John Boehner to resign

[ShootDontTalk]

I find it simply amazing that so many howl in indignation whenever the phrase "term limits" comes up. Surely there are enough good Americans, men and women, to guide this nation that we don't need to construct a "ruling class" because there are not enough good people to hold offices?

After a lifetime of watching politicians, I am convinced by one simple truth. No one, and I mean no one, is untouched by the potent elixir of power and prestige that befalls those elected and reelected over and over to public office. I think it is high time those who seek public office are forced into retirement after two terms - without lifetime pensions.

[loktite]

Hear, Hear!

[RoyGBiv]

My preference is Louie Gohmert.

My current preference is Pete Sessions. I want a Texas Republican, not a Californian of any stripe. I believe those representing Texas still have courage, they haven't been cowed by the D.C. set and the Liberal Media yet.

Both good choices. I like Gohmert, and I suspect he would be able to sway some of those on the left (well, left of center, not left of Obama).

[The Annoyed Man]

I find it simply amazing that so many howl in indignation whenever the phrase "term limits" comes up. Surely there are enough good Americans, men and women, to guide this nation that we don't need to construct a "ruling class" because there are not enough good people to hold offices?

After a lifetime of watching politicians, I am convinced by one simple truth. No one, and I mean no one, is untouched by the potent elixir of power and prestige that befalls those elected and reelected over and over to public office. I think it is high time those who seek public office are forced into retirement after two terms - without lifetime pensions.

I pretty much agree with you. The only reasonably intelligent argument I've heard against term limits are the notions that (a) people ought to have the right to elect whomever they want to, (b) running for office is protected political speech which gets squashed if one is barred by term limits from running again. My response to (a) is "you DID get to vote/elect whomever you wanted! Enough already!" My response to (b) is "not everybody gets to run for office. When they can't, they vote for someone else to represent them. Welcome to reality for the rest of us."

Politicians for the past 100 years are pretty much solely responsible for creating the archetype of the crooked pol themselves, without any help from the governed; but the spineless gut-buckets currently "serving" have elevated feckless venality to a new level. DC is a toilet, and it needs to be flushed and disinfected.

Regularly.

[Bitter Clinger]

[jason812]

Wonder if this means he will give up the fake tan and quit being drunk by noon everyday? Good riddance and take 200 more with him when he leaves.

[bnc]

I find it simply amazing that so many howl in indignation whenever the phrase "term limits" comes up. Surely there are enough good Americans, men and women, to guide this nation that we don't need to construct a "ruling class" because there are not enough good people to hold offices?

After a lifetime of watching politicians, I am convinced by one simple truth. No one, and I mean no one, is untouched by the potent elixir of power and prestige that befalls those elected and reelected over and over to public office. I think it is high time those who seek public office are forced into retirement after two terms - without lifetime pensions.

I pretty much agree with you. The only reasonably intelligent argument I've heard against term limits are the notions that (a) people ought to have the right to elect whomever they want to, (b) running for office is protected political speech which gets squashed if one is barred by term limits from running again. My response to (a) is "you DID get to vote/elect whomever you wanted! Enough already!" My response to (b) is "not everybody gets to run for office. When they can't, they vote for someone else to represent them. Welcome to reality for the rest of us."

Politicians for the past 100 years are pretty much solely responsible for creating the archetype of the crooked pol themselves, without any help from the governed; but the spineless gut-buckets currently "serving" have elevated feckless venality to a new level. DC is a toilet, and it needs to be flushed and disinfected.

Regularly.

TAM, I'd like to offer up an argument against term limits (at least very short ones) that may have some more substance. Term limited politicians are essentially not held accountable to the electorate during their final term. Like the president in his last 2 years, they'll all turn into lame ducks. To make the point in the extreme, if the term limit was only 1 term, politicians could say whatever they need to for the election and then do whatever they want after. I think what would happen is that, knowing they will be unemployed in X years and will not face the electorate, they would swindle and graft and push crazy policy as much as possible while they can. Of course, and nice position on the board of their favorite company would likely follow their public "service".

That problem can be mitigated, but not eliminated, by allowing several terms. I think 3-4 terms for the House and 2-3 for the Senate would be reasonable. On a similar note, term limiting the Supreme Court is worth at least a discussion. Term limits, I would hope, would reduce politically/ideologically motivated resignations from the court. Granted, if a justice is considering retiring and likes the current administration's bent, they would resign now to allow the president to select a similarly-minded justice. So it might not stop an early resignation, but it would prevent a late one (and help ensure the court still has their faculties). I think 20-25 year terms would do well to keep the court out of the election cycle fray without sticking us with someone forever.


On a more pleasant note, good ridannce to the spay-tan, crybaby, drunk progressive. He's done more damage to the conservative movement than I care to describe. I prefer an enemy that stabs at my face rather than my back.

[Beiruty]

Those folks should retire from Politics ASAP. Add to them McCain.

