Thursday, April 21, 2011
Not the final post, but final message
Well, it looks like we are winding down the semester and hence also the end of the blog. The point of this blog was to inform people that there is a noticeable problem in the legislative branch of the government and that there is a solution and that solution is term limits. There is no way to become a master of the subject of politic consequences because of the human condition that leaves everything relying on a person up to uncertainty. But through the research of creating this blog the signs point to Congress members who are aware that their only mission is to stay in Congress and not necessarily what the best for the country.
Are term limits the best solution for all the problems? Maybe, maybe not. But it is the fastest way to put a stall on Congress until deeper legislation can be passed so that those who would corrupt the system for their own benefit would not see a point in running for those offices or if they did they would do so for the actual benefit of the country.
I have covered the fact that good politicians with power and use that power correctly would be taken off the job, that is unfortunate but for all their good work, the few powerful people with no intent of bettering the country have done much more harm than those many good ones who have good will.
Perhaps the best solution is one that restricts the way politicians are elected and not how long they can stay in office, but this is the best way to do so quickly. The need for this done has quick as possible is because of the situation that those long lasting members of Congress have done to the country. Their old solutions are no longer going to work and new ideas are needed by new people.
This blog was supposed to make people aware that there is a way for immediate change and hope for different actions in Congress. If people are pleased with the way there are and have been going than there is no need to read this, but if people are not happy and want to ensure that they do not have to worry that the same people are proposing the same solutions for the same problems. Trying and failing is one thing, but trying the same thing over and over again leads to nowhere.
Are term limits the best solution for all the problems? Maybe, maybe not. But it is the fastest way to put a stall on Congress until deeper legislation can be passed so that those who would corrupt the system for their own benefit would not see a point in running for those offices or if they did they would do so for the actual benefit of the country.
I have covered the fact that good politicians with power and use that power correctly would be taken off the job, that is unfortunate but for all their good work, the few powerful people with no intent of bettering the country have done much more harm than those many good ones who have good will.
Perhaps the best solution is one that restricts the way politicians are elected and not how long they can stay in office, but this is the best way to do so quickly. The need for this done has quick as possible is because of the situation that those long lasting members of Congress have done to the country. Their old solutions are no longer going to work and new ideas are needed by new people.
This blog was supposed to make people aware that there is a way for immediate change and hope for different actions in Congress. If people are pleased with the way there are and have been going than there is no need to read this, but if people are not happy and want to ensure that they do not have to worry that the same people are proposing the same solutions for the same problems. Trying and failing is one thing, but trying the same thing over and over again leads to nowhere.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Brave Newish World
Well, Comcast has apparently deemed that my blogging, or internet use for that matter, is not worthy of their services so I forced to resort to drastic measures: iPhone. Yes, the one time I really needed a certain technology it failed me and I was forced to find a new source of mass communications. Praise be to Steve Jobs and his creation.
Appropriate enough to the theme of my post, but ultimately inconvenient
Anyway, now that my troubles are off my chest, let us find our way back to the post. I feel as though I am have been chasing my tail around in circles trying to prove why this is important, but because of the recent events I have a shining glimmer of hope that this argument may be pointless. With Congress attacking itself from all sides, maybe the American people will get so angry they will use their right to vote in staggering numbers. But, just in case I will continue.
The budget is the new source of my argument. Last post, I stated how Congress found a way to use up all the time on the draft clock and finally come to a decision, a decision which has left us and them at a crossroads.
Congress now has to raise the debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion and try not spending that money and start bring down the debt so the ceiling can be brought down. In most recent years the Congress has decided to raise amount of the credit card limit with no intent or forethought of how it was going to pay it back.
The national debt has been a concern of the American people and the government for some time. Nobody likes debt, except for us apparently. Since the WWII we have been building on debt. We chipped away at it immediately following WWII, which peaked just shy of 3.9 trillion dollars, lowering it to about 3.4 trillion dollars at the beginning of the Reagan years (Just to show that while I do lean to the right I am playing no favorites in my blame game) and kept the debt ceiling within range. With Reagan came a massive debt and subsequent raises to the debt.
