Views on Term Limits

[trdsf]

Until recently I would have disagreed.  But honestly, I can't come up with a good argument against this anymore.

But I think it needs to be a long time to keep the partisan gaming down.  Maybe one term of 20 to 25 years.  I know that presidents try and stack the deck by electing young people now-a-days so that they can stay on forever... Thus my hand IS being tilted towards term limits on these guys too.

There's a good reason to leave justices on the court for long periods, at least from my political viewpoint: almost to a person, Supreme Court justices become more liberal the longer they're on the court.  It's quite unusual for a justice to become significantly more conservative over their term:



I'll reply to your other post later when I have more time -- good points that need to be addressed!

[josephpalazzo]

The supreme court did restrict the right to gerrymander by the political parties - but it takes an act of will by the people to make it effective in each state. 

A partial victory.

Here is a link:  http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/06/29/supreme-court-arizona-congress-maps/27400015/

Thanks for the article. As you've said, it's a partial victory 5-4, and who knows in how many states people will insist in taking the power to redraw those congressional lines  into their hands. It's a long way to be a done deal.

[GreatLife]

There's a good reason to leave justices on the court for long periods, at least from my political viewpoint: almost to a person, Supreme Court justices become more liberal the longer they're on the court.  It's quite unusual for a justice to become significantly more conservative over their term:

That is a good chart that I hadn't seen before.  Also shows that the supreme court has been under conservative leadership for many years now...

[GreatLife]

Thanks for the article. As you've said, it's a partial victory 5-4, and who knows in how many states people will insist in taking the power to redraw those congressional lines  into their hands. It's a long way to be a done deal.

Yes, I am in total agreement with you.  But it is a start...

[trdsf]

I don't necessarily disagree with your sentiments.  I would prefer an educated electorate - which technically we have.  The problem seems to be willful ignorance due to some echo chamber effect.

I really wish I could disagree about willful ignorance, but I can't.  I can place some of the blame on the mass media, who prefer to entertain rather than to inform and educate, but obviously not all of it goes there.

Nope - term limits for everyone.  A strong president won't have the problem you state, IMO.  Our current president courted this type of divisiveness as much as anyone.  Bill Clinton had a far worse relationship with congress and still got things done, for example.

I consider term limits a limitation on my ability to freely choose my representation in government.  If I am satisfied with my representatives, why should I be compelled to lose them just because a calendar date is crossed, and not for any actual inability on their part?

I disagree that Clinton had a worse relationship -- it was highly combative, even unto the attempted coup d'etat they called an impeachment, but the House and Senate would after much bitching and moaning sit down and hammer out a deal of some sort with him and things got done.  Nowadays they say 'no' before President Obama has even offered a proposal, and sitting down to sort out a compromise isn't an option for them.

Can you imagine any previous Senate declaring that they would reject any nominee before they even knew who it was?  Certainly the Democratic-led Senates in 1988 and 1972 didn't say they would reject out of hand the appointees by Reagan (Anthony Kennedy) and Nixon (William Rehnquist and Lewis Powell) in those election years.  And no Congress has ever refused to receive a budget proposal from a President before -- many have been rejected or heavily modified, but never before has one been refused sight unseen.  So I rather disagree that our 'current president' bears the blame for the divisiveness in DC.  This is much more due to GOP intransigence.

Totally agree with you on this point.  And I would be willing to let the president be elected to two six year terms.  Seems like a better system to me to help minimize the influence of money.  It would also help to eliminate the lame duck effect that you objected to.

That doesn't really eliminate the lame duck effect, though.  It just moves it back a couple years.  A middle between the two would be limited to two consecutive terms, with the option to come back later rather than a lifetime limit of just the two.

But then you have to consider all the other "territories" of the US.  Guam, Puerto Rico for starters - what happens to them?  I don't have a problem with DC getting representation - but it would become the second smallest state.  People complain about Wyoming only having 500,000 people and 3 electoral college representatives.  You would be adding to the problem with a new state.  We have enough issues with a bloated government without adding a new state composed of (nearly) all government employees.  Just doesn't sound right to me.

Certainly Puerto Rico qualifies as a state-sized entity: with a population estimated at 3.4 million this year, it would be the 29th or 30th largest state and have four or five Congressional seats, not just one.  And to the best of my knowledge, only DC and PR have active and meaningful statehood movements, so unless things change in the various insular areas, these are the only ones that seriously need to be considered.

What would happen in the House is probably exactly what happened the last time states were added: until the next reapportionment, there would be additional House members, then it would be reset back to 435 again and the 'new' delegates made part of that total.  Probably the most populous states would lose one each to bring it back down to that number, or the ones on the bubble between having one more or one less -- I might sit down and work out a projected apportionment tonight, the formula isn't complex.

So when Alaska and Hawaii were added in 1959, the size of the House was temporarily 437 members; after the 1960 census and reapportionment, it was back down to 435.

The number of Senators would be 104, of course.  That's set by the Constitution at two per state.  But the number of representatives is essentially decided by statute.  It's been fixed at 435 since 1917, excluding the brief bump after the admission of the last two states.  We can probably count ourselves lucky -- the Constitution only mandates that there shall not be more than one representative per 30,000 people -- we could have a House of almost 10,300 members!

So bloat is not realistically a concern.  The House would remain the same size, most likely.  Puerto Rico already functions more or less as a state/commonwealth so there wouldn't be much additional bureaucracy added.  It would free up some federal bureaucracy for DC to be a state, as Congress would no longer be responsible for much of its "municipal" affairs.

