GOP

[Jamie D]

Many people don't realize that this country's original constitution - The Articles of Confederation - contained term limits for members of Congress.

In Article V of that document, it stated:

No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor more than seven members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the United States, for which he, or another for his benefit, receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.

(Emphasis mine)

John Adams, in the Continental Congress, argued in favor of the term limits.  As recorded by George Will in Restoration: Congress, Term Limits, and the Recovery of Deliberative Democracy:

In the era of America's founding, the most frequent argument for term limits were that limits would be prophylactic measures against tyranny.  Thus the Massachusetts delegation to the Constitutional Convention [of 1787] was specifically instructed "not to depart from the rotation established in the Articles of Confederation.  Delegate John Adams believed rotation would "teach" representatives "the great political virtues of humility, patience. and moderation without which every man in power becomes a ravenous beast of prey."  Adam's colleague, Elbridge Gerry said, "Rotation keeps the mind of man in equilibria (sic) and teaches him the feelings of the governed" and counters the "overbearing insolence of office."  Adams and Gerry were echoing the thinking that produced Article VIII of the Declaration of Rights in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which declared that citizens have a right to expect "public officers to return to private life" "in order to prevent those, who are vested with authority, from becoming oppressors."

Indeed, one Congress of the Confederation sent home a delegate who had showed up for a fourth one-year term, inside of the six-year framework.  Noted in the rolls, the delegate was sent home for "tarrying too long."

[Ltl89]

Shantel our politics differ greatly, so I will respect your position on the issues without attempting to change your mind.  Though, I do have to say that I think the letter more partisan than you let on in your intro.

However, I will ask you what the purpose of this letter was.  I can tell you that the tone of the note was a little  too confrontational for any staffer to consider passing it forward.  You acknowledge this in the letter itself.  If you want to express your opinion, that's fine.  It's completely your right to do so.  But if you hope to get their attention and make a change, that strategy will likely not work.  The person reading this letter will probably be an intern who has to make a decision about whether to pass it along.  If the letter is too confrontational, they may not bother passing it their superiors.  Government officials get an enormous amount of mail and it's near impossible to write a personalized  response to everyone who writes.   Most of the letters that are addressed are those that express concerns, but that also do so in a friendly manner.  Most staffers would like to talk with people who they believe are open to a conversation.  Also, focusing on a single issue that they can respond to is helpful.  Believe it or not, these sort of letters can have an influence.  I have seen politicians count and the amount of negative calls and mail they receive on a particular issues.  They do care if their constituency is heavily against a policy.  However, people will not even bother listening to something that may come across as hostile.  It may not seem just that your voice isn't being heard, but that's the reality.  Think about it?  What if you were a staffer that received a call and had to fill out a constituent comment form.  The caller explains that they dislike Obama care and they give their reasons while remaining friendly in their tone.  The staffer can easily fill out the form with the information and pass it along.  If the caller starts to through in personal jabs against the official  it's possible that the staffer could get annoyed and not pass your message along.  What situation is more likely to get your voice heard? 

In any event, it's your right to decide how you wish to compose your letter.  I just want you to know that these letters  can have an impact, but sometimes the phrasing can be detrimental to whether your letter is read or addressed.

[Ltl89]

Many people don't realize that this country's original constitution - The Articles of Confederation - contained term limits for members of Congress.

In Article V of that document, it stated:

No State shall be represented in Congress by less than two, nor more than seven members; and no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years; nor shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of holding any office under the United States, for which he, or another for his benefit, receives any salary, fees or emolument of any kind.

(Emphasis mine)

John Adams, in the Continental Congress, argued in favor of the term limits.  As recorded by George Will in Restoration: Congress, Term Limits, and the Recovery of Deliberative Democracy:

In the era of America's founding, the most frequent argument for term limits were that limits would be prophylactic measures against tyranny.  Thus the Massachusetts delegation to the Constitutional Convention [of 1787] was specifically instructed "not to depart from the rotation established in the Articles of Confederation.  Delegate John Adams believed rotation would "teach" representatives "the great political virtues of humility, patience. and moderation without which every man in power becomes a ravenous beast of prey."  Adam's colleague, Elbridge Gerry said, "Rotation keeps the mind of man in equilibria (sic) and teaches him the feelings of the governed" and counters the "overbearing insolence of office."  Adams and Gerry were echoing the thinking that produced Article VIII of the Declaration of Rights in the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, which declared that citizens have a right to expect "public officers to return to private life" "in order to prevent those, who are vested with authority, from becoming oppressors."

