The tax code is the only thing the keeps Democrats in power. Republicans (read: Conservatives) would have to have 75% of both houses for such a thing to happen.

I'm for term limits combined with a law which prevents former politicians from going to work as lobbyists or working on behalf of special interests for a minimum of 6 years. Just dreaming, I guess.

I have to admit I didn't think of some of these arguments. Very good points.

This post would have been better with the addition of ending the practise of government self-policing. That has never worked. Furthermore, the penalties for transgressions must be severe and enforced.

What needs to happen is to repeal the 17th amendment and return to having the state houses elect the U S Senators, this would make them beholden to the states rather than themselves. This would also slow down or even stop the power grabs in washington

I'm against term limits for much the same reason as the author.

If we cannot have term limits, then we need a LAW that requires that the ones in office, be held accountable and prosecuted for criminal activities …that includes THE PRESIDENT!!! If we cannot have THIS , then term limits are the only way to prevent constant fraud…also, their LIFELONG pensions should STOP when they leave office!!! Our tax dollars should NOT be used to keeps these people in better shape financial shape the the rest of us!!!

As a Massachusetts voter with a brain, apology accepted. However, you have NO idea how frustrating it is to live in this state! I'm praying we make a long overdue statement by electing Scott Brown to Teddy's seat!

"A better answer would be to limit the elected officials power in the first place, by eliminating the tax code as we know it."

Andrew, your last paragraph belies the whole piece. It's the career politicians that, via legislation, change the laws of our country, not the people! And the career politicians will make only the changes that will fill their pockets, bank accounts and campaign funds. Remember, the most important issue to a politican is getting reelected, and the campaign starts on day one (that's PolSci 101).

As to individual states limiting terms for their congressional delegations, forget it. Any state that would do such a thing would be slitting its own throat by giving the states that didn't so limit their delegations ALL the seniority and all the important internal postions in the Congress.

We need a 28th Ammendment to the Constitution, and we need it yesterday; three 2-yr terms for members of the House and two 6-year terms for Senators. No person can run again once they've reached those limits.

Term limits are better than any of these alternative scenarios, for all the good sentiment proposed. The ins will never heed any constitutional power-limits until they themselves are power-limited by term limits.

Yes, we need to control the mother's milk of political corruption…the money. Either flat tax or Fair Tax. We need iron-clad laws, or amendments, to prevent rate changes. The budget must be balanced. Existing federal entitlements such as Social Security and Mediscare must be separated out from the general revenues and stand on their own (yes, I'd rather we didn't have them, but in the interim we need to do something). These are just a few suggestions.

Let's start by repealing the 17th Amendment to the Constitution and get back to the original intent. Senators have become 6-year Congressmen. They no longer represent the states.

All very good points to ponder. Thanks for that perspective.

"A better answer would be to limit the elected officials power in the first place"

That's what the constitution is supposed to do. But the facists in control right now would rather piss on it and set it on fire than honor it.

Amen.

Let him come back into the private sector. No telling what might happen to him. Maybe he'll find the bottom of a lake if he rats out his pals.

6 years? nope permanently in MHO….

while we're at it take out most of the 14th or at least clarify it to exclude citizenship for the children of illegal aliens!

Let me state up front that I think the whole Congressional pension thing is wrong. That being said, maybe the solution is that congressmen and women are eligible for pensions until they take another job–if they want to live off that pension alone, so be it, but if they decide to collect on their markers with lobbying groups, their pension goes bye-bye. Why should my tax dollars go to support the Tom Daschles of the world when he's raking in dough from a lobbying organization as a result of his Congressional connections?

add to that the ability of congress to vote themselves raises while excluding other government employees! Their constituents should be the only ones able to give them a raise….or better yet throw them into the civil service structure at a says GS-12/13 level and limit their pay and raises…most of them are independently wealthy to begin with…

Mr. Marcus: I believe you are wrong two counts. Term limitation does and has been working. Consider the Presidency. Second you suggest that because of term limits that the politician will not be held accountable towards the end of their term. Exactly how is that any different from announcing their retirement just before the next election? You have the same set of circumstance in either case. Our government and the elected officials have transformed from wanting to serve as being a patriotic duty to where it is now about the gain of power and greed. The only other way to correct the situation is to make the offices not so lucrative. Take away the high salaries and percs.

WATCH OUT

The libs know the country is furious with the Democratic party cap and trade, health care, homeland security. This is the Democratic parties way of re-branding. Have the high profile leaders retire so the party can run new pristine liberals who are clear of this negative branding of this congress.

The strategy will fail but that is what is going on.

I am for term limits, outlawing lobbyists and campaign finance reform. Allow only private citizens (absolutely no large corporations or unions or special interests) to contribute to political candidates and no more than say five hundred dollars. Some are against term limnits but I believe no politician has the ability or backbone to stay uncorrupt or honest if he or she is in office long enough. Also all politicians in office live by the laws We The People live by. They pay social security and are on the same healthcare plan and same retirement plans as the private sector. The days of the golden parachute benefit plans must come to an end.

You make some good points but the right way is for term limits. I agree that if a Congressman thinks that he can't be re-elected then he will not care about the people back home. How is that different now? The gerrymandering in most states is so bad that most districts are rock solid and will always offer the same type pol. If you want to clean up Congress and have term limits then make much tougher laws on lobbying and any hint of personal gain while in office. Make the job a privilege to serve not a spoon for the gravy bowl.

well just as i expected,dodd is calling it quits,but do you think he is GONE,like hell.the news is that geitner is out and dodd is in.isnt this a great country.replace one crook with a worst one.and while we are onthe subject of crooks,there is a thing going on about obama.he wants the terriost to be tried in a civil court because if they try them in a military court the pres. has to sign the death warrant.and we know that obama is a muslim and does not want to insite his compadres into more destruction.again what a great country.they blow us up and we try them,give thm maranda rights as a U.S. citizen.from now on it should be shoot them all,give them the same rights as they give our boys.

I do not live in MA — but also sent Brown a donation. . . .
Hopefully, the Unions, ACORN, and SEIU will not control the outcome of this election. I wonder if any car trunks are being stuffed with 'emergency' ballots.

Best argument I've heard against term limits, but still not good enough. If an elected official is truly honest and sincere about representing the people that voted for him, then he will find a way to serve the best interest of the people in or out of office. Even if he was all these things going in, it's like sending a preacher in to a strip bar every day, day after day. Eventually his human frailties will succumb 99.9% of the time.

We need term limits and not professional politicians. Incumbents always have the advantage over new candidates. The Constitution originally called for citizen legislators NOT PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS! There are many candidates that are available to serve in Congress, lets bring them aboard and go back to a Constitutional government as our Founding fathers meant it to be.

>we should be allowed to choose whomever we want to represent us, for as long as we want them to represent >us.
Having the choice between tweedledumb and tweedledumber is not exactly what anyone wants. Since when have "we" ever had any real choice in who we will have to vote for? As far as I can tell that choice is made long before the vast majority of people have even heard the names of the "choices." Now, if you are going to require that no one can work for or donate to a candidate who cannot legally vote for that candidate we can talk.

