NationStates Jolt Archive

Should term limits be enforced in the government?

What say you?

The only rule: Do not single out any President. Especially Bush or Clinton.

Yes.

The goverment enforces it because of the 22nd amendment.

I see no problem with it.

Especially since I don't trust the goverment to open up the Constitution for changes. ;)

It can be viewed as a limitation of our voting rights. What if the individual you consider to be most qualified has already served two terms?

I hope this is a topic people haven't thought about much, and that this spawns a little fresh debate.

It can be viewed as a limitation of our voting rights. What if the individual you consider to be most qualified has already served two terms?

I hope this is a topic people haven't thought about much, and that this spawns a little fresh debate.

Well didn't the fact people voted for the amendment matter?

It may be a limit of my rights but 52 years ago, the people thought it was the thing to do. No more evil FDR's you know ;)

Eight years of a good thing could easily be wiped out by 12 years of a bad thing.

Some people argued to eliminate the 22nd when Ronnie was in charge. People weren't interested.

I would be stunned if people wanted to change it for Bush.

Well didn't the fact people voted for the amendment matter?

It may be a limit of my rights but 52 years ago, the people thought it was the thing to do. No more evil FDR's you know ;)

Eight years of a good thing could easily be wiped out by 12 years of a bad thing.

Some people argued to eliminate the 22nd when Ronnie was in charge. People weren't interested.

I would be stunned if people wanted to change it for Bush.

One rule and you broke it three times.

And are constitutional amendments voted on? I thought they were proposed and accepted by Congress and the state legislatures.

One rule and you broke it three times.

And are constitutional amendments voted on? I thought they were proposed and accepted by Congress and the state legislatures.

:) I know. But you really can't discuss this option without bringing up names. Especially the campaign to change it....

Ratification happens by the people.

In the case of the 22nd:

http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#Am22

And are constitutional amendments voted on? I thought they were proposed and accepted by Congress and the state legislatures.
In my country constitutional amendments are voted on by the public electorate.

Doesn't always work out well. We've made good decisions such as entering the EU and removing Catholic theocracy from the constitution, but just last year we unfortunately voted to deny citizenship to the children of non-citizens who are born here.

I just wish that they would pass an amendment for Congressional term limits.

:) I know. But you really can't discuss this option without bringing up names. Especially the campaign to change it....

Ratification happens by the people.

In the case of the 22nd:

http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#Am22
I'm fairly sure those are dates of ratification by the various state legislatures.

Here we also have the possibility of serving successive two terms as president. No more than two in a row though. I think that this is reasonable, as if the administration is doing a good job, and it has to be to get re-elected, then the president deserves to retain the position.
More than two starts to feel like a dictatorship. You will have peole who are nearly old enough to vote who do not remember any other president (5 years old at the first election, 17 at the end of three terms.) Politics also needs to keep turning over the names and the faces, to keep joe public interested.

I just wish that they would pass an amendment for Congressional term limits.

If most congressional races weren't rigged in the first place it wouldn't be a problem.

:) I know. But you really can't discuss this option without bringing up names. Especially the campaign to change it....

Ratification happens by the people.

In the case of the 22nd:

http://www.usconstitution.net/constamrat.html#Am22

Any mention of FDR is ok, but mentioning anyone else is not really relevent and may cause the thread to get off track.

I'm fairly sure those are dates of ratification by the various state legislatures.

Duh! I should read more. :) 3/4 of the states have to bless a change.....

If most congressional races weren't rigged in the first place it wouldn't be a problem.

Rigged? I don't know about what happens where you are, but up here the only issue is the incumbent factor.

Yes. I don't want some power hungry dope ruler forever. (No refferal to Bush or Clinton) :rolleyes:

Here we also have the possibility of serving successive two terms as president. No more than two in a row though. I think that this is reasonable, as if the administration is doing a good job, and it has to be to get re-elected, then the president deserves to retain the position.
More than two starts to feel like a dictatorship. You will have peole who are nearly old enough to vote who do not remember any other president (5 years old at the first election, 17 at the end of three terms.) Politics also needs to keep turning over the names and the faces, to keep joe public interested.

I thought it was the democracy, the voting process that kept the presidency from turning into a dictatorship, not term limits. The US did prosper pretty well for the 160 years that we didn't have term limits, and there was only one president who had more than four terms.

Term limits subvert the will of the people. If they wish to elect a president to three or four terms they should be free to do so. If they elect a poor president to that many terms then it is their own fault and they will suffer the consequences as a people.
Who knows, they may get a chance to keep a really good man or woman for a long time. Eisenhower comes to mind.

I voted yes, and I'll up the ante:
I'd be strongly in favor of legislation that would strictly limit the terms of all political and judicial positions. I see long-standing judges and fossilized senators to be a huge threat to progress.

Rigged? I don't know about what happens where you are, but up here the only issue is the incumbent factor.

Gerrymandering is far far too prevalent in congress. I think the reelection rate in congress is somewhere around 95%.

Yes, we should. If a monster like Franklin Roosevelt could keep getting elected, who's to say the same thing wouldn't happen with Bush (if we didn't have the 22nd Amendment)?

