Ted Cruz Introduces Term Limit Bill
The bill would effectively end Cruz’s tenure at the end of the current term
1/7/19, 7:36 pm EST
By John Corry, photo from The New Republic
Horrible partisan shill (R-TX) Ted Cruz last Friday introduced a constitutional amendment limiting all senators to two six-year terms, and all members of the U.S. House of Representatives to three two-year terms. There are currently no limits on how long a senator or representative can serve in the house or senate, and the last time a full-fledged constitutional amendment was passed was in 1992 (the 27th (“No law varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”)).
Cruz said that: “For too long, members of Congress have abused their power and ignored the will of the American people. Term limits on members of Congress offer a solution to the brokenness we see in Washington, D.C. It is long past time for Congress to hold itself accountable. I urge my colleagues to submit this constitutional amendment to the states for speedy ratification.” It is important to note that the founding fathers had quite the argument over the concept of term limits, as well as the fact that several Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi and Cruz’s rival Beto O’Rourke, approve of some type term limits for politicians as well.
For a constitutional amendment to pass, it needs approval from two thirds of both houses of congress, and must then be ratified by 38 states. If passed, Cruz’s own senatorial career would be put to a fiery (though clearly much-needed end) in 2025).
But the chances of that are of course slim. This past weekend we saw Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez argue that being factually correct is essentially a moot-point in comparison to being ‘morally’ correct (while I agree that a question regarding morality should trump any assumption that facts don’t come with an inherent sense of morality, or connection to morality- that is not a political point, and any ignorance of the fact that in order to make it political requires a conundrum (the ‘should’ in that sentence (meaning: I had to assume a sense of inherent morality in order to make any connection between morality and the political interpretation of ‘facts’ (essentially: statistics used for governing policy) (the definition of a concept can’t have the concept already assumed in the definition, that’s absurd))) judges that argument appropriately harsher) (and because any single individual, or even single group, has the right to define what ‘morally correct’ is (yeah, sure)), President Trump contemplate declaring a national emergency to get funding for his border wall because Democrats really care about anyone outside of their base, and people get mad at Ellen Degeneres for standing up for Kevin Hart. These things are far too important for anyone to care about a bill that could potentially actually unify people, aren’t they? Who cares about having conversations regarding policy and basic political/philosophical principles, ‘the left’ is eating Ellen Degeneres of all people!!!.
‘It’s just not the right time!’ ‘How could we tell our base that we’re willing to compromise with a hack like Ted Cruz?’ ‘It doesn’t matter what he thinks, what matters is his skin color, his gender, his political affiliation, and his religious beliefs; that’s what this country was founded on, and that’s what people like MLK Jr., Malcolm X and David Bowie really believed in, they just didn’t know it…
‘But I do-
Then again, it is Ted Cruz.
Maybe they have a point?