>Why should the voters of one state have to say goodbye to a good legislator simply because the voters of another >state repeatedly elect a creep?
The claim that voters should be allowed to elect the same person in perpetuity is absurd, I give you Robert Byrd as exhibit A. It is an insult to the people of this nation to suggest that good people are so few and far between that, once we find one, we have to hold on to him for dear life. And don't forget that those "creeps" cast votes that affect every single American, regardless of state, that gives all of us a right to have our say.

>Voters in Colorado might not like the fact that voters in Massachusetts continually reelected a hypocritical, drunk, >manslaughtering, liar to term after term after term, but that is their right.
If they are electing such a person to a State office I agree, if they are electing such a person to an office where he has the power to impose his corruption on the entire nation (as Kennedy certainly did) then you are making an idiotic argument. Would you allow your neighbor to destroy your property value by filling his lawn with old refrigerators and junk cars? It's his property, right? Of course you wouldn't. So why make the absurd argument that Massachusetts voters have the right to elect in perpetuity someone who has demonstrated that he is hell bent on doing the moral equivalent to the nation?

>Massachusetts voters clearly have no shame, but under the constitution, they have the right to be greedy scum >buckets interested only in the pork their clout can achieve.
No they don't. Not when that pork is paid for by people who don't have the right to vote against said pork. And, by the way, since when did the first (and arguably only) job of a Senator become "bringing home the pork"?

>Just how restrained will elected officials like Dodd be when they have no need to worry about voter reaction to >their legislation? Term limits will actually serve to make the party system even more dictatorial than it is now, >forcing exiting politicians to vote the party line out of fear of a lack of crony provided job opportunities at party >aligned think tanks and similar institutions. For proof of this thesis, keep an eye on where old Dodd lands after >exiting his seat.
This may be the shallowest and least convincing argument in an essay filled with shallow and unconvincing arguments. Pray tell, how "restrained" has Dodd been up to this point? The claim that corrupt people will be even more corrupt if we make them mad by imposing term limits is ridiculous. Corrupt people will always engage in whatever corruption they can, allowing them unlimited amounts of time to do so will not cause them to restrain themselves.

In conclusion, your essay is little more that the "Incumbent's Manual For Deflecting Arguments For Term Limits." The only true check on corrupt politicians is an informed and engaged voting public. Given that we don't have such a public it is entirely reasonable to impose what rules we can to try to limit the damage they can do via their uninformed and emotionally driven voting habits. In the meantime those of use who like to consider ourselves reasonably informed must work to remedy the root problem, namely the lack of knowledge and the ignorance of history on the part of far too many voters. Term limits is one way of doing that. After all, it works pretty well for the presidency, doesn't it? Or would you have been happy with a third (and probably fourth) Clinton term?

We already have term limits. They're called elections. If you think politicians are going to legislate against their own interests, think again. It is up to you and only you. Vote out incumbents, all incumbents, every election, forever. If they are doing a good job they can run again for some other office.
Theoretically, we could have all new people in the House this year. Some of the newbies might even "read the bills". A freshly minted House would scare hell out of the Senate, the White House, etc., etc.

What a passive, self-defeatest piece. If they don't worry about being reelected, they will do more harm? Maybe they will do more good!

I'm not a big fan of changing the Constitution every we get upset over a political issue. It has served us well and the amendment process has been used judiciously, as was intended by the founding fathers.

As for the 17th, I'm a big fan of popular vote. The idea of letting state legislatures choose senators strikes me as a bit undemocratic.

What was it…? 40% or so of congressional democrats inherited their fortunes?

I'm for modified term limits. For the first 2 terms they only need a majority of the vote, 50.1%. After those two terms however they need more and more percentage of the vote, 60.0% then 70.0% then 80.0% then 90%. Obviusly they can't get 100% of the vote so it could either be held at 90% or start increasing by 2% or something. Basically they can keep running but they will really need the support of the people to continue.

Exactly. A number of people talk about how term limits would also hurt us by pushing out good members.

To them I ask, name off all the members that are still doing good work after 3 terms for the house or 2 for the senate. And are those members combined worth having to deal with another Ted Kennedy, plus Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Harry Reid and all other slime?

Are the few members that can keep their steam working for the American people worth all the rest that have driven this country into the ground?

I'd rather lose one or two good people if it would keep the disgusting trash from gaining a stranglehold like they have right now.

That is the crux … the position is too comfy. What do they get paid … $174K or something like that, plus unimaginable benies for life … ridiculous!

"Consider the Presidency."

Precisely – what America has done is limit the power of the Presidency with term limits and thus increase the horsepower of the legislature. They BOTH need to have limits in place, and for the same reason!

And you think they don't do that now! Sorry James, but this argument is a non-starter.

Yeah, but they are doing that now, without term limits. It's only because of the current political atmosphere that they are being nailed for it by their constituents now. In the case of someone like Dodd, would it be better to have 6 years of corruption on the senator's part, or 30 years?

Has anyone stopped to think how term limits would affect Foreign Policy? It's bad enough as it stands now. We have an obligation to the world to provide at least an appearance of continuity of leadership and policy.

The same argument can be made regarding world economics. One thing an economy does not tolerate well is uncertainty. If our National policies are apt to change every 2 – 6 years, don't you think that would have a chilling effect on world markets?

Our Constitution should not be lightly altered. There are always unforeseen consequences to any change of Laws. I won't bore you with history lessons. You all know this to be true. The answer to our problems is respect for and adherence to the laws we already have, not creating new laws to be ignored or circumnavigated. It's all about morality, people.

"You made an impressive case with thoughtful points — I have sent links out to acquaintances thinking term limit establishment is their life mission."

Please post their addresses so I can contact them to form a nationwide alliance to establish term limits! ):

I hold elected and appointed officials to a super high standard! If they get got caught committing any crime, the punishment is quadrupled as compared to the average citizen! If that bothers people who desire to run for office then don't run because it already sounds like you are unfit for office anyway if what I propose disturbs you! WE are WE THE PEOPLE, WE MAKE THE RULES!

I missed the newscast where they announced you had lost your right to vote… if you don't like the guys in office then vote for someone else. If your ideas don't prevail and your guy loses, well, that's just the democratic part of it.

When we vote there is an unspoken contract that we will accept the results of the election. And if you didn't vote and are still angry no one is going to have any sympathy. So go vote for your favorite guys and may the best ideas win.

The Founders considered the idea of term limits and the rejected it. If, in the time of a severe national crisis, the people want stability, then they can vote the incumbent back into office. A war on American soil might be an example. This is all I need to know to be opposed to term limits.

But then there's Barack Obama, our first Marxist — I mean black — president. Even one term is too many!

I'm hearing a LOT of people advocating throwing all incumbents out right now. What's that going to do for continuity?

As far as the world economy goes, you seem to advocate the current Administrations policy of \”Let's take a bad situation and make it 4 times worse than it was!\”.

That's why they call them \”unforeseen\” consequences. You obviously aren't seeing it.

How is making it worse going to help fix anything? This country, for better or worse, abandoned isolationism as a National policy long ago. You can not ignore our present world relationships when formulating policy and expect it to end well.

Jowl yours is the best post of the day.