Indeed, one Congress of the Confederation sent home a delegate who had showed up for a fourth one-year term, inside of the six-year framework.  Noted in the rolls, the delegate was sent home for "tarrying too long."

.
It should also be noted that the Articles of Confederation have been considered a massive failure.  That's why the constitution was formed.  Also, the Continental congress was a very different entity than our current bicameral system. The powers and roles of the institutions are different.  The Congress was more of a formal entity without much power in the days when we were a confederacy.  So, I don't think any of the former rules should necessarily be considered applicable.  The entire regime and system changed when we adopted the constitution.  Because of this the articles of confederation really don't hold any importance in terms of legal precedence.

I'm not against term limits -I'd be fine with it- but people think it will do more than it will.  If you want to fix corruption, you have to address campaign finance and lobbying reform.  Otherwise, more term limits will only equal a a faster revolving door of corruption.  Personally, I care less about the speed of the revolving door and more about the overall corruption of power. 

[Jamie D]

I won't go into a major argument about this.  The fact that he believes it was constitutional for Texas to imprison a man because they had gay sex is really disgusting.  I understand what it was about, but I see him time and time again use his strict interpretation to uphold conservative policies.  He may attempt to use a legal argument, but it's clear that he is using a strict texualist arguments to promote his political beliefs.  In the rest of the dissent he compares gay sex to bestiality and obscenity. Then he follows it by saying that he believes that all the rest of the justices have " largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct."  Yes, it is clear he can make an argument on a legal basis, but let's not hide what he really feels.  It's pretty obvious. I'm sure you have read up on Romer V Evans.  Do you agree with his decision there? 

Lastly, Scalia is not the only justice to do this.  Many of them vote based on their ideology.  It's just how it goes.  I happen to like Ginsburg, but I think she is just as partisan as Scalia.  Their votes on major cases are often politically charged and there's been research in political journals to confirm this is the case. Their constitutional interpretation does come into play in smaller cases, but on major headline cases you can guarantee they vote based on their individual ideology.  While it's possible that their ideology stems from their constitutional interpretation, I think it is quite the opposite.  People have an ideology and create a method of interpretation that can back up their beliefs.

Comparison to bestiality:  You are mistaken in your assertion.  He does not compare the practices, but rather, the basis for similar state laws.  Here is the section of the dissent:

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. See ante, at 11 (noting "an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex" (emphasis added)). The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional "morals" offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. "The law," it said, "is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed."

And Justice Scalia's insight here is demonstrably correct, as we see constitutional challenges being made on similar issues, such as plural marriage and adult incest.

I am not sure which issues you have with Rome v Evans, but Scalia is true to form in his dissent:

"Today's opinion has no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to. The people of Colorado have adopted an entirely reasonable provision which does not even disfavor homosexuals in any substantive sense, but merely denies them preferential treatment. Amendment 2 is designed to prevent piecemeal deterioration of the sexual morality favored by a majority of Coloradans, and is not only an appropriate means to that legitimate end, but a means that Americans have employed before. Striking it down is an act, not of judicial judgment, but of political will."

Scalia supports the democratic process over activist courts.

[Jamie D]

.
It should also be noted that the Articles of Confederation have been considered a massive failure.  That's why the constitution was formed.  Also, the Continental congress was a very different entity than our current bicameral system. The powers and roles of the institutions are different.  The Congress was more of a formal entity without much power in the days when we were a confederacy.  So, I don't think any of the former rules should necessarily be considered applicable.  The entire regime and system changed when we adopted the constitution.  Because of this the articles of confederation really don't hold any importance in terms of legal precedence.

I'm not against term limits -I'd be fine with it- but people think it will do more than it will.  If you want to fix corruption, you have to address campaign finance and lobbying reform.  Otherwise, more term limits will only equal a a faster revolving door of corruption.  Personally, I care less about the speed of the revolving door and more about the overall corruption of power.

