Jan 8, 2010

The hypocrisy of the teabaggers takes aim at term limits for Democrats only

The hypocrisy of the teabaggers who control the Republican Party never cease to amaze me, and it makes you wonder what planet they were on the last eight years.

They are apparently on a constitutional kick, misinterpreting it and twisting it to bash the Obama administration. In my daily perusal of rightwing blogs for laughs, I ran across one claming that Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, is a “miscreant who ignores the will of the people for his political interests” because he does not observe voluntary term limits laid out in the Michigan Constitution for federal representative in Congress.

This is as ridiculous as one Michigan’s blogger's misguided tirades over Nullification earlier this week. You will recall that Nullification is a constitutional theory that gives an individual state the right to declare null and void any law passed by the United States Congress which the state deems unacceptable and unconstitutional that was rejected back in 1832 but still led to the Civil War. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, like it did for state’s trying to impose federal term limits, that the authority of the federal government comes from the people rather than the state governments.

The real funny thing is that when you prove them wrong they just delete it, and tell you, without any shame, “as the owner of this blog I am the arbitrator of what comments I deem are worth posting for whatever reason I choose.

Term limits in Michigan have been a disaster, so why would we want them on the federal level? They probably don't want term limits, but they hate any Democrat so much that they ignore the effect it will have on them or what they said yesterday.

The claim is that in Article II, Section 10 of the Michigan Constitution it says,

“No person shall be elected to office as representative in the United States House of Representatives more than three times during any twelve year period. No person shall be elected to office as senator in the United States Senate more than two times during any twenty-four year period.” “…The people of Michigan hereby state their support for the aforementioned term limits for members of the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate and instruct their public officials to use their best efforts to attain such a limit nationwide.”

The problem is it’s unconstitutional.
In May 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, that states cannot impose term limits upon their federal Representatives or Senators.” The majority opinion stated, “… state-imposed restrictions, unlike the congressionally imposed restrictions at issue in Powell, violate a third idea central to this basic principle: that the right to choose representatives belongs not to the States, but to the people.”

But the real question is why have they singled out just Carl Levin? What about Rep. Dave Camp, R-Midland, nine terms; Rep. Vern Ehlers, R-Grand Rapids, eight terms; Rep. “Twitter Pete” Hoekstra, R-Holland, 8 terms; Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, five terms; and finally the longest serving Republican, Rep. Fred Upton, R-St. Joseph, 12 terms?

The hypocrisy from Republicans is overwhelming.


Not Anonymous said...

It's funny to read you saying that some blogger just deletes your comments if he doesn't agree with them. You've done the same thing with people and while you don't seem to do that lately, you always attempt to berate anyone that disagrees with you. THis is not a friendly environment for debate. But it's your blog, you can act as stupidly as you choose.

Term limits has not been a disaster for Michigan. It's done exactly as it was supposed to do by those that chose to put it on the ballot and the people of Michigan when they voted it in. It's eliminated the career politician in Lansing.

The funny thing is that I was against term limits when it was on the ballot and I still don't like it, but I am not in favor of changing it back and going through the same problems that no term limits caused. What it boils down to is without term limits, those against it were right. Politicians get entrenched in the seats and stay forever. With term limits, we lose some good experience. So it's six of one, half dozen of another.

I'm more in favor of the term limits that will be implemented come November when the people get so pissed off at the Congress that there will be wholesale changes in DC this fall.

61% of the people are against the health care that is being worked on and it's even more fun watching liberal commentators call Obama a liar for saying 8 times that the negotiations for health care reform will be on C-Span. It takes some doing to get C-Span to take a position, but this President managed to piss off the one guy that is non partisan. Brian Lamb.

People want health care reform, but they do not want the reform that's been presented and is now being shoved down the people's throats.

But you keep whining about what Republicans do and say. You always do.

Communications guru said...

Wow. Unbelievable, anonymous. That is a complete lie, I have deleted the comments of one guy, which could be you anonymous, and only after repeated and numerous warnings about personal attacks.

“THis is not a friendly environment for debate?” This from a guy who personally attacks me and my family as their form of debate. One thing is for sure, I have never stooped down to your level with debate.

Term limits have been a disaster for Michigan, and you just need to take a look at the budget process the last three years. The problem is most of the Republican caucus is running for statewide office, and nothing gets done because they are more worried about the next office they are running for. It was an experiment that failed.

I agree with you, that’s weird. It’s true; elections are the real terms limits, and the Republicans will lose even more seats when Americans realize that they did was say no to everything with no solutions to the problems.

I’m not sure where you are getting that made up number, but, when you consider that liberals are not happy that it does not go far enough, Republicans only care about protecting the obscene profits of insurance companies and the lies the teabaggers have told, it could be close, depending how you ask the question. The fact is the majority of Americans want health care reform, and we will get it. It’s a good first step.

There’s noting being shoved down anyone throat. How is that possible after attempting to reform health care insurance for almost 100 years?

If you mean will I keep pointing out the Republican’s lies and hypocrisy, you’re dam right I will.

