power shifted from Republicans to Democrats. Each party builds off the other's mess, and then blames someone else when things go wrong.

How many politicians would continue to vote the way they have if they had to obey the rules they put in place? I believe that term limits will make some of them think about what they are going to do before they do it. Maybe it will even convince them to read the bills before voting on them.

pktull “By golly, I think he's got it. Mr. Boyer, Constitutional Amendments are devices of mob rule. When amendments are added, it is because the citizenry demands protection or change. Look at prohibition. It was in there and then it wasn't. Right now, the people want it so they are looking for people to represent them on that issue.”

Constitutional Amendments are NOT a product of mob rule.

Taken from Wikiapedia

1st
Freedom of religion, of speech, of the press, to assemble, and to petition

2nd
Enumerates the right to keep and bear arms

3rd
No quartering of soldiers in private houses during peacetime.
In a time of war, Congress can pass a law stating that soldiers should be quartered.

4th
Interdiction of unreasonable Searches and seizures; search warrant

5th
Indictments; Due process; Self-incrimination; Double jeopardy, and rules for Eminent Domain.

6th
Rights to a fair and speedy public trial, to notice of accusations, to confront one's accuser, to subpoenas, to counsel

7th
Right to trial by jury in civil cases

8th
No excessive bail and fines or cruel & unusual punishment

9th
Unenumerated rights

10th
Limits the power of the Federal Government to not have any powers not specifically stated that they have in the constitution.

11th
Immunity of states from suits from out-of-state citizens and foreigners not living within the state borders. Lays the foundation for sovereign immunity.

12th
Revises Presidential election procedures

13th
Abolishes slavery and Involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime.

14th
Defines Citizenship and deals with post-Civil War issues.

15th
Suffrage

16th
Allows federal income tax

17th
Direct election of Senators
18th
Prohibition of Alcohol (Repealed by 21st amendment)

19th
Federal recognition of women's suffrage

20th
Term Commencement for Congress (January 3) and the President (January 20).
This amendment is also known as the "lame duck amendment".

21st
Repeals of Eighteenth Amendment; state and local prohibition no longer required by law.

22nd
Limits the president to two terms

23rd
Representation of Washington, D.C. in the Electoral College

24th
Prohibition of the restriction of voting rights due to the non-payment of poll taxes

25th
Presidential succession

26th
Voting age nationally established at age 18 (see suffrage)

27th
Variance of congressional compensation


So out of 27 amendments only 8 have nothing to do with the protections of the rights of the individual against the majority or from the Government itself.

12, 16, 17, 20, 25, 27 Were procergeral questions dealing with how the Government runs. Yes the 16th is questionable mainly because it tramples on the individuals rights as well at States’ rights.

18 Was the only amendment to be passed by MOB rule and was a colossal failure.

22 Term Limits

18,20,21,22 were the only amendments that were required to be ratified by the states. Isn’t that odd? The only ones needing to be ratified by MOB rule were the colossal failure, the repeal of the colossal failure, Presidental Term limits, and the lame duck amendment. Is that because Congress knew these were stomping all over individual rights with these amendments and wanted to make sure it was not on their heads alone?

pktull Was prohibition the right way to go? Maybe it wasn't, but the country thought it was. A few years later, the country determined it wasn't and so it was repealed.

pktull “Right now, you are in a community that has an HOA that states you can't have a pink-colored house. So, if you must have a pink-colored house, you either have to change the HOA's rules or you have to find another community. Those are your 2 choices. It's as simple as that.”

Most HOA’s do not stand up in court if the HOA rules were changed after an individual moved into community. HOA tend to be a code of conduct that people willingly follow.

pktull “People want term limits like the people wanted prohibition in 1919. Who knows, in 14 years maybe the people will not want term limits and will request to repeal it like they did prohibition in 1933.”

Again the Constitution was not meant to sway back and forth with the sands of time. It was meant to be changed when a UNIVERSAL TRUTH presented itself to be missing. Women’s suffrage, Abolishment of Slavery, Removal of the Poll Tax these were universal truths that were based in NATURAL LAW. Grab the 5000 year leap and give it a read. Cause most of your thought follows the Progressive Movement. Which is ok if that is what you want. Just want you to be sure that is what you want.

Also you did not answer the important question.
Would you support a repeal of the 2 amendment if 66% of the people wanted it? Our would you then claim it is a individual right granted by GOD under NATURAL LAW.

Don't worry, folks. All the amendments were ratified:


The first 10 were originally 21 or so which were reduced to 10 then presented to the states. The balance of the current amendments were all ratified in their time frame. There are a half a dozen which were not ratified and four of those that could be.

What is "odd" about amendments having a stated timeline? If you meant "unusual" then fine. But the statement "Is that because Congress knew these were stomping all over individual rights with these amendments and wanted to make sure it was not on their heads alone?" is MOB RULE is not supported by "stated timeline" like it would be if the word "ratification" were (incorrectly) used. To me, the whole argument loses continuity. Possibly someone else can explain this apparent lack of continuity to me?

Thank you, though, for the post.

OK, I understand and accept your explanation. Now, how does that reflect negatively or positively on MOB RULE which is your current theme?

If you would like more information on what I am talking about from people that are far better at explaining it then me get two books

5000 Year Leap – easy read and puts some real perspective on the founding of America

American Progressivism- HARD READ- I teach at a university in Michigan and it was a hard read for me. It is in fact a class textbook so it can be harder to find.

Hear! Hear!

What bboyer9052 is saying to me is that Mr. Millward as a member of the Democrat party is being deprived of a constitutional right because the Democrat party will not promote a conservative.

I have read The 5000 year leap and The MAJESTY of God's law and dozens of other books about the founding of America and none of them say the above.

There is no natural law that says every group must offer all options. Natural law says that every person should be free to form or join a group that s/he agrees with. Natural law also says that a person can stay in a group and argue for something but it does not say that the group has to yield.

While we are on what the questionnaire(s) are named, where on this site is the one that requires people to answer yes? I have asked what I thought was an admin and gotten no response.

I know what I believe and I do follow through on it.