A Constitutional Convention is Needed

[g5000]

My only response to that is that the 2 term limit on Presidents seems like a really good idea.

Stupid idea. The general public should be able to elect an executive leader for however many terms they desire. In our system we have a Legislative branch and a Judicial branch separate from the executive.

Do most people here know that Madison and others argued when creating a bill for establishing executive offices like Secretaries of War, Treasury, etc... they debated whether to make dismissing the Secretaries be made with the advice and consent rule, just as appointments were?

So a third Bush term would have been a good idea?

Looking back, you might have a point.

If he was able to run for re-election in 2008, Bush would have had as much chance as the proverbial snowball in Hell.

 

[percysunshine]

Senators...term limits....senile crazy old codgers and codgets stumbling around with power and incompetence, yet have managed to assemble an eternally corrupt re-election machine...

Then address the disease, not the symptom!

Term limits address the symptom.

Fix what's broken.

Term limits the way they are written are ridiculous and ineffective, and in many ways they create bigger problems...just look at California.

In CA., state legislators in their last mandated term often neglect the people the large district they represent, in favor of a smaller electorate they intend to serve at the local level. State Senators and Assemblymen can and do run for local office. So they are leaving the state legislature for a local representation seat...and we all know the more local you get the narrower the focus on issues. A wider electorate often views things differently than a narrower one....

think a water issue:

State = Local Famers, Residents, Business interests, Big Agriculture

Local = only Big Agriculture

The subject is amending the US Constitution, not state Constitutions.

Please try to keep up.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So a third Bush term would have been a good idea?

Looking back, you might have a point.

It's about principles and not personalities, and until you can grasp what a rational and reasonable discussion about a Con Con is all about, you will forever be relegated to the peanut gallery.

Who the particular individual happens to be that serves in the executive for an unlimited amount of terms is irrelevant to the discussion, if one wants to have a rational discussion based on principles....like the Framers did

 

[Foxfyre]

On Presidential term limits, if we passed the Amendment for Congress I proposed, that becomes much less of an issue. Perhaps term limits for a President who has such far reaching powers as nominating Supreme Court Justices makes more sense than they do for Congress. But take away Congress and the President's ability to enrich themselves in their positions, and we will be blessed with people who want to be true public servants and are more likely to do what is best for the entire country rather than what enriches themselves.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Then address the disease, not the symptom!

Term limits address the symptom.

Fix what's broken.

Term limits the way they are written are ridiculous and ineffective, and in many ways they create bigger problems...just look at California.

In CA., state legislators in their last mandated term often neglect the people the large district they represent, in favor of a smaller electorate they intend to serve at the local level. State Senators and Assemblymen can and do run for local office. So they are leaving the state legislature for a local representation seat...and we all know the more local you get the narrower the focus on issues. A wider electorate often views things differently than a narrower one....

think a water issue:

State = Local Famers, Residents, Business interests, Big Agriculture

Local = only Big Agriculture

The subject is the Federal Constitution, not state Constitutions.

Please try to keep up.

The post addressed the inadequacy of term limits, and you have revealed yourself to posses an intellect insufficient to grasp reasoned and rational responses.

 

[nodoginnafight]

On Presidential term limits, if we passed the Amendment for Congress I proposed, that becomes much less of an issue. Perhaps term limits for a President who has such far reaching powers as nominating Supreme Court Justices makes more sense than they do for Congress. But take away Congress and the President's ability to enrich themselves in their positions, and we will be blessed with people who want to be true public servants and are more likely to do what is best for the entire country rather than what enriches themselves.

.... or hyper-partisan zealots who are more than willing to suffer for the cause ...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

My only response to that is that the 2 term limit on Presidents seems like a really good idea.

I agree and the only distiction I can make is in the big difference in power that the individual president and the individual senator has. A president serving as long as ... say Robert Byrd or Strom Thurman would tip the balance of power more than a senator could.

But I understand that might be considered a slight distinction by many.

It is more an improbability than an impossibility that any executive would ever serve that long. The way our system is set up, we have a divided government...and what does that guarantee ...sort of...?

see this bit of brilliance: "If he was able to run for re-election in 2008, Bush would have had as much chance as the proverbial snowball in Hell."

 

[percysunshine]

So a third Bush term would have been a good idea?

Looking back, you might have a point.

It's about principles and not personalities, and until you can grasp what a rational and reasonable discussion about a Con Con is all about, you will forever be relegated to the peanut gallery.