I agree with Eichen; there NEEDS to be a chance for new people, and thus new opinions, to enter government offices. Otherwise it can be difficult for progress to be made; if people really approved of the senator/judge/president/whatever, they can elect the most similar person to take their place.

I thought it was the democracy, the voting process that kept the presidency from turning into a dictatorship, not term limits. The US did prosper pretty well for the 160 years that we didn't have term limits, and there was only one president who had more than four terms.
I think there was still a strong tradition to follow George Washington's lead on the matter, then, though. I don't know if that would be the case today.

I voted yes, and I'll up the ante:
I'd be strongly in favor of legislation that would strictly limit the terms of all political and judicial positions. I see long-standing judges and fossilized senators to be a huge threat to progress.

I was wondering what one of our resident libertarians would think about this issue, and, frankly your answer surprises me. It seems to go at odds with libertarian philosophies.

Question: Would it not be better to clean up the election process than to put limitations on who the people can vote for?

In the US, it should be assumed that the flaw is in the system not in the people.

Yes, we should. If a monster like Franklin Roosevelt could keep getting elected, who's to say the same thing wouldn't happen with Bush (if we didn't have the 22nd Amendment)?
Thanks, Roach. That post should give me nightmares for a week or so.

I thought it was the democracy, the voting process that kept the presidency from turning into a dictatorship, not term limits. The US did prosper pretty well for the 160 years that we didn't have term limits, and there was only one president who had more than four terms.

I only said that it starts to feel like a dictatorship, not that it becomes one.
The same president for more than sixteen years (four terms) really does mean that new voters would have no experience of anything else. There is no limitation in the UK on the number of terms a PM can serve, but the whole system is different and the PM can be forced out of office by the politicians rather than by the people (as happened to Thatcher).

in theory a limited term system stops one person/party from building up a power base that is sufficiently strong to seize power for good

it does, however, force people to push through ideas and legislation before they are kicked out. Plus it encourages speedy nest feathering

Eichen, Roach, please don't single out particular Presidents. I don't want this to turn into a debate about the quality of presidents.

I trust you guys to stay on topic, but I worry someone else might jump on one of your posts and run with it.

I only said that it starts to feel like a dictatorship, not that it becomes one.
The same president for more than sixteen years (four terms) really does mean that new voters would have no experience of anything else. There is no limitation in the UK on the number of terms a PM can serve, but the whole system is different and the PM can be forced out of office by the politicians rather than by the people (as happened to Thatcher).

It is highly unlikely that someone will run for more than 3 or 4 terms with the age restrictions in place.

What stops a strong Presidency from passing on their momentum to a vice president (other than poor choices of VP)?

If most congressional races weren't rigged in the first place it wouldn't be a problem.

get rid of campaign finance reform and you would immediately see an increase in Congressional turnover.

Eichen, Roach, please don't single out particular Presidents. I don't want this to turn into a debate about the quality of presidents.

I trust you guys to stay on topic, but I worry someone else might jump on one of your posts and run with it.
Sorry 'bout that. Point well taken, and you're right. Good topic, bad spin once we enter the realm of specific personalities.

Another point: Doesn't anyone else agree that time itself may be the most corrupting element in a politicians career? Once you've settled in, found a few lapdog lobbyists, and have become accustomed to the taxpayer's teat...
Doesn't it always go downhill from there? Realistically speaking?

Gerrymandering is far far too prevalent in congress. I think the reelection rate in congress is somewhere around 95%.

Gerrymandering doesnt impact incumbancy as much as it gurantees Dems and Republicans their seats.

I'd kind of like to see Bush become president for life, just to see how he fixes the massive debt he is creating. Thats one thing which always pisses me off about Republicans, they like to run up giant debts and let someone worry about it. Reagan, for example had his giant tax cuts which everyone loved, and left clinton to clean up the mess. When Clinton had things turned around Bush launched more reckless tax cuts.

It is kind of like having divorced parents who still share credit cards and one of them is always buying you expensive things and wasting tons of money on you and the other one is always paying them off. I wish Bush could be president forever so that when the crash eventually happens when the Japs and Chinese get to freaked out by America's massive deficits and dump their dollars and the US economy goes splat the blame doesn't get put on some poor sap who just got elected.

What stops a strong Presidency from passing on their momentum to a vice president (other than poor choices of VP)?
Nothing, but not all VPs carry the torch well, and not all turn out to be highly similar to their predecessors. I don't think Truman or Lyndon Johnson could be said to be ideological clones of their preceding strong presidents, and Bush 41 only got one term out of the Reagan legacy. Maybe that's just me, tho'.

EDIT: I used to live in Greenbelt, MD, home of Representative Steny Hoyer, minority whip. Even though I'm a Democrat, I didn't much care for Steny and I wanted to vote against him. I couldn't. He had such a firm grip on his seat, no one ran against him during the election I voted in while I lived there. I don't know if gerrymandering affected that, but, geez, it didn't feel very democratic.

Sorry 'bout that. Point well taken, and you're right. Good topic, bad spin once we enter the realm of specific personalities.

Another point: Doesn't anyone else agree that time itself may be the most corrupting element in a politicians career? Once you've settled in, found a few lapdog lobbyists, and have become accustomed to the taxpayer's teat...
Doesn't it always go downhill from there? Realistically speaking?

