One party rule

Help Support CattleToday:

One party rule is the ONLY goal of the Democrats
Ephesians 6:12, KJV: "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

Its real simple the world's system is against The LORD. The question is "Is there ten righteous people left the the Democrat party? 9?, 8?,7?,6?, 5?, 4?, 3?, 2?, ONE ? Can anyone change? YES

Romand 5:8: KJV: "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Romans 6:23, ESV: "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
 
Ephesians 6:12, KJV: "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."

Its real simple the world's system is against The LORD. The question is "Is there ten righteous people left the the Democrat party? 9?, 8?,7?,6?, 5?, 4?, 3?, 2?, ONE ? Can anyone change? YES

Romand 5:8: KJV: "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."
Romans 6:23, ESV: "For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
You guys are having a pretty good argument and I applaud you for this. On Bishop Barron's "Word on Fire" program yesterday he said that there is a difference between an argument and a quarrel. Quarreling is what is happening in the media now. It degenerates into name-calling and hatred. An argument, on the other hand, is a place where people put out what they know and state the facts to support it. Most of our popular media is devoid of facts and deliberately twists them in order to rouse peoples' emotions to the point that they are willing to drink poison kool-ade. People need to argue in order to arrive at the truth. Hang in there!!!
 
I haven't seen anything good ever come from the Democratic Party. It is the party of slavery yesterday and today the only thing that has changed is they have expanded ownership.

I do not believe the Court should be expanded. Is that clear enough for you? However, I do believe we need more District Judges.

With that said let me give you a little history lesson. The Supreme Court was originally set up so that each Circuit would be represented by 2 Justices (3 Districts [Circuits now] so 6 at that time). The last time the Court was expanded in 1869, there were 9 Circuits so that each Circuit was represented by one Justice. Today, there are 12 Circuits. You never want an even number on the Court so 12 won't work.

If you start changing the number willy nilly it will create chaos every two years. I do believe, however, that the lifetime appointment is outdated. I believe Justices should be limited to a term of 16-20 years and then be replaced.
So question, why limit the supreme court to 16-20 year because it's outdated, but then keep presidential terms at 4-8? Just my opinion, but I see a major issue we have now with foreign strategy is that they know all they ha e to do is wait us out. One example is President Trump... He had china, iran north korea russia etc holding their breath for the most part. But at the same time they knew that if he lost it was business as usual... I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your point just expanding a little. For a while now I have seen this as our biggest problem when it comes to the world stage. We always say that the president is the most powerful man in the world which seems strange to me because he can be just a flash in the pan or 4 yes and gone vs 50 years like in some countries. Thoughts???
 
So question, why limit the supreme court to 16-20 year because it's outdated, but then keep presidential terms at 4-8? Just my opinion, but I see a major issue we have now with foreign strategy is that they know all they ha e to do is wait us out. One example is President Trump... He had china, iran north korea russia etc holding their breath for the most part. But at the same time they knew that if he lost it was business as usual... I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your point just expanding a little. For a while now I have seen this as our biggest problem when it comes to the world stage. We always say that the president is the most powerful man in the world which seems strange to me because he can be just a flash in the pan or 4 yes and gone vs 50 years like in some countries. Thoughts???
My thoughts are that if the office of president were to be much longer terms and especially up to 50 year terms, think we as a country would not be enjoying the democracy that we have. The frequent and peaceful transitions of power are vital to maintaining the status of being that influence on the world stage. I don't think the concept of longer presidential terms would be a good thing for the country.
As for term limits on the Supreme Court then that is a bit different as that branch of government works differently. I think more and more as time goes forward and our political parties are moving farther away from center then the role of the court may become more pivotal as far as what is upheld or not. With the current lifetime appointments it does give reason to question the length of tenure of the judges with so much at stake. Even with age being an arbitrary number in a lot of situations, and experience in that role being important.
 
So question, why limit the supreme court to 16-20 year because it's outdated, but then keep presidential terms at 4-8? Just my opinion, but I see a major issue we have now with foreign strategy is that they know all they ha e to do is wait us out. One example is President Trump... He had china, iran north korea russia etc holding their breath for the most part. But at the same time they knew that if he lost it was business as usual... I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your point just expanding a little. For a while now I have seen this as our biggest problem when it comes to the world stage. We always say that the president is the most powerful man in the world which seems strange to me because he can be just a flash in the pan or 4 yes and gone vs 50 years like in some countries. Thoughts???
One problem is recent presidents (both parties) have abused the executive orders. If the president would let congress do their job, then other countries would for sure take us more serious and would know the impact would last much longer than 4 years. I personally think executive powers need to be reined in. A year ago would have been a good time to get those laws passed with (most probably) bi-partisan support.
 
