I'm not seeing a convincing argument against term limits so far. Oh it might mess up Congress? Would we even notice?
Printable View
I'm not seeing a convincing argument against term limits so far. Oh it might mess up Congress? Would we even notice?
The classic argument against term limits is that it deprives the people of the right to keep someone they like in there forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
I've been saying for some time now that Term Limits is a bad idea who's time has come.
Why can't you spend $1M if you want to get your point across to the public? A 30 sec spot on the Super Bowl costs $5M but gets your points to one of the wider audiences imaginable even with how the NFL has beat themselves up this year. We ran really low budget in the Recall Morse campaign but most politically-oriented efforts can get very expensive very fast and even as dedicated as our volunteers were, we'd have failed to get the necessary signatures in time without hiring paid canvassers since most of the volunteers were working people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
My point on spending limits is that it's just another tool by those who want to restrict speech. Sunshine laws are better because they let someone get the equivalent of as much speech as they want or can pay for but the public gets the information on how it was paid for.
As far as term limits go, we've seen the effect they have in many locales. Can you show any state or municipality with term limits where it has improved anything? I'd rather have someone I can hold accountable at the ballot box even if they can pile on a third or fourth or fifth or even sixth term than push more power to the unelected faceless staffers and bureaucrats.
In the early days of our country, those that served did so at a personal sacrifice. They couldn't afford to stay in office as a career politician. Today, how is it that those in Congress increase their wealth so much from their time entering office to their departure? There needs to be a way to take the money out of govt.
It's a rule not mandated in the Constitution and can be revoked at anytime by the majority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey Guns
Let's have an exercise. Everyone is free to answer.
What is BEST thing that a member of the House or Senate has ever done in your opinion?
How long had said politician been in office when said best thing occured?
The counter point of course can be the worst thing, and time in office.
Simple. No budget passed by Congress by x date, president sets budget for the year.
Need a balanced budget amendment, very few exemptions requiring 75% vote in both houses to raise taxes or exceed revenue.
Need an amendment prohibiting federal money going to local governments and local projects.
Need an amendment making members of Congress employees of the state, not the federal government. Each congressman's budget is set by their state. Remove all post term benefits. Forced retirement at age 65. Require congressmen to spend 300 nights in home state each year. We have teleconferencing/video for their meetings, hearings and votes. (Could strip some lobbying power if not all in DC at same time). Travel out of country approved by state governor.
And finally. No member of Congress or thier immeadiate family can work for any company that receives government money. May not work for any company that lobbies. Same for president and USSC justices.
Impossible dream, but why not dream...
I like it.
Yep. The specific instances in which the US Constitution requires a 2/3 vote in the Senate are limited to: 1) convict in an impeachment; 2) expel a member; 3) ratify a treaty; 4) override a veto; 5) pass a constitutional amendment; 6) restore rebel's rights to serve (14th Amdt; 7) approve a presidential removal (25th Amdt). The last 4 also require 2/3 vote in the House.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric P
ME TOO!Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving