Tag Archives: senate

And That Is What Some of You Were

Alleged comedian Bill Maher has been trying to wreck the candidacy of Christine O’Donnell by dredging an old clip from his old show where she said that she “dabbled into witchcraft” in high school.

I find myself wondering exactly what he’s trying to accomplish with this. Is he trying to alienate her from her base by trying to represent her as a kook or as someone a conservative or a Christian could not vote for? If so, Mr. Maher clearly doesn’t understand what Christianity is all about. Religiophobes on the left often make the mistake of thinking that the core of the Christian faith is a set of rules: a whole bunch of “thou shalts” and “thou shalt nots” (mostly the “thou shalt nots”). However, that’s not the core of Chrisitanity. The Christian faith is about redemption.

I Corinthians 6:9-10 gives a list of those who will not inherit the kingdom of God. It looks pretty dire.

9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

However, the following verse comes in with redemption:

11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

The heart of Christianity is about relationship with Christ and redemption through Christ. If Mr. Maher thinks a shady past, or even a weird past would disqualify someone Biblically, then he should do his homework. The passages above were written by Saul of Tarsus, a Messianic Jew who had formerly sought to eradicate Christianity. Most people call him the Apostle Paul.

As far as the non-Christian Right is concerned, who doesn’t have things they’re not proud of in their past. The important thing is what has she learned from her past and who is she today.

(All Scripture quotations taken from the NIV)

Leave a comment

Filed under politics, theology

Term Limits Amendment

1. No person shall serve as a Senator for more than two complete terms.
If a person has served an incomplete term it shall be considered a complete term if the period of service were more than three years.  

2. No person shall serve as a Representative for more than six complete terms.
If a person has served an incomplete term it shall be considered a complete term if the period of service were more than one year.  

3. This Article shall not apply to any person serving in either House of Congress during the time that this Article becomes operative so long as that person maintains continuous service in that same House of Congress.  

=========================================  

Many people (myself included) have long desired term limits as a means to limit the personal greed and power-lust of the members of Congress, as well as the undesired side-effects these have on the American people, our liberty, and the economy. However, getting the Congress to limit their own power voluntarily would be like asking a cat to be kind to mice. They would never voluntarily limit the years of their service. Many current and former members of Congress originally promised to limit themselves to a certain number of terms. Some may have actually intended to do just that. However, few kept that promise.  

The solution, as I see it, is to exempt the sitting members of Congress from such limits. New members of Congress would have their years of service limited by this amendment, but those serving at the time that the amendment is ratified would be exempt so long as they continued to be reelected to that same office. This exemption would cease to apply to any member of Congress who lost a bid for reelection or who decided not to seek reelection. It would also not apply to a member of one House of Congress who decided to run for the other House of Congress.  

I believe that more members of Congress would be willing to vote for term limits if they could exempt themselves from them. In addition, more might vote for this amendment since new members would be subject to limits. This would benefit the exempt members in the seniority-based system. Since many people have called for term limits for some time, they could easily accomplish a popular measure without affecting themselves personally.  

Some have called for the repeal of the 17th Amendment. In the unlikely event that this occurs, I believe this amendment will be unaffected as currently worded since the text simply refers to service, not the manner of election to the Senate.  

I realize that some people will view this as a flawed means of getting term limits, especially with the increase of power for the exempt members. However, I see this as the only practical way to accomplish that. I believe that the goal of term limits is important enough to accept this trade-off. The exempt incumbents will eventually retire or lose a reelection bid. Their successor would then be bound by term limits.  


Other relevant posts of mine:

Questions We Should Ask About a Constitutional Convention

3 Comments

Filed under constitutional amendment, politics