So question, why limit the supreme court to 16-20 year because it's outdated, but then keep presidential terms at 4-8?
A lifetime appointment to presidency makes him a King, or Emperor. We fought against that kind of leadership, and in no way am I in favor of going to a King type ruler.
We always say that the president is the most powerful man in the world which seems strange to me because he can be just a flash in the pan or 4 yes and gone vs 50 years like in some countries.
He is powerful because he commands the most powerful military on the planet. The President as a person is not the most powerful, the institution of the office is the most powerful, again because of our military.
 
My thoughts are that if the office of president were to be much longer terms and especially up to 50 year terms, think we as a country would not be enjoying the democracy that we have. The frequent and peaceful transitions of power are vital to maintaining the status of being that influence on the world stage. I don't think the concept of longer presidential terms would be a good thing for the country.
As for term limits on the Supreme Court then that is a bit different as that branch of government works differently. I think more and more as time goes forward and our political parties are moving farther away from center then the role of the court may become more pivotal as far as what is upheld or not. With the current lifetime appointments it does give reason to question the length of tenure of the judges with so much at stake. Even with age being an arbitrary number in a lot of situations, and experience in that role being important.
I'm in no way suggesting that our President should be in office for 50 years. That was not my point at all my point is is that you can't get a country moving in a direction with four years. Changing policies completely every 4 years to me hurts us.
A lifetime appointment to presidency makes him a King, or Emperor. We fought against that kind of leadership, and in no way am I in favor of going to a King type ruler.

He is powerful because he commands the most powerful military on the planet. The President as a person is not the most powerful, the institution of the office is the most powerful, again because of our military.
I think everyone is taking me out of context on my original thought. My original thought is not to have a president for 50 years what I was saying is it is hard for us to stay on one policy track when we switch presidents every 4 years I was simply saying let's make it 6 years or a one-term 8-year president with Congress continuing to rotate in and out like it does now you still have your checks and balances but you have an administration that is going to be in office for 8 full years. I agree I absolutely do not want a president to become a king but at the same time I see flip-flopping every 4 years as a con not a pro again just my opinion
 
I'm in no way suggesting that our President should be in office for 50 years. That was not my point at all my point is is that you can't get a country moving in a direction with four years. Changing policies completely every 4 years to me hurts us.

I think everyone is taking me out of context on my original thought. My original thought is not to have a president for 50 years what I was saying is it is hard for us to stay on one policy track when we switch presidents every 4 years I was simply saying let's make it 6 years or a one-term 8-year president with Congress continuing to rotate in and out like it does now you still have your checks and balances but you have an administration that is going to be in office for 8 full years. I agree I absolutely do not want a president to become a king but at the same time I see flip-flopping every 4 years as a con not a pro again just my opinion
From what I can tell, chaos is the only thing that saves us from ourselves.
 
I'm in no way suggesting that our President should be in office for 50 years. That was not my point at all my point is is that you can't get a country moving in a direction with four years. Changing policies completely every 4 years to me hurts us.
The solution to that is to put forth candidates that are perhaps a bit more moderate, and aren't completely loathed by 50% or more of the population so the party can fathomably be re-elected more than once.

I know up here the last time the conservatives ran Stephen Harper for the 3rd time he was SO hated by so many people it was stupid to have him run again.. and it led us now to have way too many terms of Trudeau, which is equally bad... Remember, it doesn't matter how fervently your followers like you, they still only get one vote, what matters is how many people you completely alienate and lose the vote from
 
@Coosh71 you are correct it does take a while to move to a direction. If you look at it from the standpoint of of the people though it puts the elected officials in a position to be at least somewhat grounded in what they are doing if they or at least their party is in a position of being politically replaced in the upcoming term. Since I can remember their has only been the 2 terms of Reagan followed by 1 term of Bush for a consecutive 12 years or 3 terms of one party holding the office of President.
 
I suppose that depends if the majority approves of 'the direction' a president and his admin tries to take the country.
Good luck getting the 22nd amendment overturned and a new amendment ratified by 2/3 of the states........

The ;last president to publicly state preference for an extended term (6 years) was Jimmy Carter.

The most recent congress members to try to get the presidential terms lengthened were:
Rep Jack Brooks (D) , Rep Bill Frenzel (R), and Rep Frank Joseph Guarini(D) in the 101st congressional session 1989. This was in the waning days of the Reagan admin and before the Nov elections.

Rep Richard T. Shulze(R) introduced a similar bill during the 102nd congress in the last years of the HW Bush administration.
Rep Frank Mascara (D) introduced his version during the 104th congress (when Bill Clinton was prez).

See a pattern? Pretty much right down party lines, depending who was the sitting prez at the time.
None of the proposed amendments ever made it out of committee.


The 22nd amendment:
"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once,"
 
no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once
This why Harris will be taking over after Biden gets his two years in. They hope to have the rules in place so she can get 10 years in office.
 
Top