The ceiling on spending stayed pretty good considering things like inflation and other rising nations. The fact that Congress seems split and there is a lame duck house doesn’t matter. All happened under Clinton’s eight seasons in the White House and nothing seemed to phase his ability to not only balance the budget but lower the debt and the percentage of the GDP taken up by that debt. Clinton raised the ceiling from 5.5 to 5.9 billion dollars in 1997 and it never moved and, like I said, the debt went down. So for the sake of political fairness (I would like to point out that this not oriented towards one party) let’s see how many members of the Senate and House of Representatives were a part of that. Because these numbers represent the last time they took office numbers could be in favor against my points because some members of the Senate not accounted for were in the House during these times.
SENATE DEBT LIMIT
100 All Senators in 2011 14.7 Trillion
58 current Senators have served since 2005 8.1 Trillion
45 current Senators have served since 2000 5.9 Trillion
37 current Senators have served since 1997 5.9 Trillion
HOUSE DEBT LIMIT
433 All Reps in 2011
262 current Reps have served since 2005
166 current Reps have served since 2000
137 current Reps have served since 1997
Over half of each house has been faced with raising the debt ceiling over and over again and each time they have continued to waste money or not do their jobs and not matter what, people aren’t voting them out. Why? I don’t know. These numbers are not good.
37 Senators and 137 Reps have raised the debt ceiling multiple times since 1997 by almost triple. If a quarter of a committee at a job continue to mess up then they must be fired for the good of the business. Massive spending such as these come from the most senior members of Congress. Continually doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is Einstein’s definition to insanity, and if they choose to repeat their mistake again I can see no other way than term limits to washing out the old ideas.
Just like the previous failure of the internet at my house I had to find an new way to write this post when what I knew failed me and I ultimately found a way to fix the situation.
sent from my iPhone.
Appropriate enough to the theme of my post, but ultimately inconvenient
Anyway, now that my troubles are off my chest, let us find our way back to the post. I feel as though I am have been chasing my tail around in circles trying to prove why this is important, but because of the recent events I have a shining glimmer of hope that this argument may be pointless. With Congress attacking itself from all sides, maybe the American people will get so angry they will use their right to vote in staggering numbers. But, just in case I will continue.
The budget is the new source of my argument. Last post, I stated how Congress found a way to use up all the time on the draft clock and finally come to a decision, a decision which has left us and them at a crossroads.
Congress now has to raise the debt ceiling to $14.3 trillion and try not spending that money and start bring down the debt so the ceiling can be brought down. In most recent years the Congress has decided to raise amount of the credit card limit with no intent or forethought of how it was going to pay it back.
The national debt has been a concern of the American people and the government for some time. Nobody likes debt, except for us apparently. Since the WWII we have been building on debt. We chipped away at it immediately following WWII, which peaked just shy of 3.9 trillion dollars, lowering it to about 3.4 trillion dollars at the beginning of the Reagan years (Just to show that while I do lean to the right I am playing no favorites in my blame game) and kept the debt ceiling within range. With Reagan came a massive debt and subsequent raises to the debt.
The ceiling on spending stayed pretty good considering things like inflation and other rising nations. The fact that Congress seems split and there is a lame duck house doesn’t matter. All happened under Clinton’s eight seasons in the White House and nothing seemed to phase his ability to not only balance the budget but lower the debt and the percentage of the GDP taken up by that debt. Clinton raised the ceiling from 5.5 to 5.9 billion dollars in 1997 and it never moved and, like I said, the debt went down. So for the sake of political fairness (I would like to point out that this not oriented towards one party) let’s see how many members of the Senate and House of Representatives were a part of that. Because these numbers represent the last time they took office numbers could be in favor against my points because some members of the Senate not accounted for were in the House during these times.
SENATE DEBT LIMIT
100 All Senators in 2011 14.7 Trillion
58 current Senators have served since 2005 8.1 Trillion
45 current Senators have served since 2000 5.9 Trillion
37 current Senators have served since 1997 5.9 Trillion
HOUSE DEBT LIMIT
433 All Reps in 2011
262 current Reps have served since 2005
166 current Reps have served since 2000
137 current Reps have served since 1997
Over half of each house has been faced with raising the debt ceiling over and over again and each time they have continued to waste money or not do their jobs and not matter what, people aren’t voting them out. Why? I don’t know. These numbers are not good.
37 Senators and 137 Reps have raised the debt ceiling multiple times since 1997 by almost triple. If a quarter of a committee at a job continue to mess up then they must be fired for the good of the business. Massive spending such as these come from the most senior members of Congress. Continually doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is Einstein’s definition to insanity, and if they choose to repeat their mistake again I can see no other way than term limits to washing out the old ideas.
