timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)

[tom22406]

Yoga pants,shorts,leggings or sweatpants?

This is not up for debate. The Yoga Pants thread is Nobel Prize worthy.

It's the one thread of length that he hasn't posted in so I was curious as to what he prefers.

 

[timschochet]

Don't get me started on the 17th Amendment.

Oh I hope to get you started- just not yet.

Yankee, help me understand: if the House of Representatives are supposed to be closer to "the people" than the Senate, that means they're going to be more emotional and less judicious, and I think that's always been pretty evident. But if this is the case, then why give the House the sole ability to impeach? Shouldn't impeachment be a more judicious, more thoughtful, less democratic action? Why not leave it in the hands of either the Senate, or an independent judiciary, rather than in the hands of a House almost guaranteed to make it political? (IMO, the one impeachment that took place in recent years, that of Bill Clinton, was largely partisan, as evidenced by the vote.)

House charges, Senate convicts. Can't have one body be prosecutor and judge, right?

For the sake of argument, why not? (Assuming that there still is a trial, and both sides are equally represented.)

 

[timschochet]

Yoga pants,shorts,leggings or sweatpants?

This is not up for debate. The Yoga Pants thread is Nobel Prize worthy.

It's the one thread of length that he hasn't posted in so I was curious as to what he prefers.

Because I don't like thinking about it. My daughters are getting shapely, especially the older one, and sometimes she wears yoga pants, so I'm becoming uncomfortable with the topic.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Lots of interesting stuff here. One historical irony I've always thought was interesting: African-Americans often point to the "3/5ths clause" to demonstrate how slave-owners regarded them as less than human beings. But if I understand correctly, it was the northern, "free" states that actually benefited from the 3/5 compromise, because giving full accordance to "other persons" in the South would have given that part of the country a much greater proportion of congressmen. One question I have regarding population growth, and the original intent of those who wrote this document: why at some point did we decide to top off the Congress at 435? Based on the intent here, (1 for every 30,000) shouldn't we have 10,000 members of Congress at this point?

There are other fascinating points here, such as the requirements to be a member of Congress, the fact that there have to be elections (the governor of a state doesn't get to simply appoint), and that the House gets the sole power to impeach (though not to remove the official.)

Aside from Yank's comment above (again, great post) I just thought that I would point out the putative reason used at the time for the enactment of the Reappoirtionment Act of 1911:

They claimed it was because of a lack of office space in and around Congress.

Can you imagine that? Shows how much things changed.

Yankee's post was great, and I understand his point and your agreement with it, but it does seem to me that 10,000 Congressmen (which is what we would get if we based it on one man for every 30,000 people) seems unwieldy to me. Yankee would have it around 1,000, which means one man for every 300,000 people, but that's no less arbritary than keeping it at 435. Logically, the more people you have, the less able they are to govern.

Obviously it's a sliding scale. But in your response to your question IMO more Reps would provide and help on several things:

• Easier for the average citizen to reach and influence his Congressman.
• More cohesive districts, less need for gerrymandering.
• Fewer Reps makes it easier for the wealthy contributors to control. I'm always in favor of more independent bases of power. 1,000 Congressmen would be tough for anyone to wrangle.
• A negative might be more extremism. We could likely see some socialists or communists and also some David Duke types.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Don't get me started on the 17th Amendment.

Oh I hope to get you started- just not yet.

Yankee, help me understand: if the House of Representatives are supposed to be closer to "the people" than the Senate, that means they're going to be more emotional and less judicious, and I think that's always been pretty evident. But if this is the case, then why give the House the sole ability to impeach? Shouldn't impeachment be a more judicious, more thoughtful, less democratic action? Why not leave it in the hands of either the Senate, or an independent judiciary, rather than in the hands of a House almost guaranteed to make it political? (IMO, the one impeachment that took place in recent years, that of Bill Clinton, was largely partisan, as evidenced by the vote.)

House charges, Senate convicts. Can't have one body be prosecutor and judge, right?

For the sake of argument, why not? (Assuming that there still is a trial, and both sides are equally represented.)

Well see Roger Goodell. How's that working out, pretty good?

 

[timschochet]

Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Lots of interesting stuff here. One historical irony I've always thought was interesting: African-Americans often point to the "3/5ths clause" to demonstrate how slave-owners regarded them as less than human beings. But if I understand correctly, it was the northern, "free" states that actually benefited from the 3/5 compromise, because giving full accordance to "other persons" in the South would have given that part of the country a much greater proportion of congressmen. One question I have regarding population growth, and the original intent of those who wrote this document: why at some point did we decide to top off the Congress at 435? Based on the intent here, (1 for every 30,000) shouldn't we have 10,000 members of Congress at this point?

There are other fascinating points here, such as the requirements to be a member of Congress, the fact that there have to be elections (the governor of a state doesn't get to simply appoint), and that the House gets the sole power to impeach (though not to remove the official.)

Aside from Yank's comment above (again, great post) I just thought that I would point out the putative reason used at the time for the enactment of the Reappoirtionment Act of 1911:

They claimed it was because of a lack of office space in and around Congress.

Can you imagine that? Shows how much things changed.

Yankee's post was great, and I understand his point and your agreement with it, but it does seem to me that 10,000 Congressmen (which is what we would get if we based it on one man for every 30,000 people) seems unwieldy to me. Yankee would have it around 1,000, which means one man for every 300,000 people, but that's no less arbritary than keeping it at 435. Logically, the more people you have, the less able they are to govern.

Obviously it's a sliding scale. But in your response to your question IMO more Reps would provide and help on several things:

• Easier for the average citizen to reach and influence his Congressman.
• More cohesive districts, less need for gerrymandering.
• Fewer Reps makes it easier for the wealthy contributors to control. I'm always in favor of more independent bases of power. 1,000 Congressmen would be tough for anyone to wrangle.
• A negative might be more extremism. We could likely see some socialists or communists and also some David Duke types.

