Insomniac-Net ANSWERS --
Friday[09], Feb 27, 2015 [ A - A|B - A]
Tonight's Topic: "The Prez Sez: Thank You, I Take Just Two"
ANSWERS = [ A - A|B - A ]
Good morning/evening, everybody! Thank you for joining us last night.
We hope you discovered something interesting during the time we spent together on the Insomniac Net last night.
Thanks to you all for playing along -- it was a lot of FUN for us. Hopefully, you had fun too!
(Please Note: The Net Controller's Answers are always CORRECT (even if they aren't every time!)
Please check out Winsystem's Insomniac Trivia Net page.
You can get these Questions & Answers at the Yahoo-groups' Messages Link.
=================
Sixty-four years ago on February 27, the Twenty-Second (XXII) Amendment was ratified, officially limiting US Presidents to two terms.
The practice of limiting elected officials to specific types and durations of holding public office is commonly known as "Term Limits".
Accordingly, how much do you know about... the history, legality, and (un)popularity of using Term Limits with our public officials?
Please give us your best answers for each of the following 3 TRUE or FALSE questions, by using the (reuseable) answers of "A"=TRUE or "B"=FALSE.
Good Luck and remember YOU are always a WINNER with us, regardless of your actual answers!
![K7LWA_1951-03-05_INS2015[09].jpg](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3RiV12XUXCFpCmoURjfb90sFTbFlLa6fnhqbCGuCd10yFXXwNBchrSpeO9w-BBWok6F5Fx-pZOvkXiBBt02mfb3z4zpRMCz6oYWuILEqAg8K3ZAR7vawSf0P5UNnrFU3PcA15gx65oFzr/s1600/K7LWA_1951-03-05_INS2015%5B09%5D.jpg "Oh my, what a cute 7 month old baby!")
++ "The
Prez Sez: Thank You, I Take Just Two"
++
Question #1: Although George Washington was the first US President to voluntarily limit his service to just two terms, it was actually Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower who was the first President inaugurated for a term, limited by the Constitution's 22nd Amendment -- True or False?
A. True, or
B. False.
A. True, or
B. False.
A. True, or
B. False.
++ QUOTE OF THE DAY ++ -- Pres. Harry Truman about "Term Limits" for Congress -- after Congress passed Amendment XXII ("Term Limits" for Presidents) on March 21, 1947:
‘‘We'd help cure senility and seniority, both terrible legislative diseases nationally.’’
[SOURCE: from Donald
A. Ritchie's Congress
and Harry S. Truman: A Conflicted Legacy - Page 65]
=================
=================
BLOG LINKS:
Thursday, February 26, 20152015[09]Q -- Ins-Net Qs for Feb 27, 2015_"The Prez Sez: Thank You, I Take Just Two" (updated)
Answers =
2015[09]A -- Ins-Net As for Feb 27, 2015_"The Prez Sez: Thank You, I Take Just Two" (updated)
=================
Please include you name, Callsign, and those correct answers.
Good luck everyone!
Shelley [KF7TBA] & LW [K7LWA]
K7LWA.INS@gmail.com
Next
Week: WYHearIWYG!
Also, check out: List of ALL 2014 Friday's Insomniac-Net Question Sets (52)
================
Thank you!
Shelley [KF7TBA] & LW [K7LWA]
K7LWA.INS@gmail.com
Posted 2015-02-28 01:00PT (I hope)
- 30 -
Tonight's Topic: "The Prez Sez: Thank You, I Take Just Two"
ANSWERS = [ A - A|B - A ]
Good morning/evening, everybody! Thank you for joining us last night.
We hope you discovered something interesting during the time we spent together on the Insomniac Net last night.
Thanks to you all for playing along -- it was a lot of FUN for us. Hopefully, you had fun too!
(Please Note: The Net Controller's Answers are always CORRECT (even if they aren't every time!)
Please check out Winsystem's Insomniac Trivia Net page.
You can get these Questions & Answers at the Yahoo-groups' Messages Link.
=================
Sixty-four years ago on February 27, the Twenty-Second (XXII) Amendment was ratified, officially limiting US Presidents to two terms.
The practice of limiting elected officials to specific types and durations of holding public office is commonly known as "Term Limits".
Accordingly, how much do you know about... the history, legality, and (un)popularity of using Term Limits with our public officials?
Please give us your best answers for each of the following 3 TRUE or FALSE questions, by using the (reuseable) answers of "A"=TRUE or "B"=FALSE.
Good Luck and remember YOU are always a WINNER with us, regardless of your actual answers!
Question #1: Although George Washington was the first US President to voluntarily limit his service to just two terms, it was actually Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower who was the first President inaugurated for a term, limited by the Constitution's 22nd Amendment -- True or False?