I agree completely. It's like erosion, all the pressures are eventually going to break the cleanest politicians down. Once you justify taking money from one lobby, the next lobby is that much easier to respond to.

Gerrymandering doesnt impact incumbancy as much as it gurantees Dems and Republicans their seats.
Maybe I'm being biased here, but isn't that really the same thing? A symptom of the cause?

Gerrymandering doesnt impact incumbancy as much as it gurantees Dems and Republicans their seats.

That is true, but it is even rarer for an incumbent to lose in the primary. And even if he/she did, over the course of a term, the difference between one rep/dem and another rep/dem is minimal.

I'd kind of like to see Bush become president for life, just to see how he fixes the massive debt he is creating. Thats one thing which always pisses me off about Republicans, they like to run up giant debts and let someone worry about it. Reagan, for example had his giant tax cuts which everyone loved, and left clinton to clean up the mess. When Clinton had things turned around Bush launched more reckless tax cuts.

It is kind of like having divorced parents who still share credit cards and one of them is always buying you expensive things and wasting tons of money on you and the other one is always paying them off. I wish Bush could be president forever so that when the crash eventually happens when the Japs and Chinese get to freaked out by America's massive deficits and dump their dollars and the US economy goes splat the blame doesn't get put on some poor sap who just got elected.

Now that went way past the designated rules of this thread. I don't want to have to have this thread split.

Gerrymandering is far far too prevalent in congress. I think the reelection rate in congress is somewhere around 95%.

Good point, but how much of it is due to gerrymandering, and how much to the incumbent factor? In Alaska, we only have one Congressman anyway, so gerrmandering doesn't apply. Yet that one Congressman has been there for 30 years or so.

Getting back on topic, some one made the point that the term limits means that what you want to get done needs to be done now. I think that's a big advantage for the elected officials. When you don't have to worry about getting re-elected, you don't need to make so many compromises. It is easier to stick to your principles.

I think that the best thing that term limits does is keep us from getting an elite in power. If the guys have to quit after 8 years or so, that gives the average joe a much better chance to get in since the parties know that they can't count on the same guy for the next 30 years.

i too am quite surprised that Eichen is in favor of term limits. term limits are a completely antimajoritarian idea. people should be free to re-elect a president as often as they wish to, and the same goes for any elective office.

the only legitimate argument i have ever heard in favor of term limits is that an incumbent as an unfair advantage over a challenger, the longer time in office, the bigger the advantage. even assuming this is true, a more democratic solution would be to require incumbents to get a supermajority to remain in office, 55% of the vote, 60%, something like that.

of course, the antimajoritarian nature of that solution is obvious, but it is less anitmajoritarian than a rule that says a two-term incumbent cannot be relected, even with 70%, 80% or 90% of the vote.

the public ought to be able to re-elect an incumbent as long as they feel the job is getting done. any other rule is undemocratic.

I agree completely. It's like erosion, all the pressures are eventually going to break the cleanest politicians down. Once you justify taking money from one lobby, the next lobby is that much easier to respond to.
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."
~ P.J. O'Rourke

No on term limits for judges, no on them even being elected. That's the entire point of an independent judicary, they're supposed to make the hard, unpopular choices (like allowing interracial marriage).

Getting back on topic, some one made the point that the term limits means that what you want to get done needs to be done now. I think that's a big advantage for the elected officials. When you don't have to worry about getting re-elected, you don't need to make so many compromises. It is easier to stick to your principles.
I wonder what it would do for corruption, though. People complain about corruption in the American government, as it is, although that's partially an artifact of Americans' extremely low tolerance for that sort of thing. If you have a guy who's going to be in his seat of power indefinitely, seems to me that maybe enhances the ability to corrupt government. Continuous ability to use his power to protect himself, strong "long term" investment for people with bribes to hand out, longer exposure time to be corrupted, lower concern of the next guy finding out what he was up to.

Good point, but how much of it is due to gerrymandering, and how much to the incumbent factor? In Alaska, we only have one Congressman anyway, so gerrmandering doesn't apply. Yet that one Congressman has been there for 30 years or so.

I will admit that the incumbent factor is strong, but is it a bad thing? Incumbents are guaranteed to have more experience at their job than a newcomer. If it is a bad thing, is it a problem with the voters or a problem with the system?

To install term limits, you must assume that the problem is with the voters, correct?

Getting back on topic, some one made the point that the term limits means that what you want to get done needs to be done now. I think that's a big advantage for the elected officials. When you don't have to worry about getting re-elected, you don't need to make so many compromises. It is easier to stick to your principles.

Considering that politics has become more of a career than a duty, is the need to push acts and policies through in time really that big of a pressure?

I think that the best thing that term limits does is keep us from getting an elite in power. If the guys have to quit after 8 years or so, that gives the average joe a much better chance to get in since the parties know that they can't count on the same guy for the next 30 years.

Average Joes don't stand a chance of making it to the presidency, anyway. But I do understand what you are saying about job turnover.

Once again, though, is the problem with the system or the voters? Is the bigger problem voter apathy or campaign spending and back scratching?

A handful of points.