It's that negative that really worries me. Are you familiar with the Knesset? It's a much more representative, democratic body of government than anything we have here. And the reality of that is that a small bunch of extremist, fanatically religious rabbis are able to veto nearly every bit of proposed legislation. Their power, based on their size is enormous. I don't want that here.

 

[hagmania]

is it Sco-shay?

The often verbose Tim sco-shaySpawned a thread of his own yesterday

His famed indecision,

oft meet with derision,

instead led to cheers of hooray

If you've never pronounced it Tim socket

You should try it before you knock it

Don't ask Tim 'bout this mystery

Lest he bore you with history

whilst he strokes his unsheathed pocket rocket

A gentleman named Tim sashay

Had so many things left to say

That he made his own residence

for anyone but eminence

(And em thinks this whole thing is gay)

This new thread of Tims O'Shea's

is a place he can cut and paste

Now he can copy right

but the thread has a copyright

belonging to General Malaise

This was beautiful, too. Excellent work!

Shah-ket seems proper Hebrew,

According to my own Google-Fu,

But if tim responds not,

I'll assume I'm on spot,

And pronounce it as if he's a French Jew.

 

[tom22406]

Yoga pants,shorts,leggings or sweatpants?

This is not up for debate. The Yoga Pants thread is Nobel Prize worthy.

It's the one thread of length that he hasn't posted in so I was curious as to what he prefers.

Because I don't like thinking about it. My daughters are getting shapely, especially the older one, and sometimes she wears yoga pants, so I'm becoming uncomfortable with the topic.

Fair enough.Just make sure when they hit 18 they don't post anything of the sorts because I would have no clue if they were yours or not and I wouldn't want to offend you or your family by doing so.I try my best to not post anything of underage girls but I will admit it's really hard to tell sometimes so if I have a question about it I usually just pass and not post it.

Anyways,like the Constitution stuff you are doing.Enjoying the thread so far

 

[timschochet]

Don't get me started on the 17th Amendment.

Oh I hope to get you started- just not yet.

Yankee, help me understand: if the House of Representatives are supposed to be closer to "the people" than the Senate, that means they're going to be more emotional and less judicious, and I think that's always been pretty evident. But if this is the case, then why give the House the sole ability to impeach? Shouldn't impeachment be a more judicious, more thoughtful, less democratic action? Why not leave it in the hands of either the Senate, or an independent judiciary, rather than in the hands of a House almost guaranteed to make it political? (IMO, the one impeachment that took place in recent years, that of Bill Clinton, was largely partisan, as evidenced by the vote.)

House charges, Senate convicts. Can't have one body be prosecutor and judge, right?

For the sake of argument, why not? (Assuming that there still is a trial, and both sides are equally represented.)

Well see Roger Goodell. How's that working out, pretty good?

Apples to oranges. You're talking about one guy. I'm talking about a body of government- in terms of the Senate, 100 people.

 

[timschochet]

Yoga pants,shorts,leggings or sweatpants?

This is not up for debate. The Yoga Pants thread is Nobel Prize worthy.

It's the one thread of length that he hasn't posted in so I was curious as to what he prefers.

Because I don't like thinking about it. My daughters are getting shapely, especially the older one, and sometimes she wears yoga pants, so I'm becoming uncomfortable with the topic.

Fair enough.Just make sure when they hit 18 they don't post anything of the sorts because I would have no clue if they were yours or not and I wouldn't want to offend you or your family by doing so.I try my best to not post anything of underage girls but I will admit it's really hard to tell sometimes so if I have a question about it I usually just pass and not post it.

Anyways,like the Constitution stuff you are doing.Enjoying the thread so far

Glad you enjoy it.

I'm not offended by what anyone else posts about how sexy young women are. I've always found them sexy. It's just that my own girls are reaching an age where I feel guilty somehow talking about this sort of stuff myself. That's MY problem and nobody else's.

 

[timschochet]

Section. 3.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

I have several questions about this section, but no time to ask them now. If anyone wants to make a general comment, please do so!

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Don't get me started on the 17th Amendment.

Oh I hope to get you started- just not yet.

Yankee, help me understand: if the House of Representatives are supposed to be closer to "the people" than the Senate, that means they're going to be more emotional and less judicious, and I think that's always been pretty evident. But if this is the case, then why give the House the sole ability to impeach? Shouldn't impeachment be a more judicious, more thoughtful, less democratic action? Why not leave it in the hands of either the Senate, or an independent judiciary, rather than in the hands of a House almost guaranteed to make it political? (IMO, the one impeachment that took place in recent years, that of Bill Clinton, was largely partisan, as evidenced by the vote.)

You are ignoring that Impeachment is a two step process. What many people seem to reference when they talk about impeachment is the removal of a president from office. But that isn't what impeachment is.

The House votes for Impeachment, but then the hearing - the trial - on the charges is run solely by the Senate with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the presiding officer. So the system actually works exactly the way you want it to. So while the House has the power to make what amounts to a Vote of No Confidence (which is what it really is) it is actually the Senate and the head of the Supreme Court that tries the case.

The idea behind the system was pretty obvious - there was nothing in the Constitution that talked about removing the Executive if it was necessary. People in power abuse power. The House was going to be elected every two years, so if there was a bad apple the people had the choice to get rid of them, and the Senate was controlled by the states and the power sphere there would help, but there was nothing in place to get rid of a bad president if it became necessary.

The proposal for an impeachment power was introduced by formal resolution in June and they finally codified the idea by September. The initial proposal was to have the legislature (the House) be given the power to remove the President solely at the majority request of the several states. In that, the states would retain even more power over the national government and if they felt collectively that the head of the national government wasn't doing his job, they could petition for him to be removed (in mechanical form, the Senate would request that the House remove the President). The debate then turned when it was proposed that the Congress should have the power to do it on their own accord. But the argument against that was if they do that then the President becomes nothing more than a puppet of the Congress which they didn't necessarily want - not because they didn't want Congress to have power but because they knew they needed an executive power as well independent from the legislative power less there is no executive power. Imagine that this passed in that form - the Congress, presumably the House - could remove the President whenever they wanted. Our government would have shut down 2 years into the Adams presidency and each subsequent House election would have caused the removal of the President if he was of the opposition party at the time.

