Term Limits from the Grass Roots

Constitution Day, 2009 | cc2k

[cc2k]

We don’t need laws or constitutional amendments to do this, just some disciplin and determination from the electorate.

Seems like at every gathering of conservatives or self proclaimed constitutional patriots that I go to, a very popular theme is term limits. Everyone seems to agree that after spending a few years in Washington DC, even the best, most conservative, most constitutionally aware legislators go soft and are weakened by a combination of lobbyists and partisan politics. And everyone seems to have some proposed solution involving some legislation or possibly even a constitutional amendment.

Well, here’s the reality. We the voters determine who represents us in Washington, DC. We also decide who represents us in our state capitols, our county seats and even our city halls. We also elect (directly or indirectly) leaders of the executive branch in Washington DC, and in all the lower levels of government.

Term limits are possible with no changes to the current rules! All that needs to change is the behavior of the electorate.

As I value the constitution, and I wish for the Federal Congress to at least stop usurping further powers from the states and the people as a prelude to actually reducing federal involvement in areas for which there is no constitutional authority, I believe that new talent is needed in the Congress (and at state and local levels as well, I’ll be covering that later). I also recognize that it’s my duty as a citizen to truly re-evaluate the situation every two years, and to continue to seek further improvements rather than just keeping the status quo.

To move toward this goal, I make the following pledges:

• I will not give to national party committees or national committees. These organizations usually use this money to support incumbents, including many of the Congress Critters and Senators who have overstayed their effectiveness in Washington DC.
• I will not give financial support or volunteer support to any incumbent United State Senate candidate, nor to any candidate for the United States House of Representatives who is running for a fifth (or more) term. I believe that one full term (plus perhaps a half term to fill the term of someone who retired or otherwise left the Senate) is enough for a Senator, and I believe that 6 to 8 years in the House is more than long enough for any Congress Critter.
• I will not support any candidate for State Representatives and State Senators who has exceeded 6 years in office.
• I will not support any incumbent candidate who has demonstrated a lack of understanding of constitutional limitations placed on the Congress.
• I will not support any incumbent candidate who has demonstrated a lack of respect for their constituents by voting procedurally to bring a massive bill (200 pages or more) to a floor vote less than a week after the text of such bill is published in the Congressional Record and on the internet.
• I will seek out new talent, new candidates who pledge to honor the constitution and to conduct the business of governing in a fully open and transparent manner.
• I will strongly support, both financially and with volunteer help, new candidates who represent my views, who are committed to smaller government, more open and transparent governance, and honoring the oath of office to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.”
• I will strongly support, both financially and with volunteer help, candidates for state and local offices who share my views that much of what is currently being usurped by the federal government should be handled by states and local governments. I will strongly support candidates who wish to take an active role in returning these powers to the state and local level, where they should be according to the Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. It is my further opinion that these candidates are more credible as independents, or perhaps as part of a state party rather than as members of a national political party.

A common complaint against term limits is, “What if I’m happy with the Representative I have. He or she is doing a good job for me.” My response to that is this question. Is this “good” representative the only person in your entire Congressional district who shares your views and can represent you properly? Or, in the case of the United States Senate, is this candidate the only person in your entire state who is committed to smaller government, openness and transparency, and following the constitution. If you answer yes to these questions, this country is already lost. If you think those questions are absurd, and you recognize that, of course there is at least one other person who shares these views, then it’s your duty as a citizen to seek out and find new talent, recruit them as candidates for office.

Now is the time that we should be searching for our candidates for next year. We need to prepare for this coming election cycle. The opportunity to make real changes may never be as good as it will be in 2010. Let’s make 2010 the year we send all the incumbents in Washington DC home.

[cc2k]

Previous postings:

The Two Million Frog March (Why 9-12-2009 spells trouble for Republicans and Democrats alike)

[cc2k]

A follow up to “The Two Million Frog March (Why 9-12-2009 spells trouble for Republicans and Democrats alike)”. I thought you might be interested.

[Puppage]

[US Navy Vet]

I like the Second Amendment’s method for “term Limits”!

[wastedyears]

Well, here’s the reality. We the voters determine who represents us in Washington, DC. We also decide who represents us in our state capitols, our county seats and even our city halls. We also elect (directly or indirectly) leaders of the executive branch in Washington DC, and in all the lower levels of government. Term limits are possible with no changes to the current rules! All that needs to change is the behavior of the electorate.A lack of term limits is why we have people like McCain, Byrd, Kennedy, Murtha, Schumer in office so long.