1: The Presidency is one of the most draining jobs in the World. Most Presidents have admitted that its very hard to keep going, month in and month out, for four years, let alone eight or more. Also factoring in the fact that most Presidents are around 50-60 when elected, they cannot plausibly stay in office for more than four terms without health becoming a major issue, which brings me to my next point.

2: Institute a capacity test. Eisenhower was already in decline by the end of his second term, and likely would have been reelected. Reagan's ailments had already begun, and by the end of his third term would have likely completely incapacitated him. A fitness test, in mind and body, should be instituted to make sure that a President CAN do his duties.

3: Congressmen get reelected with ease for two reasons. Money and name recognition. Some of you might remember the early 90s Eddie Murphy movie wherein Eddie was elected to Congress by rearranging and changing his name to that of a deceased Senator, whereupon he was quickly elected. Also factoring in the huge financial capabilities of most Congressmen (The Senate is called the Millionaires Club for a reason), they are able to outspend much of their potential competition. A more level financial field is necessary.

4: Vice Presidents are far from guaranteed a victory. Al Gore comes to mind for instance.

5: Thatcher and the Parliamentary system doesn't apply to American style government. Because an election must be called when a major piece of legislation doesn't pass (that is, when it is proposed by the Government), that means that at least a portion of the PM's own party doesn't agree with them. However, if the public does, they can just reelect the PM, who will likely then be able to continue without much difficulty.

6: The proposition of a Dictatorship forming is rather absurd. The mere fact that new opposition would roll around every four years means that automatically the public would learn about different politicians. Furthermore, inner-party struggles would, and always have, lead to secondary candidates arising inside an encumbant party. Refer to the 1912 election as an example of this.

7: The people deserve to keep in competent leadership. If a rare leader comes around, as happens every few generations, you want to be able to keep them in as long as possible. Hell, even a competent but honest leader deserves to be kept in, de Gaulle, Thatcher, etc.


Just a few points, I'll respond later if something else comes to my attention.

the public ought to be able to re-elect an incumbent as long as they feel the job is getting done. any other rule is undemocratic.

The majority isn't always right. There is no perfect plan for running the country.

Turn over keeps ideas (or is supposed to) going.....

No, because certain presidents did alot of good things, even though they served for three terms...

No on term limits for judges, no on them even being elected. That's the entire point of an independent judicary, they're supposed to make the hard, unpopular choices (like allowing interracial marriage).

But doesn't lifetime terms allow for judges to make judgements based on past social norms and not present social norms? Shouldn't the judicial system be forced to reflect the wants of the citizenry?

But doesn't lifetime terms allow for judges to make judgements based on past social norms and not present social norms? Shouldn't the judicial system be forced to reflect the wants of the citizenry?
Then the legislature should insure that through revisions of the law. Judges should not be poll-watchers.

i too am quite surprised that Eichen is in favor of term limits. term limits are a completely antimajoritarian idea. people should be free to re-elect a president as often as they wish to, and the same goes for any elective office.

the only legitimate argument i have ever heard in favor of term limits is that an incumbent as an unfair advantage over a challenger, the longer time in office, the bigger the advantage. even assuming this is true, a more democratic solution would be to require incumbents to get a supermajority to remain in office, 55% of the vote, 60%, something like that.

of course, the antimajoritarian nature of that solution is obvious, but it is less anitmajoritarian than a rule that says a two-term incumbent cannot be relected, even with 70%, 80% or 90% of the vote.

the public ought to be able to re-elect an incumbent as long as they feel the job is getting done. any other rule is undemocratic.

That incumbent factor is huge. Up here in Alaska, we have an interesting perspective on it.

For our Congressman, we have Don Young. He won in a special election in 1973. He's still there.

For Senators, we have Ted Stevens. He was appointed as a replacement when the current senator died in 1968. He's still there. He is president pro tempore of the senate, so he's third in line for the Presidency. He has the highest seniority of any Republican in the senate.

We also have Lisa Murkowski. Her father Frank was a senator from 1980 to 2002. He used his position to get himself elected governor. He then appointed his daughter to his spot. She beat off former governor Tony Knowles for the seat in 2004. I expect her to win so long as she runs.

Personally, I think that we need term limits.

No, because certain presidents did alot of good things, even though they served for three terms...

Presidents? FDR and whom?

Sorry Vittos :p

But doesn't lifetime terms allow for judges to make judgements based on past social norms and not present social norms? Shouldn't the judicial system be forced to reflect the wants of the citizenry?
Nope. Why do you think people bitch about activist judges so much?

Besides, I have some issues with some of the justices on the courts, but as a group they are doing a decent job, and I'd rather not have them subject to relection pressures and term limits (imagine if we had to fight over the supreme court bench every 10 years).

One rule and you broke it three times.

And are constitutional amendments voted on? I thought they were proposed and accepted by Congress and the state legislatures.

They must be passed by a super majority in Congress and the states must ratify them. In a lot of States it goes to a vote of the people before being ratified by the State Legislature.

i too am quite surprised that Eichen is in favor of term limits... *snip*
Yeah, I hear that a lot (only with my real name, Rob). :D

There is no single "Libertarian Formula". We may have a pretty no-bullshit, straightforward approach that most political philosophies sadly lack. We may have a way-better-than-typical unifying philosophy that others don't have.