Term limits solve one problem and create others, in that we surely wind up throwing out the good with the bad. A better idea might be to reform the way we finance congressional campaigns and try and drain the influence of private interests.

I would start by disallowing any political contribution from a non-person… no corporations or unions or clubs, or anyone else spending other people's money. I would take all the restrictions off of individual contributions to candidates but outlaw soft money. Then I would make every campaign document where each dime comes from, and where it is spent. This would all be public information that any of us can look up on the internet.

There is nothing magic about maintaining ties with the private sector. A good congressman accepts contributions from people who think like he/she does, then ignores the demands of private interests when they conflict with the public good.

We send these guys to Congress to do six months of work but they sit around for the whole year and make up more laws we don't need and figure out ways to take more of our money. Take the power away and we won't have 535 prima donnas, just some men and women working like it's their last term in office.

How about taking the perks out of the office? Salary for life, pension benefits two to three times more generous than privately offered plans which are also inflation protected, health and life insurance subsidies, franking privledges, exemptions and immunities from tax, pension and other laws that burden the rest of us (created by the lawmakers themselves).

Congressional perks range in the hundreds of millions of dollars per year, all paid for by the US taxpayer. It may only be a drop in the federal bucket, but it keeps the process of corruption going.

It all starts at the top with corruption, lobby groups with big money, and an American public, now dumb-downed by the public school system.. Let us highlight the ex-president Bill Clinton and his "Foundation". To make us think that all is above board with the appointment of his wife to secretary of state, his donor list is now made public. One of his big donors is the kingdom of Saudi Arabian House of Saud to the tune of $25 million. Does anyone really believe that those donations don't influence foreign policy in the middle east and oil supply? Hey, the regular American pays all that money for gasoline to travel to work and after one of the biggest transfers of wealth to Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing countries, the money arrives back in the pocket of Bill Clinton! Now, that is a transfer of wealth. We should close the door on any Government official reaping benefits after they leave office. Send them home with their pensions from the taxpayers! Hey, they haven't even earned that! Dodd, Kennedy, and the list goes on have corrupted the American government and that is because they, themselves, were personally corrupt. One cannot corrupt a honorable person with ethics.

Let me see if I understand this correctly, we should be against term limits because, barring the near guarantee of reelection, politicans will have little regard for the will of the voters. Brilliant analysis! (not)

The fact is that given jerrymandering and campaign finance rules that so heavily favor the guy who is already in office, we don't have a real functioning democracy as it stands. Things have to go way far out of line before we see a Dodd like retirement. Let's remember that this clown had a big part (front row) in the economic problems we now face, and has gotten caught with his hand in several cookie jars (countrywide, irish cottage, etc.), and now the author is concerned that since he isn't running for election, he may lack the motivation to be a "good" senator?

Perhaps we should parole all murderers right now – out of concern that they might not be good citizens when we do release them if they are upset about be locked up now.

The author seems to think that a problem with term limits is that a population will be denied representation by good candidates as they will be forced out of politics by the term limits. This is not a valid concern for two reasons. If we limit Congressmen to 3 two year terms, after that, providing that they are good, they can run for the Senate (two 6 year terms) and then president (or governor etc.) , There are so many opportunites to serve that saying you cannot stay in one position for your entire career isn't really limiting. In any other career, staying in one position that long is a sign of failure, not success.

The second reason that argument is invalid is that it assumes that we have a great many good congressman from districts who lack any other capable individuals. Let's not waste time discussing that line of reasoning.

I've always thought there was a simple solution to the problem that didn't involve term limits…simple in that it makes sense…getting enough of Congress to vote for it, well that may be another matter. We need an amendment to the Constitution that matches realities of the 21st century. We need to raise the minimum age to run for and hold office. Let these people work and build a business before they try and tell us what to do. And I'm not talking about raising the age 5 years. I'm suggesting 20 or 25 years.

Today the average life expectancy is around 79 years, and even astonishing numbers of the Greatest Generation are living into their 90s. The Constitution was adopted in 1787 and ratified in 1789. At that time, the average life expectancy was 35 years of age. The Constitution requires a person to be 25 to be a Representative, 30 to be a Senator and 35 to be President. These ages made sense in the late 18th century. People who ran for office were not still living at home or getting out of grad/law school or finishing up a post-doc before going into public life. They had real life experience; they had a stake in society. They had a career to go back to. Government service was just that–service. So you built your career/business and then you gave back to society and then in all likelihood you died shortly thereafter or you went back to your farm/plantation/career.

Today our governing body is made up of people who graduate from law school and go right into politics. What do they know about running a business, making a payroll, hiring/firing, providing customer service, meeting deadlines? Absolutely nothing. How can they? All they know is how to pass tests, talk and express opinions. We, the American people, are their guinea pigs. And frankly we're getting the short end of this deal. They don't know or don't care about the impact of their grand plans on everyday working people…the folks who make this country run, pay their taxes and pay the salaries of the Washington crowd who think they are God's gift to the rest of us. Their egos have never been checked. Let's see what would happen to all that hot air and inflated egotism if they failed at a business venture…which most entrepreneurs will do at some point in their career? They have no vested interest in America. No skin in the game. And that's dangerous

What do you all think?

It is our DUTY and RESPONSIBILITY to the Constitution of the United States to protect our Government from Corrupt Politicians. WE HAVE BEEN ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL. Career Politicians have DESTROYED this Country. We need term limits to stop the lifetime alliances they create with special interest groups. Citizens from 48 states of this GREAT NATION wrote "The Articles of Freedom". This is part of the Preface, with the pdf file to follow:
On November 11, 2009, and for eleven days continuing morning, noon and night, Citizens of America gathered in St. Charles, Illinois, as Delegates from each of forty-eight States, to discuss these violations, and Government‟s refusal to be held accountable, and to recommend a course of action to restore Constitutional Obedience in a Constitutional Republic now challenged to Its core. These were not professional legislators, wordsmiths or attorneys.
These were ordinary, non-aligned citizens from across America and all walks of life. They set aside their lives for this Assembly. They represent You and Me, the Free People of America. The conclusion of their efforts is This Document called "Articles of Freedom."
http://www.cc2009.us/images/pdf/Articles-of-Freed...

Time for talk is over. They are not listening.

"Making" laws only affects those that are inclined to obey laws in the first place.

Laws existing now would work if they were enforced by a non-partisan discrete entity outside the Beltway. But we have individuals equally as guilty 'investigating' those who weren't quite clever enough not to be caught.

My 6 year suggestion was so we could cycle through the senate one time but never sounds better when I think about it.

Leaping to erroneous conclusions, putting words in other people's mouth, and seeking simple solutions to complex problems seems to to be the hallmark of small-minded individuals such as yourself. It's exactly this type of knee-jerk emotionalism that saddled us with this Administration in the first place. It's time for you to up your game or bow out.

Andrew Marcus, I would like to commend you on a courageous position taken. Many people buy into legislative terms limitation dictates as a solution. You describe well the largest problem with that legislated command and I would like to offer the baseline reason why people grasp onto such a backwards idea to solve a problem.

Voters, and even non voters, have adopted the notion that someone else is always at fault, that it is the system's fault, that it is lack of regulation that causes the problem. They seek more regulation as the fix. Well, heroine users also seek a "fix", and call it exactly that, but it is no fix at all. Indeed, their "fix" only exacerbates the trouble.

