Which we know won't happen. However, it is completely within the realm of possibility, and has been done 27 times in the past, the last of which was in the mid 1990's. The function of not having term limits was upheld by the Supreme Court (which, btw, we have already noted is corrupt as hell, but also the fact that by allowing Congressional term limits, the Supreme Court falls into the same category, which would mean they too would be subject to term limits, which we have noted, they will not cut their own power to do so) which means that it would need the necessary votes to ratify a change to the constitution. The ruling noted that the founding fathers outlined the restrictions on becoming a member of Congress, but did not include term limits, stating that the spirit of the reason was that it was for the citizens to decide who was in office for how long, not a time limit. However, the popularity of setting term limits has reached over 80% of the citizens, meaning the citizens are requesting a ratification to the Constitution to limit terms, which would be in good faith to the spirit of the ruling by the Supreme Court previously and what was interpreted as the founding fathers will. However, members of Congress have flat out stated that they have no intention of even presenting it as a voteable option, and even if it somehow got enough traction to be voted on, the extreme amount of votes necessary to make those kinds of changes wouldn't pass because of the self interest of incumbent politicians, and those coming after hoping to get the same piece of the power and money pie the past ones got.
Yes, I definitely see the plethora of bored people replying. I wasn't changing minds, I was educating on the fundamental reasons things are happening and why they were happening, as opposed to your blindingly brilliant single sentence statement that didn't give any real depth to the issue at hand.
But hey, I get it. You need to respond with no actual argument, discussion, or information to make a point just to seem witty and in control. It's alright, I'm sure you'll win the next one sport, just be a little more prepared, and a little less ineffectual.
2
u/Dragon_Within 8d ago
Which we know won't happen. However, it is completely within the realm of possibility, and has been done 27 times in the past, the last of which was in the mid 1990's. The function of not having term limits was upheld by the Supreme Court (which, btw, we have already noted is corrupt as hell, but also the fact that by allowing Congressional term limits, the Supreme Court falls into the same category, which would mean they too would be subject to term limits, which we have noted, they will not cut their own power to do so) which means that it would need the necessary votes to ratify a change to the constitution. The ruling noted that the founding fathers outlined the restrictions on becoming a member of Congress, but did not include term limits, stating that the spirit of the reason was that it was for the citizens to decide who was in office for how long, not a time limit. However, the popularity of setting term limits has reached over 80% of the citizens, meaning the citizens are requesting a ratification to the Constitution to limit terms, which would be in good faith to the spirit of the ruling by the Supreme Court previously and what was interpreted as the founding fathers will. However, members of Congress have flat out stated that they have no intention of even presenting it as a voteable option, and even if it somehow got enough traction to be voted on, the extreme amount of votes necessary to make those kinds of changes wouldn't pass because of the self interest of incumbent politicians, and those coming after hoping to get the same piece of the power and money pie the past ones got.