Right now those in Congress spend 100% of their time fundraising AND VOTING for their next elections. If they knew they could only serve for 2 terms, they'd be more inclined to do the right thing, rather than what potential voters or their party apparatus wants IMO.
I realize it's antithetical to the argument in favor of lifetime terms for Supreme Court justices - that lifetime appointments will somehow make them unconcerned with partisanship and therefore more likely to decide cases based on the Constitution rather than their partisan feelings. So how's that been working out for us, hmmm? Not too damn well! So bad, in fact, more and more are starting to suggest that their terms should be limited as well! If there is no incentive to shape every sentence and vote with the next election in mind, I think it's human nature that people would be more likely to do the right thing, rather than the politically expedient thing. Also, when this government was formed, Congress was made up of average, everyday Americans - not the ruling political class we have now that pay themselves FAR more than the average American and who receive FAR more benefits than them as well. I've said for years that we should go back to having a part-time legislature that meets 2-3 times per year, and to pay these assholes accordingly! On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 11:05:18 AM UTC-4, MJ wrote: > > > > Again, if the PARTY MACHINE can merely replace Cog A with Cog B and then > Cog C, Cog D, Cog, E .... > What has been accomplished? > NOTHING. > > The ONLY thing a term limit amendment accomplishes is limiting the time > each Party Machine Cog has to do the Party Machine's bidding. > > Regard$, > --MJ > > "The fundamental problem is not that the elections are rigged, not that > the candidates are reprehensible scumbags, not that the news media are > lickspittle lapdogs for incumbents and the establishment, not that election > turnout is low and public ignorance of the issues high. No, the fundamental > problem is the existence of the state. Absent this essentially criminal > enterprise, there would be no need for elections to public offices, > candidates and politicking for such offices, political reporting, or > anyone's knowledge of politics and its countless inanities and corruptions. > Absent the state, people could occupy themselves with more honest, > productive, and beautiful activities. > "However, without the state it would be vastly more difficult for large > numbers of people to get (or imagine they are getting) something for > nothing and to abuse their neighbors to gratify their own twisted sense of > morality or virtue or proper conduct. For these ends, the means best suited > to the purpose is definitely the state. So, let us give three cheers for > the state: without it, we just wouldn't be able to enjoy the kind of > rotten-to-the-core society that now envelopes us." -- Robert Higgs > > > > At 10:53 AM 10/23/2016, you wrote: > > I understand the argument against term limits, and I used to be one that > was opposed. > > The fact is that the incumbent has such a huge advantage over anyone > running against them in the first place that this in and of itself is > inherently unfair. > > We start treading on Constitutional waters when we start limiting who, or > how much a political candidate can accept as a contribution from anyone or > source. An incumbent is always going to attract better funding than a > challenger. > > Just as important, we have a lot of stupid voters. No matter how corrupt > or disingenuous a politician is, voters are more likely than not to > continue to relect the incumbent, and for various reasons. This most > recent election where Paul Ryan and John McCain had to viable, strong and > well funded candidates running against them in their respective primaries > proves my point.' > > No;  the time for term limits has come. > > > > On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 10:28 AM, MJ <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > As previously noted, term limits for Congress solve NOTHING (other than, > potentially, eliminating liberty). > ALL federal employees are non-essential. These persons should be culled > not merely prevented from being added. > ALL regulations need to go ... we do not need any added. > Were government following the Constitution, these lobbyists would be > largely/wholly eliminated WITHOUT further extra-constitutional effort. > > Why treat symptoms rather than the disease? > > Regard$, > --MJ > > "Nothing is less productive than to make more efficient what should not be > done at all" -- Peter Drucker > > > > > At 01:41 PM 10/22/2016, you wrote: > > Geesh I love this! > > [image: []] > â€â€¹ > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >  > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="2016.10.22.Trump.Gettysburg.jpg" > Content-Disposition: inline; filename="2016.10.22.Trump.Gettysburg.jpg" > Content-ID: <ii_iulhroqh0_157ed7b500367a3e> > X-Attachment-Id: ii_iulhroqh0_157ed7b500367a3e > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >  > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] <javascript:>. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > Content-Type: image/jpeg; name="8fb54e03.jpg"; x-mac-type=4A504547; > x-mac-creator=4A565752 > Content-Disposition: inline; filename="8fb54e03.jpg" > Content-ID: <[email protected]> > X-Attachment-Id: 79588f120245905c_0.1 > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
