(07-11-2022, 08:55 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2022, 07:35 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Term limits require a Constitutional amendment. I used to oppose the idea, but im starting to see the benefits.
If we could make it so 1/4 to 1/2 of all members of Congress at any given time weren't worried about getting re-elected, it might really improve things. But Congress itself will never do it, unless the states are on the cusp of organizing an article 5 convention (as happened with the 17th amendment)
The best part is it might kick off a necessary conversation about which other amendments would be beneficial.
But no one can ever get money out of politics.
In general, I agree that term limits would be a good thing.
But about the part in bold- could you imagine a scenario where that might backfire?
We don't have to imagine. We see it at work at the state level. There is an obvious loss of expertise and a loss of name recognition between the people and their representatives. The lobbyists have more kingmaking power than they did before because of this loss of name recognition.
But on the other hand the state legislatures do more in less time than US congress does, for the last few decades this is true. Most of the problem with US Congress seems to be that the members are afraid of getting primaried. Can't be afraid of that if you're not running again anyway. The loss of expertise problem could be alleviated by a requirement that anyone who reaches their term limit continue attending sessions of Congress but without a vote.
(07-11-2022, 09:58 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2022, 08:55 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]In general, I agree that term limits would be a good thing.
But about the part in bold- could you imagine a scenario where that might backfire?
We don't have to imagine. We see it at work at the state level. There is an obvious loss of expertise and a loss of name recognition between the people and their representatives. The lobbyists have more kingmaking power than they did before because of this loss of name recognition.
But on the other hand the state legislatures do more in less time than US congress does, for the last few decades this is true. Most of the problem with US Congress seems to be that the members are afraid of getting primaried. Can't be afraid of that if you're not running again anyway. The loss of expertise problem could be alleviated by a requirement that anyone who reaches their term limit continue attending sessions of Congress but without a vote.
You’ll have to explain that one.
(07-11-2022, 10:05 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2022, 09:58 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]We don't have to imagine. We see it at work at the state level. There is an obvious loss of expertise and a loss of name recognition between the people and their representatives. The lobbyists have more kingmaking power than they did before because of this loss of name recognition.
But on the other hand the state legislatures do more in less time than US congress does, for the last few decades this is true. Most of the problem with US Congress seems to be that the members are afraid of getting primaried. Can't be afraid of that if you're not running again anyway. The loss of expertise problem could be alleviated by a requirement that anyone who reaches their term limit continue attending sessions of Congress but without a vote.
You’ll have to explain that one.
Say the term limit for US house was 12 years, you're coming to the end of your last term, you can't run again. The idea is you'd have to spend the next few years still living in DC and you'd have to come whenever the Speaker called Congress into session. You might even get assigned to committees and expected to speak. You just wouldn't have a vote anymore. Similar to how it works now for the members from PR and USVI.
As an example in FL, legislators that reach their term limit typically become lobbyists and part of the reason they are so good at that new job is the new legislators need them to teach certain things. My idea would allow them to perform this job function but on the peoples' payroll instead of the private lobbyist payroll.
(07-11-2022, 10:05 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2022, 09:58 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]We don't have to imagine. We see it at work at the state level. There is an obvious loss of expertise and a loss of name recognition between the people and their representatives. The lobbyists have more kingmaking power than they did before because of this loss of name recognition.
But on the other hand the state legislatures do more in less time than US congress does, for the last few decades this is true. Most of the problem with US Congress seems to be that the members are afraid of getting primaried. Can't be afraid of that if you're not running again anyway. The loss of expertise problem could be alleviated by a requirement that anyone who reaches their term limit continue attending sessions of Congress but without a vote.
You’ll have to explain that one.
"Make the old guys non-voting consultants to the new guys."
(07-11-2022, 10:14 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2022, 10:05 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]You’ll have to explain that one.
Say the term limit for US house was 12 years, you're coming to the end of your last term, you can't run again. The idea is you'd have to spend the next few years still living in DC and you'd have to come whenever the Speaker called Congress into session. You might even get assigned to committees and expected to speak. You just wouldn't have a vote anymore. Similar to how it works now for the members from PR and USVI.