In other words, they debated at great length the power of John Boehner to simply have a majority vote in the House to actually remove Barack Obama. Wiser heads prevailed.

Governour Morris basically led the charge against and then for having some kind of ultimate removal power within the confines of the system they were forming with the ultimate argument being, if there is not some removal power then the President becomes above the law. Granted, the electors would gather every 4 years, but 4 years is a long time to have a tyrant sitting at the head of the government without fear of reprisal. In the spirit of the times of 1787 there was a definiate and well grounded concern for actual real live corruption from the singular head of the government no different than what they saw from the Lords and other titled men from the crown. IF the President could not be removed from office for actual real crimes then he was limitless in power. But of course, simply giving the Congress the power to remove him - or even the states - simply because they didn't like his policies wouldn't make a stable government.

The debate was open ended and the delegates had problems coming to a resolution. The basic sides ended up being this - a good President shouldn't have to fear being removed and a bad one should fear it. Then it devolved into an argument over the Senate and the House. The more democratic leaning members wanted the House to be as powerful as possible, the more republican wanted the Senate so that the states were the true power centers. It was basically the same debate they had from the very beginning. Which sphere of power was the most important - the Executive, the House, the states or the "people" whatever the hell that meant.

The final resolutions got tabled and the convention actually didn't do any more work on it. The committee on detail - the guys that were actually tasked with writing the thing and merging all the ideas and resolutions, wrote it as a compromise against all the debate - there would be impeachment for certain offenses - at least the ones everyone agreed with - and the power to do so would be split between the House and the Senate. The People (the House) could call for it like any good democrat would, but the states (the Senate) would actually have the power to do it with judicial oversight (the Supreme Court through the Chief Justice) and some form of due process so that the mob doesn't control and make the executive functionaly useless, and the states don't control to make the Executive department functionaly useless. As with many parts of the Constitution, the delegates just went with it when it came to the Executive because their focus was so connected to the Congress that they punted more often than not on the Executive and Judiciary.

And it should be noted like it always is that there was really no question amongst the men in the know - Morris, Franklin, Madison - that George Washington was going to be the President. There are some books out there that challenge this but when you look at the debates in a nutshell it's the only explanation that makes any sense to the creation of the Executive office. They weren't so dumb as to ignore it and just hope it worked while killing themsevles over the Congress and the separate of powers between national and state actors. They knew it was an important office, they knew it had to be handled properly and they knew that not a single one of them would ever question (at least publically) the credentials of George Washington. So for every debate on the President that they had, knowing that George was going to be there first clouds the arguments in two ways.

One, they knew he was a good man and a good leader and that the people would respect him and with it accept a national president. And two, they feared that more than they let on because they feared very much a republican king. And he could have been one without so much as a shot fired. So the reason the Congress was given ultimate power over almost everything was to brace the government against a singular leader that would consume the power of the government. That lasted until about World War II, but that was the very nature of the beast they knew was going to happen. And one final note, Morris made a massively important point in the convention that helped prop up the idea of Washington and with it the idea that while we would have a president he wouldn't be the power center - he said that we are creating a government where the President is the Prime Minister and the People are King.

Now, go ahead and define prime minister and king in that context. (And then factor in the 17th Amendment but we'll get there).

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Lots of interesting stuff here. One historical irony I've always thought was interesting: African-Americans often point to the "3/5ths clause" to demonstrate how slave-owners regarded them as less than human beings. But if I understand correctly, it was the northern, "free" states that actually benefited from the 3/5 compromise, because giving full accordance to "other persons" in the South would have given that part of the country a much greater proportion of congressmen. One question I have regarding population growth, and the original intent of those who wrote this document: why at some point did we decide to top off the Congress at 435? Based on the intent here, (1 for every 30,000) shouldn't we have 10,000 members of Congress at this point?

There are other fascinating points here, such as the requirements to be a member of Congress, the fact that there have to be elections (the governor of a state doesn't get to simply appoint), and that the House gets the sole power to impeach (though not to remove the official.)

Aside from Yank's comment above (again, great post) I just thought that I would point out the putative reason used at the time for the enactment of the Reappoirtionment Act of 1911:

They claimed it was because of a lack of office space in and around Congress.

Can you imagine that? Shows how much things changed.

Yankee's post was great, and I understand his point and your agreement with it, but it does seem to me that 10,000 Congressmen (which is what we would get if we based it on one man for every 30,000 people) seems unwieldy to me. Yankee would have it around 1,000, which means one man for every 300,000 people, but that's no less arbritary than keeping it at 435. Logically, the more people you have, the less able they are to govern.

I would do it 1 for every 50,000. I think the comfort number needs to be between 3-5 thousand. We have to remember what the House is - it's the voice of the people in the national government. By capping the amount of members we are capping the voice of the people. When you cap the voice of the people, you force the people to team up with someone to make their voice louder. 2 is louder than 1, 5 is louder than 2, 100 is louder than 5 and 10,000 can swing an election. So those people are going to do that to make their issue heard and their voice known. And when they do that the organization they form to do it is going to take on a life of itself. And if that organization gets really good and really powerful they are going to start "helpfully suggesting" legislation to the people that listen to them or that they helped get elected.

Welcome to the creation of the power of lobbiests. They always existed and they always will. Because the people must be heard in the government and they will be heard one way or the other.