[The Annoyed Man]

That problem can be mitigated, but not eliminated, by allowing several terms. I think 3-4 terms for the House and 2-3 for the Senate would be reasonable

Actually, you're describing every term-limit scheme I've heard of lately..... 8 years (4 terms) for a representative, and 12 (2 terms) for a senator. 18 years for a senator is too long.

[MeMelYup]

I think there should be limits like; no more than two terms in a row without a one term break, then they can run again or run for a different office.

[JALLEN]

"The only thing new in the world is history you don't know." -- Harry S Truman

What makes you think any of this is new? Congressmen have had detractors since the 1st Congress.

Term limits prevents the people from choosing who they want to represent them. If the voters want to choose Charles Rangel, or Paul Ryan or Sheila Jackson Lee, or Whatzizname, that comedian, why should they not be able to, assuming the person meets the Constitutional requirements and is willing to endure the abuse?

As attractive as it seems, it hasn't worked out in practice, in California where I experienced it, or any place else I've heard of.

The better approach is to figure out how to eliminate the appalling gerrymandering that goes on.

I would urge caution in tinkering with the system the geniuses of the Constitution came up with, that has worked so well thus far.

[The Annoyed Man]

"The only thing new in the world is history you don't know." -- Harry S Truman

What makes you think any of this is new? Congressmen have had detractors since the 1st Congress.

Term limits prevents the people from choosing who they want to represent them. If the voters want to choose Charles Rangel, or Paul Ryan or Sheila Jackson Lee, or Whatzizname, that comedian, why should they not be able to, assuming the person meets the Constitutional requirements and is willing to endure the abuse?

As attractive as it seems, it hasn't worked out in practice, in California where I experienced it, or any place else I've heard of.

The better approach is to figure out how to eliminate the appalling gerrymandering that goes on.

I would urge caution in tinkering with the system the geniuses of the Constitution came up with, that has worked so well thus far.

This is exactly the kind of defense of no-limits that I referenced in my previous post. I understand your point, but I disagree with it. And normally, I would agree with your last sentence, but then following FDR's historic FOURTH election, it was determined that the 22nd Amendment was a very good idea. Can you imagine a THIRD Obama term? So we actually have an example already of term limits and their necessity from history, enshrined in a Constitutional amendment. I'd like to see an amendment to repeal the 17th Amendment which has perhaps more than anything given senators the fatuous notion that they are not beholden to their states' interests once they hit DC. Perhaps with a repeal of the 17th, imposition of term limits on senators might cease to be necessary. But pending a repeal, then a 28th amendment limiting congressional terms seems more and more necessary.

I would have normally disagreed with the notion that SCOTUS justices ought to be subjected to term limits on the grounds that it would serve to further politicize their office. BUT.... the way that presidents try to use their SCOTUS appointments to impose their ideology on us LONG after they are no longer in office. And that strikes me in its megalomania as distinctly un-American. So the more I think about it, the more I wonder if SCOTUS justices ought not be limited by amendment to 6 year terms, with three of them being replaced every 2 years, and limited to 2 appointments. That way, presidents would not be able to have such a lasting impact on the future of constitutional litigation. And since the justices would be term-limited, they might be forced to look more strictly at an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Yes, the court would remain politicized, but no more so than it already is, and the justices would be forced to confront their lack of connection to The People.

[JALLEN]

Repealing the 17th Amendment just changes who gets the bribes, and would make service in the Lege a lot more attractive for someone who knew how to play it. It was adopted in the first place to make Senators more responsive to their constituents.

Nobody wanted a repeat of FDR, and we had ~150 years of experience to go by. The 22nd Amendment made a requirement of what had been merely a sacrosanct tradition.

I'd be less unfavorable if the California experiment had been happy, but it has not. Nobody is in office long enough to get experience in how the trains run, and the entrenched bureaucrats run wild, while the elected officials are free to plot and scheme about what move to make when they must move on.

The main reason you don't trust the people is that too many of them appear to not agree with you, and me. I remember when Texas was essentially a Democrat enclave and we held Republican County meetings in one man's living room. What happened to make the change?

My thought, having lived through it, is that LBJ rammed civil rights down the people's throats somewhat faster than people were comfortable with. This insured the negro vote but lost the white vote for Democrats. Other may have other explanations.

[JALLEN]

I sure hope McConnell is tugging nervously at his collar - sweat, baby, sweat!

or he is the next to go. Ted Cruz would be a great replacement.

Maybe so, but given the emphasis on Seniority, Senators will not likely vote for a junior Senator to be Leader. Cornyn would have to agree, for one thing. MHe likely would not, unless it was understood he would control patronage in Texas in any GOP administration.

Although I am an admirer of Sen. Cruz, I'm not sure he has the standing to be Majority Leader. LBJ was in his second term and had been whip before taking the top job. He was a skilled and experienced manipulator, and did not often elevate principle above practicality. His job was infinitely easier because Speaker Rayburn had control of the House like few others ever have.

[anygunanywhere]

We already have term limits. It is called the vote.

The people get the government they vote for. They deserve it and I hope they get it good and hard.

We are never going to vote our way out of the mess. The vote means nothing. Everything that happens in DC is planned.