This is why, unlike the liberals or conservatives, we're abnormally consistent. So it stands out when we disagree on a few issues.

Remember, I'm a pretty hardcore member of the LP (http://www.lp.org), I'm not just a "small l" libertarian, becuase I'm a card-carrying member of the "capital L" political party.

Since this takes libertarianism out of the purely philisophical arena and places it in the harsh light of political practibility, sometimes my opinions might not make sense to a hardcore "small l" libertarian.

But doesn't lifetime terms allow for judges to make judgements based on past social norms and not present social norms? Shouldn't the judicial system be forced to reflect the wants of the citizenry?

No! Judges are supposed to enforce the laws as they were intended. It would be a bad thing if Judges were elected and campaigned on the sound bite of the day.

More important. If he has the seat, he is not going to worry about campaigning or owing favors.....

Then the legislature should insure that through revisions of the law. Judges should not be poll-watchers.

But it is the job of the judicial system to interpret laws. What if their interpretation of laws are in conflict with that of the people?

More important. If he has the seat, he is not going to worry about campaigning or owing favors.....
On the other hand, it does make some of them act like little bronze gods. :D No system is perfect. I'd still rather have them as hands off as possible, though. They should be as impartial as we can manage, not slaves to the partiality of the day.

but just last year we unfortunately voted to deny citizenship to the children of non-citizens who are born here.

Denying them citizenship sounds good to me, especially if they are illegal aliens.

But it is the job of the judicial system to interpret laws. What if their interpretation of laws are in conflict with that of the people?
Then change the law that the interpretation is based on.

Presidents? FDR and whom?

Sorry Vittos :p

I was trying not to name anyone, num nut!

Nope. Why do you think people bitch about activist judges so much?

Besides, I have some issues with some of the justices on the courts, but as a group they are doing a decent job, and I'd rather not have them subject to relection pressures and term limits (imagine if we had to fight over the supreme court bench every 10 years).

I actually have to agree with you. I have been trying to play devil's advocate with everyone who posts, but I can't really argue with this, and since justices don't even have terms, this isn't quite relevant to the thread.

You have made excellent points, though.

Nope. Why do you think people bitch about activist judges so much?
This came off as incredibly biased. It seems that you assume that "activist" is a pseudonymn for liberal, or progressive.

There are far right-wing activists as well.

This came off as incredibly biased. It seems that you assume that "activist" is a pseudonymn for liberal, or progressive.

There are far right-wing activists as well.

I didn't take it that way.

BTW, I am more libertarian than you in this thread. Take THAT!

I will admit that the incumbent factor is strong, but is it a bad thing? Incumbents are guaranteed to have more experience at their job than a newcomer. If it is a bad thing, is it a problem with the voters or a problem with the system?

To install term limits, you must assume that the problem is with the voters, correct?

Considering that politics has become more of a career than a duty, is the need to push acts and policies through in time really that big of a pressure?

Average Joes don't stand a chance of making it to the presidency, anyway. But I do understand what you are saying about job turnover.

Once again, though, is the problem with the system or the voters? Is the bigger problem voter apathy or campaign spending and back scratching?

I agree that what you've mentioned are problems, but we still need term limts too.

I think that there are plenty of people out there with the knowledge and experience to run the government, many more than are currently doing it. For example, what about the people in charge of various community organizations, like Kiwanas or the Red Cross? They have experience with budgets, setting priorities, etc. Not to mention various business leaders, educators, etc.

However, just because someone has done the job before doesn't mean that they've done it well. Senator Stevens comes to mind. People keep re-electing him because he gets so much money sent back to Alaska. He's the king of the pork. Yet a lot of his views on policy are different from those of the state. All we care about is the money.

The problem is that the voters are not given enough choice. Term limts would go a long way towards giving them that choice.

As for the time issue, it is important. When people know that the time is short, they will set their priorities differently. They will do what is imprtant to them rather than what would get them re-elected.

If we get a better set of choices on the ballot, don't you think that voter apathy will drop?

It is highly unlikely that someone will run for more than 3 or 4 terms with the age restrictions in place.

What stops a strong Presidency from passing on their momentum to a vice president (other than poor choices of VP)?

What age restrictions? Only age restrictions are minimum age for office. There is no maximum age restrictions. My mother who is 96 could run, and if elected serve.

There are far right-wing activists as well.

Aren't they the ones complaining about activist judges? ;)

If you want a good reason to have term limits, at least for Congress, read Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders -- by Tom A. Coburn.

A very enlightning book.

No, because certain presidents did alot of good things, even though they served for three terms...

There was only President that served more than two terms.

Aren't they the ones complaining about activist judges? ;)
That's what's ironic. A judge that consistently throws the book at drug, gambling or prostitution "criminals" is just as "active" as any liberal judge out there. The right-wingers are just more successful at communicating their opposition to the fossils they disagree with.

The only clear solution is strict term limits for judges.

Of course, this view puts more personal responsibility on the voting public to educate themselves more frequently on the candidate's platforms.

I didn't take it that way.

BTW, I am more libertarian than you in this thread. Take THAT!
You bastard! :D

But doesn't lifetime terms allow for judges to make judgements based on past social norms and not present social norms? Shouldn't the judicial system be forced to reflect the wants of the citizenry?