I would prefer to simply add them into an existing state as a city.  Gets rid of federal control and they can then be adequately represented as a major city in an actual state.

That's a solution, certainly, but I don't think it's one that Washingtonians would want, since it would cost them their own representative and two Senators, and puts some of the control of the Federal district in the hands of an existing state.  Given the distinct nature of DC as a territory, I think it would be better served locally as an entity unto itself.  It is of a different character than either Maryland or Virginia.

[Baruch]

I like a version of what they have in GB.  If a Congress fails to pass a budget, they should all resign, and all positions are up for re-election.  Also they don't get any pay for that year.  The reason why the Constitution has failed, is because it is a crappy design.  The Founders were very naive people.

As it is, the intransigence is such, I would suspend the Constitution, and put Raul Castro in as dictator ;-)  Among Cubans, I trust him more than Rubio or Cruz!  And we would immediately have free health care, just like Cuba.

[GreatLife]

Thanks for the history lesson - really good stuff.

I really wish I could disagree about willful ignorance, but I can't.  I can place some of the blame on the mass media, who prefer to entertain rather than to inform and educate, but obviously not all of it goes there.
I consider term limits a limitation on my ability to freely choose my representation in government.  If I am satisfied with my representatives, why should I be compelled to lose them just because a calendar date is crossed, and not for any actual inability on their part?

Hadn't thought about that point of view... not sure that I am sympathetic to it either.  Let me think about this and I might respond later.

I disagree that Clinton had a worse relationship -- it was highly combative, even unto the attempted coup d'etat they called an impeachment, but the House and Senate would after much bitching and moaning sit down and hammer out a deal of some sort with him and things got done.  Nowadays they say 'no' before President Obama has even offered a proposal, and sitting down to sort out a compromise isn't an option for them.

My belief is that this is racism.  I will concede the point - but just barely.

Can you imagine any previous Senate declaring that they would reject any nominee before they even knew who it was?  Certainly the Democratic-led Senates in 1988 and 1972 didn't say they would reject out of hand the appointees by Reagan (Anthony Kennedy) and Nixon (William Rehnquist and Lewis Powell) in those election years.  And no Congress has ever refused to receive a budget proposal from a President before -- many have been rejected or heavily modified, but never before has one been refused sight unseen.  So I rather disagree that our 'current president' bears the blame for the divisiveness in DC.  This is much more due to GOP intransigence.

I believe that he has allowed the republican congress to define who he is.  Rather than taking a sensible stance - he takes an opposite extreme stance.  That is not the way that Clinton played the game - extreme stances caused him to move to the middle and seek common ground.  That is what a real leader does, IMO.  But that is also how we got the Defense of Marriage Act passed into law... that is also how we got the "Don't ask, Don't tell" policy.

Why am I arguing against myself?  Mostly cause this is a tough one for me and I want to acknowledge that fact.

That doesn't really eliminate the lame duck effect, though.  It just moves it back a couple years.  A middle between the two would be limited to two consecutive terms, with the option to come back later rather than a lifetime limit of just the two.

I could agree with this one...

So bloat is not realistically a concern.  The House would remain the same size, most likely.  Puerto Rico already functions more or less as a state/commonwealth so there wouldn't be much additional bureaucracy added.  It would free up some federal bureaucracy for DC to be a state, as Congress would no longer be responsible for much of its "municipal" affairs.
That's a solution, certainly, but I don't think it's one that Washingtonians would want, since it would cost them their own representative and two Senators, and puts some of the control of the Federal district in the hands of an existing state.  Given the distinct nature of DC as a territory, I think it would be better served locally as an entity unto itself.  It is of a different character than either Maryland or Virginia.

Certainly VA is not a good fit... but Maryland?  I believe that this would help both Maryland and DC.

The real problem that I see, overall, is that the new territories are going to vote almost exclusively Democrat - so the Republicans will never allow any new states.

[trdsf]

Certainly VA is not a good fit... but Maryland?  I believe that this would help both Maryland and DC.

The real problem that I see, overall, is that the new territories are going to vote almost exclusively Democrat - so the Republicans will never allow any new states.

I think we've cleared away most of the underbrush -- we're both coming from a sensible place and get different interpretations by sensible means.

I do want to follow up this last, though.

This is not as certain as it seems -- Puerto Rico's governor is from the New Progressive Party which, despite the word 'progressive' (it's used here as in 'progress toward statehood'), generally is the conservative party in PR, and since this is the stronger pro-statehood party, I wouldn't be surprised if the party reaped the representational rewards of statehood.  The situation is complicated -- both major parties in PR have members who individually affiliate with both parties on the mainland.  But a slate of Ds in the House and Senate is far from a sure thing.  And by complicated, I mean complicated -- the NPP is the 'conservative' party but the current governor is aligned with the Democratic party.  The governor he defeated was from the center-left Popular Democratic Party... and he identified as a Republican.  I'm still scratching my head over that one.

Guam's governor and lt-governor are also both Republicans as are those of the Northern Marianas, and the governor of the US Virgin Islands is registered as a Republican but ran as an Independent.  American Samoa has Democrats as governor and lt-governor, but sent a Republican to Congress as their non-voting delegate.

So I'm not sure it's a clear run for the Dems (outside of DC, where yeah, it's a D sweep) in any of the territories, though they do trend Democratic.

So it's more of a mixed bag.  A clean sweep would certainly be enough to tip the balance in the Senate, but it would fall far, far short in the House -- at most, we're talking eight or nine new representatives, and the GOP majority is well clear of that.