Line Item Veto has got to come back!

[Big Fitz]

If you automatically lose your job why try to work "for the people"?

The reasoning behind term limits has never made sense to me.

Simple. Spoiled politicians are bad for the public diet and need to be thrown out. I love the Robin Williams quip too.

 

[2Parties]

If you automatically lose your job why try to work "for the people"?

The reasoning behind term limits has never made sense to me.

Simple. Spoiled politicians are bad for the public diet and need to be thrown out. I love the Robin Williams quip too.

My point is this (I think you missed it).

From a politicians point of view: If I'm automatically going to lose my positions in government why should I give a crap about my constituents? Why should I even show up to vote? Why should I even care? Shouldn't I just get a few benefits from some lobbyists, ignore any incoming messages from my district/state, have no meetings with them, etc.? I now have even less incentive to pretend like you matter.

 

[goldcatt]

You ever want to buy produce that's been on the shelf too long and gone bad?

Same thing here. You can't depend on the public to buy all the produce and get it off the shelf before it goes bad. Nor can you trust them to remove all the politicians from office before they go bad too.

You need the law to act as stock boy, pull the bad politicians and throw them away where they cannot harm anyone else.

This is the essence of term limits: Product safety for and from politicians.

Get a leash on the money. Get rid of the gerrymandering that artificially protects seats. You'll get your turnover without limiting the People's choices at the voting booth. It's a win-win.

Did you see what I wrote earlier in the discussion. Touched pretty much on all of that.

I did see it, and I agreed with all of it except artifical term limits.

For example, I have the usual Congresscritter and two Senators. My congresscritter is a crook, and one of the Senators is a sellout. But my other Senator is someone I think is doing a good job. Why should I not be allowed to vote for him again, if the money and gerrymandering are no longer breeding the same kind of corruption? Now you're just limiting my choices instead of tackling the source of the problem.

Put in term limits without fixing the political system and all you have is a bunch of n00bs scrambling that much harder to line their pockets and position themselves for another job in the little time they have available. What good does that do?

 

[Big Fitz]

Get a leash on the money. Get rid of the gerrymandering that artificially protects seats. You'll get your turnover without limiting the People's choices at the voting booth. It's a win-win.

Did you see what I wrote earlier in the discussion. Touched pretty much on all of that.

I did see it, and I agreed with all of it except artifical term limits.

For example, I have the usual Congresscritter and two Senators. My congresscritter is a crook, and one of the Senators is a sellout. But my other Senator is someone I think is doing a good job. Why should I not be allowed to vote for him again, if the money and gerrymandering are no longer breeding the same kind of corruption? Now you're just limiting my choices instead of tackling the source of the problem.

Put in term limits without fixing the political system and all you have is a bunch of n00bs scrambling that much harder to line their pockets and position themselves for another job in the little time they have available. What good does that do?

Then put competency exams to weed out incompetent n00bs. Should do that even without term limits.

Name one national politician with more than 20 years in office that doesn't have a lot of shady goings on happening around him, or isn't a sellout or outright crook. I think it's safe to say you may at best count em on 1 hand. That one hand's worth is not worth protecting as compared to flushing the dozens who suck. It's a numbers game after a while, and the percentages are NOT in the public's favor to let them run till they decide to not run anymore. Too many times, history has born this out.

 

[goldcatt]

Did you see what I wrote earlier in the discussion. Touched pretty much on all of that.

I did see it, and I agreed with all of it except artifical term limits.

For example, I have the usual Congresscritter and two Senators. My congresscritter is a crook, and one of the Senators is a sellout. But my other Senator is someone I think is doing a good job. Why should I not be allowed to vote for him again, if the money and gerrymandering are no longer breeding the same kind of corruption? Now you're just limiting my choices instead of tackling the source of the problem.

Put in term limits without fixing the political system and all you have is a bunch of n00bs scrambling that much harder to line their pockets and position themselves for another job in the little time they have available. What good does that do?

Then put competency exams to weed out incompetent n00bs. Should do that even without term limits.

Name one national politician with more than 20 years in office that doesn't have a lot of shady goings on happening around him, or isn't a sellout or outright crook. I think it's safe to say you may at best count em on 1 hand. That one hand's worth is not worth protecting as compared to flushing the dozens who suck. It's a numbers game after a while, and the percentages are NOT in the public's favor to let them run till they decide to not run anymore. Too many times, history has born this out.

