Mark Leven's proposal for constitutional amendments to term limits. What say you ATS

Mark Levin spoke on Hannity tonight about term limits. He said these amendments were put in place in case the government became too repressive.

Article 5 states






Personally I believe the States have forgotten their power and the Congress will never vote a change that limit their term. However the congress has no problem with the presidential term. Change will need to come from the States.






Now this one I am not so sure about.. In some red states, such as I am in (Texas) they change boundaries to favor the GOP. If you have a strongly biased congress there is no chance for the other side to have a voice. Now mind you I am a libertarian leaning independent saying this.

Mark Levin speaking about constitution changes on with audience opinion Hannity

So what is your opinion on this ATS?

All public offices should have a two term limit. This having Sen and Reps that have been in office 30 and 40 years need to stop. We get no new ideas in Washington and that hurts America.

reply to post by buster2010


Term limits would be fantastic - and not allowing post representative working as lobbyists -

That will never happen.

Also, taking out the CIA and FBI would be great - no secrets withheld from the american public - point out the people who are "terrorists", or "drug traffikers" in public - don't bother with "secret" investigations - no one believes them anymore, anyhow.

Forgot to mention

He says we currently have 85% of congress as incumbents. In 1850 we had 50% with 2 year terms and in 1898 we had 80% with 4 year terms.

I don't know when or how the change took place but will check it out tomorrow as it is way past my bedtime.

Originally posted by buster2010
All public offices should have a two term limit. This having Sen and Reps that have been in office 30 and 40 years need to stop. We get no new ideas in Washington and that hurts America.

Buster is right, maybe in the 1800's having someone in office for 40 years was no big deal, but these days, we had a technological revolution that pushed us forward at a ridiculous rate in just 10 years -

If someone has been in office since 1973, they might still be using typewriters in there, you know? I mean... this could detrimentally affect their ability to make decisions that are relevant to society.

reply to post by liveandlearn


Let's kill two birds with one stone and making lobbying using cash/gifts/incentives illegal. Then there will be no need to have term limits since no one in their right mind would have the job for so long with no bribery to keep them on the job and living rich.

reply to post by darkbake


i think the point is that in the 1800's there was no one in office that long...seems the longest term was 4 years.

reply to post by Ameilia



I would love that but I am thinking freedom of speech applies here...no mention or thought of course in that time of bribery or lobbying.

reply to post by liveandlearn


Really?

YES Absolutely YES. Term limits, PLEASE!! Career politicians, horses asses. They have nothing in common with people they claim to represent; no "trade" whch normalizes them, in fact I don't know why they even leaveD.C. when sessions are out. It should be more like jury duty. By that I mean 'seen as a duty' & not something one seeks through deceptive or underhanded posturing, because it's certainly become an embarrassment to this country, now. Congress has got to clean house. Well, WE'VE got to go in & clean it, I mean.

How about, instead of term limits, we double the number of representatives? Make them more representative of the population.

It's been nearly 100 years since we've increased the number of representatives. The problem with our government is a dramatic under-representation.

reply to post by liveandlearn


And not just term limits either,NO SUPER PACS.While in office they are forbidden to accept any monies properties donations etc. from ANY industry,nor individual.

I would like to hearmore ideas from the ATS crowd about this subject. Where is everyone?

I just emailed NM senator Udall & our Rep. Lujan with this
It would be ideal to have elected representatives fulfill the role as a call to "duty". There should be term limits in the House and Senate, career politicians don't have anything in common with those they represent. Elected representatives should recognize the opportunity to change the system, making it less vulnerable to special interest lobbyists by removing the option of being career politicians.

And please support or introduce a change to implementation of mandatory disclosure (before the vote) when a member of the Finance committee, or any committee, is voting on an item which affects their campaign donors or any sort of fund donors."

Go to www.opencongress.org...
and check out how your elected officials vote on things. It is an interestin and thorough site. Can be used to track everything they so, every wad of cash connected to something they're voting on, etc.

Leven is to be commended for recommending a way to amend without a runaway convention happening by having the states make the amendments rather than a con/con which after all would be a con job if it went to convention in this day of special interests overcoming common sense good for all decisions.

