Oh yes. Lovely commentary. However, as you so rightfully point out, most of the schnooks in government are not going to vote for the shortening of their exalted positions no matter how bad of a job they are doing for the country.

California has term limits and it is making things worse. Soon Sacramento will have nothing but newbie legislators. And who will supply the competence & advice to these babies? The eternal staff, bureaucracy & lobbyists - that is who.

Term limits is a bad idea.

I oppose "term limits" and I'll tell you why.

1. The good man would be punished. If you had a good Stateman you wouldn't want them out.

2. I think that to do this, most want to do it through a Constitutional Convention. It is a "trap of the devil" NO CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

NO, NO, NO

I suggested to Fred Thompson when he was "visiting" our locale. During all of the mid '90's flurry of "Term Limits"

Here's what to do.

1. All pensions and benefits, are gone from the offices. We are constantly told that these elected ones are "civil servants" and so if they go to "serve" they get paid for their "service" but they do NOT accrue pensions and benefits.

If you go to Washington to "serve the Country", you will not be on the back of the taxpayers for the rest of your life or the life of your family.

You go as people in this Country who have private business do, they get their own "pensions" if they have enough left over to do such things.

NO TERM LIMITS, JUST GET RID OF ALL THE PENSIONS AND BENEFITS THAT INFEST WASHINGTON, D.C. I suspect, We have "self-serving politicians" because they are working for a huge Corporation that gives them the lavish "retirements & benefits" and once the "pensions and benefits" are out of the way, how many will serve because "they love the people and "fear God"?????????????

For God & Country

Ruth Ann Wilson

Ruth Ann Wilson. Your comment is perfect. I agree with you. Also this should be the perfect system for every government federal, state, city and county office in the United States Of America. People who are Thankful for being an American and are TRUE SERVERS of their country should be happy to gift their time and talent without the bribe of EXCESSIVE WAGES AND BONUS' I also firmly believe that those applying should have a background of business where they KNOW what it takes to keep the people employed and happy and what it takes to maintain a reputation that produces results.

Angie Kruckenberg

I'm sorry but how do you fix any of those issues on a federal level with out a Constitutional convention?

Even if you get congress to pass a law now, what would stop them from overturning it down the road...

I'm not a lawyer so please correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a hard time seeing any of this happening with out opening the flood gate that is a Constitutional convection. At that point however, we may not recognize America (even less than some of us do now) when it's done...

Do both. Term limits to halt potential abuse by a very wealthy capitalizing on the privileges and power. And no pensions or benefits after serving; end all. Ensure this applies to elected and politically appointed only. Do not penalize those clerks, technicians, et al who serve/work faithfully. Their wages are not excessive, their institutional knowledge is invaluable (avoid re-inventing the wheel versus occasionally obstructive as in, "that's the way we've always done it"), and their pensions and benefits are comparable to private/corporate enterprises. They earn it. Elected and political appointees should serve for the privilege, never profit.

I agree with Ruth Ann in the sense that once you get a good rep in office they will be gone once their term is up. How about a consecutive term limit? Take a break and see what is really going on. Definitely get rid of the perks. Give them some benefites while they are in but take them away when they leave. Cut their pay to an average the national average. Make it a perk to do civil service. If you can't afford to do the job then don't do it. This position is a public service. The other point that needs to be addressed is the amount of money spent on elections. I thought that all of the branches of each patry office is in part responsible for the elction of their representative. Those postions are voluntary and shouldn't need money. It's time to get back to the roots and go door-to-door. The reps should schedule meetings in major areas to let the public hear what they have to say and ask questions. I read an idea someone had about having these reps sign a contract with the public to do what they say they are going to do. Then when they fail to follow through they can be held accountable. I woould be willing to do it. It is their responsibility to do as the public wills them to do, not what they get paid to do. Maybe it's time to remove lobbyists from Washington too. If the temptation is not their they won't make the mistakes of accepting them. Also hold the government to the law. They are part of it too.

Nate, I think I understand your question.

Most of the push to a Constitutional Convention is coming from the States because of the 17th Amendment, "popular election of Senators", the way I understand this. The answer to the States is this - STAND ON THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS - in the state Constitution these rights are INDEFEASIBLE. REPEAL the 17th Amendment which can be accomplished.

FDR had no trouble going after the 18th Amendment - Prohibition (which I liked, because it got rid of public sanction of poison that destroys the souls of men.) Our Founders were against "popular election of Senators" and we can now, see their obvious wisdom. Senators were to be elected from the State Legislatures and no wonder, the States are aggravated, now they are left with NO DEFENDER. State legislatures have become "useless appendages that carry out the dictates of the Federal Congress." But the answer is not a Constitutional Convention, the answer is STAND ON THE DECLARATION OF RIGHTS in the State Constitution and REPEAL the 17th Amendment.

I know you understand the "GRAVE DANGER" of a Constitutional Convention at any level. NO,NO,NO

STAND ON THE DOCUMENTS ALREADY IN PLACE - THE STATE CONSTITUTIONS - DECLARATION OF RIGHTS. THE FENCE, THE FEDERAL LEVEL CANNOT CROSS. If they transgress those State boundaries, the State already, because of their State Constitutions have remedies for those who cross the lines.