But it is in the public's favor to give them freedom of choice at the ballot box. The problem is money, the revolving door, money, artificially protected seats, money, the two parties, money and the corruption the whole soup breeds. So tackle the real causes of the corruption and leave the ballot box alone.

 

[AVG-JOE]

If you automatically lose your job why try to work "for the people"?

The reasoning behind term limits has never made sense to me.

Simple. Spoiled politicians are bad for the public diet and need to be thrown out. I love the Robin Williams quip too.

My point is this (I think you missed it).

From a politicians point of view: If I'm automatically going to lose my positions in government why should I give a crap about my constituents? Why should I even show up to vote? Why should I even care? Shouldn't I just get a few benefits from some lobbyists, ignore any incoming messages from my district/state, have no meetings with them, etc.? I now have even less incentive to pretend like you matter.

Because politicians with term limits would work for two things in addition to their modest federal paycheck:

1) Their reputation and the job they hope to land in the private sector when their tour of duty is over.

2) Their place in the history books.

Limiting the amount of time they have to accomplish those goals would make them work harder and smarter, not blow-off their duty.

Career politicians think they have all the time in the world to make history and are more concerned with what they can take to the bank during their time of service instead of afterwards.

There are few viable arguments against term limits.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Get a leash on the money. Get rid of the gerrymandering that artificially protects seats. You'll get your turnover without limiting the People's choices at the voting booth. It's a win-win.

Did you see what I wrote earlier in the discussion. Touched pretty much on all of that.

I did see it, and I agreed with all of it except artifical term limits.

For example, I have the usual Congresscritter and two Senators. My congresscritter is a crook, and one of the Senators is a sellout. But my other Senator is someone I think is doing a good job. Why should I not be allowed to vote for him again, if the money and gerrymandering are no longer breeding the same kind of corruption? Now you're just limiting my choices instead of tackling the source of the problem.

Put in term limits without fixing the political system and all you have is a bunch of n00bs scrambling that much harder to line their pockets and position themselves for another job in the little time they have available. What good does that do?

If nothing else, term limits would reduce the value of mercenary lobbying by at least half. I say that that alone would be worth any productivity costs of term limits.

Hell, in theory our representatives should be bored to tears. Playing Monopoly or any other game would SUCK if players could change the basic rules at their own whim - our representatives should be dealing with disasters and the unexpected, not the everyday rules we do business by. You'd think that 225 years into the game, the base rules for play should be set already.

 

[goldcatt]

Did you see what I wrote earlier in the discussion. Touched pretty much on all of that.

I did see it, and I agreed with all of it except artifical term limits.

For example, I have the usual Congresscritter and two Senators. My congresscritter is a crook, and one of the Senators is a sellout. But my other Senator is someone I think is doing a good job. Why should I not be allowed to vote for him again, if the money and gerrymandering are no longer breeding the same kind of corruption? Now you're just limiting my choices instead of tackling the source of the problem.

Put in term limits without fixing the political system and all you have is a bunch of n00bs scrambling that much harder to line their pockets and position themselves for another job in the little time they have available. What good does that do?

If nothing else, term limits would reduce the value of mercenary lobbying by at least half. I say that that alone would be worth any productivity costs of term limits.

Hell, in theory our representatives should be bored to tears. Playing Monopoly or any other game would SUCK if players could change the basic rules at their own whim - our representatives should be dealing with disasters and the unexpected, not the everyday rules we do business by. You'd think that 225 years into the game, the base rules for play should be set already.

Ideally you'd be right about the value of lobbying. But I tend to think the higher turnover would lead to the term limited congresscritters to scramble more fo rthe plum positions, and that means making more deals faster for their future patrons.

But since this is all a bunch of pipe dreams that will happen exactly 10 minutes after hell freezes over, I guess we'll never find out who's right.

 

[Big Fitz]

From a politicians point of view: If I'm automatically going to lose my positions in government why should I give a crap about my constituents?

Criminal prosecution? I'd be open for people suing their elected official who's caught in corruption. Strip their trust funds bare as well as prison time. Then again, I believe violating oath of office should be equatable to treason with the traditional capital punishment. Think that'd keep the crooks in line? The Romans used to sew the guilty party in a bag with a wild animal and toss it in the river. I say there's a good parallel there.