Just like the previous failure of the internet at my house I had to find an new way to write this post when what I knew failed me and I ultimately found a way to fix the situation.
sent from my iPhone.
Saturday, April 9, 2011
Crisis Averted. Sort of...
Depending on how much news you ingest in any given week, you might be aware that the National Government was a little less than an hour away from shutting down.
What happened? Well, I can try and give you an interpretation from my own little arm chair parked in front of my living room TV. The new budget needed to be set. One side wanted to make cuts, and the other side didn't.
Democrats wanted to keep the spending as is and Republicans tried to get as many as 64Billion dollars in less spending for the next year. Neither side was willing to give in to the other side's demands and so a budget was not going to get set. Without a budget the government doesn't operate.
Spending has long been the means by which representatives on both sides of the isle get re-elected over an over again. But strangely enough, the American people wanted the budget balanced and and the debt to be chipped away at.
New members of Congress, especially the new Republicans, were voted into office because they said that they would stop spending. If they didn't get this done the people would get rid of them next time and eventually find someone they liked who could cut spending, or, in most cases of the past, get spending directed towards them.
This, read on the surface, would seem to be an argument that the system works and that the American people vote out the bed reps. What I am actually pointing out is that it has taken a state of financial emergency to get people involved and willing to vote out their long time, good time Charlie representatives.
It has taken 1.2 trillion dollars in debt, financial crisis, recession (an impending second one), and what seemed to be a dooms day clock on government operations before people are willing to get involved. The system is designed to stop these things from happening before we get to panic mode.
Yet, with a debt of over a trillion dollars, Congressmen and women afraid for their future in Congress debated over a few billion dollars in spending. Was it over the price or what would get cut.
House leader Rep. John Boehner would tell you that the areas getting cut have already been decided and the Democrats are stalling at the price tag. Democrat Senate leader Harry Reid would tell you that the amount of money had been decided on and it was completely about issues. Somebody was lying.
Regardless, this farce just showed a complete lack of caring for the taxpaying American. I know I have been on a bit of money kick recently, but I would like to know if any of these millionaires have ever actually balance a checkbook.
If government would have shut down, billions would have immediately been added to the debt, 800,000 government employees would not have jobs until it was resolved, and, for the sheer sake of fun, the active military members would not have gotten paid.
Does government need to stop spending and try and get the American government out of the red and in the black? Yes. Is 32 Billion in spending cuts going to do that? Not really. It would be like paying back five days of interest on a 10 year loan. So was this really the time to get this underway? Nope. Were Democrats scared this battle might end their careers? Probably.
Excess spending and loopholes stem from re-election. I do not know if term-limits would mean that we would make more than we spend in this country but they really couldn't hurt. The reason we have administrators in other businesses is because we like to keep our spending under control.
We came 55 minutes away Friday night. Let's see if we can reproduce the fun
http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/world-news/us-budget-deal-avoids-shutdown-fight-ahead_535242.html
What happened? Well, I can try and give you an interpretation from my own little arm chair parked in front of my living room TV. The new budget needed to be set. One side wanted to make cuts, and the other side didn't.
Democrats wanted to keep the spending as is and Republicans tried to get as many as 64Billion dollars in less spending for the next year. Neither side was willing to give in to the other side's demands and so a budget was not going to get set. Without a budget the government doesn't operate.
Spending has long been the means by which representatives on both sides of the isle get re-elected over an over again. But strangely enough, the American people wanted the budget balanced and and the debt to be chipped away at.
New members of Congress, especially the new Republicans, were voted into office because they said that they would stop spending. If they didn't get this done the people would get rid of them next time and eventually find someone they liked who could cut spending, or, in most cases of the past, get spending directed towards them.
This, read on the surface, would seem to be an argument that the system works and that the American people vote out the bed reps. What I am actually pointing out is that it has taken a state of financial emergency to get people involved and willing to vote out their long time, good time Charlie representatives.
It has taken 1.2 trillion dollars in debt, financial crisis, recession (an impending second one), and what seemed to be a dooms day clock on government operations before people are willing to get involved. The system is designed to stop these things from happening before we get to panic mode.
Yet, with a debt of over a trillion dollars, Congressmen and women afraid for their future in Congress debated over a few billion dollars in spending. Was it over the price or what would get cut.
House leader Rep. John Boehner would tell you that the areas getting cut have already been decided and the Democrats are stalling at the price tag. Democrat Senate leader Harry Reid would tell you that the amount of money had been decided on and it was completely about issues. Somebody was lying.