I would consider ammending the Constitution to set judical apointments to 15 or 20 years. I would be against electing judges though.

Then change the law that the interpretation is based on.

That works if the law is one passed by the legislature.

If you want a good reason to have term limits, at least for Congress, read Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders -- by Tom A. Coburn.

A very enlightning book.
*bows down*

That works if the law is one passed by the legislature.
As opposed to? Public referendum kinda thing? If that's the case, people can change it directly, and if we're talking about laws being out of synch with public opinion, that seems kinda straightforward to me.

Wow, seeing people try to justify term limits is amazing.

Term limits are OUTRAGEOUS.

Imagine if we found the PERFECT president - someone 85% of the country voted for, and the remaining 15% still respected. How stupid would term limits seem then?

We have a democracy, where we can vote for whoever we want. To exclude people due to their experience is preposterous.

All the ISSUES you guys mention are certainly a problem, but each can be fixed through a different method. If MONEY or NAME RECOGNITION are preventing a fair election, don't limit my choices of candidate - FIX THE PROBLEM! Change the election laws - dramatically if necessary. But lemme vote for whoever I want, dammit!

Even the rule about being born in the US should be subject to negotiation, since the global circumstances are so different today. Arnold might make a fine candidate that is liked by both liberals and conservatives.

*bows down*

Eichen, did you read the book? If so, what did you think of it?

Of course, this view puts more personal responsibility on the voting public to educate themselves more frequently on the candidate's platforms.


Ah! You are a dreamer! :p

Wow, seeing people try to justify term limits is amazing.

Term limits are OUTRAGEOUS.

Imagine if we found the PERFECT president - someone 85% of the country voted for, and the remaining 15% still respected. How stupid would term limits seem then?

We have a democracy, where we can vote for whoever we want. To exclude people due to their experience is preposterous.

All the ISSUES you guys mention are certainly a problem, but each can be fixed through a different method. If MONEY or NAME RECOGNITION are preventing a fair election, don't limit my choices of candidate - FIX THE PROBLEM! Change the election laws - dramatically if necessary. But lemme vote for whoever I want, dammit!

Even the rule about being born in the US should be subject to negotiation, since the global circumstances are so different today. Arnold might make a fine candidate that is liked by both liberals and conservatives.

If name recognition is the issue (as I think it is), then how do we fix things without letting them run again?

Wow, seeing people try to justify term limits is amazing.

Term limits are OUTRAGEOUS.

Imagine if we found the PERFECT president - someone 85% of the country voted for, and the remaining 15% still respected. How stupid would term limits seem then?

We have a democracy, where we can vote for whoever we want. To exclude people due to their experience is preposterous.

All the ISSUES you guys mention are certainly a problem, but each can be fixed through a different method. If MONEY or NAME RECOGNITION are preventing a fair election, don't limit my choices of candidate - FIX THE PROBLEM! Change the election laws - dramatically if necessary. But lemme vote for whoever I want, dammit!

Even the rule about being born in the US should be subject to negotiation, since the global circumstances are so different today. Arnold might make a fine candidate that is liked by both liberals and conservatives.


the aim of term limits is to try and limit the personal power base that can be built up to stop monarchies/dictatorships developing. However, considering the family relationships that exisit in American politics, it seems to have failed.

As opposed to? Public referendum kinda thing? If that's the case, people can change it directly, and if we're talking about laws being out of synch with public opinion, that seems kinda straightforward to me.

As opposed to the Constitution itself. I think we have already established it is very difficult to chang that. Laws passed by the legislaive branch of the government are a lot easier to change. Referendums can also be changed to uphold old social norms or reflect new ones.

All the ISSUES you guys mention are certainly a problem, but each can be fixed through a different method. If MONEY or NAME RECOGNITION are preventing a fair election, don't limit my choices of candidate - FIX THE PROBLEM!
I mentioned a ways back in the thread that the lack of Congressional term limits actually did limit my choices in an election. Steny Hoyer was such a fixture in that seat that no one was running against him during that election. I had a choice of one candidate. Guess what? He won.

If name recognition is the issue (as I think it is), then how do we fix things without letting them run again?

Give other candidates equal exposure on TV - use some of our 2.5 trillion dollar budget to buy the leasing candidates hours of TV time on every channel, levelling the playing field.

I mean, without TV, this problem would be reduced significantly. So media exposure is both the problem and solution.

There may be other methods that can also help, without preventing me from voting for my favorite candidate.

If you want a good reason to have term limits, at least for Congress, read Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders -- by Tom A. Coburn.

A very enlightning book.

Hmmm.

Ordered it! Danke!

I mentioned a ways back in the thread that the lack of Congressional term limits actually did limit my choices in an election. Steny Hoyer was such a fixture in that seat that no one was running against him during that election. I had a choice of one candidate. Guess what? He won.

Another fair concern, but I have a better idea than not letting the guy who is so well-liked-that-no-one-dare-run-against-him run again.

Organize a movement to make people aware of the issues and other candidates. Change the laws so the government provides money for such purposes. FORCE a choice, without forcing anyone's hand.

