My response would of been the same.
Part of the reasoning for term limits is based upon the notion that “all tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
Sorry “all power tends to corrupt…”
-
No. The people should be allowed to elect the President, though we know that doesn’t happen in practice.
-
At what point do the people who elect the persons getting their asses kissed by lobbyists bear any responsibility. We hire the folks who are elected. We are their managers and they have regular performance reviews. By us. Lobbyists can only be successful in this manner if the people continue to allow it.
And that is the reason I can’t support them, although it would solve some problems. The people should be able to choose who they want as long as they are otherwise qualified.
Only because politicians have corrupted the system so for personal gain.
Just like lawyers and doctors, they have built a self-licking ice cream cone.
They’ve always been a class unto themselves. Who do you think founded this country?
1 Like
I used to be for term limits, but my experiences with them have taught me otherwise.
In Michigan, our term limits have created a monster in Lansing that does nothing until two weeks after the election in the lame duck. They push the most controversial bills out and then leave office without accountability.
This last lame duck, they stripped many Michigan citizens of their ability to submit proposals to the state government. They also altered bills through a “pass and amend” gimmick that I won’t get into. That was just this past December. If the Democrats get into power, I know they will do the same.
Term limits have unintended consequences, but I have seen enough to be against them.
3 Likes
Excellent post. Thank you for sharing.
1 Like
Thanks for the post. I was hoping that you could elaborate more. Why did implimenting term limits prompt this behavior? One of the arguments I have heard for term limits is that since politicians are so obsessed about being reelected they do everything to avoid controversial actions. Immigration reform is a perfect example, 30 years of kicking the can down the road in that regard. Another example talked about is how Congress has voluntarily given more and more power to the executive branch again in order to avoid making difficult decisions.
I definitely do not support term limits. I don’t want the Government telling me who I can and can’ t vote for. If I have a Congressman or Senator who I really like, I don’t want the government telling me that I can no longer vote for him or her.
Me too. Elections are the limiting factor to multiple terms. Who am I to tell you who you can or can’t elect to represent you?
How about President?
It strikes me as curious some of the people that support Citizens United.
At the nations founding there were about 50 corporations in the new nation.
All were established to achieve a particular purpose with the idea that they would then be disbanded. While they were active, they were barred from taking part in political activities.
Where was that ‘originalist’ precedent in this decision?
Are you sure you know what that decision did? I looked at it and it’s not what I was led to believe.
Mitt summarized when he said, “corporations are people too”.
Don’t let him do your thinking for you, he’s not good at it.
Sneaky is right - Romney’s statement is not an accurate summation of the decision.
The most damaging precedent of Citizens United is not corporate First Amendment rights - it has to do with the how the court defines “corruption”, in the context of the state’s interest in stopping it.
If he was doing my thinking why are we on opposite sides here? swing and a miss
I didn’t agree with Mitt. I used his words to simplify. I know the audience.
ETA: or I don’t know the audience, otherwise we might not be having this conversation
One should be leary of Mitt Notes.