Regardless, this farce just showed a complete lack of caring for the taxpaying American. I know I have been on a bit of money kick recently, but I would like to know if any of these millionaires have ever actually balance a checkbook.
If government would have shut down, billions would have immediately been added to the debt, 800,000 government employees would not have jobs until it was resolved, and, for the sheer sake of fun, the active military members would not have gotten paid.
Does government need to stop spending and try and get the American government out of the red and in the black? Yes. Is 32 Billion in spending cuts going to do that? Not really. It would be like paying back five days of interest on a 10 year loan. So was this really the time to get this underway? Nope. Were Democrats scared this battle might end their careers? Probably.
Excess spending and loopholes stem from re-election. I do not know if term-limits would mean that we would make more than we spend in this country but they really couldn't hurt. The reason we have administrators in other businesses is because we like to keep our spending under control.
We came 55 minutes away Friday night. Let's see if we can reproduce the fun
http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/world-news/us-budget-deal-avoids-shutdown-fight-ahead_535242.html
Thursday, April 7, 2011
West Hollywood hotbed for Term-Limit Debates
Apparently real Hollywood politicians are debating the legitimacy of term limits in the West Hollywood City Council. I find it strange that the picture of one of the challengers to the incumbents in the upcoming election has his picture in the LA Weekly blog and it looks like he is trying out for a part about Johnny Cash. Anyway, in this race there are six challengers against three incumbents. Two of the incumbents have been in office for a total of 40 years. Guess who is supporting term limits and who is opposing them.
That's right, the people who have been there for years and years do not support something that could end there career. City Councils usually don't put term limits on there members because it is such a small election that slight increase in voter turnout has the ability to reshape the whole council. Historically, or at least since 1984 when West Hollywood was established as a city, West Hollywood has an extremely low voter turnout. Out of the 23,000 registered voters, only a few thousand actually vote.
Another thing that people like with long serving City Council members are the friendships made with local business owners and higher echelon members of the community, that is unless you are trying to open new businesses or set up new ordinances.
Everyone of the challengers support term limits for the West Hollywood City Council. The longest serving member of the West Hollywood City Council is John Heilman. Heilman was elected in 1984.
Challenger Scott Scmidt had this to say about how long Heilman has been in office, "A lot has changed since 1984. In 1984, Ronald Reagan was re-elected president, the Soviet Union boycotted the Olympics , Dynasty was the number one show on television, the Los Angeles Raiders won the Super Bowl."
He argues that time has changed since then and that he needs to be removed from office. Perhaps the most damning thing to Heilman's record was his campaigning against Proposition 20. Supporting Californians overwhelmed the opposition. Prop 20. reform gerrymandering in California that had grown out of control. Politicians would redraw their districts and make it impossible to lose an election.
Would term limits reduce the need for reforms like this? Who knows but it would make it so somebody couldn't reap the benefits of redistricting.
That's right, the people who have been there for years and years do not support something that could end there career. City Councils usually don't put term limits on there members because it is such a small election that slight increase in voter turnout has the ability to reshape the whole council. Historically, or at least since 1984 when West Hollywood was established as a city, West Hollywood has an extremely low voter turnout. Out of the 23,000 registered voters, only a few thousand actually vote.
Another thing that people like with long serving City Council members are the friendships made with local business owners and higher echelon members of the community, that is unless you are trying to open new businesses or set up new ordinances.
Everyone of the challengers support term limits for the West Hollywood City Council. The longest serving member of the West Hollywood City Council is John Heilman. Heilman was elected in 1984.
Challenger Scott Scmidt had this to say about how long Heilman has been in office, "A lot has changed since 1984. In 1984, Ronald Reagan was re-elected president, the Soviet Union boycotted the Olympics , Dynasty was the number one show on television, the Los Angeles Raiders won the Super Bowl."
He argues that time has changed since then and that he needs to be removed from office. Perhaps the most damning thing to Heilman's record was his campaigning against Proposition 20. Supporting Californians overwhelmed the opposition. Prop 20. reform gerrymandering in California that had grown out of control. Politicians would redraw their districts and make it impossible to lose an election.
Would term limits reduce the need for reforms like this? Who knows but it would make it so somebody couldn't reap the benefits of redistricting.