How about answering the question? Why have they singled out just Carl Levin? What about Rep. Dave Camp, R-Midland, nine terms; Rep. Vern Ehlers, R-Grand Rapids, eight terms; Rep. “Twitter Pete” Hoekstra, R-Holland, 8 terms; Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Brighton, five terms; and finally the longest serving Republican, Rep. Fred Upton, R-St. Joseph, 12 terms?

Jason Gillman said...

I would gladly see ALL of those go to remove One Carl Levin and One Debbie Stabenow.

Well worth the trade.. but hey lets look at sluggo Levin, and Conyers, Kilpatrick.. yada..

Singling out Levin was simply one way of targeting, Freezing, Polarizing.. What.. since when do you guys not appreciate a good tactic?

BTW Happy new year.

Communications guru said...

Well, the good news is it will never happen. No, what it really is, is just one more example of teabagger hypocrisy. Granted, hypocrisy is a tactic for you, but it’s not a good one.

Happy New Year to you too, and it will be a good one for the country and Democrats.

Jason Gillman said...


A good one for Democrats? That my taxpayer funded friend is a little off the mark. ..even the farthest lefties are fearing the worst this year.

You know what? MY guess is that you are an incredibly loyal man who is in reality a hell of nice guy. I respect that. But there are areas which we are going to disagree on in most cases.

Communications guru said...

Correct, and mostly because Democrats have always had to clean up the mess left by Republicans. We may at most lose a few seats in the U.S. House and maybe in the Senate, but not enough to change anything. I am a nice guy, but I have seen a lot of life and been to a lot of different places to acquire the views I have.

Jason Gillman said...


Do you in fact "acquire" views?

Or do you "develop" them?

It speaks to the method of debate going forward?

Republican Michigander said...

I'm against Term Limits because of lame duck reasons, but if ANY place needs them, it's the federal government, and more specifically, the biggest collective group of failures on God's green earth - the US Senate. Most of them have been there a long time. Levin, Byrd, Boxer, Rockefeller, Reid, Reed, Murray, Feinstein, McCain, Hatch, Mikulski, Specter, Kerry, Lautenberg, Leahy, McConnell, Shelby, Baucus, Conrad, Dorgan. Underachievers, and Peter Principle defined.

On the state level, there's a degree of beltwayitis, but it's not on the same level as Washington.

Communications guru said...

Term limits are a failure, but I‘m not so sure about lame duck being a bad thing. But, on the other hand, that’s how we got stuck with that lame CCW law back in 2000. No, we don’t need term limits, especially on the federal level. They are a failure on the state level, and they will be a failure on the federal level. No, the biggest collective group of failures on God's green earth are the Senate Republicans who have done nothing but pull ridiculous delaying stunts instead of trying to reform something that is killing people and entire industries.

carraig said...

Term limits didn't cause the problems we face today.

Almost every issue faced today is because something was passed in the pre-term limits era that gave someone something special, and now, being status quo, it's much harder to fix. It always takes much more effort to change something, especially when there will be losers, than to give something away.

Arguing after 10 years that term limits have failed, when 150 years of no-term limits created the problems to begin with, is disingenuous.

A better argument is that we need better people in Lansing - people who don't need 2 years to learn the job, people who can think through deep issues for themselves, people who have real world experience (not name recognition folks like Coleman) and people who have the maturity to get deals done.

Good examples are probably closer to Andy Dillon, Bill Rogers, Cushinberry and Garcia than Hoekstra, Coleman, Wheeler etc.

On the federal term limits issue, it's a curious interpretation by the federal courts. If power comes from the people, then a state constitutional amendment (as opposed to ordinary legislation) limiting the number of terms for a congressman or senator seems to pass the test of the power coming from the people rather than the state. There are some issues with Michigan doing this alone though, because the seniority used for committee assignments matters in DC. But the federal court interpretation is, on it's face, self serving.

Communications guru said...

I agree with you that term limits didn't cause the problems we face today, but I still believe term limits has been a failure. You’re right, we do need better people in Lansing, but when we do they’re gone in six to eight years. They are dealing with some complex issues, and it does take two years to really understand all the issues. They cast more than 3,000 bills a year. That gives more power to the lobbyists.

But even more importantly, they don’t build up the personal relationships that blur and cross party lines, so what you get is partisanship ruling. I’m not sure I agree with your lists, especially the addition of Hoekstra. Much of the problem with the last budget is the fact that the majority leader is running for AG.

The Constitution spoke loud and clear on term limits, and the constitution was approved by state constitutional conventions, not state Legislatures. If you want federal term limits you have to amend the Constitution.

Johnny C said...

I love selective term limits place on Dems from many of the right wing commentators. To Jason while things for the Dems are not blue skies and bright sunshine things but the forecast for the Republicans would make a George A. Romero zombie movie look like a Walt Disney "Snow White".

And the ever growing threat of the tea party nuts screwing up elections for Republicans also ease worries for those who don't want to see another republican take over.