More regulation isn't the solution. The American people taking responsibility for their own actions, and inactions, is what is required for productive resolution to materialize. We must retain the right, through the unhampered exercise of it, to vote for the candidates of our choice. When the likes of Dodd, Byrd, Durbin or others are elected time and time again, the voters have to face up to their own decisions and the consequences that result.

Rather than look to legislatures to make those decisions for us in order to facilitate blaming the system instead of our own foolish choices, we must accept that responsibilities accompany rights,

Why would you find state legislatures appointing their senators to be undemocratic? The Consitution in Section 3 specifically provides for that. < <i>The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote. >

Or would you like to cherry-pick and rewrite the Constitution to serve your own Democrat purposes?

Dodd retiring doesn't make sense. It's like an incomplete equation. I bet he's doing something else AFTER retirement, probably for this administration of degenerates.

12 years is 8 years too long in my opinion.

The systemic problem with elections are uninformed voters. It's not the Senators fault he keeps getting elected. It's name recognition. Dodd's father held that seat for he did. In Michigan, we have Conyers, Levin, Kilpatrick, and Dingle. These people are the most senior reps and senators in the Capitol. Stupid people keep voting them and their families into office.

For the same reason counting slaves as 2/3rds of a person in the census sounds weird to the modern mind. The founders had senators chosen by legislatures for a reason… because they saw themselves and their political class as senators and didn't want that a "lord" would have to face a popular vote. Much better that the privilege class be appointed to public service.

We changed it to inject more democracy into the process. Moving backwards is a bad idea.

Define "bad idea!" Term Limits are controls on "political careers," or making public office a profession instead of a service. Politicians' goal is re-election, re-election, re-election… !!

There should be NO career politicians EVER .

Senators were originally appointed by the legislatures of the individual states, though this later changed. Anybody care to guess why they changed the law?

You could have made that claim in a close election, but Obama won by 10 million votes, and racked up 365 EC votes. ACORN is not that effective. And if they were, they wouldn't have seen their public funding cut by a Democratic congress. They are a bunch of knuckleheads who succeeded more at riling up teabaggers than registering people actually cast votes.

1. Do you oppose the existing two-term limit on the office of the presidency, also? I'm just wondering, because if you don't, then it does tend to weaken your line of argument.

2. You concept of voter "choice" is weaker than you think, given the proven power of incumbency. It's one thing to have a real choice between several options, but quite another thing to have the "choice" between an unopposed incumbent and some no-name candidate.

3. Whichever commentors have already demonstrated the terrible consequences of Amendment 17, I give kudos. You can undermine both the power of incumbency and the corruption of campaign financing by returning the question to the States. Does it solve every problem? No, but it's a start, at least. (Direct elections, on the other hand, confer power upon the political parties, not upon the people.)

4. On a related note, conservatives should understand that no constitutional restraints work without an effective check. At present, the States have no power to check a runaway federal government, and the people are either too lazy or unwilling to stop this process (and an occasional election won't empower them to do so, anyhow).

And what might be your opinion of Barney Frank?

Also, why is it that 75%+ of the people dissaprove of the job Congress is doing, but 90% of our politicians get re-elected?

Typical. You start some crap and then cry foul as soon as the going gets a little tough. You must be a Democrat.

Small minded individuals like YOU are the reason we are where we are. You say you are "looking4Sanity", but your mouth spews irrational idiocy. We allowed them to COMPLICATE THE PROCESS by not being vigilant American Citizens. This Country was the SIMPLE SOLUTION to the COMPLICATED SOCIALISTIC BRITISH EMPIRE we succeeded from. They have trained you to think that you couldn't possibly understand the "complicated nature of the government process."
Fortunately for us there are still TRUE PATRIOTS ready and willing to take this Country back when the time comes.
As for your statement of "It's exactly this type of knee-jerk emotionalism that saddled us with this Administration in the first place."
It wasn't "knee-jerk emotionalism" it was cold, careful, calculated indoctrination of minorities and a msm that wouldn't report the truth if their life depended on it, that saddled us with this Administration.

+100

I've been trying to argue this point with people forever. Like I've always said, we already have term limits, "we the people" just aren't using this power. Term limitsalso needlessly punishes the good apples.

And Dodds and Franklin Raines ?

Who cares about the presidential race? We the people don't chose the president and vice president anyway. If anyone sought to overturn the so-called laws governing the "popularity" contest, they would win since the electoral college chooses those two people. People waste so mush time looking at those buffons that they don't know about the people that they do choose. Then in th ebooth, they end choosing a name that they reconise instead of the noame that they really agree with.

I totally agree

The reason for term limits is that the elected officials DO NOT represent just the interests of their state, the represent the people of the entire country. While this is not official we see it all the time – politicians getting breaks for their state at the expense of others. Most recently we saw this with Ben Nelson – sure Nebraska gets a good deal, but for everyone not from Nebraska they are paying the extra taxes to fund what should be a state obligation.

We need term limits precisely because people won't kick their representatives out of office. As long as they can pull money from virtually every American's pocket the voters should have some say in who represents them. While I may note vote in Mass I can at least feel better knowing they have to find a new crook every 2 terms.

Instead of that how about an amendment that raises the age of eligibility for both houses of congress to 60. Our congress people would all come into office with a lifetime of experience, and built in natural term limits.

We really do need an amendment to repeal the 17th amendment and return the senator selection to state legislatures. The house was set up for “mob” rule. The senate was established to act as a “check” on that mob rule. To impose term limits however, violates the concept of the power of the people is inviolate. Meaning, that the will of the people is absolute. If they choose an idiot, then that is their choice. It is up to our representatives to “neutralize” their bad choice by sheer numbers. That power is why the house controls the bank. The senate, originally, was to say no to mob behavior in the house. Unfortunately, that was lost in the 17th amendment. Judging by history, I believe the 17th amendment was about neutering the senate so that robber barons like J.P. Morgan could “buy” the senate like he did the house. Just look at the two houses now! We complain that they are “owned” right now.

Don't forget the owner of the house of ill-repute, which was being run by the lover! Don't forget the gigolo either. Where do they come up with these misfits?

Sorry Andrew, but I believe you are wrong. Term limits would mean the difference between getting politicians and getting patriots who WANT to SERVE. Term limits would make the positions less appealing and so those rolls would become increasingly available to the average person as opposed to being limited to those who are financially secure enough to leave their jobs to run a campaign, much less fund raising. The reason we have so many bureaucrats in Washington is because they are among the few people who can afford to take time away from their careers to fund raise and campaign.

What hurts us as much as anything is that the corruption has led to these "leaders" giving themselves perks like free health care for themselves and their families for life, salaries for life and a bevy of other treats. These seats were never so desirable as now. So much so that politicians are wiling to submit themselves to the will of a major political party to acquire them.

