Term Limits: The Answer or the Problem with Leadership in America:

What is so bad about term limits anyway?

 

 

 

Sound reasoning or reasons?                                                                         

My guess is that most Americans are grateful for the 22nd Amendment that restricts the number of terms a President can serve to just two.  Indeed, many await the additional limitation to terms for Congress as well.  It sounds reasonable to prevent elected officials from becoming permanent fixtures of the government--"career politicians" as is so often coined.  At the time of its referendum, the amendment was brought by fear that a President--President Roosevelt to be precise--would assume greater power by becoming the habitual default president--more akin to our then enemies in Communist regimes where only one choice was present for election. 

But as with the majority of amendments to the Constitution, the 22nd Amendment has caused, or has the potential to cause, more damage than solutions given opportune circumstances.  A few heads might be tilted at this statement; perhaps there are some raised eye-brows.  After all, who, in America would want perpetual control of the government to fall into the hands of one,  as  was feared with FDR? Unfortunately, like other amendments, when that amendment was proposed, the people forgot who had the ultimate say in any elected official in US government. Not much has changed to fix the amnesia.

The Framers of the Constitution spoke to the concept of term limits in Convention discussions. In fact, they seriously considered it as another check to one branch having dominance over others. The check that won out was The People: In the end, it was far more important to the Framers--even critical--that ultimate say went to The People to determine the term length of any president. The Framers felt it unwise to reduce their power to an automatic default vote.
 
Let’s ask the obvious question:  Does term limits actually provide the solution to the problems associated with excessive terms; or even poor leadership--or even more, nefarious actions of a president? 

Table Tennis, Anyone?

Actually, no.  In truth, in any given term, one set of the population will dislike the actions of the President; then, in another term, another set will dislike the actions of a different president--all based upon their political persuasions.  Each side will argue that the other side doesn't know what they are doing. Each side will defiantly assert their intellectual superiority of conscious and policy over the other.  Which group has the right perspective?  Term limits only serves to stop those whom we disagree with ideologically, philosophically, and/or policy-wise because we see their view as nefarious to the central well being of our country and ourselves.  The effectiveness of term limits does not actually answer the question of who is a bad president and who is not. Term limits serves as reassurance that one party will not dominate (read: control) policy over another for more than eight years. Who has not felt confident that, if nothing else, the policies of Clinton, Bush (either one), Ford, Carter, and any president after F.D. Roosevelt  can only do another four years of damage?  One of the problems with this attitude is the "ping-pong" affect of bouncing from one party to another and back again, every eight years.  This is a symptom.
 
The disease is that we lack faith in our own ability to choose wisely either our President or policies based upon correct Constitutional principles. We acquiesce to the system do our job for us. Curtailing potential damage by a bad officeholder through controlling how long they can be in office is best resolved by VOTING, not by limiting our power to vote. So said the Founders. So the ping-pong symptom shows that, while we are hoping to curtail another's stupid choice for president  (that is obvious to us), the 22nd Amendment actually cuts short our own right to vote as well.  Put another way, and opposite of the Christian injunction, term limits means what we do to others we do to ourselves.  So, the first bad outcome of term limits is arguably the worst: that we are actually limiting our power to rule our government.  This symptom and disease is the common criticism of term limits. But our current circumstances demonstrate the disease of term limits in a much more sinister way. 

Throughout most of the over two hundred years of existence we have taken for granted the idea that the Constitution requires all officers at all levels throughout the entire country to promise by oath to defend and protect the Constitution that gives equity among us.  But what happens if someone decides, once in office, they are not inclined to observe and honor that oath?
 

A mad duck hunter is worse than a lame duck.

We are at the precipice of answering that question. Mr. Obama has already, and repeatedly stated he does not have any loyalty to the Constitution. Indeed, he has openly declared it is a defunct document of outdated ideals.  In this one way Mr. Obama has lived up to his words. In fact, at the Democratic National Convention, it was stated in their platform that the Democrats’ intention is to pragmatism. The political definition of pragmatism is the act of doing what is expedient according to the leader’s interests without obliging a pattern of rule of law. The unpolitically correct, but truthful word for that is fascism. Under these circumstances term limits are most destructive. 