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Repeal or not to Repeal
On Friday, March 18, 2011 the San Francisco Chronicle published an open forum article sent by Quentin L. Kopp, a former superior court judge, state senator, and member of San Francisco Board of Supervisors. In letter the or article, whichever it my technically be, he calls for the repeal to the California State Constitution. He wants the state constitutional amendment concerning imposed term limits because he believes that recent legislation in California has taken the proper steps to make term limits unnecessary.
One solution to the career politicians that opponents of term limits have is to take away the power to redraw district lines. Politicians in most states have the power to redraw district lines every time a census or other poll is taken. This is necessary because has population fluctuates representation for certain areas must be reapportioned for equal representation.
California has passed two laws that make a 14 member citizen panel for both state legislative and congressional districts.
The one problem I can see is that a person of high socio-economical background would follow the NIMBY (not in my back yard) attitude, by not wanting people of lower socio-economic situation to be in their district, to where elected officials are trying to get a certain group of people to get re-elected. Either way there will be abuse. With term limits, the politicians could continue to reapportion districts but wouldn’t have the re-election notion in mind.
Another thing states can do is get rid of political party primaries and make open primaries, which means any registered voter can vote for any candidate, regardless of party affiliation. This is a step in the right direction, but it can leave to a certain problems. This could lead to people in parties voting for the person whom they believe have the best shot to win the elections and not necessarily the best. Put this system into place with term limits and all the candidates will be qualified and dedicated.
While all the legislation is a good idea, it is not enough to ensure that incumbency domination and seniority would not eventually rule. If a politician is allowed to win one election is it known that he will be greatly supported by lobbyist and parties so that they can throw more money at a campaign which is usually enough to beat down opponents.
It should also be noted that Quentin L. Kopp was once in favor of the term limits legislation passed in California.
One solution to the career politicians that opponents of term limits have is to take away the power to redraw district lines. Politicians in most states have the power to redraw district lines every time a census or other poll is taken. This is necessary because has population fluctuates representation for certain areas must be reapportioned for equal representation.
California has passed two laws that make a 14 member citizen panel for both state legislative and congressional districts.
The one problem I can see is that a person of high socio-economical background would follow the NIMBY (not in my back yard) attitude, by not wanting people of lower socio-economic situation to be in their district, to where elected officials are trying to get a certain group of people to get re-elected. Either way there will be abuse. With term limits, the politicians could continue to reapportion districts but wouldn’t have the re-election notion in mind.
Another thing states can do is get rid of political party primaries and make open primaries, which means any registered voter can vote for any candidate, regardless of party affiliation. This is a step in the right direction, but it can leave to a certain problems. This could lead to people in parties voting for the person whom they believe have the best shot to win the elections and not necessarily the best. Put this system into place with term limits and all the candidates will be qualified and dedicated.
While all the legislation is a good idea, it is not enough to ensure that incumbency domination and seniority would not eventually rule. If a politician is allowed to win one election is it known that he will be greatly supported by lobbyist and parties so that they can throw more money at a campaign which is usually enough to beat down opponents.
It should also be noted that Quentin L. Kopp was once in favor of the term limits legislation passed in California.
Friday, February 25, 2011
If we would come and play there wouldn't be an issue
Well, let us face the fact that in the United States we have a system that is supposed to be self-correcting with the voting system. Any person of the age of 18 who is a citizen, regardless of religious views, party affiliation, race or gender has the right to vote after going through a registration. This system depends upon the participation of the citizens to vote whenever they can. When things aren’t working out the people have the opportunity to vote out inept leaders, but if the people do not vote then things don’t get corrected.
Some blame it on how the system on making registration too difficult. In some states there were rules that a person wanting to vote in an upcoming election had to register three months before the elections but a law passed said that no state may make registration laws restricting time to register more than 30 days before the election. So states that have a traditional view on society usually have a law that says a person must register to vote 30 days before the elections.
Some states that have moralistic views will allow voters to register at the polling places, or states like North Dakota have absolutely no registration laws. A person can go to the poll with a photo ID and vote. In the 90s the Clinton administration made it easier for people to vote by passing the National Voter Registration Act in 1993, or the Motor Voter Act. Whenever someone applied for welfare, they are given a voter registration form. Whenever someone got a driver’s license, or renewed license, they were given a voter registration form.
