Unity08. A people's movement to take our country back.

MJ, let me take a poke at that.

First, I'm not really sure if you're coming out for or against term limits. But I need to take issue with a few things you write. (forgive me, I'm feeling growly tonight)

It is indeed the fault of the voters and the politicians. Blaming it on a "process" lets everyone off the hook and fixes nothing. The "process" was created by, and the responsibility of, the people and their representatives. As a people we agreed to create this government and choose those who serve as its caretakers. It is our responsibility as voters to choose a qualified representative, and the resposibility of the representative to operate in our best interests. The process can always be tweaked a bit by politicians, but it's the voters and politicians that need repair. They need to care more about the workings of our government and live up to those ideas so well summarized in the preamble to the constitution.

Those politicians who are weak in their convictions and malleable to the point where they would operate against the will and welfare of the public are not a product of process. They are a product of greed or simply too worn out to fight any longer for their constituency. Voters need to be wary of that and vote accordingly. Politicians can say no to the money, no to special interests and no to political pandering. Some do, and they are the ever elusive statesmen. Some ride the fence and do what they feel they are able, and still others get indicted for fraud. As voters we can vote out any of them we like. We can recall, pressure to impeach, fail to re-elect. My point is the fallability is in the people who work the system to their own ends, and those who abstain from involvement, and not so much the system itself. Help the voters and weed out the bad politicians and you/they fix any bad "process".

(Aside: yes, I know our system of government gets messy and can appear deeply flawed. Campaigns can be dirty and PACs control more candidates with cash than I care to count. But in the end we are the only ones that put and keep politicians in office. We're not victims until we give up. We own this government and have final say to who (whom?) acts on our behalf.)

You state "When politicians figured out they could win elections with soundbites and mudlsinging, they all have to do it to some extent. Not their fault, I would probably do the same if I really wanted to win."

Yes, it is their fault. They choose to win that way, and we choose to let them. For better or worse. I know people who like mudslinging in candidates because they feel they get to see a candidate's ture self in the way they fight. I've also seen elections where the first guy to throw mud got trounced. A lot of people are sick of negative ads and are voting that way. They've taken responsibility for their elections and changed the flavor of campaigns. One simply needs the will and the like-minded to make it happen.

You state "But the attitude that it's the voters fault is exactly analagous for me to hearing teachers explain education failure as it's becuase the student is sub standard."

That is not at all analagous. The children don't hire the teachers and administrators.

A more proper analogy would be an innkeeper choosing a caretaker for his property. One would hope an innkeeper would do his research before handing over the keys.

Next, "Frankly, that's not a professional attitude."

But an unprofessional attitude is not their fault right? With a politicians power to add/amend/revoke laws and voters ability to change politicians; none of them have power over a process that gives them this unprofessional attitude? I see...

Next, "I'm not a pro, but sort of think it has something with giving voters useful information by which they can make informed decisions."

Preaching to the choir there. Voters need to educate themselves, but they also need to WANT to be involved. That latter is the more difficult. So... whose fault is it that voters aren't educated? Is it a "process" or the voter himself? It's the voter.

Next, you write "The government is supposed to "preserve the general welfare", maybe they should work a little harder to do what they are paid for."

Actually the preamble to the Constitution reads "promote the general welfare". Nothing to argue with there though, everyone should want to promote the general welfare. Again, I don't know if you're for or against term limits, just anti-"process". Please define the process of which you write so we may discuss.

Now then, "the voters are already educated quite enough for a viable democracy, they know, better than anyone else, what has to be fixed in their daily lives and in their communities. Asking them to come out with solutions is asking them to do womeone else's job. Sometimes, some people can have some good ideas. But figuring out which ideas are the best, and which will realy work is a full time job. And frankly, that's the politician's job. Not ours. The job of politicians should be to make it easy to gather that information, and then come up with win win solutions that solve those problems for their consitutencies within the limits of the resources available."

I'm not sure quite how to respond to that or how it relates to the term limits discussion. First no one was to blame but a 'process' and now politicians have some responsibility and a job to do? How can blame not be assigned when responsibility is defined? What am I not understanding? Please define it so we can discuss.

In any case, (prepare for run-on sentence) I think it needs saying in response to your comment on solutions being the politicians job, that despite politicians being responsible for legislating solutions in government, people DO need to bring ideas and possible solutions to their representatives. Government doesn't happen in a vacuum. People bring ideas to city council meetings, county supervisor meetings, town halls, coffees and to politicians via mail all the time. We are a government of, by and for the people, and we must help to fix problems too. It's that kind of roll-up-your-sleeves ideal (and a Google search in my case) that bring us here to Unity'08.