I agree with you completely.  Power corrupts.  "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

We must remember, however, that much of the Articles are subsumed within the Constitution of 1787

[Misato]

Term limits could have a shot at working, if there were no political parties or PACs.

Today it seems, except for the occasional vote, individual people are cogs.

[Shantel]

Shantel our politics differ greatly, so I will respect your position on the issues without attempting to change your mind.  Though, I do have to say that I think the letter more partisan than you let on in your intro.

However, I will ask you what the purpose of this letter was. Whaaat, hello? I can tell you that the tone of the note was a little  too confrontational for any staffer to consider passing it forward.  You acknowledge this in the letter itself.  If you want to express your opinion, that's fine.  It's completely your right to do so. 
In any event, it's your right to decide how you wish to compose your letter.  I just want you to know that these letters  can have an impact, but sometimes the phrasing can be detrimental to whether your letter is read or addressed.

FYI - I didn't write that letter, it was written by an old man who lives in Washington state who has lived a lot longer than you and me. I posted it because he has an interesting idea about how term limits would get all of the self aggrandizing hogs from both sides of the aisle out of the trough. It's obvious to me that you either didn't read it entirely or missed the point altogether about what is becoming a common lament which is that none of these people work for you and me or represent us in any way at all.

[Misato]

I believe term limits would improve things tremendously.

How?  When pols first have to survive a democratic or republican primary?  How?

Gerrymandering and creating "safe" districts.  Term limits wouldn't solve the safe district problem.  What does it really matter who comes from these places?

There is no silver bullet, but I think there are bigger problems at hand than needing term limits.

[Ltl89]

FYI - I didn't write that letter, it was written by an old man who lives in Washington state who has lived a lot longer than you and me. I posted it because he has an interesting idea about how term limits would get all of the self aggrandizing hogs from both sides of the aisle out of the trough. It's obvious to me that you either didn't read it entirely or missed the point altogether about what is becoming a common lament which is that none of these people work for you and me or represent us in any way at all.

I did read it and understood the point of the letter; however, I mistakenly thought you wrote it.

I wasn't talking or arguing about the merits of term limits.  I was talking about whether or not that letter would get addressed.  Even if one dislikes the politician they are contacting, it is always more effective to address criticism without direct insults.  I know for a fact that citizens who directly lobby their politicians can have an impact.  Yet, if they want to have some influence they have to first ensure their letter is read and their points are considered.  I don't see how I missed the point.  I know how the process goes and offered some feedback about how to better increase your chance of making a difference in the way you want.

[Ltl89]

Comparison to bestiality:  You are mistaken in your assertion.  He does not compare the practices, but rather, the basis for similar state laws.  Here is the section of the dissent:

State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding. See ante, at 11 (noting "an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex" (emphasis added)). The impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional "morals" offenses is precisely why Bowers rejected the rational-basis challenge. "The law," it said, "is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed."

And Justice Scalia's insight here is demonstrably correct, as we see constitutional challenges being made on similar issues, such as plural marriage and adult incest.

I am not sure which issues you have with Rome v Evans, but Scalia is true to form in his dissent:

"Today's opinion has no foundation in American constitutional law, and barely pretends to. The people of Colorado have adopted an entirely reasonable provision which does not even disfavor homosexuals in any substantive sense, but merely denies them preferential treatment. Amendment 2 is designed to prevent piecemeal deterioration of the sexual morality favored by a majority of Coloradans, and is not only an appropriate means to that legitimate end, but a means that Americans have employed before. Striking it down is an act, not of judicial judgment, but of political will."

Scalia supports the democratic process over activist courts.

I don't believe I'm the one mistaken.  He lumps them together as though they are similar.  He is saying it is impossible to distinguish sodomy from other moral based sexual restrictions and that it puts all the other laws "into question".  Essentially his argument is "if we make sodomy legal than all the people who want have sex with animals and their family members can do so".  Now that this is decision is overturned, has that happened?   

