Replies

Your thinking is shallow. Incumbancy is what creates democracy. Elected officials like the power and want to keep it. They keep their seat and power by pleasing the people who sent them there. A republic is based on the premise of electing someone whose judgment and prudence we trust. We hope that their judgment will be better than our own. A republic is based on the concept that the representative is more likely to do what is right than simply what people seem to want.

By allowing perpetual re-election you guarantee democracy at the expense of doing what is right.

TERM LIMITS breaks the link with electorate thereby preventing mob rule. The term limited representative knows that he and his family are going to have to live with the consequences of his votes. Perpetual election ensures that they are above the law.

One thing I can absolutely guarantee you to be true, we would not be in the mess we are in if TERM LIMITS for members of Congress and the federal judiciary had been part of the original constitution. And the United States cannot be saved without this addition.

Every elected official is elected by the people. If the people cannot be trusted to choose, then get rid of voting altogether and call the whole thing off.

TERM LIMITS breaks the link with electorate thereby preventing mob rule. The term limited representative knows that he and his family are going to have to live with the consequences of his votes. Perpetual election ensures that they are above the law.

I think the big problem with term limits is that they are not consistant. If term limits are good enough for the President, then they ought to be good enough for Congress, AND even the Supreme Court. Assuming we stick with the 2 term limit, that means the Pres still serves 8 years, House members 4, Senators 12, but what about the Supreme Court? I guess it would make sense to define their term as eight years, so they would serve 16 maximum to keep things consistant. This wouldn't have much effect though since I think the average time served by a justice is less than that.
The problem with term limits is that it assumes there is a large supply of qualified people. Personally, I think the supply is limited, and if the people want the same guy to keep serving, then fine. The only plus to term limits would be the regulated dynamism, that is new blood and ideas coming in at a steady pace. Actually, that seems to assume that all generations are equal, so maybe that wouldn't be so good after all or the effect might be made irrelvant by some other factor. My main concern is that things are consistant. I think that outweighs the argument of whether term limits will solve anything or not.
As far as moving goes, I think there are some good possibilties for Greenland. We wouldn't have to worry about anyone following us up there, and I am sure we could find ways to exploit her resources. Another possibility is Canada. With only 1/10 our population, a decent sized migration could really tip the balance. Seccession is probably a good idea to, if preceeded by some sort of concentrated migration. In this day and age of TV, internet, radio and instant information along with soft-hearted liberalism, I think a Yeltsin style stand would have a better than 50% chance of succeeding, assuming it was a state the US could afford to lose, like North Dakota.