GOOOH
GOOOH
GOOOH
GOOOH
GOOOH
Home Learn Discuss Act Donate Media Store
Skip Navigation Links  [ SIGN IN OR JOIN NOW ]
Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics |

12 Pages 123>»
Should support of Term Limits BE REQUIRED to participate in the Candidate Selection Sessions? Options
edub
#1 Posted : Tuesday, October 27, 2009 6:50:17 PM
Rank: Administration

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Administrators

Joined: 6/17/2009
Posts: 187
Currently, one of the questions in the Candidate Screening Exam states:

"If it comes to a vote, do you commit to vote for an amendment to the Constitution that calls for term limits for the U.S. House of Representatives of two terms or less?"

This question was added to the Screening Exam because multiple member polls on the issue overwhelmingly indicated that Members currently DO think that support of Term Limits should be required to participate in the Candidate Selection Session.

As of 10/27/09, you must answer YES to this question in order to participate in the Candidate Selection Sessions based on this previous member polling.

In an effort to bring more attention to the issue, and for our members to see the "best of" arguments in defense/opposition to this specific Screening Exam requirement, we have started this thread.

Give your best argument for/against the requirement (or propose an alternative that fulfills the spirit of the Member polling), and let's continue to refine the GOOOH process through well thought out Member feedback!
edub
GOOOH Co-Founder and Forum Admin
RobertMillward
#2 Posted : Tuesday, October 27, 2009 7:19:02 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 9/13/2009
Posts: 123
Quote:
Term Limits is still known as the largest grassroots movement in American history, and US Term Limits (USTL) was, and still is, the leader of that movement.

Term limits have been placed on 15 state legislatures, eight of the ten largest cities in America adopted term limits for their city councils and/or mayor, and 37 states place term limits on their constitutional officers.

American politicians, special interests and lobbyists continue to combat term limits, as they know term limits force out career politicians who are more concerned with their own gain than the interests of the American people.

USTL stands up against this practice. We are the voice of the American citizen. We want a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, not a tyrannical ruling class who care more about deals to benefit themselves, than their constituents.

Remember, every town councilman wants to be a congressman; every congressman wants to be a senator; and every Senator wants to be president.

Join US Term Limits by clicking here.
I am am member of The Tea Party. If you want my vote then you must meet all of my standards.
Limitedgovt
#3 Posted : Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:45:19 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 8/25/2009
Posts: 124
Location: Ohio
Limitedgovt wrote:
While I don't think term limits are the magic bullet that most do, I could support them if they allowed representatives to get back in after sitting out a term or two. The question as it is worded is EXTREMELY narrow, and I cannot support it, and therefore I cannot be a candidate. That is the real argument that needs to be decided. Is GOOOH willing to sideline a bunch of able-bodied patriots just because they don't agree with GOOOH's narrow view, or can both sides compromise a little to broaden the statement, but still achieve the goal of term limits?

RobertMillward wrote:

320,000,000 citizens. 435 representatives. 735,600 to 1 (my wife notes that the number is far higher than the original 30,000 minimum). I think we can find candidates for the House of Representatives for several years, 367,000 years to be somewhat precise and assuming that only a few hundred thousand are against term limits.

There is no compromise available because there either is or there is not term limits. The coin can not land on it's side and allow both.

Now, if you wish to run for Senate or President (or a local race), I will look at your "platform" and vote for you as often as I deem valuable.
**********************************************************

Yes, there is a compromise between the very narrow term limits GOOOH is proposing, and term limits in general. Let's take the current idea, 2 terms and then gone. The compromise would be 2 terms, sit out 1 or 2 terms then be eligible to run again. This would allow enough time for you to have been out of office, allow someone else to prove their worth, so you would have to genuinely campaign to get back into office, not the token "campaign" that someone like Jack Murtha (house) or Ted Kennedy (Senate) have had to run. Such a proposal still eliminates incumbents, provides for new blood, but also provides for the possibility of good blood to get in again, rather than sit out FOREVER.
bboyer9052
#4 Posted : Tuesday, October 27, 2009 8:54:40 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 10/12/2009
Posts: 341
“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.
no PARTICIPATION equals no REPRESENTATION..
edub
#5 Posted : Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:04:12 PM
Rank: Administration

Groups: Moderator, Registered, Administrators

Joined: 6/17/2009
Posts: 187
bboyer9052, you're misunderstanding what the "GOOOH process" is.