Who the particular individual happens to be that serves in the executive for an unlimited amount of terms is irrelevant to the discussion, if one wants to have a rational discussion based on principles....like the Framers did

The argument for Senatorial term limits is the same for Presidential term limits. Ingrained interests and good ol' boy/girl networks get established that breed corruption. It is inevitable. The contrast with an every two year local community Representative in the House is obvious.

 

[Foxfyre]

On Presidential term limits, if we passed the Amendment for Congress I proposed, that becomes much less of an issue. Perhaps term limits for a President who has such far reaching powers as nominating Supreme Court Justices makes more sense than they do for Congress. But take away Congress and the President's ability to enrich themselves in their positions, and we will be blessed with people who want to be true public servants and are more likely to do what is best for the entire country rather than what enriches themselves.

.... or hyper-partisan zealots who are more than willing to suffer for the cause ...

Perhaps. But it has been my observation that the allure of colleague approval and the very lucrative perks of elected office at the federal level has the potential to corrupt the most fervent ideologue. It doesn't seem to take them long to start voting for what will keep them there amassing significant fortunes and opportunity for themselves rather than voting their consciences. It doesn't seem to take them long to learn how to cast nets and make more and more people dependent and voting who whomever will feed their dependencies.

So take away their ability to enrich themselves by dispensing favors and presumed benevolence and you remove the opportunist's reason to seek high office. Instead we get people committed to doing the best they can for America because that is the ONLY way they have to make things better for themselves.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

On Presidential term limits, if we passed the Amendment for Congress I proposed, that becomes much less of an issue. Perhaps term limits for a President who has such far reaching powers as nominating Supreme Court Justices makes more sense than they do for Congress. But take away Congress and the President's ability to enrich themselves in their positions, and we will be blessed with people who want to be true public servants and are more likely to do what is best for the entire country rather than what enriches themselves.

everything but the second and last sentences makes sense to Dante, maybe because Dante has proposed such things before.

Make them fund their own healthcare plan and 401K that they can take with them, at their own expense, when they leave office. Make them unable to exempt themselves from any law they pass. Make them sign an agreement that they will not work as a lobbyist for any group or entity for 10 years after leaving office. And make it illegal for them to use taxpayer funds to benefit any person, entity, state, municipality, or any other special interest that does not also benefit everybody else.

Why pay lifetime healthcare for a person who serves a limited amount of years? If a public financed policy...base it on time served.

Keeping somebody from lobbying after serving as Chief Executive seems reasonable...I am sure there are ways around it.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Stupid idea. The general public should be able to elect an executive leader for however many terms they desire.

I disagree.
The office of the presidency has evolved quite a bit over 230 years and we have codified a lot of what used to be vague notions of checks and balances to the point that I do not believe a three-plus term Bush would pose as big a threat to the balance of power as a three-plus term Washington could have been. But the power of the presidency - in the hands of one person - still justifies the two-term limit imho.

 

[Charles_Main]

to reassert our founding principles of federalism, i.e., State sovereignty and limits on Federal authority. Over the years, these principles have been "temporarily" suspended due to exigent circumstances such as wars and Southern segregation. For example, the Federal Income Tax, which was first established to finance World War I (the war Wilson promised to keep us out of), turned out to be the fox that has almost destroyed the chicken coop. Through this preeminent taxing and spending authority, the federal government was then able to circumvent virtually all of its Constitutional restrictions. More recently, a clearly unconstitutional 55 mph national speed limit was imposed by withholding federal highway dollars if States did not "voluntarily" adopt this limit.

There are certain areas where a broad consensus exits for the legitimate exercise of federal power. However, these have long been exceeded by political interest groups who have realized that they can exert their will on the entire nation by targeting specific Congressional elections with huge outside contributions. This may be the best argument for public financing of these elections.

At this point, the only way to limit federal imposition and reexert state authority may be for 2/3 of the States to call for a Constitutional Convention. Despite predictions of doom from its opponents, any proposed Constitutional Amendments resulting from this procedure would still require ratification by 3/4 of the States; the only difference being that it could not be held hostage by a small group of activists in the House or Senate.

So you don't like the idea of having to pass amendments you would rather have a convention and lower the standards for changing the Constitution, because you don't like it now eh?

lol

There is a process for changing the constitution, If you want to have a constitutional Convention to change it, perhaps you should Declare independence from DC and fight a bloody war for the right to do so, like the last time it happened.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So a third Bush term would have been a good idea?

Looking back, you might have a point.