Yes term limits would help as would anything that impedes politics as a profession such as sweetheart pensions and gold plated heath care - the founders intended serving in office to be a public service which was temporary - not a way to be enriched. Serve your term go back home and tell grandchildren about it later.

I wholly agree with state legislators electing Senators, it would provide a balance for the states. Congress = peoples direct representatives. Senate = state representation. IMHO the founders did this in order to prevent flavor of the moment legislation from being passed by congressional representatives in the heat of the moment.

Going back to how it was originally is in line with a Republic which we are rather than semi-mob rule which we have become which is referred to as democracy.

Originally posted by Ameilia
reply to post by liveandlearn

 

Let's kill two birds with one stone and making lobbying using cash/gifts/incentives illegal. Then there will be no need to have term limits since no one in their right mind would have the job for so long with no bribery to keep them on the job and living rich.

And outlaw inside trading that they all do. It is amasing that one can go in a pauper and come out a King.

Originally posted by buster2010
All public offices should have a two term limit. This having Sen and Reps that have been in office 30 and 40 years need to stop. We get no new ideas in Washington and that hurts America.

Totally agree, but I doubt it will ever happen.

Limited terms as you suggest has a huge impact on the lobbying industry. They don't get these elected officials in their pockets over night and once they do , they don't wan't to see their investment walk out the door to only retry again with some one new and possibly risk exposure.

Even though jack abramoff is a scumbag he even said that this would be a huge impact to the lobbing industry for that exact reason. You don't have to trust him or believe him, but it does make sense if you believe these politicians aren't above getting kick backs from the lobbying industry.

Originally posted by Ameilia
reply to post by liveandlearn

 

Let's kill two birds with one stone and making lobbying using cash/gifts/incentives illegal. Then there will be no need to have term limits since no one in their right mind would have the job for so long with no bribery to keep them on the job and living rich.

This isn't quite accurate. The biggest benefit members of congress have is that they're legally allowed to commit insider trading by using their knowledge of government contracts they come across for their own personal investments. Lobbying is a major issue, but lobbyists aren't paying members of congress millions of dollars each. That money primarily comes from investments. There's not an easy fix for this either without passing transparency laws that say the public has a right to see financial transactions of elected officials, which is blatantly unfair for the same reasons it's unfair for the NSA to look at ours. Instead, it's something that one just has to accept and instead look at fixing the lobbying issue. The nature of the beast is that members of congress are going to become rich doing their jobs, instead we should be looking at ways to limit lobbying dollars from having an impact.

I have one idea on that subject that may pass. The big issue here is that congress is never going to vote against itself, and getting 2/3 of states to agree on a constitutional amendment is very difficult. All it takes is for lobbyists (and this is in the interest of all corporate lobbying so there's TONS of money on this issue) to fund no votes in 17 states and this route to constitutional amendments are closed. Instead I propose taking away the power of lobbying dollars in the first place.

Put a wealth cap on members of congress and their immediate family which could be indexed to inflation, and remains on members of congress for 20 years after they leave office. Their state gets 100% of everything they have above the cap each year. The cap would have to be quite generous. Next, significantly raise the pay of members of congress. The idea here is to flood a congressman with wealth, give them a path through their pay to take advantage of insider trading and get to the cap in a period of lets say 6 years (1 senate term). Personally, I have no problem with congressman being given 10 million per year and having a 100 million dollar net worth to retire on if it means corporate lobbying no longer has influence. If you're wondering about the cost of what I propose it would come to about $15 per year on your taxes (and you would get that back through better representation). I also believe it's something congress would accept because they would be voting themselves more money. This also happens to be a way to backdoor term limits. Once a member of congress has reached their wealth cap they'll leave office to pursue other means of making money if they're greedy or to retire in luxury if they're not.

Here's a thought.

No term limits. None. All public offices.

Along with the elimination of all forms of reelection campaigning.

If someone stays in office for 20 years on the merits of their accomplishments, with no fund raising, they are a true public servant and deserve to stay.




Either that or no elections and shift to a benevolent dictatorship.

reply to post by liveandlearn


I say term limits are a very good idea. I don't think that should be a "career" for anyone.

But with a bunch that had at one point in voted for their own automatic pay raises, they're not going to vote themselves term limits, either.