Posted on 08/28/2017 1:23:01 AM PDT by Jacquerie
On June 11th, 1788 at the Virginia Ratifying Convention to the Constitution of the United States, Anti-Federalist George Mason remarked in reference to the House of Representatives, “They must form an aristocracy, and will not regard the interest of the people. Experience tells us that men pay most regard to those whose rank and situation are similar to their own.” Certainly, he did not mean a British aristocracy of artificial legal distinctions, special rights, duties, and privileges along perhaps with land from a centuries-long gone monarch. To what did Mr. Mason refer?
In the revolutionary, radical Whig, American vernacular he meant two groups of men within an indistinct and fluid order, the order of the natural aristocracy. This natural aristocracy forms in all free societies. Men of various levels of intelligence, ability, daring and sometimes inherited wealth distinguish themselves from others by their wealth and property. Society expected them to fulfill civic duties in perhaps their church, charitable groups, and public office.
Tobacco Planters exemplified the first group. They could hardly avoid civic responsibilities. Since its earliest colonial times, those who owned extensive estates, and were scrappy enough to hold on to them, ruled Virginia. When fellow Planters thought one of their own possessed the requisite maturity and judgment, they asked to run for a seat in the House of Burgesses. Honor and law required he serve if elected, no matter his objections.
The second were, in general terms the businessmen, professional men, merchants, and ship owners of the northern states, such as John Hancock, John Adams, James Bowdoin, Benjamin Franklin.
Americans instinctively chose men of means and local stature to govern. Where a respected, small farmer could serve as town commissioner, he could not afford extended absences for a typical thirty to ninety-day session of
(Excerpt) Read more at articlevblog.com ...
Term limits. Single term only. The terms 2 and 4 years are about right. 6 years for Senators would be about right if the 17th Amendment were to be repealed.
They would tell you that term limits are built in—they are called elections.
Plus, these clowns will never vote themselves out of office. Never.
Absolutely. No career politicians. None.
In addition, federal employees / bureaucrats need to have a limitation on the number of years they can work in government (maybe 20, tops), and the minute they accept a position with political implications, or are implicated in using their job in a political manner (e.g. Lois Lerner) they should lose their job protections against political reprisal.
You cannot implement term limits without at the same time doing something about the permanent bureaucracy. Term limits without bureaucracy reform just empowers the entrenched Deep State moles even more. All legislators will be in a state of perpetual rookie-dom, ripe to be rick-rolled by life-tenured self-serving bureaucrats. If legislative term limits are implemented then something like the old Spoils System must also be implemented so that the weasels in the bureaucracy are also flushed out periodically.
“They would tell you that term limits are built in—they are called elections.”
My response is that is that it is precisely the many conflicts of interest that are a consequence of ‘running for office while in office’ that make term limits absolutely necessary.
Office holders legislate and govern with a focus on reelection, not on principle or the best interests of the people and nation. They spend taxpayer money to buy votes. They won’t cut anything to balance a budget - because they fear losing votes. They positions themselves on issues based upon how many votes they might win or lose, not on the specifics of the issue and its impact on the country. They spend a very significant amount of their time, perhaps most of their time, campaigning for reelection and soliciting money for their political war chest. They form political alliances predicated on helping each other stay in office - instead of working together to ensure the best outcome for the nation.
You are right, of course, that they will never vote themselves out of office by demanding term limits. If we had a Constitutional Convention and pushed for term limits via this route they would fight against this with much more determination than they have fought for anything.
Maybe the only way to enact term limits is to make current office holders exempt. At least when they finally left office we’d have term limits with the next person elected.
“If legislative term limits are implemented then something like the old Spoils System must also be implemented so that the weasels in the bureaucracy are also flushed out periodically.”
I agree.
See the old British sitcom Yes Minister.
You have to abolish civil service tenure. Also abolish government pensions, and let them just have SS and 401K like the rest of us. Allow execs to control spending by laying off entire departments.
If I had my way, federal civil service employees would be sworn in for a 3 or 4 year enlistment just like the military. If their performance didn’t meet standards, they would not be allowed to re-enlist. Also, no unions would be allowed for federal employees.
Dead on correct!
>
“Term limits. Single term only. The terms 2 and 4 years are about right. 6 years for Senators would be about right if the 17th Amendment were to be repealed.”
Absolutely. No career politicians. None.
>
Would need a FEW more things to go along with that. Even a 2T/4Y would leave richer than they came in:
- NO lobbyists. PERIOD. No time/property can be given to anyone in/running for office that cannot vote (no PACs, no unions, etc.)
- Open limit to donations, from their State/district (U.S. for Prez), but immediate filings of whom/amount. ANY failure to do so = immediate dismisal, termination of any/all benefits, fines of 20x of donation (pegged to inflation) and 6mo. felony time per violation.
- All payments to elected/staff should come from their State/district, not the Treasury (includes per diem, benefits, etc.)
- Restoration of ‘Equal Under the Law’ aka *NO* exemptions; no ‘legal’ insider-trading, etc.
>
In addition, federal employees / bureaucrats need to have a limitation on the number of years they can work in government (maybe 20, tops), and the minute they accept a position with political implications, or are implicated in using their job in a political manner (e.g. Lois Lerner) they should lose their job protections against political reprisal.
>
Here, IMO, we’d need a public commission/judiciary. We’ve all seen, WAY too often, the ‘inability’ of govt to police its own, let alone CONVICT.
Like jury duty, the People will gather to judge/jury crimes against The People.
Sure we could have a lengthy thread, or two, of ‘additions’ to the solution.
” and let them just have SS and 401K like the rest of us.”
All fedgov workers pensions should be rolled into the “social security trust fund”, then we can ALL retire at age 55.
“If I had my way, federal civil service employees would be sworn in for a 3 or 4 year enlistment just like the military.”
That’s a great idea. Then corrupt fedgov workers could be “dishonorably discharged”.
I dont disagree.
But I would be 9 out of ten people on the streets know that the State Assemblies appointed Senators up until the early 20th century.
And to think-—they thought there was corruption back in those days. At least the Senators would have owed the “state” something.
Now we have people like Hillary who carpet bag their way into the Senate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.