As an example in FL, legislators that reach their term limit typically become lobbyists and part of the reason they are so good at that new job is the new legislators need them to teach certain things. My idea would allow them to perform this job function but on the peoples' payroll instead of the private lobbyist payroll.
That sounds like something a poli-sci freshman would think of.
(07-11-2022, 10:37 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2022, 10:14 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Say the term limit for US house was 12 years, you're coming to the end of your last term, you can't run again. The idea is you'd have to spend the next few years still living in DC and you'd have to come whenever the Speaker called Congress into session. You might even get assigned to committees and expected to speak. You just wouldn't have a vote anymore. Similar to how it works now for the members from PR and USVI.
As an example in FL, legislators that reach their term limit typically become lobbyists and part of the reason they are so good at that new job is the new legislators need them to teach certain things. My idea would allow them to perform this job function but on the peoples' payroll instead of the private lobbyist payroll.
That sounds like something a poli-sci freshman would think of.
Well, I've never taken a single poli sci class, so, thanks!
When the Founders were in school, most students didn't have a single "major" and they called it "political philosophy" instead of "political science". Jefferson and Madison studied this, but Hamilton just studied math apparently.
Got any ideas a poli sci senior might think of?
(07-11-2022, 10:47 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2022, 10:37 AM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]That sounds like something a poli-sci freshman would think of.
Well, I've never taken a single poli sci class, so, thanks!
When the Founders were in school, most students didn't have a single "major" and they called it "political philosophy" instead of "political science". Jefferson and Madison studied this, but Hamilton just studied math apparently.
Got any ideas a poli sci senior might think of?
Not that.
The obvious point being your idea is sophomorically idealistic (you’ve gained a year). Tell you what, I’ll double down on your idea and declare these noble expert lawmakers shall ride unicorns and have their visage engraved in granite for all to behold and cherish.
Apprenticeship, in general, is a practice that needs to find its way back to the mainstream. I could see a place for it in Congress, but it would have to be implemented differently than Mikey is suggesting. I'll think on it a while.
(07-11-2022, 11:54 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Apprenticeship, in general, is a practice that needs to find its way back to the mainstream. I could see a place for it in Congress, but it would have to be implemented differently than Mikey is suggesting. I'll think on it a while.
Nope. Who wants or needs politician/bureaucrats hanging around the trough any longer than they’re obligated?
My solution would be to increase the terms for Representatives to three or four years.
(07-11-2022, 02:03 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2022, 11:54 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Apprenticeship, in general, is a practice that needs to find its way back to the mainstream. I could see a place for it in Congress, but it would have to be implemented differently than Mikey is suggesting. I'll think on it a while.
Nope. Who wants or needs politician/bureaucrats hanging around the trough any longer than they’re obligated?
My solution would be to increase the terms for Representatives to three or four years.
So you would do term limits and give members of the house 4 year terms? Would the term limit be 8 years or 12? Would they be elected with the president or on the off year? What would you do to ensure the members didn't feel beholden to lobbyists?
Elect congress the same time as the president or 2 years later?
(07-11-2022, 04:20 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Elect congress the same time as the president or 2 years later?
Lobbyists are not my concern. They're a part of doing business in Washington. I also don't like term limits because it is thwarting the will of the voter. Most people who want term limits is because they don't like an opposing party's Representative who hangs on. Like Corrine Brown. She's a crook and not very smart, but if her constituents want to keep electing her, that's their problem. If term limits were enacted, most likely another idiot would have just taken her place. Presidential term limits are very recent, but history shows that two terms are about the maximum voters will tolerate. FDR held office in extraordinary times. I have zero doubt Obama, and most likely Reagan, would have won third terms.
My concern is the two-year term for Representatives. It's too short. By the time newly elected reps begin to get their feet under them, they're campaigning for another term. All of them are campaigning too much. Either stagger their elections between Presidential elections or make them three-year terms so it's a rolling turnover but that would create a massive expense for state election commissions. I don't have all the answers, but a two-year term is simply not long enough to be effective, in my opinion.
(07-11-2022, 05:23 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2022, 04:20 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Elect congress the same time as the president or 2 years later?
