Is John McCain illegally serving a third consecutive Senate term?

In 1992 voters in Arizona went 76% to 24% in favor of limiting terms for many elected officials (Prop 107).

McCain was elected to the Senate in 1998 and 2004 (thus two consecutive terms). He was then elected again in 2010. According to the 1992 proposal this should be illegal. Did someone(s) screw up or was the amendment repealed and I missed it? I'd love to get some ATSers looking into this. Thanx in advance for any info you guys can find.

reply to post by revswirl


I went to check the Arizona Secretary of State website to find out what's what.

HTTP Error 503: Service Unavailable

I don't think you are really grasping how American government works yet. The only limits are in your mind! American government is a wonderful playground filled with shenanigans and tricks, magic and mirrors. There is no "right" or "wrong", "legal" or "illegal", there is only what the politician can get away with. Welcome to American Government

reply to post by AnonymousCitizen


Hmm.. looks like another government "shutdown"

Also, I'd love to take credit for discovering this but I read it on a "site that shall not be named" ;p

reply to post by revswirl


He is actually on his 5th term I think. I think he has been there since 83 so maybe he is grandfathered in.....

revswirl
In 1992 voters in Arizona went 76% to 24% in favor of limiting terms for many elected officials (Prop 107).

McCain was elected to the Senate in 1998 and 2004 (thus two consecutive terms). He was then elected again in 2010. According to the 1992 proposal this should be illegal. Did someone(s) screw up or was the amendment repealed and I missed it? I'd love to get some ATSers looking into this. Thanx in advance for any info you guys can find.

There are no term limits in the United States Congress.

Even if Arizona made such a law, the Supreme Court's 1995 decision in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton leaves no doubt that states cannot impose such limits without an amendment to the Constitution.

revswirl
In 1992 voters in Arizona went 76% to 24% in favor of limiting terms for many elected officials (Prop 107).

McCain was elected to the Senate in 1998 and 2004 (thus two consecutive terms). He was then elected again in 2010. According to the 1992 proposal this should be illegal. Did someone(s) screw up or was the amendment repealed and I missed it? I'd love to get some ATSers looking into this. Thanx in advance for any info you guys can find.

Yes, he is. . . . He has been a senator since 1987. According to the amendment, his 92 term doesn't count, but he has served two since then.

To be honest, I don't think any one in AZ paid any attention and I'm surprised J.D. Hayworth, his 10 challenger (although he is just as big as a jackass as McCain), didn't bring this up to ensure a victory. I can't find one word about it anywhere. The only thing I can think of, would be that they consider this running for President to be a break in the cycle . . . However, the law clearly states the senator/representative needs to be absent the full term . . . which he was not.

According to the current AZ Constitution on the azleg.gov website . . . the amendment is still in effect. (Section VII; Article 18).

reply to post by AnonymousCitizen


The website you are looking for is azleg.gov . . . you can view the state constitution there (Section VII; Article 18).

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


Aha! Good find. Didn't think to do a search on that scenario. Well, I suppose I should go mention something on "the site that shall not be named" but I'll probably just be accused of being a Satanic Communist alien sympathizer. Have a good night and thanx for clearing that up for me.

reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee


Well . . . I stand corrected . . . He is not in violation of the amendment.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that states cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of the U.S. Congress stricter than those specified in the Constitution. The decision invalidated the Congressional term limit provisions of 23 states. The parties to the case were U.S. Term Limits, a non-profit advocacy group, and the politician Ray Thornton, among others.

reply to post by revswirl


No worries, friend. Glad to be of service.

Ahh.... term limits for congress. Four beautiful little words. Such an amazingly simple concept that should appeal to most every voting mind, yet the one law that will most likely never be passed in an arena that feels passing laws to further clutter up society is proof they earn their checks.

Aside from stomping out the lobbyist industry, and smashing campaign contributions, I can't even imagine a single law that would do more to fix what ails the American government than term limits.

McCain, Feinstein, Reid, McConnel, man the list goes on for hours. They need to gooh.

reply to post by caterpillage


Honestly, I don't think term limits would really change anything too much. In fact, it would almost make it easier for special interests and lobbyists to employ their system. If they know ahead of time that someone won't be able to run for office then that gives them that much more time to prepare their next victim (err, candidate).

If you want to have real election reform, get party labels off the ballot. No straight party voting, no (D) (R) (G) (L) or any other letter following a candidate's name. Just the name. God forbid the electorate have to actually research the people they're voting for.

revswirl
reply to post by caterpillage

 

Honestly, I don't think term limits would really change anything too much. In fact, it would almost make it easier for special interests and lobbyists to employ their system. If they know ahead of time that someone won't be able to run for office then that gives them that much more time to prepare their next victim (err, candidate).

If you want to have real election reform, get party labels off the ballot. No straight party voting, no (D) (R) (G) (L) or any other letter following a candidate's name. Just the name. God forbid the electorate have to actually research the people they're voting for.

I'll stick fast to my term limits, and notice I also mentioned a desire to see lobbiests eliminated.

I like your idea too though, good stuff there!

reply to post by AnonymousCitizen


clicked your link...works fine.

thought i'd let ya know..

There is a reason the site that shallnotbementioned shall not be mentioned. It's because of stuff like this. Believe that crap if you want to look like a fool.

reply to post by thishereguy


Yup, it's back up. I'll update the above post. Thanks.