My problem in Romer V Evans is that he struck down anti discrimination laws for gays because he thought he it was preferential treatment.  So, it should be okay for employers to fire gays because we don't want to give them preferential treatment.  Does anyone really by that having anti discrimination laws that include homosexuality really think it favours gays?  What about transgender anti discrimination laws?  Is that really favouring us or realizing that we should be a protected class because of the likeliness that we have to face bigots in our everyday lives.  Secondly, I don't believe everything should be done by ballot initiative or be allowed to be done so.  I don't believe the rights of people who are minorities should be decided by the mob.  It's like Proposition 8 where the state of California gave the people the ability to discriminate against people in their own state.  And I don't care what anyone says, there is no reason not to extend marriage to same sex couples other than forcing ones religious beliefs onto others.

[Shantel]

How? By returning to the concept of government by the people instead of having lifetime rulers. I think this is a positive thing.

Absolutely, outside of that we will be experiencing what the nation's founders had fought bloody battles over. No doubt it would thrill the Progressive Marxist thinking folks until they discovered that they are on the bottom of the social agenda as well.

I recall as a kid watching Fidel Castro and his band of rebels many of whom were young North American fellows looking for adventure as they took on the despotic Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista from their hideouts in the Sierra Maestra mountains. It was exciting and Castro was my hero, he was still concealing his Marxist proclivities at the time. Once Castro and Che Guevara had taken control they lined up all of the American kids that had been with him throughout the battles and gave them all a bullet in the back of the head dropping them into a long trench for mass burial. Our government could do nothing at the time because they had acted as mercenaries for a foreign nation. Still it's a harsh look at the realities surrounding Marxist ideology. All of history points out that socialism in full bloom when it has permeated the entire fabric of any society is a foundation for full on Marxism.

We need new people with new ideas and often. Just my opinion.

Mine as well!

[Ltl89]

I'm all for term limits for congress and the senate, but how would this really solve the main issue.  Politicians would still have great connections with lobbyists, corporations, special interest groups and campaign funders.  They will still vote the way the want until they leave office.  Then they can get a comfy job as a lobbyist for the organization or industry that they did favours for.  The problem is still there, but happens at a quicker pace.  Campaign and Lobbyist reform is really what would help solve the corruption problem.  Not term limits.

By the way,  Ted Cruz is very much an establishment figure.  He was the solicitor general of Texas and was an associate deputy attorney general for the Bush Whitehouse.  He had good connections from the start and most people in the know didn't think Dewhurst had a great shot because of Ted Cruz's conservative reputation.  I don't think he is the new blood most people think he is.

[Shantel]

I'm all for term limits for congress and the senate, but how would this really solve the main issue.  Politicians would still have great connections with lobbyists, corporations, special interest groups and campaign funders.  They will still vote the way the want until they leave office.  Then they can get a comfy job as a lobbyist for the organization or industry that they did favours for.  The problem is still there, but happens at a quicker pace.  Campaign and Lobbyist reform is really what would help solve the corruption problem.  Not term limits.

We can probably agree that all of the above could use a thorough overhauling. The President was going to so he said, that isn't going to happen because he got sucked into that same vortex. It would really be interesting to know how many offshore accounts have been opened up by lobbyists in the name of all of the congresspeople on both sides of the aisle. I would think that a large roll of one inch Manila would suffice as a future deterrent. 

[Ltl89]

Obama never had intentions of cleaning up the system.  He wanted to be in charge of the system.  While I believe he had goals that he wanted to get done, he is the same as any other president.  They have no problem addressing their chosen issues of choice, but they never want to tackle corruption within the system.  It is too beneficial for both parties, and the special interests are needed to win campaigns.  I don't know why anyone would have thought Obama would have been different than other Presidents.  His voting record in the senate was very much safe and non controversial.  And he made early ties to the banking industry. I didn't see any change coming on it's way.  By the way, this is coming from someone who identifies as a progressive and supports some of the presidents policies.

[Shantel]

Obama never had intentions of cleaning up the system.  He wanted to be in charge of the system.  While I believe he had goals that he wanted to get done, he is the same as any other president.  They have no problem addressing their chosen issues of choice, but they never want to tackle corruption within the system. He said he wanted to do away with it, it's on the record. Of course we all know candidates tell people things they want to hear with no intentions of following through It is too beneficial for both parties, and the special interests are needed to win campaigns.  I don't know why anyone would have thought Obama would have been different than other Presidents.  His voting record in the senate was very much safe and non controversial.Oh really?  How many times did he vote present, wtf is that? It sure was very controversial.  And he made early ties to the banking industry. I didn't see any change coming on it's way.  By the way, this is coming from someone who identifies as a progressive and supports some of the presidents policies. Uh-huh I can tell and you are far from alone here on these pages. I don't dislike you for your beliefs though, it is what we are all about here in this country and diverse opinions make for lively conversations.  