[Paladin2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VRywBfkuQNk

[Paladin2]

WWAAAYYYYYYY ahead of me. ;-)

[taxcontrol]

No person shall serve more than 12 years in total as a US Senator. No person shall serve more than 12 years in total as a US Representative. No person shall serve more than 12 years total for the offices of President or Vice President. No person shall serve more than 12 years in total in any position that answers directly to the President, Vice President, Senator or Representative

[Eternally-Optimistic]

I like your idea but would like to change it as follows:
No person shall serve more than 12 years in total as a US Senator. No person shall serve more than 8 years in total as a US Representative. No person shall serve more than 8 years total for the offices of President or Vice President. No person shall serve more than 12 years in total in any position that answers directly to the President, Vice President, Senator or Representative. No person shall serve more than 10 years as a District or Supreme Court judge.

[stockpirate]

They should serve only two terms, one in Congress and one in jail.

[sickoflibs]

Term limits are critical, but neither party will pass them. They were part of the Republican contract with America 1994, broken contract obviously.

[Walrus]

cc2k, you nailed it. "Term Limit" legislation is a total fantasy. IT SIMPLY CANNOT HAPPEN !!! No legislator would actually vote to throw himself out of office. On the other hand, we citizens can ---and should--- apply de facto term limits by regularly voting our own congressmen and senators out of office, regardless of party and regardless of whether or not we think he or she "has done a good job." And, yes, we DO intend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The "baby" has been crapping in the tub!

[wastedyears]

I’m not cc2k

[Wonder Warthog]

Sorry, but I’d still rather see term limits embedded in the Constitution by means of a formal amendment.

[Wonder Warthog]

"cc2k, you nailed it. "Term Limit" legislation is a total fantasy. IT SIMPLY CANNOT HAPPEN !!! No legislator would actually vote to throw himself out of office."

Wrong. Term limits have been successfully voted in, in MANY local and state governments. And the politicians really, really, really HATE THEM. Which, in my view, means that they are "a good thing".

[xeno]

[cc2k]

First a few questions for each of you. Will you join me in my pledges? And, how much have you contributed to the RNC or DNC, or to the Republican/Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee, or the Republican/Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee? Have you ever contributed to the campaign of an incumbent who exceeds your preference for term limits? If you favor term limits, why would you contribute to these committees which are for the most part dedicated to re-electing incumbents way beyond the term limits you claim to support?

wastedyears wrote:

A lack of term limits is why we have people like McCain, Byrd, Kennedy, Murtha, Schumer in office so long.

Sorry, I won’t buy into that. Lazy voters in Arizona, West Virginia, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New York are what have kept McCain, Byrd, Kennedy, Murtha and Shumer in office for so long.

If we had term limit laws or a term limit amendment, it would force the issue. But there is no reason, other than laziness, why voters can’t enforce term limits on their own.

sickoflibs wrote:

Term limits are critical, but neither party will pass them. They were part of the Republican contract with America 1994, broken contract obviously.

If you believe any politician who promises to support term limits, you’re very naive. They might follow through, it has actually happened, but it isn’t very likely.

Wonder Warthog wrote:

Sorry, but I’d still rather see term limits embedded in the Constitution by means of a formal amendment.

Nowhere have I said that I am against an amendment specifying term limits. However, I am pointing out the hypocrisy of many who claim to support such an amendment, but also support candidates who exceed the very limits they are proposing.

Are you saying you are unwilling to search for new candidates unless the Constitution is amended to force the issue?

Walrus wrote:

And, yes, we DO intend to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The "baby" has been crapping in the tub!

Well stated. I can’t add to that, but I thought it was worth repeating.

[algernonpj]

thanks for the ping.

I’m proud that my town in the middle of ‘blue’ NJ, elected an independent mayor a couple of years ago - a fiscal conservative. It was close, but he won; I supported him with my available resources.

Unfortunately this did not work with the last presidential election nor our current gubernatorial one.

I sent back notes to the RNC and state repub party when they come begging, but they seem to care less.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Nowhere have I said that I am against an amendment specifying term limits. However, I am pointing out the hypocrisy of many who claim to support such an amendment, but also support candidates who exceed the very limits they are proposing."

There's no hypocrisy at all involved. A voter would be a fool to vote against a long-serving legislator who he feels is doing a good job WITHOUT statutory term limits, due to the power incrued by that legislator from seniority, which would then be lost.

This is one of the main reasons IN FAVOR of statutory term limits, that it minimizes the loss of power from seniority.

[Truthsearcher]

The problem with this is that gerrymandering laws that are passed by those who got elected has made voting out incumbents nearly impossible.

The incumbents have rigged the game in their favor to make it virtually impossible to kick them out.

It’s actually a direct and blatant attempt to make and end run around the representative system. We do not have a real republic until the entire gerrymandering system is abolished.

My proposal is to have randomly drawn districts that changes every 2 years. That will more than anything ensure term limits.