|
ufarn posted:Are there any efforts to change the term limits for congressional and gubernatorial politicians at the moment? I find it interesting how disparate the term limit rules are from state to state, and was honestly surprised to see that it's that restrictive, as someone from a country of parliamentary government. That's arguably unconstitutional since the last time federal term limits came up SCOTUS ruled that you can't put state limits on a federal office.
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 14:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 01:29 |
|
|
ufarn posted:Are there any efforts to change the term limits for congressional and gubernatorial politicians at the moment? I find it interesting how disparate the term limit rules are from state to state, and was honestly surprised to see that it's that restrictive, as someone from a country of parliamentary government. Most of the state legislatures are out of session by now (most states only have part-time legislatures) and I haven't heard of any term limit amendments to state constitutions in other states. Term limits for federal offices are probably unconstitutional short of a unconstitutional amendment.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
Brigadier Sockface posted:Kentucky and Florida state law prohibits this. Is that Constitutional? In any case, I wouldn't be surprised if the KY State legislature changes it just for him.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
Ammat The Ankh posted:Is that Constitutional? In any case, I wouldn't be surprised if the KY State legislature changes it just for him. Kentucky has a Democratic governor and House, so that plan probably isn't going to work.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
serewit posted:Kentucky has a Democratic governor and House, so that plan probably isn't going to work. On the other hand, Rand running for President would be a boon to the Democrats.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
Joementum posted:On the other hand, Rand running for President would be a boon to the Democrats. Yeah, but you expect the KDP to do something in the best interest of the national party? 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
serewit posted:Kentucky has a Democratic governor and House, so that plan probably isn't going to work. Really? I just assumed it was one of those states with a large Republican majority at the state level, give it's presidential electoral politics.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Kentucky Democrats are basically Republicans, for what its worth.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
Ammat The Ankh posted:Is that Constitutional? In any case, I wouldn't be surprised if the KY State legislature changes it just for him. Yeah, it doesn't seem like a state setting restrictions on running for a federal office would stand up in court, but IANAL, so who knows.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
serewit posted:Kentucky Democrats are basically Republicans, for what its worth. To be honest I'll take a moderate republican like Ben Chandler over an insane person like Andy Barr.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 20:43
|
|
|
Teddybear posted:The ostensible issue with whether Obama was born in Hawaii is because of the requirement that the President be a natural-born citizen, which historically means born in the United States. If I recall correctly it's why Hamilton never got to be President. (That and Aaron Burr.) The problem is that a) it's a real dumb requirement and b) it was never defined properly, so it's real ambiguous. From a few days back, but natural born has always simply meant that you were born a citizen. If one or both of your parents are US Citizens it doesn't matter if you're born in another galaxy, you're natural born. The only exception to this was for people who were citizens at the time of the constitutions' adoption. Thus Hamilton was eligible to be president but never had the chance. The attack on the eligibility of a candidate always happens when it's available, because why not take a shot?. I believe there were calls of Cleveland being a faking Canadian.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 22:09
|
|
|
Gyges posted:From a few days back, but natural born has always simply meant that you were born a citizen. The issue hasn't really been tested in a serious way to establish what the "natural born citizen" term means. Birther attacks on Obama have largely rested on untrue assertions that the circumstances of his birth were other than what has been presented (in Hawaii at the date stated on his birth certificate etc.). The assertions are that he was born somewhere other than the United States, that his parents are other people than who he says they are, that his citizenship was somehow renounced for him by proxy by his parents when he lived in Indonesia, etc. etc. If there were an actual case based on true facts, asserting, for instance, that having one parent be a citizen but the other parent being a citizen of another country somehow made him ineligible by causing him to not be a natural born citizen, and such a case were heard by the Supreme Court (or rejected for lack of merit) then the issue could be tested.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2013 22:27
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:The issue hasn't really been tested in a serious way to establish what the "natural born citizen" term means. Birther attacks on Obama have largely rested on untrue assertions that the circumstances of his birth were other than what has been presented (in Hawaii at the date stated on his birth certificate etc.). The assertions are that he was born somewhere other than the United States, that his parents are other people than who he says they are, that his citizenship was somehow renounced for him by proxy by his parents when he lived in Indonesia, etc. etc. The other birther part is that his father was a Kenyan resident and thus had British citizenship. But Obama was born on US soil from a maternal US citizen so he's still natural born. But you're right, there's no real case law on what natural born is. The only real clear non-eligible people are people of foreign citizens who were later naturalized
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 17:48
|
|
|