It's not the voters fault. (And by the way it's not really the polticians fault.)

It's the process not the people.

Real people are too busy with the problems in their daily lives to be politicians. That's exactly why the politicians get the big bucks. Sure it's a hard job, but hey, what well paying job isn't.

When politicians figured out they could win elections with soundbites and mudlsinging, they all have to do it to some extent. Not their fault, I would probably do the same if I really wanted to win.

But the attitude that it's the voters fault is exactly analagous for me to hearing teachers explain education failure as it's becuase the student is sub standard.

Frankly, that's not a professional attitude. Can you imagine a business saying it's the customers fault that they aren't buying the product. Now actually I have heard that over the years, but most of those businesses are no longer in business.

So..suppose the professionals stop worrying about getting elected, for just a few minutes, and give us some reasonable practical solutions for solving the problem.

I'm not a pro, but sort of think it has something with giving voters useful information by which they can make informed decisions.

The government is supposed to "preserve the general welfare", maybe they should work a little harder to do what they are paid for.

The voters are already educated quite enough for a viable democracy, they know, better than anyone else, what has to be fixed in their daily lives and in their communities. Asking them to come out with solutions is asking them to do womeone else's job. Sometimes, some people can have some good ideas. But figuring out which ideas are the best, and which will realy work is a full time job.

And frankly, that's the politician's job. Not ours.

The job of politicians should be to make it easy to gather that information, and then come up with win win solutions that solve those problems for their consitutencies within the limits of the resources available.

we had that in Michigan and it was a complete disaster. we have so many that will be out in a short period of time that no one can predict the behaviour of the state and we are in a single state recession due to this uncertainty.

i know there are different
mike on July 9, 2024 - 12:56pm

It may not work for you, but it does work for the voter. Voters have the option to select or deselect their candidate of choice. If the voters prefer corrupt, fraudulent incombents, then their right has been realized. So what's the problem.

i know there are different opinions on the subject of term limits.. but clearly the system we have now is not working for the people.. the voters .. without whom the gov't would not.. could not exist..

Thanks, Mark. I'm really just an bad speller and proof reader.

I've pointed out on another forum, that U08 might have maximum influence earlier by going after the swing vote in the Senate because the Electoral College vote is not in the way. That should at least be a seconday election mission.

Bill"for what we are together"

Now Mark Greene! Man, this is going to be one awsome group! I can clearly see the assemblance of something historic. I have 20 years in this fight with military intelligence experience to provide a hardline military perspective and looking very much forward to the young wind behind these sails! Mark, like myself, love the bloggers but Unity08 is turning out to be something with legs! Go Unity08! Go! www.appyp.com/fix_main.html

Mark - Amen. I'm pretty spent tonight so sorry if I meander. It's been 11 years for me. I worked with GOP and Dem campaigns for 6 years, then joined a fight with a candidate I like and have been fighting to get/keep him in office for the past 5. It's easy to get jaded, it's easy to feel helpless, and it's easy to want to give up the fight. In the end though, we have to live with the government we make, so we have to soldier on.

I've seen drunk and dirty politicians consolidate power. I've seen PACs buy/sell candidates. I've even seen newspapers manipulate news to fit powerful advertisers and opposing politicians. And yet... my one little candidate I've been helping for the past 5 years is still winning. With little to no money, actively sniped by a press afraid of "losing stories" and ad revenue from the opposition PAC-friendly leaders, battered by his own party to try to force him "in-line". Despite it all he still stands doing what he knows is right and the voters overwhelmingly agree with him. And that keeps my faith. Why after all that, should he be thrown out of office by an arbitrary term-limit just to be replaced by a PAC rubber stamp?

Eleven years ago, maybe even 5 years ago, I might have sided with the pro-term limits camp. But now that I've seen the system work, and seen how the good and bad operate, I know term limits only help those who would abuse the system for their own interests. The voters have the power to choose, a term-limit rule chips that power away.

Sorry to hear about the congressional campaign. I had a similar experience with a candidate. We refused to take the PAC money and got outspent 50:1. Our own party wanted to send a message to those who wouldn't work with their 'money people' and spread the word to the rank-and-file not to donate to us. It was ugly. Still got very close though, lost by just a few percent. That was a heartbreaker. I still think we could have won with just a few more troops on the ground. Money wasn't the deciding factor as evidenced by the fundraising totals. It was education of the electorate.

