Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

For term limits

January 15, 2014

"We the people..." Have our congressional leaders forgotten what the Preamble of the Constitution of the United States says? Our leaders should be representing Americans....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(42)

AnnoyingKidFromLoyalsock

Jan-23-14 2:36 PM

If your senator or representative is doing his/her job..why would you want them to be removed? Once again, this is either someone who is opposed to a politician from another state/district, or a member of the political party minority in their district. Nothing to see here.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BubbaZanetti

Jan-16-14 8:56 PM

Merc: "Loading a muzzleloader took 10 minutes to load one round" You clearly know nothing about loading and shooting a muzzleloader. Care to explain how the Tea Party is destroying America?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MECURY2

Jan-16-14 8:15 PM

USABORN: You're right, who would have ever thought there would be over 300 million people in the USA when all those documents were written back then. And who would have thought when the second ammendment was written we would have guns that would fire 300 rounds in a minute? Loading a muzzleloader took 10 minutes to load one round!!!! One more thing,it's was great back then we had to major parties running our country and now we have gain a lot of ground by allowing children to have their own party ie:"Tea Party"! "God bless America till the Tea Party destroys it."

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MECURY2

Jan-16-14 7:58 PM

Just think,if we had G.W. in for a third term we would all be on foodstamps!

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

USABorn

Jan-16-14 11:26 AM

I don't think those who wrote the Constitution ever dreamed of 300+ million people in the U.S., or the millions and millions of dollars a representative would have to raise EACH election.

How can anyone object to changing a rep's term to 4 years instead of two? Out of every two years, one is spent raising money and campaigning. I ask again, how does that benefit the constituent?

I also want to know WHY (2} 4-year terms is not sufficient for a senator OR rep, when it is sufficient for the president, the supposedly most important office in the world?

An apartment building in D.C. dedicated to those "serving?" Most of those "serving" can afford a home at home as well as one in D.C.!!!! After all, you claim only the rich can run.......

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

ToTEXASfromPA

Jan-15-14 8:28 PM

Carl, et al, thanks for addressing my question.

There is probably some benefit to term limits but the question is how many terms since there is a balance between needing knowledge/experience/leadership vs passing too many laws that benefit those that got them elected in office and not the citizens.

Even with that stated, I look at the selfishness vs. helpfulness, dependency vs. independence, greediness vs. philanthropy, humanism vs. god-centeredness, morality, liberty vs control, etc. of this nation and I think that generally the current representatives represent the cross section our citizens.

If we want to change the decisions of our representatives, we need to change the hearts and minds of our citizens to the standards that I think are right. There needs to be a revival/rebirth.

Lobbyist, tax exempt political organizations, political favors are also big factors.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JohnZook

Jan-15-14 4:02 PM

As long as it's up to the politicians themselves to create and pass these "fixes" we won't see any changes in length of terms. The politicians control their own destiny. One way to address this would possibly be a "Convention of States".

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Fredzz

Jan-15-14 3:22 PM

CarlHiller...

That's it, individual Term limits to enable removing the current, Corruption and then Individual "" Party "" [ term limits ] to prevent what we have now from ever happening again..!

CAN WE THE PEOPLE MAKE IT HAPPEN....??

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Jan-15-14 1:59 PM

Johnny, the only way we’re going to get a proper government is to elect the right people and I doubt if I’ll be around long enough to see that happen. The reason a free people choose to have a government is to protect their rights by establishing the rule of law and to provide things like interstate infrastructure, regulate foreign access to our markets and a military. I believe our founding documents limit government to that. Nothing has changed as our country has grown that would change those principles. As for your examples concerning pollution and so on, those things are and should be against the law.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Jan-15-14 1:57 PM

I don’t oppose term-limits; I just believe they’re little more than a band-aid. It’s not only re-election campaigns that benefit from lobbying.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

johnnyad3

Jan-15-14 1:11 PM

...to this smaller government.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

johnnyad3

Jan-15-14 1:06 PM

Phil - I understand your point of view, and while you think it may look good on paper, I don't see it happening. For one thing, the size and population of our country has grown. In 1790, the first US census showed 3.9 Million people living in 16 states. The first factory opened then. Industry was practically non-existent compared to today. The chemicals and materials we have today are more complex, harmful to the environment, and some deadly. Petroleum seeps were used but the first oil well wasn't until 1859.

The second part of my post dealt with the founders agreement on "direction". You make it seem like all the founders were on the same page when they weren't. Hamilton and Adams had different views for the direction of our newly formed government compared to Jefferson and Madison.

Do you really believe there are candidates that believe government is the solution to ALL problems?

