Topic: Congress
The Citizen Legislature Act The one thing in the Contract With America that would've destroyed the career politician and the American aristocracyby Thomas Locke
(libertarian)
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Who can guess how long Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia has been "serving"? Any takers? Well, he's been serving longer than most people have been alive, a total of fifty years (January 3, 1959). Any guess at how long Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts has been serving? Here's a hint, almost as long as Senator Byrd. Old Ted has been "serving" a whopping forty-seven years (November 7, 1962). Now is this what our Founding Fathers expected? For example, Our first president, George Washington, refused a third term fearing that he would set a bad precedent (A precedent FDR didn't care about and if not for his timely death probably would've went for a fifth term. That's pure speculation however, I digress).
1994 is remembered best as the fabled Republican Revolution and for the Contract With America. Within this document contained a piece of legislation that would end the career politician. It would've amended the constitution and impose term-limits on the Senate and House of Representatives. Six terms for Representatives and two terms for Senators, after that they were done. They could run for president and possibly another office but not that of Representative and Senator.
Personally, I believe twelve years is too long. I believe that six years is sufficient (three terms for Representatives and one term for Senator). Even better, let's make Congress like jury duty. That was just a joke, but perhaps a thought for posterity. Either way the problem needs to be solved and term limits is the answer. The career politician is putting our country in a strangle hold and we need to wake up and stop kidding ourselves. There is absolutely no reason for Robert Byrd or Ted Kennedy to be serving this long. Think of it this way, Senator Byrd was serving when JFK was assassinated! Senator Byrd was serving when former president Nixon resigned! Senator Byrd was serving when RFK was assassinated! I don't know about you, but I've had enough of the American aristocracy. Take a good look at your Congressmen, what do you see? I see a bunch of do-nothing aristocrats who continually treat our Constitution like the high-paid escorts they frequent (we probably pay for them too!). So I post a challenge, let's bring back this piece of legislation. Write your Congressmen and write your Senators because it is time for some accountability. If the government is incapable of restricting themselves, then I suggest we do it for them. I am tired of watching Congress rape the nation, while patting themselves on the backs like the "loyal patriots" that they like to think of themselves as. Some historians think that we have had two revolutions. The first one is obvious, but the second one is disputed. Some say the War of 1812 and some say the Civil War was the Second American Revolution. I say let's make a Third American Revolution if Congress doesn't wise up. As the old saying goes, the third time is the charm.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Thomas Locke only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Thomas Locke is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Steven A. Rosile
Date: 2009-07-28 12:09:32
I appreciate your sentiment but with term limits in place we would be deprived of The Honorable Ron Paul's "service", one of the few voices in Congress that has taken his oath of office seriously and consistently supported the Constitution. The fact is that today elected federal officials are, for the most part, just window dressing and do the bidding of their masters - who also fund their re-election campaigns.
We have term limits already. They are called elections. Even if we limited elected federal officials to a single term it would not stop the federal juggernaut due to the fact that the career "civil servants" would have even less oversight from Congress and the President because these "public servants" would spend most of their terms just getting the lay of the land, so to speak, and by the time they had an understanding of what is actually going on and how to manage the "civil servants" effectively they would be out of office.
America needs to wake up to the fact that the incumbents from the two branches of the Rebuplicrat party (R and D) are more interested in getting re-elected than anything else, and that means playing the charade that passes for politics these days. To do that they must advance the agenda of their financiers, not the people who elected them. Doing this, even unwittingly, as is often the case at least early on in their term(s) of "service", amounts to treason. They need to be reminded that the penalty for treason is death.
Americans wake up! Learn your history and your Constitution and demand that your elected officials be faithful to their oath to defend and support the Constitution. Educate your county sheriff so he knows his duty is to the people of his county and that he is the highest level law enforcement officer in the county. Learn your rights as jurors and use our most precious bit of common law heritage, jury nullification, when appropriate, to show the powers that be that the People really are "the masters of both legislatures and courts" in this country. That is, they could be again, if only they will.
As Ron Paul advised before the 2008 elections, unless you feel that an R or D is someone you can truely support and vote for, rather than voting against someone you consider worse, vote for third party candidates whose position you most agree with to show them (R and D incumbents) that you do not support their statist agenda. Voting for these "republicrats" only encourages then to boldly take even more of our wealth and rights.