Consider the condition of a “lame duck” term.  The term denotes the inability to make progress by leadership either in legislation, execution of the law, or any other legitimate governance. With a fascist leader, a second term creates the flip side of a “lame duck” term. For a fascist, term limits provides fodder for their objectives because they have four years to do whatever they will, despite the will of the people. They no longer have any reason to fear a negative response from the people since they will be automatically terminated. Caution goes to the wind as does any remote observance of Constitutional rule of law.  Term limits create an avenue for the fascist to reap as much mayhem to a free nation as their physical stamina and the pen will allow. 
 
With the exponential growth in violating constitutional checks and balances that Obama has produced by abusing Executive Orders to create rather than execute laws (as per both Art I, Sec 1 and Art II, Sec 3 of the Constitution); by publicly denouncing the Constitutional authority of Congress; by using bureaucracies as a personal way to bully, threaten, harass and otherwise cajole states and groups of individuals into doing Mr. Obama's desires, allowing him four more years is tantamount to a license to increase this parabola to an irreversible extent.  A leader—a president—who can do whatever he personally desires without answering to either the People or the Constitution can destroy every other liberty we believed we ever embraced quite rapidly. 

The greatest frustration by a free people of governance may be a "lame duck." But the greatest destruction to them is the political equivalence to a mad duck hunter with a rabid dog killing every bird in the pond. To prevent the mayhem that term limits can cause under this circumstance, the people must stop Mr. Obama's opportunity for a second term.  The idea that somehow term limits gives us some assurance that whatever a President does can be automatically stopped eventually is a highly dangerous assumption built upon ignorance  and no working knowledge of world history.

Will the People or Term Limits determine out future?

Even more, term limits for all federal offices, based upon the precipice before us, represents (with little imagination) what our country would look like without fear of retribution by the People. In such a situation,  given that there is no one presently stopping Mr. Obama from flagrant constitutional violations, (probably because they don't know for certain that what he is doing is one*), I seriously suspect that we would not recognize our country in four years. There is very little reason to hope of fully repairing and restoring the massive destruction associated with Obama's practice of constantly usurping power.

The Framers of the Constitution took wise consideration that the best and fullest of liberties should grant more power and say to the People, through various protective mechanisms, not less. Though there are also checks and balances to offset the possible irrational opinions of the People, the duty of the People to vote someone out of office short of their term limits is the surest and most protective device the People have in limiting terms and  the ultimate prevention of destructive circumstances beyond our control.
 
*(Until 2010, when Congress officially opened Session by reading the Constitution of the United States,  an old statistic showed that from term to term, less than 2% of Congress had read the Constitution all the way through.  This is not an admission that reading it once through equates to understanding it, however. But it is a start.)

Accurate Analysis on Healthcare Ruling Evades Public: Time For Light to Shine on Truth of SCOTUS Ruling

The fanfare of Healthcare Act supporters claiming that the Supreme Court Ruling validates the Act's constitutionality is quite overrated. It is as overrated as the wails of Healthcare opponents who expected sweeping statements of its unconstitutionality is a mournful loss of American liberties. In fact, nothing of these two parallel positions is accurate.

The Ruling by SCOTUS did not ignore the Constitution but affirmed it.

One problem is the tendancy of liberals to assume any lack of a dogmatic "no," is a "yes." Another problem is that many conservatives wanted the SCOTUS to affirm their conservative POLICY just as dogmatically, which would undermined the Constitution.  Perhaps they expected SCOTUS to wipe the slate clean of Obamacare altogether. This is not the scope of SCOTUS--they determine the constitutionality of law, not irradicate it. In this case, it was a law so all-encompassing—and legally invasive, entangled in all forms of governance and consuming—that the only responsible way for SCOTUS to address the many issues was to thoroughly parse them out one by one. That they have.


WHAT PEOPLE ARE MISSING ON BOTH SIDES IS WHAT SCOTUS ACTUALLY SAID:

The Justices did not say Obamacare was constitutional.

Instead, what they did was discuss the most dominant themes. Thus, instead of a one-fell-swoop-decision, SCOTUS pointed out to America—read: reminded America—of the many checks and balances afforded in that great document.  Among the many major points SCOTUS re-affirmed are these Constitutional paradigms:

1.) That Congress has the authority to tax.