But it is in the public's favor to give them freedom of choice at the ballot box.

Even the founding fathers feared the vox populi. That's why we have the electoral college. A mass of dumbasses will not give us good results, hence a check and balance with a more informed (supposedly) group.

But since this is all a bunch of pipe dreams that will happen exactly 10 minutes after hell freezes over, I guess we'll never find out who's right.

It's a pipe dream until the current power structure collapses. So that could possibly happen in 4-8 years.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The line item veto violates the seperation of powers. It's congress's job to write the budget, the line item veto transfers that power to the president.

We have the tools we need for term limits already. How folks outside your district/state chose to use (or not use) them is no one's business but their own.

Just MHO

 

[Big Fitz]

The line item veto violates the seperation of powers. It's congress's job to write the budget, the line item veto transfers that power to the president.

We have the tools we need for term limits already. How folks outside your district/state chose to use (or not use) them is no one's business but their own.

Just MHO

Doesn't violate the separation of powers in any state that has it. It just pisses off hack politicians.

Thanks for reminding me. You should only be allowed access to money from district residents as well.

 

[nodoginnafight]

The line item veto violates the seperation of powers. It's congress's job to write the budget, the line item veto transfers that power to the president.

We have the tools we need for term limits already. How folks outside your district/state chose to use (or not use) them is no one's business but their own.

Just MHO

Doesn't violate the separation of powers in any state that has it. It just pisses off hack politicians.

Thanks for reminding me. You should only be allowed access to money from district residents as well.

It does violate the U.S. Constitution. State constitutions may differ.

But I would agree with efforts to cut off "outside" money.

 

[Big Fitz]

The line item veto violates the seperation of powers. It's congress's job to write the budget, the line item veto transfers that power to the president.

We have the tools we need for term limits already. How folks outside your district/state chose to use (or not use) them is no one's business but their own.

Just MHO

Doesn't violate the separation of powers in any state that has it. It just pisses off hack politicians.

Thanks for reminding me. You should only be allowed access to money from district residents as well.

It does violate the U.S. Constitution. State constitutions may differ.

But I would agree with efforts to cut off "outside" money.

Could you please point to the clauses it violates?

Currently the way you state it, the president should be allowed to veto anything. They made the law. Whether the president vetoes some or all of this is still just a veto, not making law. If the lawmakers are unified, there is nothing the president can do.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Doesn't violate the separation of powers in any state that has it. It just pisses off hack politicians.

Thanks for reminding me. You should only be allowed access to money from district residents as well.

It does violate the U.S. Constitution. State constitutions may differ.

But I would agree with efforts to cut off "outside" money.

Could you please point to the clauses it violates?

Currently the way you state it, the president should be allowed to veto anything. They made the law. Whether the president vetoes some or all of this is still just a veto, not making law. If the lawmakers are unified, there is nothing the president can do.

Article I Section 7

The President is entitled to veto a law but not to pick and choose which sections he vetos. That would give him the power to re-write the law and that would violate the seperation of powers.

 

[Big Fitz]

It does violate the U.S. Constitution. State constitutions may differ.

But I would agree with efforts to cut off "outside" money.

Could you please point to the clauses it violates?

Currently the way you state it, the president should be allowed to veto anything. They made the law. Whether the president vetoes some or all of this is still just a veto, not making law. If the lawmakers are unified, there is nothing the president can do.

Article I Section 7

The President is entitled to veto a law but not to pick and choose which sections he vetos. That would give him the power to re-write the law and that would violate the seperation of powers.

Okay, good point. The wording, if you stick to a strict constructionist view is a veto can only be on a bill as a whole.

But, like the founding fathers not realizing that term-limits for all elected positions are necessary to preserve freedom, this is a correction we can make through amendments. It's one of about 4 amendments I want made to the constitution to help end or minimize the corruption inherent to our current system of government.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Well that's the way I read it - but I'm no expert.

I have a couple of amendments I'd like to see myself

But I do think that's the way to handle it - I think appointing judges who are sympathetic to "doing an end-run around the Constitution" is just wrong.

 

[Big Fitz]

Well that's the way I read it - but I'm no expert.

I have a couple of amendments I'd like to see myself

But I do think that's the way to handle it - I think appointing judges who are sympathetic to "doing an end-run around the Constitution" is just wrong.

In that I agree. You don't just stretch things out to suit your desires. You amend if you can.