PDA

View Full Version : Senator Cruz introduces Term Limit Amendment. Well, well, well.



Dr. Gonzo
1/05/2019 7:56pm,
Senator Cruz introduces Term Limit Amendment.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-joint-resolution/1/text

Well, well, well.

Bneterasedmynam
1/06/2019 12:38am,
Cruz is just [email protected]#^^###. I censored my normal response.

Kravbizarre
1/06/2019 6:01am,
Wouldnt this reduce corruption if senators cant stay longer? You know so they cant abuse their position?

Dr. Gonzo
1/06/2019 8:30am,
Wouldnt this reduce corruption if senators cant stay longer? You know so they cant abuse their position?Why yes, yes it would.

People tend to forget the lobbies are not the problem.

The corrupt congress people are the problem.

Without corrupt and corrupted and corrupting Congress people who can play the long game,

Lobbies have a much more expensive game to play, because they have to make the initial buy risk and expenditure again and again and again.

Michael Tzadok
1/06/2019 9:10am,
Why yes, yes it would.

People tend to forget the lobbies are not the problem.

The corrupt congress people are the problem.

Without corrupt and corrupted and corrupting Congress people who can play the long game,

Lobbies have a much more expensive game to play, because they have to make the initial buy risk and expenditure again and again and again.

So I expect the honorable senator will then not be seeking reelection at the end of this his second term.

In all seriousness though, the idea that term limits would limit corruption is a good, yet untested hypothesis.

I don't personally think it will reduce corruption. I think it may in fact have an inverse effect. Take representative Alexandra Occasio Ortiz for example. She clearly sought election with an agenda that she hopes to accomplish over the course of a career. If limited in time frame she is far more likely to make dirty deals to accomplish those goals as opposed to slowly trying to influence people.

Also anyone seeking to make ill gotten gains from public office will only be encouraged to speed up the process.

On the flip side you will be kicking good and effective representatives out of office simply because a term limits has passed. That seems foolish to me.

Dr. Gonzo
1/06/2019 9:35am,
So I expect the honorable senator will then not be seeking reelection at the end of this his second term.

In all seriousness though, the idea that term limits would limit corruption is a good, yet untested hypothesis.

I don't personally think it will reduce corruption. I think it may in fact have an inverse effect. Take representative Alexandra Occasio Ortiz for example. She clearly sought election with an agenda that she hopes to accomplish over the course of a career. If limited in time frame she is far more likely to make dirty deals to accomplish those goals as opposed to slowly trying to influence people.

Also anyone seeking to make ill gotten gains from public office will only be encouraged to speed up the process.

On the flip side you will be kicking good and effective representatives out of office simply because a term limits has passed. That seems foolish to me.
Positions of power are inherently corrupting, and just like sugar, fat, booze, and drugs should be carefully dosed with breaks between doses to avoid addiction and abuse.

And the people in those positions of power should be rotated.

There will certainly be both good and evils from term limits.

As for me, I prefer to keep our politicians' potential for abuse of power as checked as possible.

Dung Beatles
1/06/2019 12:39pm,
Wouldnt this reduce corruption if senators cant stay longer? You know so they cant abuse their position?

Ideally, but like you I'm too lazy to use google to find the con argument.

Michael Tzadok
1/06/2019 1:03pm,
Ideally, but like you I'm too lazy to use google to find the con argument.
Always distrust simple solutions to complex problems. They often cause far more problems than they ever fix. We're still living with the ramifications of Prohibition and it never did fix the problems it was intended to.

Dr. Gonzo
1/06/2019 1:28pm,
Always distrust simple solutions to complex problems. They often cause far more problems than they ever fix. We're still living with the ramifications of Prohibition and it never did fix the problems it was intended to.
Sometimes simple approaches are the solution to a gordian knot.

Dung Beatles
1/06/2019 1:53pm,
Sometimes simple approaches are the solution to a gordian knot.

My understanding is that the founders wanted congress and the SCOTUS to be highly stable. It seems like term limits might force huge pendulum shifts in congress every two terms and that could be potentially dangerous if parties start playing games by trying to sabotage the incoming government representatives like what we saw in Wisconsin.

But yeah, maybe that doesn't happen and it fixes everything. I'd really like to see the game theory on that one.

Wouldn't it be easier to ban business activities while in office and place bans on lobbyist activities post congressional tenure? Sure, someone would find a work around but I'm not especially comfortable with radical departures from the status quo.

Sure, status quo is especially fucked up but it can always get worse as seen with the current Executive Branch. Mildly tongue in cheek, I'd wait to see what the Russo Troll factory wants us to do and just do the opposite of that.

Dr. Gonzo
1/06/2019 3:02pm,
My understanding is that the founders wanted congress and the SCOTUS to be highly stable. It seems like term limits might force huge pendulum shifts in congress every two terms and that could be potentially dangerous if parties start playing games by trying to sabotage the incoming government representatives like what we saw in Wisconsin.

But yeah, maybe that doesn't happen and it fixes everything. I'd really like to see the game theory on that one.

Wouldn't it be easier to ban business activities while in office and place bans on lobbyist activities post congressional tenure? Sure, someone would find a work around but I'm not especially comfortable with radical departures from the status quo.

Sure, status quo is especially fucked up but it can always get worse as seen with the current Executive Branch. Mildly tongue in cheek, I'd wait to see what the Russo Troll factory wants us to do and just do the opposite of that.
I have no reason to think that the founding founders wished Congress to be stable.

SCOTUS is a different story.

Dung Beatles
1/06/2019 4:27pm,
I have no reason to think that the founding founders wished Congress to be stable.

SCOTUS is a different story.

Because they didn't include term limits at all, instead adopting a system of observing precedence of prior office holders. Even for the POTUS they only adopted 2 term limits unofficially until 1947 by constitutional ratification. Before that they let tradition dictate two terms in the Executive Branch because that's George Washington decided to do.

It turns out that he was probably right but observation of traditions in government seems to have been important enough that they kept the same procedural practices steady even though there were basically playing on an honor system for many practicies.

If we're going to amend the constitution, it better be an emergency. A constitutional amendment alters the founding document in an extremely powerful way. Big changes in government were meant to be rare and out of necessity as evidenced by the difficulty written into the way the framers instructed Amendments to be made.

A Constitutional Amendment requires a 2/3rds vote in the House and Senate. That's not going to be easy for anyone to pull off. Its easier to vote to impeach.

submessenger
1/06/2019 4:35pm,
I have no reason to think that the founding founders wished Congress to be stable.

SCOTUS is a different story.

Generally speaking, the Federalists didn't want term limits; the anti-Federalists did.

The Federalists also thought that the American People would vote out corrupt congresscritters.

Dung Beatles
1/06/2019 4:38pm,
Generally speaking, the Federalists didn't want term limits; the anti-Federalists did.

The Federalists also thought that the American People would vote out corrupt congresscritters.

Which is why guys like Jefferson and Franklin were so adamant on the subject of a free press.