Repeal of the 17th amendment IS term limits. Sect.3, Art.1, of the Constitution says that Senators shall be chosen by the State Legislatures. State governments are term limited. When new people are elected to the State Legislature, they will be unlikely to continue to send crooks, liars, morons and murders back time and again. U.S. Reps. represent the people, you and me. Senators are supposed to represent the states. Not themselves or special interests. If the 17th were repealed and the system were righted as it should be, then when some dang fool like Dodd (and an endless list of others) does something that is wrong or embarrasses their state, then we complain to our State Reps. who we see everyday, who appoint / elect the U.S. Senator. Think about it. Your State Rep. can't hide in D.C., probably don't have 2nd home in state capital, attend school functions, church, synagogue, restaurants, with us, the great unwashed. If all they have to do is impress us, the governor, and State Reps. then lobbyist and special interests outside our state probably won't matter much.

Having term limits allows for many more good people to step into the halls of power and exercise that power. This also allows for the greater possibility of the quicker correction of errors that happen under predecessors. Those who strictly adhere to the party line acts in their lame-duck term will find their loyal party votes threatened with reversal by the new incoming participants. If it’s crony post-political office employments they seek then so be it. It happens now and it will probably happen for all time.

There are a whole plethora of other things we can do as well to ensure the incentive to profit from government power is diminished like taking away government pensions for elected officials. Perhaps bar them from receiving direct compensation of any kind to advise the government on any matter for the ensuing ten years.

Power over candidates will shift to Parties. Parties are closer to the people and by nature more robust. Bar parties from receiving tax money of any kind and you’ll beholden them to the people even more. It’s easier to do this if you know there’s a forced change in office holders. Why? Simply because it’s another opportunity to get someone more honest into positions of power, an opportunity that is diminished by the complacency of the current electoral procedure. Having to pick a new office holder forces the citizens to think more, to be engaged more. Once we as a society get used to the idea of having to pick new folks in elections we’ll look back at this old system in astonishment and wonder why we ever endured it for so long.

All this would have to be done by Constitutional amendment. I don’t think state laws attempting to limit federal positions would be constitutional as the constitution specifies the criteria for election and the length of service. States are only responsible for choosing how their legislator is chosen. The states application clause would probably be the best way to get this started as it compels the congress to call a constitutional convention. Then it’s just a question of how many state legislatures or state conventions can you get to approve the amendment. My guess is you’ll get at least three-fourths to approve.

I agree Pat but there is NOTHING better than an electorate that actually pays some attention to the government
representatives they are about to elect. Now there are some suggestions that are excellant (i.e. having the states
elect senator) but this still requires the electorate to pay some attention to who's running their respective states. I've
been saying this for years if it says incumbant and I don't care how well that person has done or how much one
agrees with or does not agree with the candidate running – SIMPLY DUMP HIMHER. Not paying our congressional people well that's a nice idea but have you ever tried to live the DC area. How about VIRTUAL
representatives – well we could send DC a hologram of one!! (might be better). This is a good idea but we'd have
to set up living arrangements for the Rep's/Sen's but keeping them poor is a real good idea for if they're poor
they will at some point want to get a "real" job that pays them. Maybe the CT. senator can get a job serving meals
in oh well I don't know how about Danbury.

I don't necessarily believe in term limits. However, I do believe that the power to choose the House Speaker, Minority Leaders, and Majority Leaders should be removed from the Legislature and given to the American Public. Under my proposal, each party would have to submit 5 names from the House and 5 from the Senate for consideration in each even-numbered year election. All voters choose ONE name for each party per house of Congress. The House Speaker is the top vote getter from the majority party, the House Majority Leader the second highest. The Senate Majority Leader is the top vote getter from the majority party. The Minority Leaders are the top vote getters from the Minority Party. The Legislature can still choose the Whips. We CANNOT allow someone to become 3rd in line for the presidency who 99% of the American Public has no choice in voting for or against (Pelosi).

Sorry, but NO to “why term limits are a bad idea!” Amazingly, this sounds like the argument a Washington Insider and dare I say it – a RINO would make.

The Republican Revolution of 1994 and the Contract with America was completed with a single exception; Term Limits. Our Republican Congressmen, after being elected couldn't set term limits upon themselves, because of "the good legislator" idea which you are supporting. Once into the halls of Power they were seduced and succumbed to the power that they decried on the campaign trail. The Reform candidates became part of the problem. This was a similar argument that Dan Rostenkowski gave for being re-elected: "I've got seniority and I'm effective and this outweighs all reasons for replacing me." The argument smells like sheep dip. That's why Term limits resonated with both Democrat and Republican Conservative citizens.

And yet it's the politicians in government that continue to direct funds to these groups for the sole purpose of funding future campaigns.

term limits have always been a bad idea; some good people signed onto that idea and stuck to it and are now gone when they could have been much more effective if they had stayed on a bit longer.

If things were not so corrupt, with bribes, payouts, earmarks, etc, you wouldn't need supposed term limits. But we are suppose to have limited government. Like the free-enterprise system (ideally) it has its own self-cleansing mechanisms (not bailouts) , term limits would do that. But you are right, some good people would have to leave, but also bad ones. I say 70 years old (one generation), and you have to retire. You no longer represent the next generation.

I suggest rather than term limits, we repeal the 17th Amendment. Then the legislature would appoing Senators and they wouldn't be beholded to the lobbyists. We should also build a big arena so that we can have on Congressman per every 30,000 people as the Cconstitution is written. We're not represented right now and we need to be. Besides, if we had 8,000 congressmen, then it would be much harder to pass legislation that continues to restrict our liberties.

So some citizens of some states choose to re-elect the same "creeps" to power over and over again. That is their right. What I (and many others) don't like is some left coast politician with an entitilement mindset passing laws and making rules that affect ALL of the states & their populations. I don't want some political aristocrat from the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia or Taxachusetts from digging into my pockets (taking away from my childrens futures or college funds) to pay for their reckless programs, or passing a law reflective of their communitys wants (notice I did not say NEED) that is felt all the way down here in Texas. We don't have an income tax in Texas (income tax is an oxymoron in itself and against the very principles of liberty which punishes working families and directly pays for the entitlements of non-working people) & we want it to stay that way. Only 7 states out of 50 do not have a state income tax, which is mind boggling ! Limit their power & grant more to local governments. Otherwise, make everyone take responsibility for themselves or pay their own way! What a novel idea!

Don't know much about Raines. He is not exactly a household name.

Dodd is a good guy who probably needs to move on. I haven't paid a lot of attention to his political problems. I will tell you this. When he was campaigning for president with his wife, I didn't like the way she always tried to end his sentences. I was never motivated to vote for him in a primary.

It was a good discussion till the teabagger crap seeped in.

Totally agree with the limiting the amount of power these clowns get. Limiting there time in office merely creates different color campaign bumper stickers. The bottom line is the average American has to take it upon himself to become more politically astute. Hopefully the internet will facilitate this.

When Teddy K croaked, they didn't have to embalm him…they only had to add a touch more Cutty and ice.

Good Point Duke, but this should be the case anyway
We need to all watch the personal incomes of every democrat who vote for health care and are now leaving office either voluntary or not.

I support the idea of term limits if for no other reason than to get rid of the sweetheart deals made to the more veteran of congress. The fact they've spent more time in a position qualifies them to grant themselves sweetheart deals? Find a better way of limiting that type of power and I'd probably be all for it but until we can limit that kind of mentality the corruption will keep going. It's been like an endless battle to see who can keep the oldest horse in the race and the perks that might bring to your home state.

