From: cstone@husc8.harvard.edu (christopher stone)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: The Democratic Fascist Party (tm)
Date: 10 Jan 93 23:52:45 GMT
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

In article <C0n2wy.6zv@unix.portal.com> mykes@shell.portal.com (mike myke schwartz) writes:
>Clinoccio is not even in office yet, but the Fascists have struck again.
>You see, the new congress has begun its first sessions.  Among their duties
>so far has been to Rubber Stamp clinoccio's mayhem doers.  But there is
>really BIG news on the Fascist front...
  
>The very first act by the House of Representatives was to unconstitutionally
>give themselves an additional 5 Fascist votes.  You see, a "terrible"
>unjustice has been done: the people voted in 10 more new Republican
>votes.  Something had to be done!
>
>You see, the US has 5 territories that are not states, including D.C.,
>Guam, and Puerto Rico.  These territories are represented in congress
>by official who are constitutionally allowed to attend congressional
>meetings of all kinds, and even to vote in comittees (the congress has the
>power to run itself anyway it chooses).  However, in spite of absolutely
>every single Republican in the house voting Nay, as well as 27 honest
>democrats, the Fascists had enough votes (simple majority) to complete their
>power grab.
>

First of all, assuming you are right on the issue, I still think you know
nothing of history by comparing the Democrats to fascists.  Fascists were
people who had a totalitarian government, killed *6 million* Jews plus
several million others, *executed* people for making anti-government
statements like the one you just posted, and so on.  Please do not
engage in such wild hyperbole.

In any case, still assuming you are right, why are Republicans so adamantly
against statehood for areas such as DC?  Their residents are American citizens;
yet you would deny them representation under the present system while
simulataneously opposing any attempts to give them the vote by giving them
statehood.

>Allow me to read through the spittle stains on the constitution and quote:

>b.	Qualification of members.  No person shall be a representative who
>	shall not have attained to the age of twenty-five years, and been
>	seven years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not,
>	when elected, be an inhabitant of that STATE in which he shall
>	be chosen.
>
>(all you anti-term limit people should take note that the age limit of
>25 years restricts your choices of people to vote for).

First of all, maybe the age limit isn't a good idea.  But more importantly,
don't you think that if the Founding Fathers had *wanted* term limits, the
would have written them, by name, into the constitution.  The fact is, term
limits were discussed at the 1787 consitutional convention, and they were 
rejected.  Consult the _Federalist Papers_ for more on this.  One last point:
term limits will radically shift the balance of power in Congress in favor
of the large states.  Right now, small states can accrue some power by
re-electing their representatives, who gradually acquire more influence
in the Congress over time.  But big states like California or Texas have
power automatically, by virtually of the enormous size of their delegations.
With term limits, small states will have no mechanism to accrue power vis-a
-vis the large states.  And that is definately something the Founding
Fathers would not have approved of.

Chris
Xref: sparky alt.fan.rush-limbaugh:12097 alt.politics.homosexuality:9276 alt.rush-limbaugh:13509 alt.politics.bush:15768