This not Secession. It is declaring State Sovereignty because each State has a Declaration of Rights which cannot be ABROGATED OR BREACHED.

For God & Country

Ruth Ann Wilson

As one who rarely finds himself without a firm opinion, I must say that I am torn over term limits. While I am eager to see our nation return to the concept of citizen-statesmen, the notion that legislators are plucked from their homes and jobs to serve the greater good and then returned to their communities to live out their lives, I can also appreciate the argument of hanging on to the good ones! Additionally, I subscribe to the idea that we, indeed, have a government of the people and by the people. With this in mind, we already, in esscence, have term limits. Each elected term is regulated by the electorate. Election day is a powerful tool in the hands of "the people" and yet few exercise that power and it is appreciated by even fewer. Our problems lie not with legislators overstaying their welcome but with the lack of education of our voters. Apathy on the part of the people is what keeps corrupt and incompetant Senators and Congressmen in power.

To Tony and Ann, When is the last time that you actually could point to a representative as a "Good Man"? One that you felt needed to be returned to office? Or more importantly, one that the majority of voters could point to as a "Good Man"? The fact of the matter is, that while you wait for your "Good Man" to appear, there are literally dozens of bad politicians that should be turned out of office after the first month. In the mean time, they gather lobbyists and campaign funds to make any opposition a daunting task. Suppose it was your "Good Man" that couldn't get a decent break because he was battling an incumbent with lots of money? Term limits would at least ensure that those lobbyist connections would be reduced (or at least make it so expensive as to give them a moment of pause in throwing their money around on someone who may not be there long).

I also agree on not having a Constitutional Convention any time soon. We can't even ensure fair elections in this country any more, and you want to subject what's left of the Constitution to these people?

Term limits are easily enforced by the electorate. Once your Senators or representative have served two full terms simply vote them out of office. The only reason Kennedy served for 47 years is because his socialist constituancy in duh-Mass kept voting him in. We got just what they deserved.

Re; Ruth Ann,

I agree that the 17th amendment needs to go but just as important is the repeal of the 16th(income tax)amendment. When these were ratified it altered the balance of powers between the state and federal governments. Before hand, Senators were the representatives of the state legislatures and the state legislatures funded the federal government through the formula of apportionment. To repeal one or the other of these but not both does not return us to the balance of powers intended by our founding fathers. These both came to us in the "progressive" era of the early 1900s and they need to be repealed together.

No "elected" official should recieve any pension or special benifit for serving as a representative of the people. It should established so financial concerns force them back into the private sector to "earn" there retirement. It was never intended that politicians make a career in politics but only to serve for a short time and then return to their private sector trade. But, again, this is all easily resolved by voting them out of office. If the people resolve to allow no one to serve beyond a particular number of terms and vote against them when that limit is reached then "term limits" become a moot point. I like the number two. If it's good enough for the executive then it should be good enough for the legislative. Plus if you repeal the 17th amendment then the States can send who they want as a Senator for however long they want, so long as the 16th amendment goes bye-bye too and the states return to footing the bill for the Federal government. This is how the founders framed it and it's how it should still be.

01/12/10

After the Civil War,People started to take a close

critical look at the congress and senate. Before

1900 people were refering to the Democratic Party

"AS THE PARTY OF TREASON".Politicians today,With

their mind set have one objective,To benefit their

constituents,To get reelected,Increase their take

home pay,Retire with the best medical INS.program,

and as MILLIONAIRES.NO WAY,WILL THEY GIVE THAT

UP!

Texan, on your comment on the 16th Amendment, REPEAL, of course.

Graduated Income Tax has no business in the United States Constitution.

BUT the answer is not a Constitutional Convention, NO, NO, NO.

It must be done by States asserting the Declaration of Rights in their State Constitutions, State Sovereignty

Much to be done, but by the Grace of God, we will have our Beloved Country back. I know the Lord sees all the tears, prayers, and love for America, the beautiful. He knows all the sacrifices of Founders, Veterans and Patriots. God is merciful.

For God & Country

Ruth Ann Wilson

Ann, as much as I would love to believe that we will get our country back, I fear that God will have to turn his back on the United States. WE as a country have pushed him out of the public forum. WE as a country have denied him access to our government and schools. WE as a country have turned (albeit recently) our back on Israel and have cursed them. WE as a country have murdered 40 million of his children. No ma'am, God must judge this country, or he must in fairness apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah!

Good folks,

Excellent choices as to the loss of "Bennie's" for our congress. Still there should be another restriction. Each state should be responsible to establish and pay salaries for its senators(mandated and controlled by state legislature), and each representative's salary should be established and controlled by his/her respective district.

This would better control the monetary waste currently laid at the taxpayers feet. "Vacation" jaunts in the name of "fact finding missions", free rides on government aircraft(pelousi for one), superlative medical benefits(denied to fellow Americans), to name a few, would now be controlled by the states and districts.