I reject this argument.

Until you have true term limited citizen legislators the system will not change. Entrenched power and personal interests that trump the interests of the country are the roots of the evil we are experiencing.

Look at the enthusiasm and vigor that is found in freshman members of the Senate and House. They are bursting with ideas gleaned from talking with and living the same type of lives as those that they were running to represent. Fast forward two or more terms served and the system has changed them (see 1994 Republican class).

With term limited citizen legislators (2 -3 terms for House members, 2 for Senators) the people crafting the direction of our country have to return in a reasonably short time period to the realities they have impacted. They have a greater stake in the outcome as they are closer to the realities that they are impacting with the legislation they have passed.

Citizen legislators who had to manage business and household budgets would not have allowed the mortgage crisis to occur (see Barney Frank, etc.). They would not have allowed spending to balloon as it has over the last few decades. They would not have allowed the degradation of the foundations of our society by fringe groups with extremist agendas.

This should be the first step in fixing Washington. Until reality and common sense is inserted back into the decisions made by our congress by real people who feel the call to serve, we are going to continue to fight and lose the same battles that are raging now.

>we should be allowed to choose whomever we want to represent us, for as long as we want them to represent >us.
Having the choice between tweedledumb and tweedledumber is not exactly what anyone wants. Since when have "we" ever had any real choice in who we will have to vote for? As far as I can tell that choice is made long before the vast majority of people have even heard the names of the "choices." Now, if you are going to require that no one can work for or donate to a candidate who cannot legally vote for that candidate we can talk.

>Why should the voters of one state have to say goodbye to a good legislator simply because the voters of another >state repeatedly elect a creep?
The claim that voters should be allowed to elect the same person in perpetuity is absurd, I give you Robert Byrd as exhibit A. It is an insult to the people of this nation to suggest that good people are so few and far between that, once we find one, we have to hold on to him for dear life. And don't forget that those "creeps" cast votes that affect every single American, regardless of state, that gives all of us a right to have our say.

>Voters in Colorado might not like the fact that voters in Massachusetts continually reelected a hypocritical, drunk, >manslaughtering, liar to term after term after term, but that is their right.
If they are electing such a person to a State office I agree, if they are electing such a person to an office where he has the power to impose his corruption on the entire nation (as Kennedy certainly did) then you are making an idiotic argument. Would you allow your neighbor to destroy your property value by filling his lawn with old refrigerators and junk cars? It's his property, right? Of course you wouldn't. So why make the absurd argument that Massachusetts voters have the right to elect in perpetuity someone who has demonstrated that he is hell bent on doing the moral equivalent to the nation?

>Massachusetts voters clearly have no shame, but under the constitution, they have the right to be greedy scum >buckets interested only in the pork their clout can achieve.
No they don't. Not when that pork is paid for by people who don't have the right to vote against said pork. And, by the way, since when did the first (and arguably only) job of a Senator become "bringing home the pork"?

>Just how restrained will elected officials like Dodd be when they have no need to worry about voter reaction to >their legislation? Term limits will actually serve to make the party system even more dictatorial than it is now, >forcing exiting politicians to vote the party line out of fear of a lack of crony provided job opportunities at party >aligned think tanks and similar institutions. For proof of this thesis, keep an eye on where old Dodd lands after >exiting his seat.
This may be the shallowest and least convincing argument in an essay filled with shallow and unconvincing arguments. Pray tell, how "restrained" has Dodd been up to this point? The claim that corrupt people will be even more corrupt if we make them mad by imposing term limits is ridiculous. Corrupt people will always engage in whatever corruption they can, allowing them unlimited amounts of time to do so will not cause them to restrain themselves.

In conclusion, your essay is little more that the "Incumbent's Manual For Deflecting Arguments For Term Limits." The only true check on corrupt politicians is an informed and engaged voting public. Given that we don't have such a public it is entirely reasonable to impose what rules we can to try to limit the damage they can do via their uninformed and emotionally driven voting habits. In the meantime those of use who like to consider ourselves reasonably informed must work to remedy the root problem, namely the lack of knowledge and the ignorance of history on the part of far too many voters. Term limits is one way of doing that. After all, it works pretty well for the presidency, doesn't it? Or would you have been happy with a third (and probably fourth) Clinton term?

I was speaking of the issue of "term limits" for congress and Senators. If you want t discuss Government as a whole than I think we agree more than disagree. I think EVERY congressman and Senator needs to be removed so that we can start over. As part of this new commitment to the Constitution, term limits would be installed, eligibility verification would be public record, certifying that all legislation is with in the laws of the Constitution, ect. I think you see where I am going here. I will not now nor ever relinquish my Freedom and Liberty that I cherish.

Pay them the same amount each month as welfare gets, and put them on medicare/aid. And have them live in public housing. Let them see how degrading it actually is to encourage people to live off the government.

ahh, but that is all changing. Some States have started beefing up their State Sovereignty Rights through legislative acts and are looking at putting some "bite" into them. Citizens of 48 States came together in November of last year and formed The Continental Congress of 2009. They wrote "The Articles of Freedom" a step in taking our Country back from this corrupt Administration.
http://www.cc2009.us/images/pdf/Articles-of-Freed...

Thanks for the Articles of Freedom website. Let us make 2010 the year that we protected our U.S. Constitution as any military member would by going to the polls and voting the progressives out of office. Lets return the power to the citizens of the United States. These turned-out-of-office politicians may find out that the job market outside of Washington is not good and that the American citizens value their liberty more than they want a handout. The vote is the way to curb corruption and limit terms of office. If you don't like what these career politicians are doing, organize, complain, petition, BUT GO VOTE!! Hope to see you at the polls, Citizens!

Wrong! We were a Democrat Republic. Now that we have the people's money going to buy votes we are no longer Democratic. Acorn,Gm,Congress are now actively invested in re-electing Obama as well as half the American people who sponge off the other half. It will take all the tax-paying work force to take a month off of work with no pay for the Gov't to realize this system cannot work with all this spending. My family is willing to do that.

I applaud you Robert, very well said.

You make a good arguement against term limits, unfortunately those involved will always find a way to play the system until it ultimately screws us? I will take my chances with term limits and more stringent ethical accountability!

I am for consecutive term limits. If a politician is so great then he can come back after sitting out an election cycle. One of the problems we have is the American people tend to vote for the same people over and over agian out of habit withoot considering how well someone else could do the job.

We should enact term limits of a federal level at the federal level like the presidential term limits that are imposed then we all get rid of them the same way. You cannot let each state decide because they always want to keep their own to gain more perks for their state i.e. the Cornhusker dash for cash or the Louisianna Purchase

I meant to say 'I couldn't DISagree more.' Sorry I have to work for a living and I'm trying to type wearing rubber gloves.

Paul & tiredofit2010~

I agree with both of your points. Between the self policing and robbing unprotected taxpayers, DC is RICO Central in providing a safe, rich environment for white collar criminals.

I don't release contact information of any kind for family, friends, or acquaintances — that is up to them.
i'm know it is not that hard to find the existing groups already organized.

