Posted on 11/30/2008 5:41:25 AM PST by Kaslin
Well, it’s all over but the inauguration. With the political season finished, the ephemeral divisions of society can be downplayed long enough to view the enduring conflict, the real war. It’s not Republican versus Democrat or conservative versus liberal. It’s the political class versus the citizenry.
That is, it’s us, the people, versus them, the politicians . . . and their hired functionaries.
The Democratic and Republican parties are merely two clubs that serve up confusion so that we don’t realize the nature of our true enemies — or the lack of any meaningful choice.
Now, before we get too hasty, we should all remind ourselves that politicians are almost certainly necessary. A few will even prove themselves good and virtuous. But power tempts, power corrupts, and politicians are in the power biz. Follow the logic.
This logic leads to the requirements of limited government, to prevent politicians from doing things that they would otherwise, sans limits, be inclined to do.
The Constitution was designed as a set of limits. Alas, most of its limits have fallen by the wayside. So that’s why one type of limit provides such a good marker for the beginning of the people’s campaign to take control of government: term limits.
Term limits serve to shorten the time elected citizens must endure near the sulphurous pits of power, allowing a citizen to stay “citizen legislator” and not morph into a professional politician. Term limits do not ensure this — they merely give us a better chance. Evidence suggests that, without term limits, we have little or no chance at all.
So, the last election has brought us united governments under the Democrats. We’ll see where that gets us.
Meanwhile, the last election also showed us something about the larger perspective, the war between citizens and politicians. It showed us that, in open contests, the voters beat the politicians. When voters actually get to cast their ballots directly for or against the policy of term limits, they tend to choose term limits.
In most places where term limits were being attacked, or terms extended, and where voters had the responsibility and the opportunity to make the choice, term limits won.
True, in New York City, term limits suffered a setback this November . . . but not because of anything voters did at the ballot box. It was a loophole-exploiting power grab by Mayor Bloomberg and the city council members. Eager to serve extra terms, they unilaterally weakened the city’s term limits law. Regular New Yorkers were not consulted.
But turn your attention, instead, to South Dakota, where career politicians posted a measure, Referendum J, to repeal state legislative term limits. (Oh, how politicians hate term limits!) Here, voters were actually consulted about whether they wanted to keep the law they had passed in 1992.
And yes, they did want to keep it. Back in ’92, the law passed with a 64 percent majority. An even bigger majority, 76 percent, said No to repealing the limits this year. A South Dakota group called Don’t Touch Term Limits had gotten the anti-repeal message out with a simple slogan: NO WAY! VOTE NO ON J!
South Dakota was not the sole victory, either. Term limits were at issue in the state of Louisiana and various cities and counties in California, Colorado, Florida, Pennsylvania, and Texas. In almost every case, the supporters of term limits won the day.
One setback for term limits, however, occurred in San Antonio, where after previous failed attempts, the mayor and city council convinced voters in a relatively fair election to loosen the limit from two two-year terms (that is, four years), to four two-year terms (eight years).
But most contests defended existing limits, or expanded new limits. In Louisiana, for instance, voters passed new limits on the terms of statewide boards and commissions.
Many local referendums to weaken or chuck term limits were soundly defeated. As Steve Moore explained in the Wall Streeet Journal’s online diary, “In localities ranging from State College, Pennsylvania to Tracy, California and Memphis, Tennessee, voters approved term limits by two-to-one margins. Eight of the ten largest U.S. cities now have term limits.”
Long live term limits! Short live, terms.
Term limitation is a very important reform, though it certainly won’t by itself provide all the discipline governments require. What the issue does accomplish, with its near universal popularity, is a clear demonstration of the degree to which voters are in charge.
When voters get to decide the issue directly, and aren’t mugged by people like Mayor Bloomberg, voters choose term limits. Where there are no such limits — in Congress and most state legislatures — those in power can simply trump the people.
Term limits provide a much-needed political barometer.
Now back to your regularly scheduled salute to President-Elect Barack Obama
If politicians continue to ignore the people then they will feel like beating the politicians but it won’t have anything to do with the ballot box.
The article correctly describes the problem as a battle between the political class and the people. It further describes how the Republicrat, Demican sham perpetuates the charade. The author even points out how the Constitutional limits on government power have waned. Then, incredibly the author falls for the old canard about term limits!
TERM LIMITS! Say What??? Why? So we can change the faces of the same Republican or Democrat scamsters??
Happily, there is an answer. And it is as old as the Republic. It is based on the simple to understand concept of divide and conquer. The key is limited government. And the key to limited government is State's rights. It is not that the political class at the State level is less corrupt. They are not. But their power to rule is 1/50 the power of our current rulers.
Face facts folks. If you give 435 Congressman and 100 Senators three TRILLION dollars a year to buy votes with you are going to be a serf. And term limits will do no more good than McStupid's campaign finance reform.
Term limits is the only way to left to save our republic, and you don’t need a constitutional amendment.