Just to add one more thing about voters being lazy. It's true to a good extent, mainly because people don't think they can make a difference anyway (an "I'm a victim" philosophy I won't agree with). But the other side is politicians never giving a straight answer. In the last state-level race I was involved in, my candidate was told by the party never to fill out a position questionnaire (like the NPAT) from the press or other organizations. It was further explained that most of the surveys were from opposition PACs who use them to form smear campaigns, etc. It's now strategically important not to say what you believe in apparently. My candidate did the surveys. You either stand for something or you don't. Those are the candidates we as voters need to identify and keep.

With that, I'm pulling my face off the keyboard, rubbing the 'H' key imprint off my forehead and crawling to bed. Thanks for the insight Mark.

I would like to begin by telling you all how excited I am to see the level of dialogue and passion on this and many other threads here at Unity08. As an old warhorse who has been fighting these battles at various levels for a long while now, it is thrilling to be reminded that I'm not John the Baptist - a lone voice crying out in the wilderness. Thanks to you all!

Second, as I am not too adept at these forums and am well into my second pitcher of Friday night margaritas - if this comes out unsightly (or horribly laden with typos)please be forgiving.

Thirdly - mgrannis and sonar - I love you guys! Omigod what wit and wisdom - you rock!!!

Down to business...

"Term limits don't solve anything, especially the PAC problem. PACs can just plug-in a new robo-legislator come election time financed to the eyeballs and crush another candidate with a negative campaign and dirty tricks. Only Voter education can fix the problem. Teach a voter to look for the facts and not the FUD. Show them how/where to do basic research, and how their vote counts and you've solved the corruption problem everyone screams about fixing with term limits.

Finally, we are all the "political class". We have the ultimate power to decide who stays and goes."

Sonar, I believe. I don't know how long you've been in this fight - I'm fast approaching 20 years. I have no use for politicians who hold voters in disdain, yet I tell you truly, every one who has served more than four years does. Why? Because we Americans, collectively, are intellectually lazy! And we have in place an educational system that reinforces this. Who among you in your primary and secondary education studied Aristotle, Plato, Socrates? Who understands the underlying mathematical fundamentals of Newton's Laws of Physics? Who, before they got pissed off at our current situation, studied with any diligence the Federalist Papers - instruments in many ways more critical than the compromise Constitution of 1789 that they spawned? Who really understands the monetary system, the effect of foreign currency exchange rates, the long term impact of short term interest rates or the exponential effects of our debt and deficit? The very legislators who willfully perpetrate the system disdain its product - go figure!

As we say here in Texas, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink" Well, you can bombard the voters with facts, but you can't make them think. Thinking is verboten in our once-great nation, and as Sonar rightly stated (I missed the quote now) we do indeed have the government we deserve.

Sonar again - "Yes, they did, and I never said structural rules are unneccesary. They exist in all levels of government and rules of order. I think TERM LIMITS are unneccesary because there is a structural rule already in place by the framers of the constitution - every x years faith in a politician must be confirmed through a vote by the people. Voting. I don't see long service as being constitutionally unacceptable, and if the problem is voters who can't figure it out -- instead of taking away the ability to make the decision, help them get involved and make an informed decision to help better candidates win."

We have here a challenging paradigm. Mgrannis is inarguably taking the paternalistic view that I myself have historically espoused - namely that we who bother to care, think and inform ourselves have a responsibility to protect those who don't from their own ineptitude. I was offered a full ride in my Congressional campaign from a group whose only string was that I had to agree to term-limit myself. I refused (and was soundly trounced) while others agreed and then universally reneged. I am still up in the air on the issue, being more inclined to take sonar's side than mgrannis'.

It is said that a drunk has to reach his own bottom before he can turn things around, and I generally feel the same about the unthinking American electorate. However, as the father of a son who is now eligible to be drafted into Bush's war and a daughter who might be forced to bear a child of rape, I'm not at all sure I'm still strong enough to stand behind my convictions. There is, for each of us, a price too high to pay...

From Bill - "The elements of power corrupting elective offices are buried in campaigne financing, redistricting,and senority rules of legislative bodies. Reforming this functions has the best chance to reducing such corruption. Term limits just means we will be offered the parties favorite stooges in a two party system, and the real power in the country will be the perk vendors in the back room."