A. True, or
B. False.
In 1957 Dwight D. Eisenhower became the first President inaugurated
after the passage of the 22d amendment. This amendment limits to two the
number of terms a President can serve. You can read the text of the 22d
amendment below. [SOURCE: Inaugural Quiz!]
-------------
Interpretation -- Annenberg Classroom
Although nothing in the original Constitution limited presidential terms, the nation’s first president, George Washington, declined to run for a third term, suggesting that two terms of four years were enough for any president. Washington’s voluntary two-term limit became the unwritten rule for all presidents until 1940.
In that year, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who had steered the nation through the Great Depression of the 1930s, won a third term and was elected in 1944 for a fourth term as well. Following President Roosevelt’s death in April 1945, just months into his fourth term, Republicans in Congress sought passage of Amendment XXII. FDR was the first and only president to serve more than two terms.
Passed by Congress in 1947, and ratified by the states on February 27, 1951, the Twenty-Second Amendment limits an elected president to two terms in office, a total of eight years. However, it is possible for an individual to serve up to ten years as president. The amendment specifies that if a vice president or other successor takes over for a president—who, for whatever reason, cannot fulfill the term—and serves two years or less of the former president’s term, the new president may serve for two full four-year terms. If more than two years remain of the term when the successor assumes office, the new president may serve only one additional term. [SOURCE: Amendment 22]
Question
#2: During
its 1994 term,
the US Supreme Court decided the question -- brought by the State
of Arkansas -- that individual states can
legally force term limits on their own elected
members of the U.S. Congress? And guess what? Arkansas won!
-- True or False?-------------
Interpretation -- Annenberg Classroom
Although nothing in the original Constitution limited presidential terms, the nation’s first president, George Washington, declined to run for a third term, suggesting that two terms of four years were enough for any president. Washington’s voluntary two-term limit became the unwritten rule for all presidents until 1940.
In that year, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who had steered the nation through the Great Depression of the 1930s, won a third term and was elected in 1944 for a fourth term as well. Following President Roosevelt’s death in April 1945, just months into his fourth term, Republicans in Congress sought passage of Amendment XXII. FDR was the first and only president to serve more than two terms.
Passed by Congress in 1947, and ratified by the states on February 27, 1951, the Twenty-Second Amendment limits an elected president to two terms in office, a total of eight years. However, it is possible for an individual to serve up to ten years as president. The amendment specifies that if a vice president or other successor takes over for a president—who, for whatever reason, cannot fulfill the term—and serves two years or less of the former president’s term, the new president may serve for two full four-year terms. If more than two years remain of the term when the successor assumes office, the new president may serve only one additional term. [SOURCE: Amendment 22]
A. True, or
B. False.
To be clear (K7LWA):
This is one of those Questions that I should have tossed with the okra, chili, and the cat litter -- because I mistakenly used the preposition "by" instead of "from" in the original Question.
As I write these comments, I realize that my grammatical error may have impacted your Answer choice.
Thus, once again, BOTH Answers will be considered CORRECT and thus, affirmed -- so ordered!!
Again, this shows that Shelley [KF7TBA] has to be watching me like a Spotted Owl -- otherwise, there will be the potential of an Over-population of Spotted Owls with my Questions!!!!
Basically, the State of Arkansas (specifically, the Arkansas Supreme Court) was challenged at the US Supreme Court over its decision that Amendment 73 ("Term Limitation Amendment") was unconstitutional.
After hearing the Argument, the Supreme Court affirmed (by a 5-4 vote) the prior decisions by the trial court and the Arkansas Supreme Court of declaring Amendment 73 unconstitutional.
That is, the decision by Arkansas Supreme Court (of declaring Amendment 73 unconstitutional) was correct -- thus, the State of Arkansas won the case!
Background info from Wikipedia -- U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton:
Term: 1990-1999 -- 1994
Facts of the Case: On November 3, 1992, Arkansas voters adopted Amendment 73 to their State Constitution. The "Term Limitation Amendment," in addition to limiting terms of elected officials within the Arkansas state government, also provided that any person who served three or more terms as a member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas would be ineligible for re-election as a US Representative from Arkansas. Similarly, the Amendment provided that any person who served two or more terms as a member of the United States Senate from Arkansas would be ineligible for re-election as a US Senator from Arkansas.
Question: Can states alter those qualifications for the U.S. Congress that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution?