I concur with EJ. Seniority is the culprit. What the author suggests loses merit when you look at California, where voters imposed legislature term limits in 1992. Look now- term limits instead divested power into the special interests, and nothing has really changed. Also, the incumbency rate in CA tops 90%, which is a problem excaberated by gerrymandered districts. In short, nothing changes with term limits - and I am back-and-forth on the 22nd amendment.
Nevertheless, as EJ has suggested, you bar seniority, and you will remove the subsidy for career politicians. Voters typically are afraid to vote out incumbents, especially in the House, where they have high committee rankings and also bring home the bacon. However, we should not be in favor of an outright elimination of it, as it will only result in the majority party gaining even more power.
If there are term limits how can there be incumbents? Term limits erase seniority. ALL SENIORITY MEANS IS HOW LONG YOU'VE BEEN SERVING NOT HOW OLD YOU ARE. I'm assuming that's what you people must be talking about because otherwise may God have mercy on your souls.
My, my, my, we are very hostile, aren't we? Perhaps to distract that our argument was thoroughly debunked?
If there are term limits how can there be incumbents?
You obviously do not live in California. Such a situation does exist. PLUS, by your own logic, (6 years maximum for any representative) the House would still have incumbents, which totally distorts the point of the "lower house".
Term limits erase seniority. ALL SENIORITY MEANS IS HOW LONG YOU'VE BEEN SERVING NOT HOW OLD YOU ARE.
I can't remember EJ or myself arguing anything else. Apparently, you can't read. Seniority DOES mean how long you've been serving and THAT's the problem. Voters are less likely to vote out incumbents that have higher seniority - because they sit on valuable committees and can bring more pork back to their own districts/states.
I'm assuming that's what you people must be talking about because otherwise may God have mercy on your souls.
Not sure what God has to do with this, although, in the same way, if you can't properly address critics of your idea, then perhaps it is you God should have mercy on.
I was emphasizing not being hostile. Also, comments on my literary capabilities are also offensive.
Think about the president. HE HAS TERM LIMITS. (again I capitalize to emphasize) MEANING WHEN HIS TERM IS UP HE CAN'T BE RE-ELECTED. THAT IS WHAT I AM PROPOSING FOR CONGRESS. What is hard to understand about that? Yes, I concede that there will be "incumbents". The point is they can't keep running and running and running for FIFTY YEARS. What you get when you allow people to run continuously is you elect an OLIGARCHY (rule by the few). And whatever is going on in California...well that's self-explanitory
I apologize if you found my comments offensive. Perhaps you feel the same way as I did now.
Secondly, I don't see why you keep insisting I don't understand your argument. What you're basically doing here is saying "don't insult my sensibilities" while repeatedly claiming myself or anyone else here has no clue the effects of your idea.
Please..., if what is going on in Calilfornia is so simple to diagnose, please enlighten me. I think you are equally confused on that matter. I maintain that term limits were seen as the appropriate thing to do at the time, just as other electoral reforms such as the initiative, referendum, direct election of senators, etc. etc. All parts of the progressive plank.
And no matter what, progressivism is an electoral fork of liberal politics. Something I'm not sure any libertarian would envoke - except by accident.
Allow me to share with you what has happened to my state (CA) to help create the crisis we're in now. Contrary to what you may have heard, it wasn't Prop 13, the famous tax revolt initative, or Prop 98, which set a minimum of funding for public schools. Undeniably though, it was through the success of these initiatives that certain PCs realized they could turn this grassroots exercise into a fully-fledged industry.
When this fad was still young, in the late 80's and early 90's, our then-governor, Pete Wilson, used it to great success to pass Prop 140- which brings us to the topic at hand.
Prop 140 did its work remarkably well, strangling career legislators immediately. Governors could only serve 2 terms period, consecutively or nonconsecutively, assembly-members could only serve 6 years, and state senators only 8.
But unfortunately, this grand moment of reform was dealt its first blow when the census came out. Gerrymandering immediately intensified, ensuring static party holdouts and strongholds continued to preserve the balance of power. Also, since politicians no longer stayed long enough to hold any considerable influence, party and private staff became the true lawmakers. Lobbyists easily gamed the rest of what was a noble, yet deeply-reduced system. Now I'll omit other problems because they're not central to this issue, but the fact of the matter is term limits will not stop the waste in government. It'll merely give the lobbyists greater power.
In case you still doubt the significance of that power exchange, I invite you to California to see for yourself the damage the unions, factory farms, and Silicone Valley have done through their influence-peddling. Then we'll see if you still think term limits are a sure thing.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
