Opinions large and small, worth everything you pay for them.
Sorry Firehand, NO NO and NO F'ing way will I ever vote for a Constitutional Amendment term-limiting MY representation in Congress. I would much prefer an INFORMED electorate over some dimwit in Washington (take your pick) telling me who can and cannot represent me and my neighbors. In essence what you are advocating for is allowing the other 434 congressional districts determine who can represent you in Congress. That is a non-starter with me.Instead, let's advocate for an amendment to REPEAL the 17th Amendment and return control of the Senate back to the several states.Sarge, Out
At this point, I fear the only way to get any real turnover is this. Yeah, I'd go for it.As to the 17th, why not both?
What we have now and what the "founders" envisioned as representatives is like comparing apples and oranges. The founding fathers intended people who served as legislators to be "gentlemen". You would have to put that term in context with the time period of when the Constitution was written to fully understand what I am about to say. That definition of a gentleman would cause libs to "flip their wigs" today. In 1787 America a "gentleman" was first of all a honorable MAN. It was also a man who had matured, established himself in society and was financially grounded. Early representatives were not paid salaries, but only a small per diem. The idea was that men who were established would be far less likely to be corrupted by self-serving interests, bribes, and possess the wisdom to govern, etc. What we have today is some members who view their seat as their vocation. Many "serve" as a means to make a living and to further their political agenda. They could care less about representing their constituency. I am not stating all members are this way, but there are too many who do. I can tell you that our congressional representative from my district whose father was a circuit judge (career politician) graduated from law school, worked at small law firm doing clerical tasks (never took the BAR), picked a great time to throw his hat in the ring at a very early age, was elected, still serving, and has a net worth of over 17 million dollars today. He does a good job for the most part and I really can't think of anyone to replace him. Many members like him are elected, adept at playing the political game and while in office amass such a "war chest" that they cannot be defeated. Some of these have the best interest of the people and nation in mind. Some do not. This is true in the House and Senate. Many concentrate on the winning next election/fund raising right after being sworn in rather than truly serving the people. I have heard people say "we already have term limits" meaning we can vote in and out who we wish. While this is true to some degree, elected officials can also "buy" votes among their constituents. If anyone doesn't believe it just look how the "free shit people" in every "hive" in America votes. Theyare totally blue. I would be for amending the constitution to serving no more than three terms consecutively in the House and two consecutive terms in the Senate. After a "break" the politician would be a liberty to run for office again (unlike the president). This would aid in preventing a monopoly of power/corruption. We have too many career politicians who perpetually buy their seat one way or the other.
I favor terms limits, and I think two should be about right. One in office, one in prison.
Now that sounds like a plan Anon.
I agree with sarge, but I also think that NO elected position should come with a pension.
Post a Comment