Argument: U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton [State of Arkansas] - Oral Argument
Conclusion:
Decision: 5 votes for Thornton, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Composition of the House of Representatives
No. The Constitution prohibits States from adopting Congressional qualifications in addition to those enumerated in the Constitution. A state congressional term limits amendment is unconstitutional if it has the likely effect of handicapping a class of candidates and "has the sole purpose of creating additional qualifications indirectly." Furthermore, "...allowing individual States to craft their own congressional qualifications would erode the structure designed by the Framers to form a 'more perfect Union.'" [SOURCE: U.S. TERM LIMITS v. THORNTON. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 27 February 2015]
Have insomnia? -- really? -- listen to the Oral Argument : Download MP3.
-------------
(from the Opinion)
"...We are, however, firmly convinced that allowing the several States to adopt term limits for congressional service would effect a fundamental change in the constitutional framework. Any such change must come not by legislation adopted either by Congress or by an individual State, but rather--as have other importantchanges in the electoral process -- through the Amendment procedures set forth in Article V. The Framers decided that the qualifications for service in the Congress of the United States be fixed in the Constitution and be uniform throughout the Nation. That decision reflects the Framers' understanding that Members of Congress are chosen by separate constituencies, but that they become, when elected, servants of the people of the United States. They are not merely delegates appointed by separate, sovereign States; they occupy offices that are integral and essential components of a single National Government. In the absence of a properly passed constitutional amendment, allowing individual States to craft their own qualifications for Congress would thus erode the structure envisioned by the Framers, a structure that was designed, in the words of the Preamble to our Constitution, to form a "more perfect Union."
The judgment is affirmed. [ i.e., the prior decisions by the trial court and the Arkansas Supreme Court of declaring that Amendment 73 is unconstitutional. -- K7LWA]
It is so ordered.
[SOURCE: U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (93-1456), 514 U.S. 779 (1995)]
Question
#3: According to a 2013 Gallup Poll, regardless of
political party affiliation, large majorities of Americans
are in favor of establishing term limits for members of
the U.S. House and Senate
-- True or False?This is one of those Questions that I should have tossed with the okra, chili, and the cat litter -- because I mistakenly used the preposition "by" instead of "from" in the original Question.
As I write these comments, I realize that my grammatical error may have impacted your Answer choice.
Thus, once again, BOTH Answers will be considered CORRECT and thus, affirmed -- so ordered!!
Again, this shows that Shelley [KF7TBA] has to be watching me like a Spotted Owl -- otherwise, there will be the potential of an Over-population of Spotted Owls with my Questions!!!!
Basically, the State of Arkansas (specifically, the Arkansas Supreme Court) was challenged at the US Supreme Court over its decision that Amendment 73 ("Term Limitation Amendment") was unconstitutional.
After hearing the Argument, the Supreme Court affirmed (by a 5-4 vote) the prior decisions by the trial court and the Arkansas Supreme Court of declaring Amendment 73 unconstitutional.
That is, the decision by Arkansas Supreme Court (of declaring Amendment 73 unconstitutional) was correct -- thus, the State of Arkansas won the case!
Background info from Wikipedia -- U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton:
"Amendment
73 to the Arkansas Constitution denied ballot access to any federal
Congressional candidate having already served three terms in the U.S.
House or two terms in the U.S. Senate. However, such a candidate was
not barred from being written-in and winning by that method.
Soon after the amendment's adoption by ballot measure at the general election on November 3, 1992, Bobbie Hill, a member of the League of Women Voters, sued in state court to have it invalidated. She alleged that the new restrictions amounted to an unwarranted expansion of the specific qualifications for membership in Congress enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.
Both the trial court and the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed with Hill, declaring Amendment 73 unconstitutional...."
-------------Soon after the amendment's adoption by ballot measure at the general election on November 3, 1992, Bobbie Hill, a member of the League of Women Voters, sued in state court to have it invalidated. She alleged that the new restrictions amounted to an unwarranted expansion of the specific qualifications for membership in Congress enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.
Both the trial court and the Arkansas Supreme Court agreed with Hill, declaring Amendment 73 unconstitutional...."
Term: 1990-1999 -- 1994
Facts of the Case: On November 3, 1992, Arkansas voters adopted Amendment 73 to their State Constitution. The "Term Limitation Amendment," in addition to limiting terms of elected officials within the Arkansas state government, also provided that any person who served three or more terms as a member of the United States House of Representatives from Arkansas would be ineligible for re-election as a US Representative from Arkansas. Similarly, the Amendment provided that any person who served two or more terms as a member of the United States Senate from Arkansas would be ineligible for re-election as a US Senator from Arkansas.
Question: Can states alter those qualifications for the U.S. Congress that are specifically enumerated in the Constitution?
