Suspend elections?

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • CVMA544

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Sep 26, 2010
    378
    16
    SW Indiana
    Last edited:

    HeadlessRoland

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 8, 2011
    3,521
    63
    In the dark
    Personally I consider such a statement to be so against the Constitution that it qualifies as waging war against this nation, and should be considered treason, with all that treason entails.
     

    Pyroponce

    Marksman
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 31, 2011
    209
    18
    South Bend
    If politicians could suspend the permanent campaign, I'd be inclined to agree with that. With the 24 news cycle covering absolutely everything, it would be nice if congressional officials just did their jobs for once instead of trying to gain the upper hand with their eyes always on the next election.
     

    Scutter01

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Mar 21, 2008
    23,750
    48
    If politicians could suspend the permanent campaign, I'd be inclined to agree with that. With the 24 news cycle covering absolutely everything, it would be nice if congressional officials just did their jobs for once instead of trying to gain the upper hand with their eyes always on the next election.

    The Framers thought of that...sort of. Obviously, they probably couldn't foresee what our current media would be like, but I suspect they had an idea of the power of the media in general. Personally, I think they did it right.

    One term for a member of the House of Representatives is 2 years. This was set up to get the members of the House of Representatives to act quickly on a matter. All 435 members of the House are up for reelection every 2 years. This makes the House much more responsive to public opinion. The Framers weren't completely sold on the ability of public whims to govern so the Senate's terms are 6 years (staggered election every 2 years) making them less responsive to their local constituents (not quite so worried about reelection) and more able to make decisions that might better benefit national interests or have long term benefits and short term costs that would not win them any election points on a local level.
     

    ThrottleJockey

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Oct 14, 2009
    4,934
    38
    Between Greenwood and Martinsville
    The Framers thought of that...sort of. Obviously, they probably couldn't foresee what our current media would be like, but I suspect they had an idea of the power of the media in general. Personally, I think they did it right.
    Yes, but the framers didn't lay out a plan where the representatives at the national level were elected directly. I believe the STATE reps were directly intended to be elected by the people and then the reps sent to DC were to be appointed by those elected at the state level......The system we have today didn't come around until 1913 or so...Around the same time the fed-res came into play...illegally I might add.
     

    Bobby

    Expert
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Oct 14, 2008
    763
    28
    Muncie/New Castle
    Yes, but the framers didn't lay out a plan where the representatives at the national level were elected directly. I believe the STATE reps were directly intended to be elected by the people and then the reps sent to DC were to be appointed by those elected at the state level......The system we have today didn't come around until 1913 or so...Around the same time the fed-res came into play...illegally I might add.


    ThrottleJockey,
    You are thinking of Senators in the US Congress. Prior to 1913, the state reps appointed the two Senators who would represent the state's interests in Washington, D.C. These two Senators would be subject to INSTANT recall if they didn't put the state's interests above all else. Can you see things like Obamacare or any other unconstitutional law getting through with this system in place? This is why the progressives at the time favored direct election of Senators. It was the only way usurp state sovereignty. As a result, I don't favor term limits like so many today are calling for just follow the US Constitution like the Founding Fathers intended and repeal the 17th Amendment.

    The House of Reprensentatives has always elected their members every two years. Having the elections so often ensures that the people will always be able to keep their Congressmen accountable to them.
     
    Last edited:

    John Galt

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Apr 18, 2008
    1,719
    48
    Southern Indiana
    ThrottleJockey,
    You are thinking of Senators in the US Congress. Prior to 1913, the state reps appointed the two Senators who would represent the state's interests in Washington, D.C. These two Senators would be subject to INSTANT recall if they didn't put the state's interests above all else. Can you see things like Obamacare or any other unconstitutional law getting through with this system in place? This is why the progressives at the time favored direct election of Senators. It was the only way usurp state sovereignty. As a result, I don't favor term limits like so many today are calling for just follow the US Constitution like the Founding Fathers intended and repeal the 17th Amendment.

    The House of Reprensentatives has always elected their members every two years. Having the elections so often ensures that the people will always be able to keep their Congressmen accountable to them.

    This ^^^^^^^^^^! :patriot:
     

    CarmelHP

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 14, 2008
    7,633
    48
    Carmel
    ThrottleJockey,
    You are thinking of Senators in the US Congress. Prior to 1913, the state reps appointed the two Senators who would represent the state's interests in Washington, D.C. These two Senators would be subject to INSTANT recall if they didn't put the state's interests above all else. Can you see things like Obamacare or any other unconstitutional law getting through with this system in place? This is why the progressives at the time favored direct election of Senators. It was the only way usurp state sovereignty. As a result, I don't favor term limits like so many today are calling for just follow the US Constitution like the Founding Fathers intended and repeal the 17th Amendment.

    The House of Reprensentatives has always elected their members every two years. Having the elections so often ensures that the people will always be able to keep their Congressmen accountable to them.

    Close, except by 1913 most states had some form of direct election, that's why it passed so easily. There was no recall mechanism, once elected or appointed, Senators served out their term. In states without direct election they knew that there would be no more terms if they didn't toe the state's line. I would prefer a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting any form of direct election of Senators and requiring either election by legislatures or appointment by governors at the states' choosing.
     

    jgreiner

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jul 13, 2011
    5,099
    38
    Lafayette, IN
    I read this yesterday. I guess the democrats are coming to the realization that they are going to get their walking papers in November of 2012.....and are desperate to retain their power any way they can.
     

    Expat

    Pdub
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    23   0   0
    Feb 27, 2010
    110,198
    113
    Michiana
    I will not make a joke about this is what happens when you allow women to vote and hold office. That would be inappropriate and offensive.
     

    ViperJock

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Feb 28, 2011
    3,811
    48
    Fort Wayne-ish
    I like how she says we need to do it so the politicians won't have to worry about being re-elected. Isn't that the point? I don't think enough of them fear it at this point.
     

    Constructionist

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jul 19, 2011
    603
    18
    Supposed "conspiracy theorists" like me have been saying for a while now that they'll manufacture a crisis that requires martial law/suspending the Constitution or elections. Nothing would make me happier than to look back in a few years at all the posts that will follow this one, saying I'm crazy, and think to myself how happy I am that I was wrong and they were right.
     
    Top Bottom