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.

Therefore, you are (currently) only excluded from participating the in the Candidate Selection Sessions if you don't answer yes to the Term Limits question in the Candidate Screening Exam.

The Candidate Selection Sessions will not kick off until mid 2010 (assuming we have 500K members by then), so you have plenty of time to debate this requirement and lobby for a change.
edub
GOOOH Co-Founder and Forum Admin
bboyer9052
#6 Posted : Tuesday, October 27, 2009 9:37:14 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 10/12/2009
Posts: 341
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.
no PARTICIPATION equals no REPRESENTATION..
pktull
#7 Posted : Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:39:48 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 9/26/2009
Posts: 283
Location: League City, Texas
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.

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.

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.

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.
Preston Tullos
GOOOH Texas State Coordinator
goooh.tx@gmail.com
Christopher B.
#8 Posted : Wednesday, October 28, 2009 7:58:29 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 6/28/2009
Posts: 190
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.
My 1 1/2 cents.
RobertMillward
#9 Posted : Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:18:37 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 9/13/2009
Posts: 123
Christopher B. wrote:
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.



Hear! Hear! and Read! Read!
I am am member of The Tea Party. If you want my vote then you must meet all of my standards.
bboyer9052
#10 Posted : Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:07:29 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 10/12/2009
Posts: 341
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.
no PARTICIPATION equals no REPRESENTATION..
bboyer9052
#11 Posted : Wednesday, October 28, 2009 12:12:46 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 10/12/2009
Posts: 341
So question for the Leaders of GOOOH.

IS the GOOOH party going to be a party of MOB RULE? Or do you believe in Natural Law?

Please only founders or co-founders answer this question.
no PARTICIPATION equals no REPRESENTATION..
RobertMillward
#12 Posted : Wednesday, October 28, 2009 2:30:42 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 9/13/2009
Posts: 123
Don't worry, folks. All the amendments were ratified:
Quote:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


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.

I am am member of The Tea Party. If you want my vote then you must meet all of my standards.
bboyer9052
#13 Posted : Wednesday, October 28, 2009 5:31:02 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 10/12/2009
Posts: 341
Yes you’re right. I misstated that. Those four had a stated timeline. My point still stands isn’t it odd.
no PARTICIPATION equals no REPRESENTATION..
RobertMillward
#14 Posted : Wednesday, October 28, 2009 5:50:55 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 9/13/2009
Posts: 123
bboyer9052 wrote:


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?

Quote:
Yes you’re right. I misstated that. Those four had a stated timeline. My point still stands isn’t it odd.




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.
I am am member of The Tea Party. If you want my vote then you must meet all of my standards.
bboyer9052
#15 Posted : Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:09:15 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 10/12/2009
Posts: 341
The point of the entire argument was not the oddity of the forced timeline. Seems like we had some timelines on some rushed ideas as of late as well. Healthcare, Stimulus, Cap in Trade. Neither here nor there I just found it odd.
The point was that out of 27 amendments only 8 do not deal with individual rights and protections from the majority or the Government.

Of the 8 six are almost exclusively procedural.

One was a colossal failure

One is presidential Term Limits
no PARTICIPATION equals no REPRESENTATION..
RobertMillward
#16 Posted : Wednesday, October 28, 2009 6:18:38 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 9/13/2009
Posts: 123
OK, I understand and accept your explanation. Now, how does that reflect negatively or positively on MOB RULE which is your current theme?

bboyer9052 wrote:
So question for the Leaders of GOOOH.

IS the GOOOH party going to be a party of MOB RULE? Or do you believe in Natural Law?

Please only founders or co-founders answer this question.


bboyer9052 wrote:
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?
I am am member of The Tea Party. If you want my vote then you must meet all of my standards.
bboyer9052
#17 Posted : Wednesday, October 28, 2009 8:36:44 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 10/12/2009
Posts: 341
Well it depends on whether or not what they are trying to do is a violation of NATURAL LAW. That is what the other amendments were about. The people should have these stated protections regardless of the will of the people or the Government because these rights are given by God not men.