[Ltl89]

I think you misunderstood me because  I wasn't defending Obama in this case.  In fact, I am criticizing him quite heavily.  I agree that he made promises of change and that it all was on the record.  My point is that like all politicians he had different motives than what others perceived.  Change is a nice slogan, but you have to give me a reason to believe you mean it.  His safe voting record is an example of how he wouldn't take on anything too controversial.  Voting present was a way for him to avoid taking a stance on important issues and making enemies in different camps.  While it is controversial for people like you and me, it is very much the safe position for those trying to market themselves to special interests.  It is actually non controversial because it keeps more people on your side and by showing that you aren't taking on the system.  Plus, his disdain for public financing during the campaign really showed what he felt about finance reform and special interests.  Yes, he said change, but it was evident to those paying attention that he didn't mean it.

[Ltl89]

I certainly didn't mean to imply he had straw in his teeth. He's new to the Senate and is bringing a new approach. He has excellent experience and is very qualified. That's my point, we have tons of people like this sitting on the sidelines.

It's nonsense to say people in the know didn't think Dewhurst was the huge favorite. I watched this play out from start to finish. Cruz didn't sit back and take Dewhurst's despicable false TV and radio ads. He went on the offensive and clearly demonstrated who Dewhurst is. It was quite impressive.

Perhaps it's because I live outside of Texas, but almost everyone I spoke with and everything I read predicted a Cruz victory.  Dewhurst had money to run ads and had a powerful political position to exploit, but that doesn't mean he was likely to win.  Most saw Cruz as the outsider underdog who was likely to win.  However, it could have been viewed differently within Texas.

[Misato]

But we have lifetime rulers:  those who come up with the talking points.  And I'm not talking about the media.  More the ceaseless churn of history and the next step taken from what's come before.

New blood sounds wonderful.  But, the problems are that blood is tainted as soon as any pol enters a race by having to pander to the Unions or Tea Party or whom ever.  And then there gets to be the sticky question of what is new blood?  By clinging to the second amendment, for example, Ted Cruz looks like very old Republican blood to my eyes.

We have to work with the system.  Keep the churn for our side going by voting even campaigning or maybe running ourselves.  But, in the end, we are pretty much just going along for the ride!

[Ltl89]

He's also very clingy to the first amendment, which hasn't been very well respected lately in Washington. But hey, the fifth amendment is in high gear at the moment... woo hoo!

Unfortunately, I don't think any side or politician has been clingy to the first amendment.  But you are right about the fifth amendment being in high gear recently which is really distasteful.  Once again, the change we can believe in certainly wasn't referring to transparency.  As a lefty, I wish more of us would speak up about that.  It seems like each side of the spectrum only like to criticize when the other side does something they dislike.  I, for one, don't like to play those politics and wish others would start being the same.

[Shantel]

Unfortunately, I don't think any side or politician has been clingy to the first amendment.  But you are right about the fifth amendment being in high gear recently which is really distasteful.  Once again, the change we can believe in certainly wasn't referring to transparency.  As a lefty, I wish more of us would speak up about that.  It seems like each side of the spectrum only like to criticize when the other side does something they dislike.  I, for one, don't like to play those politics and wish others would start being the same.

Well as I recall, it was going to be a more transparent administration which was kind of welcome and refreshing after watching our former vice president the Darth Vader wannabe Mr. Cheney. He had an extremely prickly personality and his motives were always highly suspect due to his investment holdings. So I had thought that Mr. Obama's  promise of a more transparent administration was a breath of fresh air, however that has become more like Cheney 2.5. You're a pretty smart girl Learningtolive and I won't hold it against you for being a lefty because we all need to be able to agree on those things that are so disconcerting. I'm reminded of the film "Network" where Howard Beale (Peter Finch) is driven over the edge by uncontrollable events and throws open his window and yells into the night, "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not taking it anymore!" We can join hands on that which we agree on with that same kind of fervor. I know it's possible!