It's about principles and not personalities, and until you can grasp what a rational and reasonable discussion about a Con Con is all about, you will forever be relegated to the peanut gallery.

Who the particular individual happens to be that serves in the executive for an unlimited amount of terms is irrelevant to the discussion, if one wants to have a rational discussion based on principles....like the Framers did

The argument for Senatorial term limits is the same for Presidential term limits. Ingrained interests and good ol' boy/girl networks get established that breed corruption. It is inevitable. The contrast with an every two year local community Representative in the House is obvious.

Actually the Senate (you truly need to beef up on early American history) is supposed to be a much slower deliberative body in the bi-cameral house/Congress. It is not supposed to function like the 2 year House. Familiarity with each other, national and local interests, and with the mechanics and rules of government may look bad to you...but...

The Presidency is an executive branch...I suggest you use Wikipedia to explain what you need to know about. Whether you will fully understand things is not a given

good luck

 

[g5000]

A Congressman is able to insert a rider giving a tax break to a special interest into any bill which happens to be in the pipeline.

In return, that Congressman gets a hefty bag of campaign money from that special interest group.

This scheme tilts the electoral field heavily in the incumbent's favor, and goes a long way toward explaining the 98 percent re-election rate of Congressmen. We have an American Politburo.

Ban tax expenditures, and the special interests will no longer have an incentive to give cash to the incumbent in exchange for tax breaks.

The government can ban tax expenditures without a Constitutional amendment.

However, since banning tax expenditures would go against the self-interest of the incumbents, then we might need the state legislatures to pass a Constitutional amendment banning them.

But then again, state legislators have their own state tax expenditure scheme going on...

 

[nodoginnafight]

On Presidential term limits, if we passed the Amendment for Congress I proposed, that becomes much less of an issue. Perhaps term limits for a President who has such far reaching powers as nominating Supreme Court Justices makes more sense than they do for Congress. But take away Congress and the President's ability to enrich themselves in their positions, and we will be blessed with people who want to be true public servants and are more likely to do what is best for the entire country rather than what enriches themselves.

.... or hyper-partisan zealots who are more than willing to suffer for the cause ...

Perhaps. But it has been my observation that the allure of colleague approval and the very lucrative perks of elected office at the federal level has the potential to corrupt the most fervent ideologue. It doesn't seem to take them long to start voting for what will keep them there amassing significant fortunes and opportunity for themselves rather than voting their consciences. It doesn't seem to take them long to learn how to cast nets and make more and more people dependent and voting who whomever will feed their dependencies.

So take away their ability to enrich themselves by dispensing favors and presumed benevolence and you remove the opportunist's reason to seek high office. Instead we get people committed to doing the best they can for America because that is the ONLY way they have to make things better for themselves.

I like the idea of using enlightened self interest as a means to promote the behavior you want. And I cannot argue at all about the corruptive power of the office as it is. I'm just fuzzy on how you balance "So take away their ability to enrich themselves by dispensing favors and presumed benevolence " and doing the people's work. In doing the people's work don't the decisions inevitably produce "winners" and "losers"?

Awarding a defense contract, for example, is always going to run the risk of being awarded on the basis of campaign contributions (or worse) instead of on merits.

I can't help thinking that it all boils down to campaign finance eventually.

 

[Flopper]

On Presidential term limits, if we passed the Amendment for Congress I proposed, that becomes much less of an issue. Perhaps term limits for a President who has such far reaching powers as nominating Supreme Court Justices makes more sense than they do for Congress. But take away Congress and the President's ability to enrich themselves in their positions, and we will be blessed with people who want to be true public servants and are more likely to do what is best for the entire country rather than what enriches themselves.

IMHO, there are very few competent people who want to be true public servants. Politics is about power, money, and influence. People may decide to run for public office with good intentions but just doesn't last.

 

[Foxfyre]

On Presidential term limits, if we passed the Amendment for Congress I proposed, that becomes much less of an issue. Perhaps term limits for a President who has such far reaching powers as nominating Supreme Court Justices makes more sense than they do for Congress. But take away Congress and the President's ability to enrich themselves in their positions, and we will be blessed with people who want to be true public servants and are more likely to do what is best for the entire country rather than what enriches themselves.

everything but the second and last sentences makes sense to Dante, maybe because Dante has proposed such things before.

