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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Carolyn who wrote (383349)	9/19/2010 1:37:25 AM
From: goldworldnet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794318

Not sure about the senate, but this was the house in 1995-96. [PUBLISHER'S NOTE: On March 29, 1995, the House rejected a plan to limit terms in Congress to 12 additional years following enactment. While the measure received 227 votes for approval vs. 204 against, it fell short of the two-thirds majority of 290 required for a constitutional amendment. [The house also rejected by 297-235 (note 297-235 adds up to 532 and there are only 435 seats) alternative plan proposed by Rep. John Dingell (D.-Mich.) that would make a 12-year term limit retroactive, a so-called "poison pill" which would have forced out most of the GOP leadership; another that would have limited representatives to six years and senators to 12 (by 316-114); and a version that would restrict both representatives and senators to 12 years, but let states institute shorter limits (by 265-164). findarticles.com [Despite the fact that 40 Republicans voted against the constitutional amendment and it fell 63 votes short. Speaker of the House Gingrich vowed to reintroduce the measure in 1996. "Give us 60 more Republicans next year and we'll pass term limits," he maintained. [Nevertheless, term-limit activists blamed the GOP leadership for the defeat, accusing it of failing to push hard enough even though polls show that limits are favored by nearly 80% of voters. Gingrich, in turn, faulted the Democrats, who voted 164-38 against the amendment. Democrats, meanwhile, insisted that there is no need for such legislation since voters can limit politicians' terms in office through the ballot box, as evidenced by the number of incumbents who lost their seats in the 1994 elections.] findarticles.com (Note this section does not state how many Republicans voted for term limits during this House vote, but based on the numbers given, the maximum Republican House vote for would have been 193.) * * *