There is nothing new here. (See Art. I, Sec. 8.) The Justices did not say Obamacare was constitutional. In fact, having read the document (only 60 pages), I can attest that what is being reported (by those who have neither read it, nor understand it or the principles the Justices discussed), is factually misrepresenting the Ruling. What the justices said was constitutional was that Congress has authority to collect taxes. This is merely a reiteration of Art. I, Sec 8 of the Constitution.  Additionally, they clarified that the so-called penalties, along with all other collection of monies are, contrary to what supporters of the Healthcare Act have told the public, a tax. That makes Pelosi, Obama, et al. deceivers of Americans.

2.) The "regulating" referred to in Art I Sec 8 does NOT mean "create." Therefore, Congress cannot regulate a non-activity.

Congress cannot create new authority--only make regular those authorities already granted in the Constitution. (This goes to the Mischief Rule.)

The Court was quite vocal about the inappropriateness of Congress' attempt to create a power they have never had in legislating (read: forcing) citizens into action. This was clearly stated in the Ruling. (567 U.S. __2012, 21-27) Specifically, Roberts writes,

…the Government’s logic would justify a mandatory purchase to solve almost any problem…People, for reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them…Under the Government’s logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the Government would have them act.

That is not the country the Framers of our Constitution envisioned. (567 U.S.__2012. 22,23)

Clearly:  To this end many hoped the Supreme Court would, in simple terms, throw the entire Act out, or at least disable it sufficiently to render it null and void. Sadly, many are so enraged by poor information that they don’t realize that SCOTUS actually did, in large measure, do that very thing, as cited above. But in the process, also reminded Americans of their responsibility to act on their own authority.

3.) SCOTUS RE-AFFIRMED that the power to control legislation by Congress lies with the PEOPLE--not SCOTUS.

Furthermore, the Justices specifically explained WHY they did not throw the whole Act out, saying that the sanctity of the people's authority to choose their legislation via the representatives (of both houses of Congress, in particular, but not to exclude the President) must be preserved; and it is therefore up to the people--not SCOTUS--to remedy the law. That is what was said. (ibid. 6,7) Apparently some are celebrating the assumption that the people will not exercise their authority and right to have what 80% of them demanded not be enacted in the first place. (You might remember that the preponderance of Representatives was fired. I suspect, after this nod from SCOTUS, more is to come with some mighty powerful hiring to follow. That is, if people actually understand what SCOTUS said.)  is being reported (by those who have neither read it, nor understand it or the principles the Justices discussed), is factually misrepresenting the ruling. What the justices said WAS constitutional was that Congress has authority to collect taxes. Duh, reiteration of Art. I Sec 8. Additionally, they clarified that the so-called penalties, along with all other collection of monies ARE a tax. That makes Pelosi, Omaba et al decievers of Americans.

That point aside: The Ruling specifically states that the Constitution grants individual immunity from participation AND state immunity from it as well. To the point, neither Congress, nor the President can compel anyone or a state to enjoin Obamacare. SCOTUS actually reinforced state and individual sovereigny and liberty. They were quite voca about the inappropriatenss of Congress' attempt to create a power they have never had in legislating (read:forcing) ciizens into action. This was clearly stated in the Ruling.

Furthermore, the Justices specifically explained WHY they did not throw the whole thing out, saying that the sanctity of the people's authority to chose their legislation via the representatives (of both houses of Congress, in particular, but not to exclude the President) must be preserved; and it is therefore up to the people--not SCOTUS--to remedy the law. THAT IS WHAT WAS SAID: Apparently somebody, somehow, believes the people will not excercise their authority and right to have what 80% of them demanded not be enacted in the first place. (You might remember that a preponderance of Represenatives were fired. I suspect, after a nod from SCOTUS, more is to come with some mighty powerful hiring to follow.)

The Ruling specifically states that the Constitution grants individual immunity from participation AND state immunity from it as well. To the point, neither Congress, nor the President can compel any one or a state to enjoin Obamacare. SCOTUS has actually reinforced state and individual sovereignty and liberty, not slighted it.