Make them fund their own healthcare plan and 401K that they can take with them, at their own expense, when they leave office. Make them unable to exempt themselves from any law they pass. Make them sign an agreement that they will not work as a lobbyist for any group or entity for 10 years after leaving office. And make it illegal for them to use taxpayer funds to benefit any person, entity, state, municipality, or any other special interest that does not also benefit everybody else.

Why pay lifetime healthcare for a person who serves a limited amount of years? If a public financed policy...base it on time served.

Keeping somebody from lobbying after serving as Chief Executive seems reasonable...I am sure there are ways around it.

I don't see why there should be public financed health care or retirement plans for elected officials. On the theory it was never intended to be a career position for them, let them fund their own from their very lucrative salaries which will give them extra incentive to pass economically sound legislation and will also force them to live under the same laws they pass. And when they leave office they won't be taking lifetime multi million dollar retirement chests at our expense with them. The rule against lobbying is to keep them from passing legislation at the request of some big corporation or group who will pay them back with a lucrative position when they leave public office.

In other words they will have a lot more practical incentive to look after America and all Americans instead of their own selfish interests.

The President is a bit different since he continues to be a public figure on call to his country as needed. And we would need to think about that as to what post-Presidency rules should apply to him.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Stupid idea. The general public should be able to elect an executive leader for however many terms they desire.

I disagree.
The office of the presidency has evolved quite a bit over 230 years and we have codified a lot of what used to be vague notions of checks and balances to the point that I do not believe a three-plus term Bush would pose as big a threat to the balance of power as a three-plus term Washington could have been. But the power of the presidency - in the hands of one person - still justifies the two-term limit imho.

Since the first Presidency of George Washington, we as a nation have debated and struggled with the balance of powers. That is the nature of the beats and is part of the design...flaw or not...it is a wonderful exercise in democracy and government to behold.

Starting with Washington there has always been a potential..large or small, for an executive to become dictatorial. Alarmists have decried this as happening since day one...and what has happened when we have seen an executive abuse powers in a dictatorial way in times of crisis? Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, skip a few Lincoln, skip a few FDR, skip a few G.W. Bush...it all ended up for what I consider, the better.

We have come through things that would have crushed most nations and have. All in all, partisanship aside, G.W. Bush kept us safe...sure he brought us Iraq .. but open up the context to a larger picture and you will see The Republic Survives

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A Congressman is able to insert a rider giving a tax break to a special interest into any bill which happens to be in the pipeline.

In return, that Congressman gets a hefty bag of campaign money from that special interest group.

This scheme tilts the electoral field heavily in the incumbent's favor, and goes a long way toward explaining the 98 percent re-election rate of Congressmen. We have an American Politburo.

Ban tax expenditures, and the special interests will no longer have an incentive to give cash to the incumbent in exchange for tax breaks.

The government can ban tax expenditures without a Constitutional amendment.

However, since banning tax expenditures would go against the self-interest of the incumbents, then we might need the state legislatures to pass a Constitutional amendment banning them.

But then again, state legislators have their own state tax expenditure scheme going on...

Democracy is messy...always has been and always will be,...in spite of or maybe because of...the dogooders

 

[nodoginnafight]

Stupid idea. The general public should be able to elect an executive leader for however many terms they desire.

I disagree.
The office of the presidency has evolved quite a bit over 230 years and we have codified a lot of what used to be vague notions of checks and balances to the point that I do not believe a three-plus term Bush would pose as big a threat to the balance of power as a three-plus term Washington could have been. But the power of the presidency - in the hands of one person - still justifies the two-term limit imho.

Since the first Presidency of George Washington, we as a nation have debated and struggled with the balance of powers. That is the nature of the beats and is part of the design...flaw or not...it is a wonderful exercise in democracy and government to behold.

Starting with Washington there has always been a potential..large or small, for an executive to become dictatorial. Alarmists have decried this as happening since day one...and what has happened when we have seen an executive abuse powers in a dictatorial way in times of crisis? Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, skip a few Lincoln, skip a few FDR, skip a few G.W. Bush...it all ended up for what I consider, the better.

We have come through things that would have crushed most nations and have. All in all, partisanship aside, G.W. Bush kept us safe...sure he brought us Iraq .. but open up the context to a larger picture and you will see The Republic Survives

Of course Washington had the biggest opportunity to become dictatorial and there have been many who have pushed the envelope ... the one thing that remained consistent in every case except one was the two term limit.

So, as you say, it has been working well. It is sometimes messy but that is what we signed up for anyway. And eventually it has always come out in the wash ... with that two term limit in place. (Whether by tradition or by law.)