It solves your problem, without lopping off a candidates head.

By the way, next time you vote, write in "Ted Pryor", and I'll fix things from the inside!

See, all I am saying, is let's solve the problem, not the symptom.

As opposed to the Constitution itself. I think we have already established it is very difficult to chang that. Laws passed by the legislaive branch of the government are a lot easier to change. Referendums can also be changed to uphold old social norms or reflect new ones.
The Constitution should be hard to change. It's not easily bent to the political fashion of the moment, and it shouldn't be. However, it has also been successfully changed twenty-seven times, as recently as thirteen years ago, and ideas as stupid as Prohibition have managed to make it through. If people really think judges are out of touch enough, the Constitution is perfectly amendable.

Give other candidates equal exposure on TV - use some of our 2.5 trillion dollar budget to buy the leasing candidates hours of TV time on every channel, levelling the playing field.

I mean, without TV, this problem would be reduced significantly. So media exposure is both the problem and solution.

There may be other methods that can also help, without preventing me from voting for my favorite candidate.

On the one hand, I have issues with the government giving candidates money for campaigns.

On the other, I don't think that advertising will help. I mentioned Senator Stevens earlier. He's been in office for 37 years now. No body even bothers to try. They know that he will win. It's because he sends so much pork barrel spending back to Alaska. They don't care about what he believes so long as he keeps giving us money. It's not an issue of nobody not knowing about who else is running. It's an issue of people not caring who else is running. We're going to vote for Uncle Ted anyway. I think that there is something wrong with that.

Eichen, did you read the book? If so, what did you think of it?
It's right beside my copy of "Parliament of Whores". :)

It's a great book, and it's sad that there are so few published on the topic, from this viewpoint.

I predict he'll be leaving the current party he's registered with pretty soon if we have another religious zealot in the White House under his ticket, though.
If he doesn't go Libertarian, he'll stick to the word "conservative" in lieu of any party affiliation.

Ah! You are a dreamer! :p
Busted! :eek:

So I hear some people say that they want to vote for anybody that they want to, and term limits infringes on that. I hear others saying that the incumbent factor is too big an issue to ignore. So here's a solution.

We do term limits, but only on consecutive terms. So you can hold a seat for 8 years, then you have to give it up for one term. Then you're free to run again. Anybody like that idea?

One rule and you broke it three times.

And are constitutional amendments voted on? I thought they were proposed and accepted by Congress and the state legislatures.

Have to be radified by the states.

I was wondering what one of our resident libertarians would think about this issue, and, frankly your answer surprises me. It seems to go at odds with libertarian philosophies.

Question: Would it not be better to clean up the election process than to put limitations on who the people can vote for?

In the US, it should be assumed that the flaw is in the system not in the people.


Once in power, the incumbent gains an advantage in retaining power. they can change legal voting laws and protocols, and commonly do, to ensure they stay in power. Far safer to force a good politician to run for a different position then to allow a virtual dictator to remain in a position of power.

If you want a good reason to have term limits, at least for Congress, read Breach of Trust: How Washington Turns Outsiders Into Insiders -- by Tom A. Coburn.

A very enlightning book.

I haven't picked that one up but he's right, Parliament of Whores was great. I'll need to dig it out of the box. (moved this summer).

So long as terms are set in stone, I think limits on them are a good idea. If we had a system more like what Britain has, for example, then I think term limits would be a moot point.

If name recognition is the issue (as I think it is), then how do we fix things without letting them run again?

How about making it easier for third party candidates and independents to get on the ballots? What about doing away with the two party system? Both are alternatives.

The Constitution should be hard to change. It's not easily bent to the political fashion of the moment, and it shouldn't be. However, it has also been successfully changed twenty-seven times, as recently as thirteen years ago, and ideas as stupid as Prohibition have managed to make it through. If people really think judges are out of touch enough, the Constitution is perfectly amendable.

I fully agree. Remember the proposal to have a Constitutional amendment to make burning the flag illegal? Although I abhore burning or desicrating the flag, I'm not so sure we need a Constitutional Amendment to make it illegal.

On the one hand, I have issues with the government giving candidates money for campaigns.

On the other, I don't think that advertising will help. I mentioned Senator Stevens earlier. He's been in office for 37 years now. No body even bothers to try. They know that he will win. It's because he sends so much pork barrel spending back to Alaska. They don't care about what he believes so long as he keeps giving us money. It's not an issue of nobody not knowing about who else is running. It's an issue of people not caring who else is running. We're going to vote for Uncle Ted anyway. I think that there is something wrong with that.

There is such a thing as "grass roots" campagnes and they can be very successful. The thing is you have to get the people involved. That is how Senator Dr. Tom Coburn form Oklahoma was elected. He went up against the party anointed former Mayor of Oklahoma City to win the primary. It was through the effort of the "common people" that helped him win both the primary and the Senate seat.