Argument: U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton [State of Arkansas] - Oral Argument
Conclusion:
Decision: 5 votes for Thornton, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Composition of the House of Representatives
No. The Constitution prohibits States from adopting Congressional qualifications in addition to those enumerated in the Constitution. A state congressional term limits amendment is unconstitutional if it has the likely effect of handicapping a class of candidates and "has the sole purpose of creating additional qualifications indirectly." Furthermore, "...allowing individual States to craft their own congressional qualifications would erode the structure designed by the Framers to form a 'more perfect Union.'" [SOURCE: U.S. TERM LIMITS v. THORNTON. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 27 February 2015]
Have insomnia? -- really? -- listen to the Oral Argument : Download MP3.
-------------
(from the Opinion)
"...We are, however, firmly convinced that allowing the several States to adopt term limits for congressional service would effect a fundamental change in the constitutional framework. Any such change must come not by legislation adopted either by Congress or by an individual State, but rather--as have other importantchanges in the electoral process -- through the Amendment procedures set forth in Article V. The Framers decided that the qualifications for service in the Congress of the United States be fixed in the Constitution and be uniform throughout the Nation. That decision reflects the Framers' understanding that Members of Congress are chosen by separate constituencies, but that they become, when elected, servants of the people of the United States. They are not merely delegates appointed by separate, sovereign States; they occupy offices that are integral and essential components of a single National Government. In the absence of a properly passed constitutional amendment, allowing individual States to craft their own qualifications for Congress would thus erode the structure envisioned by the Framers, a structure that was designed, in the words of the Preamble to our Constitution, to form a "more perfect Union."
The judgment is affirmed. [ i.e., the prior decisions by the trial court and the Arkansas Supreme Court of declaring that Amendment 73 is unconstitutional. -- K7LWA]
It is so ordered.
[SOURCE: U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (93-1456), 514 U.S. 779 (1995)]
A. True, or
B. False.
"PRINCETON, NJ -- Even after the 2012 election in which Americans
re-elected most of the sitting members of the U.S. House and Senate --
as is typical in national elections -- three-quarters of Americans say
that, given the opportunity, they would vote "for" term limits for
members of both houses of Congress.
These findings, from Gallup Daily tracking conducted Jan. 8-9, are similar to those from 1994 to 1996 Gallup polls, in which between two-thirds and three-quarters of Americans said they would vote for a constitutional amendment to limit the number of terms that members of Congress and the U.S. Senate can serve."
[SOURCE: Politics -- January 18, 2013 -- Americans Call for Term Limits, End to Electoral College]
=================These findings, from Gallup Daily tracking conducted Jan. 8-9, are similar to those from 1994 to 1996 Gallup polls, in which between two-thirds and three-quarters of Americans said they would vote for a constitutional amendment to limit the number of terms that members of Congress and the U.S. Senate can serve."
[SOURCE: Politics -- January 18, 2013 -- Americans Call for Term Limits, End to Electoral College]
++ QUOTE OF THE DAY ++ -- Pres. Harry Truman about "Term Limits" for Congress -- after Congress passed Amendment XXII ("Term Limits" for Presidents) on March 21, 1947:
‘‘We'd help cure senility and seniority, both terrible legislative diseases nationally.’’
=================
AMENDMENT XXII
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 President more
that once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the
office of President when this Article was proposed by Congress, and
shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President,
or acting as President, during the term within which this Article
becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as
President during the remainder of such term.
Passed by Congress March 21, 1947. Ratified February 27, 1951. Section 1.
Section 2.
This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified
as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths
of the several States within seven years from the date of its
submission to the States by the Congress.[SOURCE: US National Archives' Inaugural Quiz] |
BLOG LINKS:
Thursday, February 26, 20152015[09]Q -- Ins-Net Qs for Feb 27, 2015_"The Prez Sez: Thank You, I Take Just Two" (updated)
Answers =
2015[09]A -- Ins-Net As for Feb 27, 2015_"The Prez Sez: Thank You, I Take Just Two" (updated)
=================
Please include you name, Callsign, and those correct answers.
Good luck everyone!
Shelley [KF7TBA] & LW [K7LWA]
K7LWA.INS@gmail.com
| NOTE:
Be sure to check out additional
info
& photos on KF7TBA+K7LWA's Friday Insomniac-Net BLOG (http://k7lwa-ins.blogspot.com/) NOTE: Blog may have Questions posted earlier than Yahoo! |
Also, check out: List of ALL 2014 Friday's Insomniac-Net Question Sets (52)
================
Thank you!
Shelley [KF7TBA] & LW [K7LWA]
K7LWA.INS@gmail.com
Posted 2015-02-28 01:00PT (I hope)
- 30 -
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your Comments are welcome!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.