Posted on 06/28/2007 11:55:31 AM PDT by nels96
Term Limits for Congress
Term limits?
you bet! vote out the incumbent every time.
Great, you can borrow my ballot here in Cook County next time. I'll pay you $100 if you can "term limit" ANY of the RAT incumbants at the ballot box. They all run unopposed, in rigged districts, and serve for life. Good luck trying to even vote against most of the judges, they never have "opposition" on the ballot.
It's so bad here that suburban Cook County voted 2-1 AGAINST Democrat Todd Stroger for County Board President and he STILL won thanks to racking up about 108% of the Chicago vote. They sure can manufacture votes in "minority" wards.
"Will of the people" my ass.
State legislators are people who represent vastly smaller numbers of people than Congressmen. They have to look those they represent in the eye, quite regularly. Giving them back the power to pick Senators, as the Founders intended, would return massive amounts of power to the states. Senators were supposed to represent the states, and the House was meant to represent the people directly. The 17th Amendment fouled that up, and basically gave us a House and a super-House. The states suffered the consequences.
The law exists for turnover of elected public officials through the ballot process. You want to change the Constitution because you're fed up with the stupid politics of some people on the left. I'm fed up too, but I can think of better ways of challenging the current political system. Besides, do you think the politics of Democrats who rule in Cook County would change with term limits? Highly doubtful.
And who, pray tell, would be willing to buy a car from them?
They are already crooks, so let them become laywers then at least they will have to earn their money using their best traits instead of sucking the money out of the tax payers while doing nothing.
What the senate has shown with this illegal immigration debacle is that they don't care about the country. They only care about themselves, and their own agendas, which seemingly do not mesh with the people's.
I think if we don't have the threat of political termination to hold over their heads, that they will become even more belligerent and unresponsive to the will of the people.
It is incumbent on us to pay attention to them, to make sure that they are listening. We can't just wait till the last minute and then scream bloody murder and hope they listen.
Personally, I think we were lucky this time.
Hasn't happened yet; I doubt that it will, unless I run for congress and win. But I don't expect that to happen, either.
It shouldn't happen with congress critters, either, but their bosses don't appear to care.
Well, we are their bosses and they seem to forget that.
Which is why I withdrew my support from the RNC. I will send my funds to those that work for me - such as Cornyn, Thompson.
bttt
"Wants" are not "rights" by definition; it is the duty of our Government to provide for that which we agree for them to provide under the terms of our Constitution, and only because we, the people, agree to be bound by the terms of that document. Everything else is an exercise in coercion and servitude. Term limits would not be required if people were not held to be entitled to things they have not themselves paid for, and if they agreed to pay fair value for that which they could not provide themselves.
>> That’s too short
No it’s not. Two 4 year terms for the Senate with an off year election cycle. And, 2 year terms for the House also with a max of 8 years.
1 maybe 2 years and OUT!
Pay them minimum wage for the privilege of serving. Provide them meals, room and board.
Randomly drug test them like everyone else.
No more closed door meeting on our time.
Monitor all activities.
Now that it's more livable, we just need to move the seat of Government to some even nastier locale like the badlands, or Barrow Alaska, or whatever, but THIS TIME prohibit building and limit the energy supplied to the area so that they have to "work" under the nastiest possible conditions. That should keep them home more and term limiting themselves as well as cut down on the lobbying
As I peruse history, it strikes me that there’s yet another profound difference between politicians today and those of previous ages: Honor. There were plenty of “career politicians” back in the 18th and 19th centuries, but graft and corruption weren’t quite as pervasive as today. For example, Daniel Webster and Henry Clay both served congress for some forty years, yet remained honest men in spite of their positions. No “inside the beltway” phenomena in those days.
Times move on, and we have to deal with the Kennedys, Kyls, McCains, Boxers, Feinsteins, and Bidens (among others) of today’s “progressive” congress. Sad, but it clearly defines the tasks incumbent upon us as voters. We must get as active every election year as we did for the defeat of this scamnesty travesty, except the object of our communication and actions would be our fellow voters, to encourage them to vote responsibly.
Exactly! It’s a mistake to think that term limits will curb corruption. For an exaggerated example, assume that a congressional politician only has one 6-year term. Then, there is no reason to be “good” after election. Since, he or she cannot get re-elected, the public opinion force is rendered obsolete. Also, what types of politicians will run for a single-term office? Corrupt ones! Those that are planted by special interest groups for the sole purpose of voting one specific way in exchange for “benefits” to be rendered after the six-year term—benefits such as good executive jobs, business investments, retirement packages, stock options, non-profit positions, etc.
Look at the previous record of the Executive Branch. Bush defected on the Republicans during his second term, and Clinton defected on the entire country during his second term.
I would instead propose a “diminishing term limit”. Currently, a politician needs more votes than his or her competitor to win an election. What if instead an incumbent had to win by ten percent per term more than a challenger? For example, an incumbent who has served 3 terms would need 65% of the popular vote whereas the challenger would only need 35% — a 30-point spread. Then, if you’re really good, you get to stay by popular vote, but if you’ve been there long enough, like Kennedy, you’ll eventually lose.
A more fitting solution would be lifespan limits....
A more fitting solution would be lifespan limits....
A more fitting solution would be lifespan limits....
Bingo.
If you don't want the incumbent to return, don't vote for him/her.
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.