I am still of the mindset that citizens need to stay actively engaged in their elected officials term limits and decide when it is time for them to come back home for good. . .by voting them out office.

"Terms being limited only serves to put more power in the hands of government with the end result being that We The People have less power and less ability to exercise our inalienable rights as we deem fit".

I don't think I have EVER read a more naive statement than that.

Do you not realize that our Voting process has been completely corrupted???? Do you not realize that the longer you are a Rep. or a Senator, the more opportunity there is for corruption, due to future promises made for future support?? The longer they are in office the more they fill their pockets with special interest money and could care less what We, The People want.

My problem with term limits is how they've worked in California. I viewed them as a sort of cure-all when term limits were imposed a few years ago; now what we have is a "revolving door;" people go out because of term limits, and then come back, reincarnated as bureaucrats or lobbyists, or move on to another job similar to the one they left. In addition, we now have the issue of legislators creating mandates for the future. Because they will be gone by the time the laws go into effect, they have no constituency to face.
For me to say it has not worked well for us would be a gross understatement. Good idea in theory, but the astute politicians soon learn how to game the system.
Steve Bradley

"Our apologies to anyone in Mass who had the dignity and ethics to vote against Kennedy before death finally drove him from office."

Apology accepted. Never in my 21 years as an eligible Masshole voter have I pulled lever for the drunken corruptocrat Kennedy. He died 46 years too late in my opinion. Good riddance Ted, hope you suffered.

Here's to miracles and upsets; GO SCOTT BROWN!!

What about recalls? Only 17 states currently have the recall state laws. In Montana our Dem AG and other legal types said our MT recall law does not apply to Congressmen – but in the statute they are not specifically exempted, nor even mentioned – just ANY STATE ELECTED OFFICIAL – and MT Congressmen are listed as state officials on the State Gov. Website – how can they be considered exempt from this state law? Montana voters elected them. If every state would enact a managable recall procedure, and make it a realistic thing to do, maybe even a recall evaluation after so many years in office, then maybe our reps would remember who they are there to represent! And maybe think twice before they vote. Don’t ask me HOW Baucus kept getting re-elected, but I guarentee, if he lasts until his term is up – he is out. If not before….there is a petition for the potential recall of Baucus, regardless of what the AG says, we’ll fight that one when we get enough signatures.

Thank you Andrew.. i've been arguing the entire premise that you put together on this post when I was debating these various retirements with my other sites…

"Just how restrained will elected officials like Dodd be when they have no need to worry about voter reaction to their legislation?":

Exactly.. we're going to see that this year .. these retiring senators have NOTHING to lose, so they're not accountable to the Voters for their actions… means they can do whatever they damn well please with no blowback.

So before we get happy over all these upcoming retirements, let's just note there's the time between now and that end date that are going to be the most dangerous to you , me, and the rest of the voting public.

True, but that is the individual state's problem, not the problem of the Federal government or the other states. The electorate should resolve it by replacing the legislature.

Term limits are needed as a means to clean house. Besides the power of the incumbent against the other party, the power of the incumbent in his own party is virtually unlimited. e.g. A republican would have to drift a LOT leftwards before anyone could mount a challenge from the Republican Party. In blue states, such as Connecticut, the Democrat would have be outrageously corrupt before either a Republican stood a chance against him/her. The possibility of a challenge from within the Democratic party would be between slim and none.

(Our apologies to anyone in Mass who had the dignity and ethics to vote against Kennedy before death finally drove him from office). This would be me. Never voted Democrat in Massachusetts. Never will.

Not a bad idea. At least clarify it. Section 5 is the killer in it.

All excellent points… thanks.

Term limits will be a first step in preventing lobbyists and big money from corrupting federal politicians.

I say give them what they give the average American citizen, minimum wage.

Hearing talk that Dodd may replace Geithner to do more damage. Verrrry scary to even consider.

be happy to provide my location and give you the opportunity to say that to my face.

Now this is an interesting idea. Why should a non-voting entity such as a corporation have more influence over the electoral process than a voting citizen? Maybe campaigns should be supported only by valid registered voters. Would this shake up the power structure of both the Democrat and Republican parties? Aren't they really nothing more than giant PACs?

Amen, Brother Joshua, Amen!

I realize that you think every congressman (House and Senate member alike) should be removed. You have every right to believe that. However, you do not get to make that decision for everyone else. Beware thinking that you do, for you argue that others should be able to make your choice for you if you offer that you should make choices for another.

Term limits already exist my friend. Limiting the number of terms also exists and that is a power the voters already hold. Please notice, those are two different things.

I would agree that we are on the same page about many things, especially some of the examples you list, but I urge you to realize that you cannot protect your own Liberty by lobbying to remove the Liberty of another. Having government decide who may stand for election and who may not is doing exactly that. We The People must hold this decision, not government.

Government has already usurped so much power and other power yet has been willingly ceded to it, continuing this path is the problem, not the solution.

Agreed, thanks

Effective legislator, maybe. Smart man? Errr….this is the idiot who was telling us all that there would NOT be a housing crisis and who resisted all attempts to more tightly regulate Fanny and Freddie. Fingers are still pointing in all directions, regarding who was to blame for the financial meltdown and there's a lot of blame to go around, but there are certain individuals who – it can justifiably be said – bore significant personal responsibility for the crisis, and Barny (the dinosaur) Frank is most certainly one of those people. On this point, as Al Gore would say, the debate is closed.

Thanks for the apology. I wasn't offended because as Rhett Butler said; \”Frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn!\”

Limit the power of the State and you limit the power of the politicians. Limit the power of the politicians and you decrease their market value. Decrease their market value and the money will not flow.
Like water, money flows irresistibly down hill. Attempting to dam the flow will only divert it to another stream. Forget the water and flatten the hill! Forget the money and limit the power of the State; then the water will no longer flow.
Report

URGENT: I WANT FRED THOMPSON TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT IN 2012!!!

We are supposed to make our own decisions, not rules binding them for everyone.

You say you support government saying how much money a person can raise. I find it troubling that you want to see government decide where we can spend our money and where we can't.

Why, with that kind of position, one could argue that you support government having the authority to decide that each of us must purchase medical insurance and be fined or imprisoned if we do not.

Principles matter my friend.

accepted and appreciated.honor is getting hard to find,glad it`s still alive and well in Texas.I`ll be in Austin in march,but no time to go to Abilene

Are you kidding they are the prime example of why we need term limits,how is that campaign finance reform working out,I think it's more corrupt then ever!
Good god look at senator Byrd,he can't even stay awake anymore let alone vote on anything, but yet they wheel him in to cast his vote while he is sleeping and the drool runs off his face.
Term limits on all of them!…they get a little to comfortable in these nice money grabbing jobs and forget why they are there and who put them there.

mikatollah act of contrition…

I want to thank the nice folks on biggovernment.com for sharing their time and ideas with me for these past few weeks as I have thoroughly enjoyed myself. I try and conduct myself with proper respect and a sence of humor, and not get drawn into flame wars that always seem to generate a life of their own.

I know I have offended many of you with my use of the term "teabagger". It seemed harmless at first when I believed this list was filled with knuckleheads. I justified it by telling myself and others that it's ok because others do it. But I was wrong. There are many good people here who love their country and are just as passionate about their politics as I.

