Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (6064)	8/20/2001 1:19:29 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

My response was to jttmab, the commie Commissar. jttmab has a few thousand IQ points on Commissar.

To: jlallen who wrote (6064)	8/21/2001 5:40:02 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93284

Yes, as a matter of fact it was, at least in the form Congress enacted. But then facts, like the truth, are complete strangers .... Sadly, you missed the point. The Constitution does not specifically address term limits for members of Congress. And while the USSC deemed term limits for Congress un-Constitutional, an argument could have been made that the USSC was legislating from the bench since it wasn't specifically stated in the Constitution. FWIW. I thought the USSC was right on target on the point. There were term limits in the Articles of Confederation and since the Framers were directed to modify the Articles rather than draft a new Constitution at Philadelphia [they ignored that direction], it pretty much follows that the Framers did not want term limits for Congressional offices. jttmab