 

[hagmania]

Regarding all sections that create elected officials, I can't believe there aren't some sort of term limits on our Legislative Branch. If I were to write it up, Judicial Branch can serve for life, they are (supposed to be) the ideal wisdom of our country. Executive Branch... well, I'm not really sure if there should be term limits here, to be honest. Maybe write it up similar to Argentina's term limits - after two terms, you have to sit out at least one term. But in the Legislative Branch, I would absolutely create some sort of Argentinian system. I think it's for the good of the people to impose change on these elected seats.

What would be the argument against forcing a hiatus (2 or 4 years, say) after several terms?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Don't get me started on the 17th Amendment.

Oh I hope to get you started- just not yet.

Yankee, help me understand: if the House of Representatives are supposed to be closer to "the people" than the Senate, that means they're going to be more emotional and less judicious, and I think that's always been pretty evident. But if this is the case, then why give the House the sole ability to impeach? Shouldn't impeachment be a more judicious, more thoughtful, less democratic action? Why not leave it in the hands of either the Senate, or an independent judiciary, rather than in the hands of a House almost guaranteed to make it political? (IMO, the one impeachment that took place in recent years, that of Bill Clinton, was largely partisan, as evidenced by the vote.)

House charges, Senate convicts. Can't have one body be prosecutor and judge, right?

For the sake of argument, why not? (Assuming that there still is a trial, and both sides are equally represented.)

You're moving too fast.

The nature of the government created and the debates that created it had as one of the factoring principles the worry that any one section of government would consume the rest by giving it too much power. If the President has the most power, we have a king. If the House has the most power, we have the mob. If the Senate has the most power we have the Articles of Confederation. If there is no power we have what amounts to civil war in the face of a vacuum of leadership. So there had to be power, but the only way they were comfortable in creating it was to spread it out amongst many different actors. And you can see that by how they formed the government through the Constitution where power shifts from Executive, to House, to Senate, to States and back and forth depending on the power exercised. And they each at some level need help from the other spheres, and they are all answerable or accountable to the others in some fashion somewhere.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New-York six, New Jersey four, Pennsylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Lots of interesting stuff here. One historical irony I've always thought was interesting: African-Americans often point to the "3/5ths clause" to demonstrate how slave-owners regarded them as less than human beings. But if I understand correctly, it was the northern, "free" states that actually benefited from the 3/5 compromise, because giving full accordance to "other persons" in the South would have given that part of the country a much greater proportion of congressmen. One question I have regarding population growth, and the original intent of those who wrote this document: why at some point did we decide to top off the Congress at 435? Based on the intent here, (1 for every 30,000) shouldn't we have 10,000 members of Congress at this point?

There are other fascinating points here, such as the requirements to be a member of Congress, the fact that there have to be elections (the governor of a state doesn't get to simply appoint), and that the House gets the sole power to impeach (though not to remove the official.)

Aside from Yank's comment above (again, great post) I just thought that I would point out the putative reason used at the time for the enactment of the Reappoirtionment Act of 1911:

They claimed it was because of a lack of office space in and around Congress.

Can you imagine that? Shows how much things changed.

Yankee's post was great, and I understand his point and your agreement with it, but it does seem to me that 10,000 Congressmen (which is what we would get if we based it on one man for every 30,000 people) seems unwieldy to me. Yankee would have it around 1,000, which means one man for every 300,000 people, but that's no less arbritary than keeping it at 435. Logically, the more people you have, the less able they are to govern.

Obviously it's a sliding scale. But in your response to your question IMO more Reps would provide and help on several things:

• Easier for the average citizen to reach and influence his Congressman.
• More cohesive districts, less need for gerrymandering.
• Fewer Reps makes it easier for the wealthy contributors to control. I'm always in favor of more independent bases of power. 1,000 Congressmen would be tough for anyone to wrangle.
• A negative might be more extremism. We could likely see some socialists or communists and also some David Duke types.

It's that negative that really worries me. Are you familiar with the Knesset? It's a much more representative, democratic body of government than anything we have here. And the reality of that is that a small bunch of extremist, fanatically religious rabbis are able to veto nearly every bit of proposed legislation. Their power, based on their size is enormous. I don't want that here.

But the stop against that which the Knesset doesn't have would be our Senate - the states collectively standing against the national mob that moves sometimes too quick with not enough long term vision, a President that still has to sign the bill they try to pass and isn't answerable to the House in terms of being removed from office if he doesn't sign. The problem with parliments in this world today is that they don't take the step that our founders did to silence the mob when it needed to be silenced. They gave the people too much power. While the people are The King, they aren't perfect and the king was known to **** up a lot, so temper it. Yeah, David Duke might get elected if his state has 400 House members instead of 5, but 350 other people will as well that aren't David Duke. And those people will (in theory) know their people better than the 5 they have now that have to cover 20 plus million people.

And frankly, so what if we have a few socialists in actual name in the House? That is the point of the House, and the point of the Senate in having to be a check against it. At least, up until 1913.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Section. 3.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies.

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

I have several questions about this section, but no time to ask them now. If anyone wants to make a general comment, please do so!

Stop. We're not done on the last one.

 

[Gawain]

Regarding all sections that create elected officials, I can't believe there aren't some sort of term limits on our Legislative Branch. If I were to write it up, Judicial Branch can serve for life, they are (supposed to be) the ideal wisdom of our country. Executive Branch... well, I'm not really sure if there should be term limits here, to be honest. Maybe write it up similar to Argentina's term limits - after two terms, you have to sit out at least one term. But in the Legislative Branch, I would absolutely create some sort of Argentinian system. I think it's for the good of the people to impose change on these elected seats.

What would be the argument against forcing a hiatus (2 or 4 years, say) after several terms?

Why can't the people determine what is good for them? If there was a movement for term limits, we could amend the Constitution. If people want to keep electing Rangel why should they not be able to? Term limits always strike me as anti-democratic because you are muffling the voice of the people.

 

[timschochet]

Great explanation again, Yankee.

Regarding Washington- suppose that, like Zapata of Mexico he had refused to retire after 2 terms? Suppose he ordered the army to arrest all members of Congress and declared himself President for life? Would he have gotten away with it?