A very simple question friend. If term limits were so fundamental to the maintenance of the Republic why did the Founders fail to include them in their very carefully crafted Constitution?
Read the Federalist papers. The founders wanted a system of where the best people competed for public office, did their duty and retired or returned to their former profession, not an elite class of rulers who would hold office for life.
Nonetheless, they also envisioned a relatively educated and connected populace who wouldn't permit such a system.
We actually do need term limits so the rest of us can be protected from folks like Dodd, Franks, Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy, Kerry, Schumer, Clinton, Murray, Cantwell, Boxer, Feinstein, Feingold, et al infinitum. When polled, people tend to think of Congress as a failure. But it is their Congressional representatives that are just fine.
For Congress, the limit should be 12 years.
They've been ignoring us since Woodhead Wilson.
We must take our country back as these weasely, liberal pansies have ruined our lives and our economy. They are incapable of managing absolutely nothing!
How, for example, have we allowed ourselves to stand by while the likes of Barney Frank keeps getting elected by a clueless electorate to stand on a national stage and dictate our future?
(Of course there are hundreds more, but this homosexual stands heads above the others in evil.)
Just to think that that 'elected' body includes communists like Maxine Waters, Schumer, etc. etc. etc.
If trusted people were in charge of things there would never be a bailout, and there would never be an excuse for one.
Spot on! Thank you!
-----
You're also correct when you said the key to limited government is State's rights. The general government can only be restrained by the parties to the Compact.....or the States.
IMHO, the People have been duped into claiming a federal citizenship instead of their rightful State citizenship. This has greatly increased the size and scope of government.
Gardina v. Board of Registrars of Jefferson County, 160 Ala. 155; 48 So. 788 (1909)
"There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States and one of the state".
Supreme Court of Maryland in Crosse v. Board of Elections, 221 A.2d. 431, at 433 (1966)
Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state.
And before any Lurkers want to scoff and start flaming me, ask yourself this question:
Why are illegals treated so lightly under the 'law'?
This is correct. And the Founders limited the franchise to accomplish this. I doubt they would look fondly on "Motor Voter" or all the other schemes currently being employed to dilute the vote of those who actually pay attention.
I have a very simple proposal to help stem the decline. Let's make it so that you have to register in person with a valid photo-id 6 months prior to every election. No "provisional ballots" no "same day registration" not even automatic re-registration. If you want to vote in the upcoming election you have to be interested enough in what is happening to get off your duff twice, once to register and once to vote.
This simple reform might also help McStupid realize his dream of getting money out of politics. If the disinterested could not vote, there would be no reason to spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to win them with over foolish 30 seconds TV ads like we see now during the pre-election circus.
But don't expect this reform to be implemented by the political class. The last thing the politicians want is to have to answer to a voting public that pays attention all the time rather than just a few weeks prior to election day. Both national parties love having the outcomes of elections determined by a vast pool of sheeple who are easily swayed by vague promises of favors that never need be delivered.
Think of this proposal as ACORN in reverse.
FDR
How about 12 Months?
Most of the clowns in congress could fu*k a one car funeral.
thw only way out of this mess is to get rid of witholding where a citizen(employer is held liable for the taxe payments of another citizen(employee). Every one should pay thier own taxes directly to all levels ofgovernment. That way when a politician talks of raising taxes every one will know howmuch more they will have to make thier checks for and vote accordingly
Having term limits does not mean that we can not move toward State’s rights.
Both would be better than what we have now.
As I see it, term limits retards the development of machine politics.
Hmmmm. Let me see if I can break the argument down for you.
Think Rock, Paper, Scissors. Corruption and the Gerrymander beat term limits.
Does that help?
By the way, corruption and gerrymandering can only be prevented when we have a population that is basically honest and composed of people of good will. Our entire experiment in self rule is entirely dependent on having a population of morally upright and righteous people. It is impossible to right laws tight enough to corral a corrupt people.
So?...Perhaps we should start there? It is time for massive evangelism in my opinion.
So?...Perhaps we should start there? It is time for massive evangelism in my opinion."
On this we are in complete agreement.
Simply put the founders were not perfect men and never envisioned a professional political class. Congress met for short sessions and members were only compensated for the short time they met. Most members were gentlemen farmers, some lawyers, merchants etc. Voting was restricted to property owners. The idea that people would want to be perpetually elected and that congress would wield so much power as it does today was unthinkable. Today what we have is our own version of what Milovan Djilas called "the new class". We need to get back to basics. A legislative body made up of 98% lawyers who are at the same time professional politicians is not representative of the people. Term limits is one way to start diluting this power in the hands of an unrepresentative few. The constitution is not perfect or they would not have engineered an amendment process. However, term limits can be take care on a state by state basis by injecting it into state constitutions via referendums and by acts of the state legislatures. It must be a major plank on our side. Sadly the republicans abandoned it once the new crowd took majority of the house during Clinton.
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.