Also, I don't think the Supreme Court would ever really hear any legal challenges on it, or address it beyond "The dude's legit." It'd just be political suicide and it would just invite a lot of controversy on the court. And then you got the whole part where the Chief Justice swore in Obama (4 times), which would be problematic. Plus, you'd just create a huge mess, since you have to try and dismantle a presidency, which is pretty much impossible. And then who is president?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Also, I don't think the Supreme Court would ever really hear any legal challenges on it, or address it beyond "The dude's legit." It'd just be political suicide and it would just invite a lot of controversy on the court. And then you got the whole part where the Chief Justice swore in Obama (4 times), which would be problematic. Plus, you'd just create a huge mess, since you have to try and dismantle a presidency, which is pretty much impossible. And then who is president? I mean, you would think, but we got Bush v. Gore. It takes four votes to get cert and by god, four Justices at any one time are just that kind of crazy.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Cemetry Gator posted:Also, I don't think the Supreme Court would ever really hear any legal challenges on it, or address it beyond "The dude's legit." It'd just be political suicide and it would just invite a lot of controversy on the court. And then you got the whole part where the Chief Justice swore in Obama (4 times), which would be problematic. Plus, you'd just create a huge mess, since you have to try and dismantle a presidency, which is pretty much impossible. And then who is president? I believe it would still be Diamond Joe Biden.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 19:17
|
|
|
I talked about this a bit in the other GOP thread, but we're talking about Cruz again so here's some observations from local Texas people I know in media and politics. Out of all the Republicans in Texas right now, they're the most scared of Cruz. Most of them see him as a highly manipulative sociopath, from interacting with him directly, and are watching him very closely to see how he positions himself. Perry is seen as a scared actor that is too concerned with what people think of him and noone is really worried about him going beyond governor. Neither of these things apply to Cruz and he will have qualms with adapting in a situation involving higher office and isn't nearly as tone-deaf as Romney. Having Paul run for president is like have his father in there, or Paul Ryan. Neither of them is willing to compromise their beliefs a whole lot as they are so central to who they are. I'm not too concerned about them, as I don't think enough of the country will vote for hardliner libertarians just because they oppose abortion. People like Cruz, on the other hand, might be able to adapt enough to seem palatable to the general population. Sir Tonk fucked around with this message at 22:43 on May 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
I dunno, a guy who spent $14 million to win as a Republican in Texas against a guy who spent a half-million doesn't exactly scream quality candidate.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 23:23
|
|
|
watt par posted:I dunno, a guy who spent $14 million to win as a Republican in Texas against a guy who spent a half-million doesn't exactly scream quality candidate. He had to make it out of 2 primary elections.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
watt par posted:I dunno, a guy who spent $14 million to win as a Republican in Texas against a guy who spent a half-million doesn't exactly scream quality candidate. I remember Cruz having the edge in a competitive media market around here, but 28 times as much? I thought Dewhurst had the establishment behind him. Sure ran a lot of radio ads, though the morning shows were all pro-Cruz. In the church I grew up in, the pastor's son endorsed Cruz against him, and that was good enough for my parents. edit with my math it's clear that i didn't realize republicans actually spend money outside the primary
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
One of the things that I find most interesting about this discussion is that the names brought up the most often for the Republican nomination--- (Paul, Rubio, Cruz, even Chris Christie) are people that have won office within the past four years. If there is a Republican politician who won office before 2008 who is being heavily discussed, I can't think of who they are (other than Jeb Bush?). It isn't news that the Republican Party is shifting and dislikes its old guard, but the amount that is unusual is pretty remarkable. With every other Republican nominee going back to 1960, they had held state-wide and/or nationally recognizable office for at least six years before being nominated (Two notes: George W. Bush had only been governor for six years, but he was obviously familiar to people since his father had been vice-president 20 years before. And Gerald Ford, an obvious oddity in presidential history, has still been pretty well known nationally since he was the House minority leader). Many of them had much longer times in office than that: 18 years between Nixon's first term in the senate and his presidency, 14 years between Reagan's first term as governor and his presidency, and Bob Dole's 26(!) years between his first senate term and his run for the presidency. There have been a few lapses on the Democratic side, (Jimmy Carter was first term governor, Barack Obama was a first term Senator), but even the Democrats have tended to like people with proven resumes. Bill Clinton, the "Young President", had held statewide office for a dozen years when he became president. This is why I am not totally sure that the Republican nomination process will totally chuck the weighing of resumes. The electorate might be excitable now, but I wonder if the primary fight will focus more on people's histories in office.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 06:56
|
|
|
Holding office for a while gives you too much time to create a sensible record which is anathema to primary voters.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 07:01
|
|
|
UltimoDragonQuest posted:Holding office for a while gives you too much time to create a sensible record which is anathema to primary voters. Which is true, but also depends on many things: whether the first contests are caucuses or primaries, and whether the primaries are open or closed. And even, for that matter, what day the contests are on. If some of the first big states to vote are open primaries that attract non-hardcore voters, there is going to be a lot less hardcore ideology voters. Or the first contests could be caucuses in states where it snows a whole lot! In which case the most ideologically dedicated supporters are going to be the only ones who show up. Its also of interest to note in 2012, even though there were right-wing candidates running (Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich), both had been nationally known for 18 years.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 07:10