So, regardless of legislation there is no reason why people can’t vote yet they don’t. Remember that the key to the success of our system is the participation of the people. Unhappy people who don’t vote are as much the problem as those that continue to elect the same people. Incumbents that serve for decades continue to do what they do and think what they think because they either believe that they are doing the will of the people that are obviously happy and re-electing them or they know that the people won’t vote them out. Giving them the benefit of the doubt let’s say that career politicians believe they are doing right by the people. The problem is that the ideas in politics need to change with time and career politicians don’t change thinking, they continue to do the same thing over and over again. Term limits would circulate ideas and politicians would know that they have limited amount of time to do their job.
Other countries around the world, especially in Western Europe do not have term limits on anyone but their presidents. Their parliaments have not term limits. Some might ask, why do we need them but no one really brings it up in these countries. Well parliament sessions don’t have a set time like we do. A session can last 2 months in one year or it can last from election to election. Also we have to go back to key point, voter turnout. In Italy’s last three elections 79%, 82%, and 84% of the voting age population turned out to vote. In Germany it was 72%, 73%, and 75% of the voting age population turned out. In the United States 37%, 56%, and 35% of the voting age population turned out to vote. The 56% percent was a presidential election with a popular opponent and an extremely unpopular incumbent.
I would like to point out where I got these numbers. The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
Some blame it on how the system on making registration too difficult. In some states there were rules that a person wanting to vote in an upcoming election had to register three months before the elections but a law passed said that no state may make registration laws restricting time to register more than 30 days before the election. So states that have a traditional view on society usually have a law that says a person must register to vote 30 days before the elections.
Some states that have moralistic views will allow voters to register at the polling places, or states like North Dakota have absolutely no registration laws. A person can go to the poll with a photo ID and vote. In the 90s the Clinton administration made it easier for people to vote by passing the National Voter Registration Act in 1993, or the Motor Voter Act. Whenever someone applied for welfare, they are given a voter registration form. Whenever someone got a driver’s license, or renewed license, they were given a voter registration form.
So, regardless of legislation there is no reason why people can’t vote yet they don’t. Remember that the key to the success of our system is the participation of the people. Unhappy people who don’t vote are as much the problem as those that continue to elect the same people. Incumbents that serve for decades continue to do what they do and think what they think because they either believe that they are doing the will of the people that are obviously happy and re-electing them or they know that the people won’t vote them out. Giving them the benefit of the doubt let’s say that career politicians believe they are doing right by the people. The problem is that the ideas in politics need to change with time and career politicians don’t change thinking, they continue to do the same thing over and over again. Term limits would circulate ideas and politicians would know that they have limited amount of time to do their job.
Other countries around the world, especially in Western Europe do not have term limits on anyone but their presidents. Their parliaments have not term limits. Some might ask, why do we need them but no one really brings it up in these countries. Well parliament sessions don’t have a set time like we do. A session can last 2 months in one year or it can last from election to election. Also we have to go back to key point, voter turnout. In Italy’s last three elections 79%, 82%, and 84% of the voting age population turned out to vote. In Germany it was 72%, 73%, and 75% of the voting age population turned out. In the United States 37%, 56%, and 35% of the voting age population turned out to vote. The 56% percent was a presidential election with a popular opponent and an extremely unpopular incumbent.
I would like to point out where I got these numbers. The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
What are Term Limits and Their History in America
What are term limits? Term limits in the basic form are things like the amount of years that a public official will be in office. Term limits have been around since the time of ancient Greece. In Athens no man could serve on the council for consecutive terms of a single year. In Rome certain magistrates could not opt for re-election until a certain number of years had passed.
There are two separate kinds of terms: consecutive or lifetime. These two categories are pretty much what they sound like.
Consecutive term limits are limits that are set on the consecutive number of terms that can be served. Some public officials may hold office for two consecutive terms and then take a term period off and then are eligible for re-election for that position and two more consecutive terms.
Lifetime term limits are limits that say there are only a certain amount of terms that an official can hold for a specific position. Example: a person elected to the presidency of the United States can serve that term and only one more term, not matter when he is re-elected, for his or her lifetime.
At one point in American there were term limits imposed on the members of Congress. Under the advice of Thomas Jefferson the fifth article in the Articles of Confederation stated “no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years.” In 1989 when the congress convened in Philadelphia to ratify the Constitution, they left out the term limits from the Articles of Confederation.
Founding Fathers such as Washington, Mason, Franklin, and Jefferson favored terms limits because they feared that re-election of public officials for an unknown amount of time would lead to a similar scenario of rule of that of the British Parliament.
Washington setting his own traditional term limits for the presidency was to show that this nation would not have the same person in power for an unlimited amount of time.