Lobbyists are not my concern. They're a part of doing business in Washington. I also don't like term limits because it is thwarting the will of the voter. Most people who want term limits is because they don't like an opposing party's Representative who hangs on. Like Corrine Brown. She's a crook and not very smart, but if her constituents want to keep electing her, that's their problem. If term limits were enacted, most likely another idiot would have just taken her place. Presidential term limits are very recent, but history shows that two terms are about the maximum voters will tolerate. FDR held office in extraordinary times. I have zero doubt Obama, and most likely Reagan, would have won third terms.
My concern is the two-year term for Representatives. It's too short. By the time newly elected reps begin to get their feet under them, they're campaigning for another term. All of them are campaigning too much. Either stagger their elections between Presidential elections or make them three-year terms so it's a rolling turnover but that would create a massive expense for state election commissions. I don't have all the answers, but a two-year term is simply not long enough to be effective, in my opinion.
I think all those concerns are valid. Term limits do thwart the will of the voters. But a constitution is not worth much if it doesn't thwart the will of the voters sometimes. I agree that term limits wouldn't solve a problem like Corrine Brown.
I agree that highly partisan voices will discuss term limits as getting rid of the senior figures in the other party, but nonpartisans see it more as a question of proportionality and fairness. An incumbent usually has voters biased towards them with name recognition, and they've had more time to get to know the donors. A contest between two lesser known newcomers can be more about ideology, and a contest between two well established candidates can be about ideology as well. But a contest between a well known person and a newcomer is mostly going to be about the incumbent leaning on all of their experiences and accomplishments while the opponent just tears them down, not about ideology at all. So I think there are still good reasons for term limits even though your arguments are valid and persuasive.
The other reason I'm starting to find term limits attractive is how they can lead good and effective officials up a ladder so to speak. Move up or move out, it becomes like a cursus honorum as the Romans had it.
But the main reason is because I think there are many other things about how we elect people that desperately need to be updated, and you can't dip your toe in the circles that discuss constitutional amendments without running into 2 or 3 people that are for term limits for every 1 person that wants to discuss something else. I think there is very little chance our constitution will be amended ever again absent severe local disruption of law and order, but, if there is any chance at all, a cause like term limits could catalyze many beneficial amendments.
I'm not sure if I agree with you about two years being too short. I think our current demented and obsessed media makes it a permanent campaign regardless of how far away the next election is. The only way to get an official to focus on doing their job instead of campaigning is to remove the possibility of campaigning, as I see it. But you can't go all the way with that, the way Mexico does, because if none of them ever have to face the people again, perhaps none of them will see any reason to do anything useful at all.
(07-11-2022, 05:23 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2022, 04:20 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Elect congress the same time as the president or 2 years later?
Lobbyists are not my concern. They're a part of doing business in Washington. I also don't like term limits because it is thwarting the will of the voter. Most people who want term limits is because they don't like an opposing party's Representative who hangs on. Like Corrine Brown. She's a crook and not very smart, but if her constituents want to keep electing her, that's their problem. If term limits were enacted, most likely another idiot would have just taken her place. Presidential term limits are very recent, but history shows that two terms are about the maximum voters will tolerate. FDR held office in extraordinary times. I have zero doubt Obama, and most likely Reagan, would have won third terms.
My concern is the two-year term for Representatives. It's too short. By the time newly elected reps begin to get their feet under them, they're campaigning for another term. All of them are campaigning too much. Either stagger their elections between Presidential elections or make them three-year terms so it's a rolling turnover but that would create a massive expense for state election commissions. I don't have all the answers, but a two-year term is simply not long enough to be effective, in my opinion.
Lobbyists are your concern, friend.
(07-11-2022, 06:50 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2022, 05:23 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Lobbyists are not my concern. They're a part of doing business in Washington. I also don't like term limits because it is thwarting the will of the voter. Most people who want term limits is because they don't like an opposing party's Representative who hangs on. Like Corrine Brown. She's a crook and not very smart, but if her constituents want to keep electing her, that's their problem. If term limits were enacted, most likely another idiot would have just taken her place. Presidential term limits are very recent, but history shows that two terms are about the maximum voters will tolerate. FDR held office in extraordinary times. I have zero doubt Obama, and most likely Reagan, would have won third terms.