Additionally, the state or district should have the authority(legitimized by state law) to dismiss anyone for cause. In short, the state or district could fire it elected member and hold him or her responsible for ineptitude, skulduggery, or any criminal activity.

How about , "Tar and Feather"? The 16th, 17th, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th amendments must be repealed. The second clause of the 16th enabled the bribing of Nelson. Which amendment removed bribery as an impeachable offense, must be the 29th. The 23rd gave the Swamp on the Potomac the rights of a soverign state. The 24th gave welfare recipients the same rights as taxpaying citizens. The 25th gave us a President appointed by the aristocracy. The 26th gave kids wet behind the ears the right to vote. A question concerning the 26th, if someone is not mature enough to have a beer why are they mature enough to vote?

A question concerning the 26th, if someone is not mature enough to have a beer why are they mature enough to vote? AMEN Mr. Last. My only addition to that would be a dispensation for soldiers currently serving our country. If your old enough to die for it, you should be old enough to vote for it. Beyond that, I think the founding fathers far from being the neanderthals that liberals would have you believe had the voting thing down in the beginning. In other words, only land owners were allowed to vote. That gave people with a stake in the country a reason to vote for something other than their own immediate self-interest. Far from being "enlightened", all we have done by giving everyone the right to vote was to prove Socrates correct in that "a Democracy can only survive until the people realize that they can vote themselves money from the public coffers". What we have today are uninformed, unproductive leaches on society over riding the will of the good people that build this fine nation.

Concerning 18-21 year old soldiers and being responsible enough to vote and drink, they are not. They take orders from responsible non-coms and officers. They are not responsible themselves. They are so irresponsible they drink inspite of the law and they do it to excess. They should not drink or vote.

NO CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION - REPEAL

The Founders were men who:

1. Loved their Country

2. "Feared God" Read their writings

Now, Howard, I think you could be "appointed" - "Sargent of Arms". But you will have to be sober and vigilant for this "weakness on Alcohol" would make you vulnerable to the enemy. Isn't that how they work?????? At the "drinking parties" Proverbs 31:4,5 "It is not for KINGS,...It Is not for Kings to drink wine; nor for PRINCES strong drink: WHY???? Lest they drink, and forget the LAW. and pervert the judgment of any of the afflicted."

You are 50% on you way, You "love the Country". So ask God to rid you of that poison, alcohol, and my friend, I believe you'll be "invincible" for the cause of God in America.

For God & Country

Ruth Ann Wilson

As long as we have the right to vote - we have term limits.

It could be accomplished via the amendment process. A Constitutional Convention is not required to amend the Constitution. I think term limits are a good idea when expressed in terms of consecutive terms. Let a federal politician serve two terms, then after they've lived under the laws they passed for some number of terms let them run again if they so desire. This would allow the good ones to come back while still infusing new blood and new ideas into the system. Also, get rid of the lifetime benefits of being elected. Pay them a decent salary so they can support their families while they're there then make them get a job when they leave.

Re: Ruth Ann

I agree. A "Con-Con" would be disasterous because everything is then up for grabs. If that happens we casn kiss limited government and the bill of rights goodbye. It will take the states invoking their rights under the tenth amendment and the people backing them up to get it done. Just keep in mind that's exactly how the civil war got started. Of course as one of those hard core Texans my thinking is that if that's what it takes, fine by me. Short of that we need to start electing people that will do what we expect. It's time to vote every last member of congress out of office. It's time to "flip the house" and Senate for that matter. We need to put the fear of the people back into our representatives. I also think we need to amend the voting proccess to where it takes a deliberate effort to register and vote. Currently we make it too easy for those who are nothing more than parasites to vote themselves a greater share of what they contribute nothing to. I honestly believe that if someone is living off welfare they should be considered wards of the state and lose their status as "freemen" along with the right to vote until such time as they return to contributing members of society. But that's just me.

The one irritating thing that keeps coming up is the notion that we are a democracy. I don''t mean to split hairs but WE ARE A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, not a democracy. Democracy is mob rule. It's two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for supper. The Government tells us we're a democracy and that's why a majority vote allows them to do anything they want. That's why they ignore the constitution. They know the difference but perpetrating this lie makes their job so much easier and helps multiply their power. Venezuela has a democracy and look what its gotten them! If we don't stop accepting this falacy we're going to end up with exactly the same thing!

To Ruth Ann Wilson, The Romans had wine and circuses, now we have beer and football. As for a constitutional convention, NO WAY. It would give the aristocracy everything they wanted, throwing out the entire Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I couldn't agree with you more, Bill. We do have term limits now. It's called the vote. Unfortunately most citizens don't pay attention to what's going on in Washington (I'm hoping 2010 * 2012 will be the exception.) so they vote for the name they recoginze. Since the incumbent is in the papers regularly that's who gets re-elected. Hopefully we're learning and will exercise our American right: "Vote the bums out".

I say a system just like jury duty. If you are qualified to decide a persons freedom or even their life, you are qualified to sit in congress. Terms of 2 years and you hire the staffers from a pool of people in the federal system. Paid a 100k a year with all related expenses and cannot lose your job. Then there would be true representation from a real citizen/politician.