So to all of you I give my heartfelt apology and hope you can find it in your hearts to forgive. I want to assure you that the word will never pass my lips again, either while blogging or in my personal life. The word is dead to me.

I'm not going anywhere and I look forward to future debates. And just a note, you are going to see this post several times because I am going to post it everywhere I find someone that I know I particularly offended.

mikatollah

I would argue that abolishing career politicians is protecting American citizens liberties. You speak of "removing the liberty of another" but their liberty has not been removed as there would be candidates for them to choose from. Following your line of thought, are we not then removing the liberty of every American when the President or Governor of your liking is kept from running because of term limits? Those limits were put in place to stop dictators and corruption. Right now we have a House and Senate run by paid dictators, that's all a career politician is.

The Framers never intended "Representative" or "Senator" to be a career. The saw them as "citizen-politicians". Do your job, then go home.

I'm sure they never envisioned this group of self-serving pseudo-aristocrats who exempt themselves from their own legislation. How arrogant!

I agree with you mndasher. Michelle Bachmann is great. Perhaps you should encourage her to run for senator in Minnesota and then perhaps for president? It would be a natural progression. What you you think?

Who is Rand Paul, Karen?

Thank You Senators Dodd and Dorgan. You two have finally made a policy decision I agree with. Now if we can get another 90 or so Senators to make the same decision we can get the U.S. headed in the right direction.

This is the very kernel of my point. A nation in which the majority rules without any restriction is a nation in which 51% can vote to cannibalize the 49%. One might agree that that is "freedom", especially those in the front of the human soup-line. But the remaining 51% in the back half of the line might want a second vote! "One man, one vote" becomes less a political theory than a menu entry.
We probably agree on just about every issue. All I am saying is that a Free Nation must have sharp delineation between the public sphere in which democratic government is legitimate, and the private sphere where the Individual is sovereign. If one person has zero right or legitimate authority to dictate to me about what I do in or with my own property (as long as it doesn't effect someone else's right to be left alone), then 1 million times zero is still zero.
My right to support a politician with my speech or my money is my call; period. The State has usurped the Constitution and has intruded into the intricacies of the nearly infinite number of daily transactions called "The Economy". The Government, under our Constitution, was to be an umpire, ensuring that courts would enforce contracts, prevent coercion, provide for locally controlled police protection, and other measures to provide for the common welfare. No longer an umpire, the State has become a player in "The Economy". And it has the monopoly on coercion. Money flows into the political parties because the elected officials control the levers of power. The founding fathers understood human nature. They understood that only a government strictly limited to being an umpire could simultaneously be democratic and free. To paraphrase Pat Buchanan "An Umpire Not An Empire"!

I appreciate your point. But it is interesting to understand that the original idealistic framers of the Constitution became disheartened in the following years. As we all know the writers of The Federalist Papers prevailed and won the war for a more perfect union. But having won the war, they lost the battles that occurred in the framework of the Constitution. Anti-Federalist sentiment actually prevailed, and happily for us.
Washington, Jefferson, Madison et. al. aspired to a Congress filled with Gentlemen. "Gentleman" had a specific meaning in those times. (And it supports my point that the word is now lacking in any distinction.) A Gentleman was one who was supposedly not dependent upon market forces. Benjamin Franklin had to earn his fortune in the printing shop and then retire from business in order to rise to "Gentlemanly" status. The southern plantation owners were sovereign over their vast domains.
The Founders' Ideal was that Gentlemen, who by virtue of their independence from "crass business" would be Enlightened and disinterested enough to serve the public. Washington was disgusted by the evolving "factionalism" of political parties.
Eventually, the political power in the hands of the people created a new system under the Constitution. As the franchise rapidly expanded virtually every white male had the vote. As the numbers of people living in the western parts of the original states and the new states increased, they began to send folks to congress who were not Gentlemen, nor aspiring gentlemen. They couldn't care less about the Roman Republic of enlightenment fantasy. But, they did have definite interests. They needed liquidity and capital, and wanted the government out of the banking business, in order to allow for new more local banks to issue credit. The "Enlightened" Gentlemen of Philadelphia were not keen to allow the western upstarts out in Pittsburgh to rock the boat and increase credit, which would make the bonds held by the State Bank or National Bank less valuable. A man named Findley spoke for the aspiring working Americans not by damning the Old Money but by recognizing that the supposed "disinterested Gentleman" had just as much interest in the market as the working folks. And that rather than a masquerade of disinterest (as perfected by Washington and Jefferson and Madison), politics should openly be the clash of opposed interests. The vast multitude of interests would have to coalesce into parties in which those strongly interested in X, but not very concerned with Y would support each other against say interest A and B. And like the process of making sausage it ain't that pretty at all. But, the ultimate outcome of clashing and allied and compromising interests is the closest approximation of the nonexistent "Common Interest".
By recognizing that George Washington is the exceptional man and not the typical one, we must expect politicians to represent the interests of their contributors. It is only by limiting the benefits that a politician may confer to his supporters that we can decrease the market value of politicians. And only by limiting the power and sphere of Government can we limit the need for owning a politician. As Bob Marley say mon: "Never ask a politician to grant you a favor. He will want to control you, forever for ever forever."
By limiting the government's power we limit the ability of politicians to grant favors and we limit the corruption, for ever and ever. "And if a fire make it burn…"

While this is a good point, we do term limit the Presidency, Governors, etc… because power corrupts, and the longer a politician stays in power the greater the organization and efficency of that corruption. The suggestion that politicians will somehow be corrupted faster with term limits, I think is falacious. As why would they risk jail, when they will no longer be in power where they can protect themselves? It takes time to be a REAL SCUMBAG!

He has had a long political career that has recently been tainted by bad decisions. I was asked for my opinion and I gave it.

And how about down in MD, where the former Dem. mayor of Baltimore, Sheila Dixon, was just convicted of defrauding her own constituents out of welfare gift cards! Or Bill Jefferson hiding bribe money in his freezer in LA. Or John Murtha's brines & kickbacks in PA? Or Charlie Rangel's not paying taxes? Or Gov. Blago in IL getting paid for Obama's vacant senate seat? Or Kwame Kilpatrick's theft, perjury, misconduct and obstruction in Detroit? Or Gov. Siegelman of Alabama getting convicted of bribery by a federal court. Or Elliot Spitzer & his prostitutes? Or Newark mayor Sharpe James' fraud and conspiracy conviction? How low can you go, Rev.?
We can go back and forth, for weeks on end, pointing out versions of Dem. and Rep. political criminals alike…that's besides the point here. But way to go with the typical "what about Cheyney" and "blame it all on Bush"-style retorts. Now that's progress!

Re: "First of all, term limits strike me as a smack in the face to the idea that we should be allowed to choose whomever we want to represent us, for as long as we want them to represent us."

The big drawback is assclowns like Dodd keep getting re-elected and inflicting the rest of the country who did not vote for them, with bad legislation and corrupt 'leadership'.

There are term limits for president, the same should apply for congress and senate.

How does this relate to one of the other stories? Maybe I’m slow… because I could’ve been on a differnet page. At any rate, superb writing. Later