Reasons for Term Limits

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Salty, Dec 30, 2010.

  1. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,124
    Likes Received:
    220
  2. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agree! One term of 4 years.
     
  3. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,124
    Likes Received:
    220
    Negative - two years terms were given so they would be held accountable to their voters.
    I would reccomend 3 - two year terms
     
  4. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    If the current system is not working according to the preferences of some people then they have a problem with how people are voting, not the system.

    Keep the ballot open. We already have enough problems with keeping our rights in this country. We don't need something that restricts ballot access.

    I would advise those who want limits on how many times someone can be elected to office to spend their time on trying to convince the voters to vote the way they think they should, not changing the system.

    We have limits on the number of terms one can be elected here in Arkansas. It doesn't work. The lobbyists end up running things - they aren't term limited.
     
  5. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,655
    Likes Received:
    225
    Term limits are limits on the voters, not the candidates. NO term limits. Not even for the President.
     
  6. AresMan

    AresMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    0
    Three two-year terms for the House.
    One six-year term for the Senate.
    Two four-year terms for the Presidency.
     
  7. AresMan

    AresMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    0
    The purpose of term limits is to prevent "career politicians" that seek to enrich their own estate by constantly pandering to special interests, getting richer, and using this wealth to continue their incumbency by lying about challengers and drowning them.

    If we could NOW prevent politicians from passing un-Constitutional legislation that deprives people of their life, liberty, and property, I would not be as in favor of term limits. Until then, I support them.

    The Founding Fathers were not champions of democracy; they were champions of a republic predicated on natural/God-given rights. They considered pure democracy akin to tyranny because it allowed the majority to enslave the minority. It is better to have less of a democracy and more fundamental rights preserved than more of a democracy with fundamental rights in jeopardy.
     
  8. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    You all complain about elected officials voting on legislation which they have not read. What is the alternative? Are most legislators trained to read legislation even if they had time to read everything?

    Before financial reporting many legislators were lawyers and business people - - - people who had done something. Now we elect people who, at the most, have punched a time clock and never "managed" anything.

    I have talked to a legislator about lobbyists. He said that legislators have people outside of government whom they have learned to trust to give valid opinions on complicated technical and legal stuff. What is the alternative? Each legislator hire his own experts on the taxpayer's dime?
     
  9. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >If we could NOW prevent politicians from passing un-Constitutional legislation

    You don't understand the function of the Supreme Court? Or do you merely disagree with their decisions? All of their decisions or only some of their decisions? Isn't this the complaint of a bad loser?
     
  10. AresMan

    AresMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Supreme Court cannot be the final arbiter of legislative legitimacy. The Federal government cannot be the final interpreter of its own laws. Hence, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and the doctrine of nullification.

    However, it seems that all three branches of government don't like the full separation of powers; the strict, obvious, and original intent of the Constitution; and the advice of the ones who actually drafted our first government. It does not serve their interests.
     
  11. AresMan

    AresMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2005
    Messages:
    1,636
    Likes Received:
    0
    How about we get simple, one-subject-at-a-time laws that are read in full by those voting on them.

    If we are held accountable to obeying every word of these 1000+-page pieces of oozing legalese, the ones who have the power to pass them should at least be held accountable for reading every word and having a good idea of the full content of a bill and not just a title and some highlights.

    The alternative is for Congress to SLOW DOWN (for crying out loud!). There is no emergency and no job description that requires them to constantly pass laws like water pouring from a faucet that do little besides chipping away at our life, liberty, and property, and concentrating more power and wealth into the hands of a few. Since most laws are not written by Congress, nor even read by Congress, they are written by lawyers of corporations and special interests that want to enrich themselves and their clients through force rather than through the proper venue of free-market competition.

    Let's have simple, readable laws.
    Let's have laws that cover one subject only.
    Let's have laws that are comprehensible by those who actually have to follow them (imagine that!).
    Let's have FEWER laws!
    Let's have laws that are very obviously compliant with a strict reading of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and the essays on the theory of government by the Founding Fathers.
     
  12. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes. And I prefer to stay with the term limits that they put in place.
     
  13. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,655
    Likes Received:
    225
    Yes, yes, I've heard all the propaganda. It doesn't matter what the salesman says, what matters is the item being bought, and that is a limitation on the electorate. If Massachusetts wanted Kennedy to represent them for 100 years, that's their business.

    How on God's green earth do you think a term limit will prevent this? The Dems gave us Obamacare even though they knew it would be the end of their careers.

    And this relates to the price of rice in China how?
     

Share This Page

Loading...