My concern is the two-year term for Representatives. It's too short. By the time newly elected reps begin to get their feet under them, they're campaigning for another term. All of them are campaigning too much. Either stagger their elections between Presidential elections or make them three-year terms so it's a rolling turnover but that would create a massive expense for state election commissions. I don't have all the answers, but a two-year term is simply not long enough to be effective, in my opinion.
I think all those concerns are valid. Term limits do thwart the will of the voters. But a constitution is not worth much if it doesn't thwart the will of the voters sometimes. I agree that term limits wouldn't solve a problem like Corrine Brown.
I agree that highly partisan voices will discuss term limits as getting rid of the senior figures in the other party, but nonpartisans see it more as a question of proportionality and fairness. An incumbent usually has voters biased towards them with name recognition, and they've had more time to get to know the donors. A contest between two lesser known newcomers can be more about ideology, and a contest between two well established candidates can be about ideology as well. But a contest between a well known person and a newcomer is mostly going to be about the incumbent leaning on all of their experiences and accomplishments while the opponent just tears them down, not about ideology at all. So I think there are still good reasons for term limits even though your arguments are valid and persuasive.
The other reason I'm starting to find term limits attractive is how they can lead good and effective officials up a ladder so to speak. Move up or move out, it becomes like a cursus honorum as the Romans had it.
But the main reason is because I think there are many other things about how we elect people that desperately need to be updated, and you can't dip your toe in the circles that discuss constitutional amendments without running into 2 or 3 people that are for term limits for every 1 person that wants to discuss something else. I think there is very little chance our constitution will be amended ever again absent severe local disruption of law and order, but, if there is any chance at all, a cause like term limits could catalyze many beneficial amendments.
I'm not sure if I agree with you about two years being too short. I think our current demented and obsessed media makes it a permanent campaign regardless of how far away the next election is. The only way to get an official to focus on doing their job instead of campaigning is to remove the possibility of campaigning, as I see it. But you can't go all the way with that, the way Mexico does, because if none of them ever have to face the people again, perhaps none of them will see any reason to do anything useful at all.
That ain't no lie.
(07-11-2022, 07:15 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (07-11-2022, 05:23 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]Lobbyists are not my concern. They're a part of doing business in Washington. I also don't like term limits because it is thwarting the will of the voter. Most people who want term limits is because they don't like an opposing party's Representative who hangs on. Like Corrine Brown. She's a crook and not very smart, but if her constituents want to keep electing her, that's their problem. If term limits were enacted, most likely another idiot would have just taken her place. Presidential term limits are very recent, but history shows that two terms are about the maximum voters will tolerate. FDR held office in extraordinary times. I have zero doubt Obama, and most likely Reagan, would have won third terms.
My concern is the two-year term for Representatives. It's too short. By the time newly elected reps begin to get their feet under them, they're campaigning for another term. All of them are campaigning too much. Either stagger their elections between Presidential elections or make them three-year terms so it's a rolling turnover but that would create a massive expense for state election commissions. I don't have all the answers, but a two-year term is simply not long enough to be effective, in my opinion.
Lobbyists are your concern, friend.
Lobbyists will always be a factor. I would rather them be registered and lined up on K Street than lurking around under the table like Hunter Biden.
Stop writing bills that require lobbyists to write it for you. Stop writing thousands of pages bills. Everything should be easy to understand and frankly every rep should have to read and understand the bill. I would even say they need to pass a test about the bill to be able to vote on it. If you are too stupid to understand the bill you are voting on, you don't deserve to vote on it.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
(07-11-2022, 11:48 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]Stop writing bills that require lobbyists to write it for you. Stop writing thousands of pages bills. Everything should be easy to understand and frankly every rep should have to read and understand the bill. I would even say they need to pass a test about the bill to be able to vote on it. If you are too stupid to understand the bill you are voting on, you don't deserve to vote on it.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
The problem is, simple rules are easy to get around.
So the committee is going to show how Trump's "siren call" prompted the right wing crazies to descend on the capitol on Jan 6. Evidently a tweet he sent out saying, "be there, it'll be wild," at zero dark thirty in the morning was said siren call.
That man tweeted so much gibberish it was hard to take most of it seriously and everything to him is 'wild' or exaggerated. As far as I can tell there is no context to support this as a siren call, or any kind of call, for people to come out and riot. In an actual court of law with just those words this tweet would be considered circumstantial evidence.