 

[Gawain]

Great explanation again, Yankee.

Regarding Washington- suppose that, like Zapata of Mexico he had refused to retire after 2 terms? Suppose he ordered the army to arrest all members of Congress and declared himself President for life? Would he have gotten away with it?

He easily could have run again. His stepping down created the two term precedent that was only codified after FDR.

Had he done away with elections or disregarded the results, then you are into some third world ####, but simply running wouldn't have caused a problem at all.

ETA: Washington didn't lose an election. That didn't happen to a sitting president until Adams, who gave way for Jefferson.

 

[hagmania]

Regarding all sections that create elected officials, I can't believe there aren't some sort of term limits on our Legislative Branch. If I were to write it up, Judicial Branch can serve for life, they are (supposed to be) the ideal wisdom of our country. Executive Branch... well, I'm not really sure if there should be term limits here, to be honest. Maybe write it up similar to Argentina's term limits - after two terms, you have to sit out at least one term. But in the Legislative Branch, I would absolutely create some sort of Argentinian system. I think it's for the good of the people to impose change on these elected seats.

What would be the argument against forcing a hiatus (2 or 4 years, say) after several terms?

Why can't the people determine what is good for them? If there was a movement for term limits, we could amend the Constitution. If people want to keep electing Rangel why should they not be able to? Term limits always strike me as anti-democratic because you are muffling the voice of the people.

I want them to THINK! If they really missed their Representative, elect them after the hiatus. I'm not above some dictatorial decrees that outline a greater democratic scheme to government.

 

[hagmania]

Although, this is me writing a revised Constitution given the USA's current state. In creating government from nothing, I can't truly disagree with the notion of no term limits. Maybe I should have held my tongue 'til we got to the "write your own amendment" portion of our discussion.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Regarding all sections that create elected officials, I can't believe there aren't some sort of term limits on our Legislative Branch. If I were to write it up, Judicial Branch can serve for life, they are (supposed to be) the ideal wisdom of our country. Executive Branch... well, I'm not really sure if there should be term limits here, to be honest. Maybe write it up similar to Argentina's term limits - after two terms, you have to sit out at least one term. But in the Legislative Branch, I would absolutely create some sort of Argentinian system. I think it's for the good of the people to impose change on these elected seats.

What would be the argument against forcing a hiatus (2 or 4 years, say) after several terms?

Thomas Jefferson supported term limits. I will forego my usual attacks on him.

The states at the time of the Constitution had for the most part various term limit policies for state offices. The Articles of Confederation did as well. The Constitution does not. Jefferson yelled at Madison for that through letters. But the Congress at the time was a part time job. They barely met by today's standards. Actually by today's standards the Congress didn't even really exist (and whole 'nother reason why Executive Orders are just and proper). The men that served had to get back to the states to do their jobs there. It wasn't that much of a concern and really didn't even become one until the last century.

Madison wrote about this specific point in Federalist 53 - and the basic is this - the people in Congress would be the best to deal with the job of Congress and rotating them out frequently will lessen the body's ability to do its job well, and new members are more prone to bribery than are the guys that have been there forever and know the pitfalls. It was an idealistic view, but one that permeated the founders thinking of the people that should lead a government.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Great explanation again, Yankee.

Regarding Washington- suppose that, like Zapata of Mexico he had refused to retire after 2 terms? Suppose he ordered the army to arrest all members of Congress and declared himself President for life? Would he have gotten away with it?

Not only would he have gotten away with it, but he wouldn't have even had to arrest the Congress because they would have gone along with it. He was begged from every corner of the country to run again and he would have won almost unanimously. Jefferson's growing power wouldn't have been able to stop him, Adams would have gone along with it to stop Jefferson, and no one in their right mind would have publically attacked him and put their name to it (Jefferson paid someone else to do it).

 

[hagmania]

Regarding all sections that create elected officials, I can't believe there aren't some sort of term limits on our Legislative Branch. If I were to write it up, Judicial Branch can serve for life, they are (supposed to be) the ideal wisdom of our country. Executive Branch... well, I'm not really sure if there should be term limits here, to be honest. Maybe write it up similar to Argentina's term limits - after two terms, you have to sit out at least one term. But in the Legislative Branch, I would absolutely create some sort of Argentinian system. I think it's for the good of the people to impose change on these elected seats.

What would be the argument against forcing a hiatus (2 or 4 years, say) after several terms?

Thomas Jefferson supported term limits. I will forego my usual attacks on him.

The states at the time of the Constitution had for the most part various term limit policies for state offices. The Articles of Confederation did as well. The Constitution does not. Jefferson yelled at Madison for that through letters. But the Congress at the time was a part time job. They barely met by today's standards. Actually by today's standards the Congress didn't even really exist (and whole 'nother reason why Executive Orders are just and proper). The men that served had to get back to the states to do their jobs there. It wasn't that much of a concern and really didn't even become one until the last century.

Madison wrote about this specific point in Federalist 53 - and the basic is this - the people in Congress would be the best to deal with the job of Congress and rotating them out frequently will lessen the body's ability to do its job well, and new members are more prone to bribery than are the guys that have been there forever and know the pitfalls. It was an idealistic view, but one that permeated the founders thinking of the people that should lead a government.

I'll take a link to your thoughts on Jefferson. I have found an interest in the political sphere, but I'm very new to it all.

Actually, some suggestions on reading material on all things government would be welcome. I'm just dishing out my uneducated opinions here, looking to discuss and learn and change my mind imo.

More to the point of my question, Madison's point about rotating lawmakers is a fair one. I would hope that a lawmaker going into his last term would press to make sure his ideas form inquiries, committees, etc, though it may actually produce a far more unsavory amount of "lame duck" careermongers...

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Although, this is me writing a revised Constitution given the USA's current state. In creating government from nothing, I can't truly disagree with the notion of no term limits. Maybe I should have held my tongue 'til we got to the "write your own amendment" portion of our discussion.