How about making it easier for third party candidates and independents to get on the ballots? What about doing away with the two party system? Both are alternatives.
Hell, you're crazy! Let's just leave the current duplicitous oligarchy in power, becuase, as sweet as it sounds--
I'm obviously just like you!

http://www.goodspeed.org/past_productions/1998/exactly.jpg

I predict he'll be leaving the current party he's registered with pretty soon if we have another religious zealot in the White House under his ticket, though.
If he doesn't go Libertarian, he'll stick to the word "conservative" in lieu of any party affiliation.:

I know him personally and my wife and I worked on his campaign. He firmly believes in term limits. The founding fathers never expected this country to have career politicians. Dr. Coburn firmly believes in "citizen legislators." He is serving his first term as a Senator and will run, as a Republican, one more time.

There is such a thing as "grass roots" campagnes and they can be very successful. The thing is you have to get the people involved.
Grassroots efforts are always preferable to long-stading hypocrisy. I know of only one American group capable of claiming, despite grassroors origins, sucess at communicating those efforts and philisophical aspirations. :)

We do term limits, but only on consecutive terms. So you can hold a seat for 8 years, then you have to give it up for one term. Then you're free to run again. Anybody like that idea?

For President? That sounds like a reasonable solution. We could do the same for Congress, a max of four years for the House, and twelve for the Senate, then sit out one term before you can run again.

Now, who are we going to get to introduce the legislation?

Hell, you're crazy! Let's just leave the current duplicitous oligarchy in power, becuase, as sweet as it sounds--
I'm obviously just like you!

http://www.goodspeed.org/past_productions/1998/exactly.jpg

We may be alike but you are an L and I'm and R. :fluffle:

nevermind, my entire post got hacked by the brilliant men and women at Jolt. :rolleyes:
So like 10 minutes of writing just got douched.

nevermind, my entire post got hacked by the brilliant men and women at Jolt. :rolleyes:
So like 10 minutes of writing just got douched.

Cheer up. Life is still worth living. :fluffle:

Cheer up. Life is still worth living. :fluffle:
You'll still have to fight the Aplpha-Male on NS when it comes to smartass.

But weak entries are always accepted! :p

For President? That sounds like a reasonable solution. We could do the same for Congress, a max of four years for the House, and twelve for the Senate, then sit out one term before you can run again.

Now, who are we going to get to introduce the legislation?

Um, I would, but I can't run for the House for another 4 years. Too young. :(

How about making it easier for third party candidates and independents to get on the ballots? What about doing away with the two party system? Both are alternatives.

Term limits would make it easier for third party candidates. It would get rid of the heavy hitters that the major parties use to stay in power. And legally speaking, doing away with the 2-party system would entail either tinkering with the way that we elect people, hence the Constitution, or by making political parties illegal, which violates the FIrst Amendment. The two-party system can be changed, but not with legislation.

There is such a thing as "grass roots" campagnes and they can be very successful. The thing is you have to get the people involved. That is how Senator Dr. Tom Coburn form Oklahoma was elected. He went up against the party anointed former Mayor of Oklahoma City to win the primary. It was through the effort of the "common people" that helped him win both the primary and the Senate seat.

Nice job for Senator Coburn. But his opponent was not an incumbent, just another politician. And grassroots campaigns can work, but they are hard to mount. Just look at what happened in the last election. Dean had a large grassroots campaign going, but he still lost in the polls, averaging third overall.

Term limit's restrict the People's Choice to choose...

Anything about that people don't understand?

Yet another Constitutional Amendment that is UnConstitutional...

Regards,
Gaar

Presidential term limits are insurance against a natural tendency toward dictatorships. I would also favor term limits in both the Senate and House, perhaps one continuous eight-year term for Senators and one four-year term for Congressmen with the possibility of being elected again after an absence of one term.

Presidential term limits are insurance against a natural tendency toward dictatorships. I would also favor term limits in both the Senate and House, perhaps one continuous eight-year term for Senators and one four-year term for Congressmen with the possibility of being elected again after an absence of one term.

Natural tendency? Where do you come up with that?

Again, WE THE PEOPLE have, what is known as, FREEDOM OF CHOICE!

What do YOU believe would happen if...(now I'm not saying this would have any chance of happening, but merely use it in the hypothetical)

What do you think the Supreme Court, or ANYONE ELSE for that matter, would do if George W. Bush WON the next Election?

What do YOU think ANYONE would do against the WILL of the People?

Let us say, for arguments sake, that some event were to propel the President's popularity THROUGH THE ROOF just before the next Election and the People WRITE IN Bush as their choice. Let's "pretend" that over 70% of the People VOTE for Bush...

What does ANYONE think the Supreme Court would do?!?!

Regards,
Gaar

Natural tendency? Where do you come up with that?

Again, WE THE PEOPLE have, what is known as, FREEDOM OF CHOICE!

What do YOU believe would happen if...(now I'm not saying this would have any chance of happening, but merely use it in the hypothetical)

What do you think the Supreme Court, or ANYONE ELSE for that matter, would do if George W. Bush WON the next Election?

What do YOU think ANYONE would do against the WILL of the People?

Let us say, for arguments sake, that some event were to propel the President's popularity THROUGH THE ROOF just before the next Election and the People WRITE IN Bush as their choice. Let's "pretend" that over 70% of the People VOTE for Bush...

What does ANYONE think the Supreme Court would do?!?!

Hopefully, they would say that he couldn't take office due to the 22nd Amendment. They would then throw the election to the House, give the second place guy the win, or call for a new election.