And I still don't know what changes you advocate that would get us to this smaller

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

Jan-15-14 12:57 PM

Term limits are not the answer. It is the 2 party system that is the greatest threat, and the founders warned us about it. John Adams: "There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution." George Washington's farewell speech: "The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism." It is the 2 parties that need term limited.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

nobud74

Jan-15-14 12:53 PM

Mr. Reeder, since you saw fit to claim the only reason anyone wants term limits is because conservatives want to kill everyone and take away voting rights and on and on (you didn't exactly articulate this, but that is your usual rant) I merely pointed out that there are many libs being put back into office repeatedly who really need to go. But, where I fully support the removal of as many pols as quickly as possible, you seem to always believe "your guy" is just hunky dory. How's that Kool-Aid taste?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CarlHiller

Jan-15-14 12:51 PM

It is not that people don't vote smart, though I would agree that way too many just pull the party lever. The Founding Fathers did not desire the existence of political parties, viewing them as "factions" dangerous to the public interest. Which has become a proven. We have become entirely dependent on the parties to tell us who to vote for and elect. The Founders were republicans, that is why America was created as a Republic, not the George Bush, John McCain or Karl Rove Republicans; they were what we would call today, classical liberals, and that is also not the liberal of today. They believed that in order for a representative government to be successful those who were elected needed to subordinate individual personal interests to the welfare of the whole. Politics has become about conflict, division and power over others not about a common goal or good or even the Constitution.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Jan-15-14 12:35 PM

Phil, the problem is, a candidate may go into office with all the best intentions, however, senior leadership will bully the freshmen into conforming to business as usual. That is part of my reasoning behind supporting term limits. Until we get those out of leadership that have been there for decades and corrupted by the system, I don't see things changing. Voters do a lousy job voting out their guy that have been in office that long and have accumulated the power and money to stay in office. The fact is, too many voters cast their ballot based on name recognition.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jan-15-14 12:32 PM

Another thing that term limits could do is eliminate gridlock. If politicians do not have to vote the party line in order to secure the party's support in reelection, then they would be free to vote their conscience. It would lessen the power of the party structure and return that power to the people. There is one down side to term limits and that is that politicians in there last term aren't as worried about voter retaliation either, but that isn't that big a deal because they don't worry about that much now because the party takes care of it.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

enigma

Jan-15-14 11:50 AM

"As long as the system encourages favoritism through laws and regulations that benefit some at the expense of others, term limits will make little, if any, difference." - Phil

You miss the point. The reason politicians pass laws that favor some over others is that the some give them money for their reelection campaigns. Term limits would eliminate the need for campaign funds, thus the effectiveness of lobbyists and the laws that choose favorites. The best fix would be for people to think before they vote, but good luck with that. The next best thing is term limits. BTW, term limits does change the system.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Jan-15-14 11:43 AM

Johnny and Cap, voting for candidates that believe government is the answer to all problems certainly isn’t the answer. Voting for candidates that want to reduce the size, cost and influence of government would be a step in the right direction. However, no matter how good a candidate sounds, he or she can do nothing unless he or she gets elected. Johnny, I base my opinion about what our founders wanted by studying their writings and our founding documents.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Jan-15-14 11:19 AM

I agree Phil, I'm just wondering what steps need to be taken to set us down that path and if these are steps that congressional leaders would agree to. I think you would run into the same problem you would have attempting to institute term limits; the inability to pass legislation that would change business as usual on Capitol Hill.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

johnnyad3

Jan-15-14 11:17 AM

Phil - you could be a politician. I saw Cap asked a good question and that you answered but then I saw you didn't answer him at all. Just some vague assertions about what you think the founders wanted. What was the direction you think the founders wanted and do you think they all agreed to that direction? And like Cap asked, what changes are you advocating?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JohnZook

Jan-15-14 10:52 AM

Reeder- "The right hates choice"

Oh, you mean school choice for instance; yep, they are all about being beholden to the Teachers Union who finances the Republican National Committee. (sarcasm intended)

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Jan-15-14 10:18 AM

Cap, moving government in the direction of what was intended by our founders would be a start, If we ever get there, term limits will be unnecessary because there’d be no purpose for lobbyists seeking favors.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Jan-15-14 10:02 AM

Phil, what changes to the system are you advocating that you feel would change the way business is conducted on Capitol Hill?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Jan-15-14 9:52 AM

As long as the system encourages favoritism through laws and regulations that benefit some at the expense of others, term limits will make little, if any, difference. If we’re going to see changes, we’re going to have to change the system. One side blaming corporations and the other side blaming politicians is nothing more than foolish partisanship.

It’s the system, stupid.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 42 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web