But, as we think of them now, term limits are restrictions on the number of terms or number of consecutive terms that a public official can hold.
There are two separate kinds of terms: consecutive or lifetime. These two categories are pretty much what they sound like.
Consecutive term limits are limits that are set on the consecutive number of terms that can be served. Some public officials may hold office for two consecutive terms and then take a term period off and then are eligible for re-election for that position and two more consecutive terms.
Lifetime term limits are limits that say there are only a certain amount of terms that an official can hold for a specific position. Example: a person elected to the presidency of the United States can serve that term and only one more term, not matter when he is re-elected, for his or her lifetime.
At one point in American there were term limits imposed on the members of Congress. Under the advice of Thomas Jefferson the fifth article in the Articles of Confederation stated “no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years.” In 1989 when the congress convened in Philadelphia to ratify the Constitution, they left out the term limits from the Articles of Confederation.
Founding Fathers such as Washington, Mason, Franklin, and Jefferson favored terms limits because they feared that re-election of public officials for an unknown amount of time would lead to a similar scenario of rule of that of the British Parliament.
Washington setting his own traditional term limits for the presidency was to show that this nation would not have the same person in power for an unlimited amount of time.
But, as we think of them now, term limits are restrictions on the number of terms or number of consecutive terms that a public official can hold.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Why Now?
In the words of George Mason, “nothing can be so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation (of its members)."
Elections were generally thought to be the natural way of deciding if legislators deserved to continue their term in office, and it used to be true when it was a hassle to travel to Washington D.C., be away from family and home, and receive a very low pay for long hard work.
Over the years the legislators have increased their salary time and time again it make it a pretty easy job, but mind you that they did not get rich by holding office. Most of those who are rich were rich before they were elected to office.
The problem is that members of the legislature have convinced the American people that the only way that they can make any difference in governing the nation is to have long careers. The people don’t want to have their states to lose the power they wield with senior senators who head boards and committees.
But a study by a Harvard Law professor Einer Elhauge in 1998 published by the CATO Institue argued that term limits could simplify the legislative body and how it functions.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa328.pdf
The next election for members of the House of Representatives and Senate will be held in 2012. There will be 33 members of the Senate seeking to continue their work in the senate and 14 of them are attempting to be re-elected. The difference is that some of them were appointed by governors and the ones seeking re-election are senators that were elected in 2006 or were elected sometime prior to 2012 by state special elections either because of death or resignation.
Most of the members whose seats are up for re-election fall into the category of serving one full term or shorter. But some senators such as Bill Nelson or John Ensign are senior and junior senators that have served multiple terms and the voters of those states need to start researching their history to find out what they have done, voted for, and who they are tied in with to decide whether or not they want these people re-elected.
Right now, there is still time for people to do their research and discover what opponents to these incumbents have to say about certain issues and take action to look at patterns of past congresses that was composed primarily of incumbents.
Those who were appointed or were elected during special elections should be analyzed too but the deep analysis should be reserved for those senior and especially junior members. Senior members are extremely difficult to vote out of office so trying is almost futile, but their junior members counterparts have just enough experience and time effectively analyze their performance but not enough power to save them from being voted out.
Elections were generally thought to be the natural way of deciding if legislators deserved to continue their term in office, and it used to be true when it was a hassle to travel to Washington D.C., be away from family and home, and receive a very low pay for long hard work.
Over the years the legislators have increased their salary time and time again it make it a pretty easy job, but mind you that they did not get rich by holding office. Most of those who are rich were rich before they were elected to office.
The problem is that members of the legislature have convinced the American people that the only way that they can make any difference in governing the nation is to have long careers. The people don’t want to have their states to lose the power they wield with senior senators who head boards and committees.
But a study by a Harvard Law professor Einer Elhauge in 1998 published by the CATO Institue argued that term limits could simplify the legislative body and how it functions.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa328.pdf
The next election for members of the House of Representatives and Senate will be held in 2012. There will be 33 members of the Senate seeking to continue their work in the senate and 14 of them are attempting to be re-elected. The difference is that some of them were appointed by governors and the ones seeking re-election are senators that were elected in 2006 or were elected sometime prior to 2012 by state special elections either because of death or resignation.
Most of the members whose seats are up for re-election fall into the category of serving one full term or shorter. But some senators such as Bill Nelson or John Ensign are senior and junior senators that have served multiple terms and the voters of those states need to start researching their history to find out what they have done, voted for, and who they are tied in with to decide whether or not they want these people re-elected.