I believe even the right to vote has been determined to be a right granted by NATURAL LAW. Therefore, I believe that GOOOH would be violating NATURAL LAW by restricting my right to vote for a candidate in what would be like a primary run off. The other parties do it by just not allowing me to be a part of the system, but that is why I was excited about GOOOH. I was going to be allowed to be active in the selection of my candidate on equal par with everyone else.

Then along came MOB rule and I have been repeatedly told. Nope you cannot participate because the majority has decided to circumvent your NATURAL LAW right to vote.

So I beg the question and it should be answered by one of the founders or co-founders. Is this group going to be ruled by NATURAL LAW or MOB rule?

Looking back seems as if something is missing. Were some of the arguments removed? Not sure, but I know I asked the questions on the 2nd amendment. I know I was talking to someone about the if amendments were passed then what was their stance on wheather or not if 66% of America wanted to repeal the 2nd amendment should MOB RULE then as well. They were saying a representative had a duty to represent the people even if they themselves did not believe it.

pktull “Constitutional Amendments are devices of mob rule.”

My question to the rest is on the 2nd amendment

NATURAL LAW would say I have a right to defend myself and others from the possibility of a Tyrannical Government at the point of a gun regardless of the will of the people.

MOB RULE would say that if 66% of the people wanted it repealed then we should do it.

What are you going to follow then? Would all the people from Texas suddenly become a proponent of NATURAL LAW after you striped my voice from the debate?

My grand overall point is this you need to figure out what you believe and follow through on it.

You cannot simply believe in NATURAL LAW when it suits you. Then believe in MOB RULE when that works in your favor. That just gives us the wishy washy double speak we have now. I do not care what you believe, but you need to stay consistent.
So is this party going to follow NATURAL LAW which would not limit my right to PARTISIPATE and remove the question from the screening exam? (Not the questionnaire where you can answer yes or no and it will not matter, but the exam questionnaire where I have to answer affirmative cause I cannot honestly do that.)

(Side note your foundership! Can we change the name of one or the other. Calling them both questionnaire gets very confusing)

OR it is going to follow MOB RULE and start to remove any member they feel like targeting because 50% + think they should not PARTISIPATE.

This question should be answered not by some member, but by one of the founders or co-founders.

(Just a quick hint. The founding fathers were strong proponents of NATURAL LAW over MOB RULE. Progressives are the strong proponents of MOB RULE. Added hint Progressives got proabition passed and are now pushing for more nanny state laws because it is for your own good. Like banning Trans Fats, Taxing the crud out of soda, banning smoking. Right now they are in Copenhagen discussing the need to ban meat (or tax the bat snot out of it) of all kinds because of the impact of Global Warming.This how you want to live your life? Really? Really, Really?)
no PARTICIPATION equals no REPRESENTATION..
bboyer9052
#18 Posted : Wednesday, October 28, 2009 8:45:16 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 10/12/2009
Posts: 341
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.
no PARTICIPATION equals no REPRESENTATION..
Hector and Lee Cordero
#19 Posted : Wednesday, October 28, 2009 11:17:25 PM
Rank: Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 10/28/2009
Posts: 25
Having read this discussion from it's initiation the key element that has been overlooked is the origin of the GOOOH concept- new people in our House of Representatives that will actually listen to the citizens. No one is eliminating anyone from running for an office or voting for the candidate of their choice, just that GOOOH is only going to promote those in support of baseline concepts. No answer is correct 100% of the time, there are always exceptions. God provided all of us with a brain to make our own decisions.
RobertMillward
#20 Posted : Thursday, October 29, 2009 4:15:22 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered

Joined: 9/13/2009
Posts: 123
Hector and Lee Cordero wrote:
Having read this discussion from it's initiation the key element that has been overlooked is the origin of the GOOOH concept- new people in our House of Representatives that will actually listen to the citizens. No one is eliminating anyone from running for an office or voting for the candidate of their choice, just that GOOOH is only going to promote those in support of baseline concepts. No answer is correct 100% of the time, there are always exceptions. God provided all of us with a brain to make our own decisions.


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.

I am am member of The Tea Party. If you want my vote then you must meet all of my standards.
Users browsing this topic
Guest (4)
12 Pages 123>»
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.