edgecombe

HEY IDIOT,

THERE IS NO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE. NO MOTION. NO SECOND, NO VOTE. HENCE NO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

AGAIN YOU LOOK LIKE AN IDIOT.

Parliamentary procedure is whatever process the committee of the whole chooses. Idiot.

SPARKING,

I DIDN'T SEE WHERE ANYONE MADE A MOTION OR A SUFFICIENT SECOND ON SUCH MOTION. NOR DID I SEE A VOTE ON IT.

NOW SPARKING, OR CONRAD, WHICH EVER SCREEN NAME YOU DECIDE TO USE, YOU JUST PROVED THAT YOU HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE.

It may be time for the left to concede.

Since the left offers no valid response, the motion carries. Two term limitation and no lobbying for five years after leaving federal office.

NEXT

Resolved that in the opinion of Congress it is expedient that on the second Monday in May next a Convention of delegates who shall have been appointed by the several states be held at Philadelphia for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation and reporting to Congress and the several legislatures such alterations and provisions therein as shall when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the states render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of Government & the preservation of the Union.

Ump I understand that congress wanted a convention for the purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. They could only give an opinion on the matter because they had no authority to compel the convention. Congress tried to high jack the convention but the states would not allow it.

Don't forget Tillis.

NO NEED FOR TERM LIMITS......PEOPLE JUST NEED TO GET OFF THEIR SORRY ARSES AND VOTE THE TRASH OUT......STARTING WITH BURR AND FOX......

IN OTHER WORDS, YOU WANT VIRGINIA FOXX TO GO. RIGHT?

FEBRUARY 21, 1787.

See, there you go umps. Now IF you could just pry open that closed mind of yours and admit that others might just have a valid offering on this topic, then we could have a discussion. Sparklin' had a limit of two consecutive terms at the federal level and the idea of rotation was on the table. Currently there are no limits on the number of terms a Rep.or Sen. can serve. This goes to citizen legislators versus professional politicians. I think there was also mention of limiting lobbying activities to after 5 years of a term ending.

NO I DO NOT. AS WAS SAID BEFORE, PLEASE READ ARTICLE 7 DOCUMENT 1 FROM THE CONGRESS OF THE CONFEDERATION DATED

Ump. Do you agree that you are misrepresenting the facts around the basis for your argument that we have had a runaway convention in the past?

How would that eliminate big business? We can't assume state politicians are less immune to influence.

Can we agree that decisions like Citizens United have had an adverse effect on our elections? Perhaps one step would be to overturn that disaster. Which, if I'm not mistaken, is one of the reasons one side is wanting a Convention.

Budget constraints on military spending is a great idea.

But I can't agree that the failure of our union would ever, under any circumstances, be seen as a positive. Surely we have the capacity to compromise and work together as a people without the destruction of a nation we all hold dear.

Two terms is any elected or appointed office. Return election of the Senators to the state legislatures where it belongs thus removing big business from direct influence in the US Senate.

Pass a balanced budget and set budget limits for military spending with a **** of a lot more accountability and oversight.

No I do not wish for a divided nation. The Feds need to be put back in their place right along with big business. If it takes the nation failing to survive and rebuild then so be it.

There needs to be a cleaning house in Congress of all Democrats and Republicans. They have had their chances over the last 100 years. Time for something new perhaps, new parties or no parties.

I wouldn't take it that way. Sounds like a "worst case scenario", an argument ad absurdum.

Decsurvey, legitimate question: You seriously aren't hoping for the failure of the United States of America, are you? Am I misreading something in your last statement?

If so, my apologies. If I'm not misreading it...wow. Wow.

Hopefully it will pass, states will meet, fed government will fall, and they slice up a divided nation.

Ump. I have explained in the past that what you claim about the first convention is not accurate. Congress tried to compel the states into a convention to amend The Articles of Confederation. Since congress can't call the states into a convention on their own authority the states took over the convention. That's why your labeling of it as a "runaway convention" is not accurate.