Right now, there is still time for people to do their research and discover what opponents to these incumbents have to say about certain issues and take action to look at patterns of past congresses that was composed primarily of incumbents.
Those who were appointed or were elected during special elections should be analyzed too but the deep analysis should be reserved for those senior and especially junior members. Senior members are extremely difficult to vote out of office so trying is almost futile, but their junior members counterparts have just enough experience and time effectively analyze their performance but not enough power to save them from being voted out.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Constitutionality of Term Limits.
Let’s start off by analyzing the issue of whether or not the idea of term limits in congress is constitutional. As of a 1995 U.S. Supreme Court decision, U.S. Term Limits, Inc v. Thornton, it was declared that term limits imposed on United States Congressmen is unconstitutional. In the 5-4 decision, Chief Justice John Paul Stevens declared:
“Finally, state-imposed restrictions, unlike the congressionally imposed restrictions at issue in Powell, violate a third idea central to this basic principle: that the right to choose representatives belongs not to the States, but to the people. ... Following the adoption of the 17th Amendment in 1913, this ideal was extended to elections for the Senate. The Congress of the United States, therefore, is not a confederation of nations in which separate sovereigns are represented by appointed delegates, but is instead a body composed of representatives of the people.”
Arkansas’s state legislature passed a law limiting their U.S. representatives to a certain amount of terms and this decision overturned it.
This decision, like many other decisions, wasn’t ruled on whether the act itself is correct, but rather how it was delivered to the court. Delegates from the state cannot rule to impose term limits on the representatives from the state to the U.S. Congress. Meaning that only the U.S. Congress can impose term limits on themselves. Should people elect representatives in favor of term limits it could be rule constitutional because the state governments are controlling U.S. representatives, the people would.
Opponents of this ruling cite the 10th Amendment which basically says that if the constitution doesn’t address it as a power of the national government and it doesn’t say that states cannot do it, then the states have the right to rule on it. What this would undoubtedly lead to is a Supreme Court decision in favor of the Necessary and Proper Clause, which basically says the National Government can do whatever it wants in order to carry out its duty. (See the McCulloch v. Maryland for Necessary and Proper Clause under Chief Justice John Marshall).
So, the simplest way to pass term limits is to elect representatives that are willing to pass, even if very weak, term limits. That way the people would have spoken directly on the national level. If opponents tried to use the Necessary and Proper Clause on self imposed term limits because the people’s voice can overrule and supersede national government. The people chose to impose terms on the presidential terms when it was rule that someone can only serve president for two full terms.
George Mason once said, “nothing can be so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation (of its members)."
“Finally, state-imposed restrictions, unlike the congressionally imposed restrictions at issue in Powell, violate a third idea central to this basic principle: that the right to choose representatives belongs not to the States, but to the people. ... Following the adoption of the 17th Amendment in 1913, this ideal was extended to elections for the Senate. The Congress of the United States, therefore, is not a confederation of nations in which separate sovereigns are represented by appointed delegates, but is instead a body composed of representatives of the people.”
Arkansas’s state legislature passed a law limiting their U.S. representatives to a certain amount of terms and this decision overturned it.
This decision, like many other decisions, wasn’t ruled on whether the act itself is correct, but rather how it was delivered to the court. Delegates from the state cannot rule to impose term limits on the representatives from the state to the U.S. Congress. Meaning that only the U.S. Congress can impose term limits on themselves. Should people elect representatives in favor of term limits it could be rule constitutional because the state governments are controlling U.S. representatives, the people would.
Opponents of this ruling cite the 10th Amendment which basically says that if the constitution doesn’t address it as a power of the national government and it doesn’t say that states cannot do it, then the states have the right to rule on it. What this would undoubtedly lead to is a Supreme Court decision in favor of the Necessary and Proper Clause, which basically says the National Government can do whatever it wants in order to carry out its duty. (See the McCulloch v. Maryland for Necessary and Proper Clause under Chief Justice John Marshall).
So, the simplest way to pass term limits is to elect representatives that are willing to pass, even if very weak, term limits. That way the people would have spoken directly on the national level. If opponents tried to use the Necessary and Proper Clause on self imposed term limits because the people’s voice can overrule and supersede national government. The people chose to impose terms on the presidential terms when it was rule that someone can only serve president for two full terms.
George Mason once said, “nothing can be so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation (of its members)."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)