|
|
|
watt par posted:I dunno, a guy who spent $14 million to win as a Republican in Texas against a guy who spent a half-million doesn't exactly scream quality candidate. When someone like James Carville says this morning on This Week that Cruz is "the most talented and fearless Republican" (link) he's seen in decades, you want to take notice. Carville may be married to Mary Matalin, but he's got a ton of experience with campaigns and is pretty reliable for analysis. Democrats are legitimately concerned about his future positioning. Also, I thought it was odd that they didn't mention he was born in Canada. I was expecting the talking heads shows to get that issue out of the way quickly and I would have loved to hear DeMint go on the record about it. UltimoDragonQuest posted:Holding office for a while gives you too much time to create a sensible record which is anathema to primary voters. Yeah I'd say that Republicans are running primary candidates and Democrats are running general election candidates, if the past three cycles are any indication. While Romney was certainly as generic as it gets, every other person running in that primary was bananas (including Gingrich). edit, added link Sir Tonk fucked around with this message at 21:54 on May 5, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:George W. Bush had only been governor for six years, but he was obviously familiar to people since his father had been vice-president 20 years before. and, you know, president also
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
Riptor posted:and, you know, president also I was assuming that was a joke.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:
I voted in the Republican primaries specifically to vote against Cruz. The guy is dangerous. It's kinda funny that though Dewhurst worked for the CIA in the 80s in South America probably killing nuns on Lord Reagan's orders, he was the far less scary candidate.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2013 23:36
|
|
|
But how will Cruz surmount the "faker, more simpering Joe McCarthy" vibe that he gives off at all times? I'm hard-pressed to think of a presidential election that was not won by the person who appeared the most sincere. Cruz will never poll well with people who can hear tone of voice and read facial expressions.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 00:00
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'm hard-pressed to think of a presidential election that was not won by the person who appeared the most sincere. 1972.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'm hard-pressed to think of a presidential election that was not won by the person who appeared the most sincere. 1964
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:I was assuming that was a joke. Oh no, not a joke. Although the presidency is obviously a big deal, I was more looking at the length of time that the name "George Bush" would have been a household name. Which goes back 20 years before George W Bush was elected. In a way, I am not so much concerned with the prestige and popularity of the office, as much as the familiarity. Twenty years is a long time to build up familiarity with the public.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 01:05
|
|
|
Joementum posted:1972. glowing-fish posted:1964 I guess I wasn't thinking of incumbent races. Once a guy has been on the job for a while people seem to give him a little credit.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'm hard-pressed to think of a presidential election that was not won by the person who appeared the most sincere.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
dethslayer666 posted:1980, 1984 Ronald Reagan at least appeared very sincere. And he probably actually was very sincere.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 03:01
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:Ronald Reagan at least appeared very sincere. And he probably actually was very sincere. There you go again 
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 03:21
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:When someone like James Carville says this morning on This Week that Cruz is "the most talented and fearless Republican" (link) he's seen in decades, you want to take notice. Carville may be married to Mary Matalin, but he's got a ton of experience with campaigns and is pretty reliable for analysis. Democrats are legitimately concerned about his future positioning. I'm not sure about that but either way it's pretty solid strategy. If he's genuinely concerned, talking up Cruz helps because praise from a Democrat automatically undercuts Cruz's "true conservative" image among his base. If he doesn't see him as a threat, it still helps, because he's puffing up a candidate he's not worried about at the expense of somebody more electable.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
based gaddis posted:If he's genuinely concerned, talking up Cruz helps because praise from a Democrat automatically undercuts Cruz's "true conservative" image among his base. It certainly worked insomuch as a ton of blogs and news sites went around going "James Carville Loves Ted Cruz!" all day yesterday. There's also the chance that Cruz burns too many bridges in the Senate before he has a chance to run, but that could also help him if he frames it correctly. Either way, he's an interesting person to watch. I just wish he didn't live so close to me.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 15:30
|
|
|
based gaddis posted:I'm not sure about that but either way it's pretty solid strategy. If he's genuinely concerned, talking up Cruz helps because praise from a Democrat automatically undercuts Cruz's "true conservative" image among his base. If he doesn't see him as a threat, it still helps, because he's puffing up a candidate he's not worried about at the expense of somebody more electable. Nobody strategizes like the Ragin' Cajun. He was raised by a family of eels, you know.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2013 15:51
|
|
|
The Salt Lake Tribune asks the question that nobody else is asking, "Mike Lee, will you run for President in 2016?"Mike Lee's aide posted:No dice. What if he's just being cagey? Is this the first sign of Leementum?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 01:29 |
|
|
glowing-fish posted:Ronald Reagan at least appeared very sincere. And he probably actually was very sincere. He probably was sincere because he was likely in his usual semi-lucid highly suggestible fugue state.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2013 03:31
|
|