It makes a lot of sense to not have limits on the Congress in the original Constitution.

For the House, it was the people's body. Let the people have who they want. The argument that "we know better" than the people and you can't have that representative anymore was basically the very argument they heard for 20 years with Parliment. They weren't about to let that happen again. For the Senate, it was a body of the states. If the states wanted to remove a Senator they could have. It would haven't been nor was it considered hard. The Constitution doesn't stand in the way of the states doing that. So why should the national government force that limit on the states when they already have that power.

In today's world, term limits are a mixed bag. Madison was right - you keep rolling them over and there is a loss of continuity and experience that you can't deny is important. How many stories about foreign policy do we hear about where we averted a massive crisis because a Congressman or Senator knew the players and was able to navigate the pitfalls. Charlie Wilson gets a lot of praise for just that. There is something to be said for the lifers in Congress. Our hatred of them isn't that, but the fact that we all assume that if they are there long enough when they finally retire they aren't exactly poor and if that is the case who bought them while they were there. It's the wrong solution to the problem I think. Except it could be the only solution. If you agree there is a problem to start with.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Regarding all sections that create elected officials, I can't believe there aren't some sort of term limits on our Legislative Branch. If I were to write it up, Judicial Branch can serve for life, they are (supposed to be) the ideal wisdom of our country. Executive Branch... well, I'm not really sure if there should be term limits here, to be honest. Maybe write it up similar to Argentina's term limits - after two terms, you have to sit out at least one term. But in the Legislative Branch, I would absolutely create some sort of Argentinian system. I think it's for the good of the people to impose change on these elected seats.

What would be the argument against forcing a hiatus (2 or 4 years, say) after several terms?

Thomas Jefferson supported term limits. I will forego my usual attacks on him.

The states at the time of the Constitution had for the most part various term limit policies for state offices. The Articles of Confederation did as well. The Constitution does not. Jefferson yelled at Madison for that through letters. But the Congress at the time was a part time job. They barely met by today's standards. Actually by today's standards the Congress didn't even really exist (and whole 'nother reason why Executive Orders are just and proper). The men that served had to get back to the states to do their jobs there. It wasn't that much of a concern and really didn't even become one until the last century.

Madison wrote about this specific point in Federalist 53 - and the basic is this - the people in Congress would be the best to deal with the job of Congress and rotating them out frequently will lessen the body's ability to do its job well, and new members are more prone to bribery than are the guys that have been there forever and know the pitfalls. It was an idealistic view, but one that permeated the founders thinking of the people that should lead a government.

This is the main reason why I never buy the term limits arguments. If you set a cap on the amount of time someone can hold an office you maximize the incentive to get as much out of that time as possible vs. the incentive to hold the office for as long as possible or advance to a better elected position. Term limits would actually make congress less accountable to the people, to the extent that's even possible at this point.

The answer is a better informed and more engaged electorate. Term limits are the ultimate lazy cop out.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Regarding all sections that create elected officials, I can't believe there aren't some sort of term limits on our Legislative Branch. If I were to write it up, Judicial Branch can serve for life, they are (supposed to be) the ideal wisdom of our country. Executive Branch... well, I'm not really sure if there should be term limits here, to be honest. Maybe write it up similar to Argentina's term limits - after two terms, you have to sit out at least one term. But in the Legislative Branch, I would absolutely create some sort of Argentinian system. I think it's for the good of the people to impose change on these elected seats.

What would be the argument against forcing a hiatus (2 or 4 years, say) after several terms?

Thomas Jefferson supported term limits. I will forego my usual attacks on him.

The states at the time of the Constitution had for the most part various term limit policies for state offices. The Articles of Confederation did as well. The Constitution does not. Jefferson yelled at Madison for that through letters. But the Congress at the time was a part time job. They barely met by today's standards. Actually by today's standards the Congress didn't even really exist (and whole 'nother reason why Executive Orders are just and proper). The men that served had to get back to the states to do their jobs there. It wasn't that much of a concern and really didn't even become one until the last century.

Madison wrote about this specific point in Federalist 53 - and the basic is this - the people in Congress would be the best to deal with the job of Congress and rotating them out frequently will lessen the body's ability to do its job well, and new members are more prone to bribery than are the guys that have been there forever and know the pitfalls. It was an idealistic view, but one that permeated the founders thinking of the people that should lead a government.

I'll take a link to your thoughts on Jefferson. I have found an interest in the political sphere, but I'm very new to it all.

Actually, some suggestions on reading material on all things government would be welcome. I'm just dishing out my uneducated opinions here, looking to discuss and learn and change my mind imo.

More to the point of my question, Madison's point about rotating lawmakers is a fair one. I would hope that a lawmaker going into his last term would press to make sure his ideas form inquiries, committees, etc, though it may actually produce a far more unsavory amount of "lame duck" careermongers...

If you are looking for a single book to start reading about our founders you won't find a better one than Founding Brothers by Joe Ellis. That should be the basis for anyone beginning a knowledge quest on our founding and if king I would make it required reading by every person in this country. Once you get the understanding of Washington, Jefferson v. Adams, Madison plus Jefferson, Burr and Hamilton and Hamilton with then against Madison you get in a few hundred pages the overiding greatness and horrible failures of these men and how they collectively helped to create our nation.

 

[otello]

I resign. 1-0. I screwed up that opening and you never let me off the hook. Well played. Rematch?

1. d4

Nf6

2. Nf3

g6

 

[hagmania]

Term limits are the ultimate lazy cop out.

Oh, I agree. I am pessimistic about the electorate ever becoming more educated.

 

[Gawain]

Term limits are the ultimate lazy cop out.

Oh, I agree. I am pessimistic about the electorate ever becoming more educated.

Would you support a move back to only real property owners having voting rights?