The idea that Congress has created taxes against the will of the people is only partially true, at best. The verity is that Congress is elected by the people, thus what Congress does, technically and by Constitutional authority, has been sanctioned by the people. The people then, having the ultimate authority can “fire” the Representative or Senator who neither respects their wishes, ignoring their duty to representation, nor obliges the sovereign will of their respective states. This is true for any legislation irrespective of its relationship to taxes. (However, it is difficult to imagine any legislation by Congress as being unrelated to taxes.) Quoting one of the most arduous defenders of the Constitution, John Marshall, Justice Roberts emphasizes the difference between the constitutionality of passing an act and enforcing one.  He writes

“Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government” requires that we strike down authority to pass [the] act in question [when] clearly demonstrated…[Policy judgments] are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices. (567 U.S.___2012, 6. Emphasis added.

The people are responsible for finding those who adequately and accurately reflect their wishes.  SCOTUS simply reminded—and more effectively hinted—to the people of their solemn Constitutional duty—that is not the Court’s. In other words, SCOTUS was not obliging to the people passing the buck to them.

4.) SCOTUS RE-AFFIRMED the sovereignty of the individual. 

 Justice Roberts writes that the argument held by the Government that they have the right to require our “participation” under the Necessary and Proper Clause is unfounded.  While quoting from precedence, (McCulloch, supra, at 413, 418), Justice Roberts re-affirms, through the Mischief Rule, a fundamental doctrine of the Constitution, saying

‘…we have…carried out our responsibility to declare unconstitutional those laws that undermine the structure of government established by the Constitution. [They] are not consistent with the letter and spirit of the constitution, and are not proper...Rather, they are…merely acts of usurpation.’ (ibid. 28)

Applying these principles, the individual mandate cannot be sustained. (ibid. 29

…The commerce power…does not authorize the mandate. (ibid. 30)

Roberts further expounds on the constitutional principles behind the Necessary and Proper Clause, explaining its misuse by the Government in defense of “Obamacare.” (ibid.29)

5.) SCOTUS RE-AFFIRMED the sovereignty of States to determine whether a federal program is pertinent and applicable to their individual state.[i]

The Court made a clear distinction between mandating a state to comply if they opt in to Obamacare and penalizing a state for refusing to participate.  Roberts says that they are not curtailing Congress’s power to require States interested in accepting Affordable Healthcare Act funds, to comply with their stipulations. But they cannot compel a state unwilling to participate in the Act either by requirements or penalizing them by reducing their existing Medicaid funds.  This is of paramount importance in a time where the Federal Government has increasingly used forms of coercion on states through a financial choking. (ibid. 55)[ii]

The only main concern, which is clearly constitutional, if unfortunate in this case, (given Congress has the authority to tax), is the reaffirmation of taxing for Obamacare independent of the acceptance of health insurance. It is not the authority to tax that is at odds with Americans. It is, as this Court has suggested, that it is unwise to do so.

Conservatives, moderates, and even liberals who dislike Obamacare, should stop listening to sources, including main stream media, who don't know how to read--let alone understand--the Constitution, historical perspectives, or rulings by SCOTUS.

Just because SCOTUS didn't come right out and remove the Affordable Healthcare Act, aka “Obamacare,” all together, does not in the slightest give victory to supporters of the unconstitutionality of key parts of the Act. Quite the contrary is true.

It would behoove Americans to learn, first, to read the actual texts for themselves; and secondly, to know and understand constitutional tools such as Rules of Construction, historical imperatives, the many discussions and debates of the Framers, and so forth before believing anything they hear or read from, in particular, but certainly not limited to, main stream media. My concern is that some people would like it if Americans were not aware of what this ruling actually says. It is up to each individual American to circumvent this attempt, by being well equipped to counter nothing other than nonsense.

(I discussed some of the ins and outs of this ruling on a special of Foundation of a Nation the night of the ruling, June 28, 2012). You can listen or watch that broadcast at the network location: www.alfiredupmedia.com )

---

[i] Refer to 1995 SCOTUS decision written by Scalia re-affirming Marshall, re-affirming the Framers.  (Also see Amends. 4, 5, 9, & 10)

[ii] In early 2012, Mr. Obama threatened the State of Texas that if they refused to oblige the abortion section of Medicaid, he would choke the state by withholding $35M in funding.  Governor Rick Perry did not flinch. He said the State would find the funds elsewhere; and the Attorney General to Texas, Greg Abbott filed suit. https://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagNews/release.php?id=3995; www.foxnews.com/.../perry-blasts-obama-for-federal-funding-cuts-to-medicaid/ )

Reference:
567 U. S. ____ (2012) http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf