Dispatcher
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Term limits for members on Congress...
No more career politicians?
Good or bad idea?
Term limits for members on Congress...
No more career politicians?
Good or bad idea?
Yes good or Yes bad?Dispatcher wrote:Yes.Good or bad idea?
I share your pessimism, but defy it with foolish hope.The problem with career politicians is threefold:
1. The politicians that will have their careers truncated by term limits are the very same that will be required to vote in favor of term limits. Who in their right mind will sacrifice the future of their own careers in order to establish term limits? These guys are all friends with each other; they know they will be harming themselves and each other. Why do it?
2. As a politician gains seniority, he/she gains status within committees. These are very powerful positions. What voters back home will defeat a congressperson who has achieved seniority/power in Washington in order to replace him/her with a rookie with little power?
3. If a term limit law does take effect, the same politicians that voted for it will eventually vote to have it removed. See Bloomberg, Mayor, New York City
It will never happen under the present structure. The only way to establish term limits is for voters to always vote against the incumbent unless he or she has provided exemplary leadership that benefits all citizens of the US, not just those in the home district.
Yeah, right.
This is an interesting point, I like it. If they were confined to the limits the Constitution places against them already, then their term duration would not matter.The problem isn't really career politicians, it's big money and unconstitutional federal government. The people should push for an amendment to the constitution changing the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause. When the feds have a lot less power then they can keep their seats for as long as they want.
That's like asking the wolf to only storm the chicken coup on Wednesdays.Term limits for members on Congress...
No more career politicians?
Good or bad idea?
Well, a Career Politician is defined by the fact that money is to be made in it. That's what a Career is, something you get paid for...Dispatcher wrote:That's like asking the wolf to only storm the chicken coup on Wednesdays.Term limits for members on Congress...
No more career politicians?
Good or bad idea?
N00blet45 wrote:But it brings to light another possibility: why not do BOTH.The problem isn't really career politicians, it's big money and unconstitutional federal government. The people should push for an amendment to the constitution changing the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause. When the feds have a lot less power then they can keep their seats for as long as they want.
How do we stop paying them? How do we convince someone making $200+k a year, to only work part time and make $20k? Who is going to vote for that, besides Ron Paul of Texas?Statesman wrote:Well, a Career Politician is defined by the fact that money is to be made in it. That's what a Career is, something you get paid for...Dispatcher wrote:That's like asking the wolf to only storm the chicken coup on Wednesdays.Term limits for members on Congress...
No more career politicians?
Good or bad idea?
Stop paying them.
This is the answer then! I forgot about this process, since we don't use it anymore. The only problem I have is your use of "ask Congress", which would imply voluntary compliance with state demands. I would hope a 2/3rds majority forces Congress into a national convention.ixtow wrote:N00blet45 wrote:But it brings to light another possibility: why not do BOTH.The problem isn't really career politicians, it's big money and unconstitutional federal government. The people should push for an amendment to the constitution changing the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause. When the feds have a lot less power then they can keep their seats for as long as they want.
Yup, and we should be able to do it against the will of congress.
Instead of using the typical amendment proposalprocess of a two-thirds vote in the house and senate, two-thirds of the state legislatures canask Congress to call a national convention to propose theamendments. Then the states just need to ratify it. That pretty much leaves congress out of the loop. I don't think they can deny the state legislators if they vote for a convention.
Many people fear a Constitutional Convention
It would likely only pass in those states who least need it...paramedic70002 wrote:Many people fear a Constitutional Convention
I'm one of them. The chance of a "United States of California" seems pretty high, and that scares the heck out of me. The way the masses seem to be these days is more like a bunch of nosy busybodies who want to run everyone else's lives (with California laws being a great example-what happened to personal freedom, and why do we need a law for absolutely everything?). A Constitutional Convention is a very scary thing indeed.
Anyhow, to the original topic of the thread, is it possible to have it enacted on a state by state basis, with state laws prohibiting reelection of their senators/congressmen? Might be able topush that onto a poll in quite a few states.