ETA: What about literacy tests?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I'll take a link to your thoughts on Jefferson. I have found an interest in the political sphere, but I'm very new to it all.

You can seach my member name and Jefferson and find it. Quick snippet - he was an awful governor, and political hack whose naivte almost ended our nation before it got off the ground, was an anglophobe because he owed them money, was wrong about some of the most important things in history for his time, and giving him credit for writing the Declaration of Independence is like giving WestingHouse author credits for every book they publish. He was just the printing press.

Beyond that though, decent guy.

 

[hagmania]

Term limits are the ultimate lazy cop out.

Oh, I agree. I am pessimistic about the electorate ever becoming more educated.

Would you support a move back to only real property owners having voting rights?

ETA: What about literacy tests?

Of course not, thus the lazy cop out.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I also think we may be at a point where a legitimate 3rd party is needed if we are going to have effective governance again.

The trends of the last 6 years are fascinating. I think you can make a strong argument that the country as a whole is moving in a direction that is best defined as Libertarian in nature.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Term limits are the ultimate lazy cop out.

Oh, I agree. I am pessimistic about the electorate ever becoming more educated.

Would you support a move back to only real property owners having voting rights?

ETA: What about literacy tests?

I think I can make a compelling argument in favor of the property thing. I think a monkey could make one about the literacy thing. And both would only be about half serious.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I also think we may be at a point where a legitimate 3rd party is needed if we are going to have effective governance again.

The trends of the last 6 years are fascinating. I think you can make a strong argument that the country as a whole is moving in a direction that is best defined as Libertarian in nature.

Define effective governance? That is always the key. Some people like gridlock and see it as what makes governance effective.

And are you only looking at the national stage? Because for every one law Congress passes the states pass collectively about 40 times that. Then you tack on counties and municipalities. I'm sure there is s study but I'd be willing to bet that New Jersey alone, from local to state level has passed at least 70 times the amount of laws that the 113 Congress did. No multiply that by 50.

 

[timschochet]

Great explanation again, Yankee.

Regarding Washington- suppose that, like Zapata of Mexico he had refused to retire after 2 terms? Suppose he ordered the army to arrest all members of Congress and declared himself President for life? Would he have gotten away with it?

Not only would he have gotten away with it, but he wouldn't have even had to arrest the Congress because they would have gone along with it. He was begged from every corner of the country to run again and he would have won almost unanimously. Jefferson's growing power wouldn't have been able to stop him, Adams would have gone along with it to stop Jefferson, and no one in their right mind would have publically attacked him and put their name to it (Jefferson paid someone else to do it).

I understand that he would have been re-elected. But suppose, like Napoleon, Washington simply tore up the Constitution and declared himself Emperor. Would he have gotten away with that?

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Every one of you posting in here needs to get to the raffle thread that is pinned and donate $10. Now. This is not an option.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Great explanation again, Yankee.

Regarding Washington- suppose that, like Zapata of Mexico he had refused to retire after 2 terms? Suppose he ordered the army to arrest all members of Congress and declared himself President for life? Would he have gotten away with it?

Not only would he have gotten away with it, but he wouldn't have even had to arrest the Congress because they would have gone along with it. He was begged from every corner of the country to run again and he would have won almost unanimously. Jefferson's growing power wouldn't have been able to stop him, Adams would have gone along with it to stop Jefferson, and no one in their right mind would have publically attacked him and put their name to it (Jefferson paid someone else to do it).

I understand that he would have been re-elected. But suppose, like Napoleon, Washington simply tore up the Constitution and declared himself Emperor. Would he have gotten away with that?

Yes.

 

[timschochet]

I resign. 1-0. I screwed up that opening and you never let me off the hook. Well played. Rematch?

1. d4

Nf6

2. Nf3

g6

3. Nbd2

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I also think we may be at a point where a legitimate 3rd party is needed if we are going to have effective governance again.

The trends of the last 6 years are fascinating. I think you can make a strong argument that the country as a whole is moving in a direction that is best defined as Libertarian in nature.

Define effective governance? That is always the key. Some people like gridlock and see it as what makes governance effective.

And are you only looking at the national stage? Because for every one law Congress passes the states pass collectively about 40 times that. Then you tack on counties and municipalities. I'm sure there is s study but I'd be willing to bet that New Jersey alone, from local to state level has passed at least 70 times the amount of laws that the 113 Congress did. No multiply that by 50.

I define effective governance as being able to rationally address problems before they escalate to crises. I don't think it really has anything to do with the amount of legislation passed. I suspect a reasonably strong 3rd party might actually slow down new legislation, particularly at the state and local level.

 

[timschochet]

I've always felt like the length of time for each federal politician- 2 years for congressmen, 4 years for President, 6 for senator- made term limits irrelevant. If the argument for or against term limits is to make things more or less democratic, it seems to me that we already have that mechanism in place: the House is more democratic, the Senate less so, and the President is somewhere in between. At the same time, I've always believed that presidents should be able to run for as many terms as they like. I think that would serve to give our foreign policies a greater sense of continuity. Look what we have now: why should any other country around the world pay attention to Obama knowing that in 2 years his time is up? (Think Putin for example.)

But I also want to add that much of the discussion and debate that takes place about term limits always assumes automatically that democracy is a desired goal, and that the more democracy we have the better. Obviously based on this document we are studying, the Founding Fathers didn't necessarily believe this. A French writer once wrote that a society of cannibals would elect a cannibal as their leader. And of course I hate to go there, but we all know that Hitler achieved power through democratic means (to be precise, he was not elected, but he was appointed by an elected President, Hindenburg. And Hitler's dictatorial powers came as a result of an Enabling Act that was voted for by members of Parliament, all of whom were elected.)

IMO the most catastrophic aspect of our foreign policy over the last 100 years is that we have insisted on democracy wherever and whenever we could impose it. From Woodrow Wilson to FDR to LBJ to Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush, our leaders have regarded democratic voting as a positive good in itself, without paying attention to whom were being voted for. (There are exceptions to this: Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan each had a far more realpolitik view and were willing to go against the "will of the people"- Ike in Guatemala and Iran, JFK in Vietnam, Nixon in Chile, Reagan in Nicaragua. All of these Presidents have been vilified by progressives for ignoring democratic results.)

 

[njherdfan]

I've always felt like the length of time for each federal politician- 2 years for congressmen, 4 years for President, 6 for senator- made term limits irrelevant. If the argument for or against term limits is to make things more or less democratic, it seems to me that we already have that mechanism in place: the House is more democratic, the Senate less so, and the President is somewhere in between. At the same time, I've always believed that presidents should be able to run for as many terms as they like. I think that would serve to give our foreign policies a greater sense of continuity. Look what we have now: why should any other country around the world pay attention to Obama knowing that in 2 years his time is up? (Think Putin for example.)

But I also want to add that much of the discussion and debate that takes place about term limits always assumes automatically that democracy is a desired goal, and that the more democracy we have the better. Obviously based on this document we are studying, the Founding Fathers didn't necessarily believe this. A French writer once wrote that a society of cannibals would elect a cannibal as their leader. And of course I hate to go there, but we all know that Hitler achieved power through democratic means (to be precise, he was not elected, but he was appointed by an elected President, Hindenburg. And Hitler's dictatorial powers came as a result of an Enabling Act that was voted for by members of Parliament, all of whom were elected.)

IMO the most catastrophic aspect of our foreign policy over the last 100 years is that we have insisted on democracy wherever and whenever we could impose it. From Woodrow Wilson to FDR to LBJ to Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush, our leaders have regarded democratic voting as a positive good in itself, without paying attention to whom were being voted for. (There are exceptions to this: Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan each had a far more realpolitik view and were willing to go against the "will of the people"- Ike in Guatemala and Iran, JFK in Vietnam, Nixon in Chile, Reagan in Nicaragua. All of these Presidents have been vilified by progressives for ignoring democratic results.)

With the limited exception of western Europe, I don't think this is true at all. You even list a number of exceptions yourself. I would say demanding democracy, rather than the success or failure of a specific leader, has been the exception rather than the rule in the past century.

 

[timschochet]

I've always felt like the length of time for each federal politician- 2 years for congressmen, 4 years for President, 6 for senator- made term limits irrelevant. If the argument for or against term limits is to make things more or less democratic, it seems to me that we already have that mechanism in place: the House is more democratic, the Senate less so, and the President is somewhere in between. At the same time, I've always believed that presidents should be able to run for as many terms as they like. I think that would serve to give our foreign policies a greater sense of continuity. Look what we have now: why should any other country around the world pay attention to Obama knowing that in 2 years his time is up? (Think Putin for example.)

But I also want to add that much of the discussion and debate that takes place about term limits always assumes automatically that democracy is a desired goal, and that the more democracy we have the better. Obviously based on this document we are studying, the Founding Fathers didn't necessarily believe this. A French writer once wrote that a society of cannibals would elect a cannibal as their leader. And of course I hate to go there, but we all know that Hitler achieved power through democratic means (to be precise, he was not elected, but he was appointed by an elected President, Hindenburg. And Hitler's dictatorial powers came as a result of an Enabling Act that was voted for by members of Parliament, all of whom were elected.)

IMO the most catastrophic aspect of our foreign policy over the last 100 years is that we have insisted on democracy wherever and whenever we could impose it. From Woodrow Wilson to FDR to LBJ to Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush, our leaders have regarded democratic voting as a positive good in itself, without paying attention to whom were being voted for. (There are exceptions to this: Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan each had a far more realpolitik view and were willing to go against the "will of the people"- Ike in Guatemala and Iran, JFK in Vietnam, Nixon in Chile, Reagan in Nicaragua. All of these Presidents have been vilified by progressives for ignoring democratic results.)

With the limited exception of western Europe, I don't think this is true at all. You even list a number of exceptions yourself. I would say demanding democracy, rather than the success or failure of a specific leader, has been the exception rather than the rule in the past century.

I would argue that the exceptions proved the rule. The ill-conceived ideas of Woodrow Wilson paved the way for the Second World War. The ill-conceived ideas of FDR paved the way for decades of horror in Africa and the Third World, because we insisted that the colonial powers leave and be replaced with "democratic" governments.

And in our own time, the insistence by George W. Bush of a a democratic Iraq has managed to destabilize not only that country, but the entire Middle East and therefore the world. Even beyond the invasion of Iraq, this insistence on democracy in Iraq was arguably the biggest foreign policy blunder in American history.

 

[Gawain]

Every one of you posting in here needs to get to the raffle thread that is pinned and donate $10. Now. This is not an option.

Donated $20, but just feels like I'm defraying you and IB now

 

[timschochet]

And I'm not saying that the actions of Eisenhower, JFK, Nixon, and Reagan were well conceived either; in most cases they were overreactions to socialism based on a fear of communism and specifically the Soviet Union. And in each case we supported some pretty ugly dictatorships. But in terms of the effect on the USA, these decisions were not as catastrophic on the naive faith in democracy that our leaders (including Obama) continue to share.

 

[Scoresman]

summary of the last 20 pages please.

 

[timschochet]

summary of the last 20 pages please.

I would, but aren't you the guy who posted yesterday that the worst tv marathon ever would be me hosting West Wing episodes?

Go back and read it for yourself.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Every one of you posting in here needs to get to the raffle thread that is pinned and donate $10. Now. This is not an option.

Donated $20, but just feels like I'm defraying you and IB now

yeah I just saw the timing of the posts and it looks that way. Not my intention at all.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I also think we may be at a point where a legitimate 3rd party is needed if we are going to have effective governance again.

The trends of the last 6 years are fascinating. I think you can make a strong argument that the country as a whole is moving in a direction that is best defined as Libertarian in nature.

Sounds like effective governance to me.