I'm pretty sure I read my way through that accurately, and am pretty much in agreement. The problem is not the legislators or the terms - its the electoral system itself (excessive partisan influence/control, the campaign (love the way you rhymed it with champaigne/champagne)funds, and most assuredly the House and Senate rules. Kudos, Bill - you're the first to bring that one up and its spot on. If we can approriately reform the system by which the corrupt ones are elected and re-elected and minimize the possibility of inappropriate perks and pork, the smarmiest will be squeeezed out - finding the pickings in the private sector easier and more lucrative...

Nila- "If the pensions were eliminated term limits would not be necessary. Politicans would return home and get a job after their reasons for running were accomplished. The pensions are costing us millions and we are getting nothing in return. Public offices should not be a lifetime job. Let them earn retirement like the rest of us, work for it."

I'm going to respectfully disagree here - sorry sweets! Running for and serving in high public office is a daunting and relentless chore, regardless of your motivation. You idealists who read the political Horatio Alger tales of the neighbors swarming into the farmyard and begging old Cyrus to please, please go to Washington and represent them...ain't happening. Hasn't in more than a century and likely won't again. The reality is that if Joe Citizen hopes to challenge an incumbent he must diligently involve himself for many cycles prior - often in non or lowpaying local roles, then in effect dedicate himself full-time to the effort for the better part of 2 years with a 1 percent likelihood of success. His entire life and those of his family and friends will be meticulously scrutinized and publicized with scant respect for accuracy or context. Should he miraculously succeed, he will then spend the next two years (we're talking Representatives here) working 16-18 hours a day without break, spending 3-4 days per week in Washington or airplanes, the balance in his district attending both official and political events, and fielding an incessant barrage of calls and inquiries from supporters, detractors, the media, etc. All the while being required to raise a minimum of $1,500/day every single day of his term in preparation for the next run.

Whatever you think of these folks - and I think less of most of them than most of you do - their life isn't an easy one. And as they understandibly lose most access to outside income and as we understandibly resist the notion of their rolling out of Congress on Jan.1 and taking up lobbying duties on Jan. 2, a reasonable stipend in gratitude for the gawd-awful sacrifice the good ones endure to serve us is not too much to ask or endure. Now the idea of denying the Duke Cunninghams, Tom DeLay's (assuming conviction) and Dan Rostenkowski's of access to their pensions is absolutely appropriate.

And finally, cardboardbear, Bill and Nila - "All of these facts are proven by studies of states with term limits in their legislatures. Plus, a gallup poll revealed that 80% of Americans favor term limits." and "Nila, that is a great idea. But they would have to do it to themselves, and that would defy my every instinct about that bunch."

We should all educate - re-educate ourselves on the provisons of Article V. of our venerated Constitution. There is more than one way to amend, and certainly many of the severe structural changes we seek will only be accomplished outside of the cooperation of those currently in power. I have my legal beagles looking into the specifics, which to me are woefully unclear and their utilization unprecedented. There is no question, however, that the Founders brilliantly instilled a mechanism whereby we the people, acting through our state legislatures, could take away from the federal that which it greedily seeks to usurp. For that reason, I will return to my relentless and no douby now tiring refrain: We must expand our focus beyond the Presidential contest of 2024. The Congressional races matter as much or more, and there is certainly a role to be played by the state legislatures as well. If anyone out there truly believes that we will turn this beast in the right direction by simply influencing the branch that can neither raise nor lower taxes, can neither declare nor end war, cannot independently appoint or remove judges, can have no meaningful effect over the conduct of elections or the structure of our government, you simply do not understand the rules of the game you're playing. And this is no trivial matter...

A bourbon nightcap now chasing my friend Jose, I bid you all goodnight and thank you again, and profoundly, for making my life worth living. Now that you're in, stay in until we're done. Or until our gravestones laud our efforts to preserve the greatest promise mankind has yet encountered.

Nila, that is a great idea. But they would have to do it to themselves, and that would defy my every instinct about that bunch.

If the pensions were eliminated term limits would not be necessary. Politicans would return home and get a job after their reasons for running were accomplished. The pensions are costing us millions and we are getting nothing in return. Public offices should not be a lifetime job. Let them earn retirement like the rest of us, work for it.

If you found someone bleeding and not breathing would you stop to clip their nails?
If you want "citizen legislators" you better find one quick because they are rare. Effective and honest ones even more rare.

The consensus apprears to be that corruption in government would be eliminated if the citizens were more educated and more 'government literate.' If we the people were better informed and more knowledgeable we could collectively block corruption at the polls. This logic escapes me, especially when the corrupt are blocking votes from being counted. Does it really matter if you have a master's degree in civics if your vote is never counted? Just curious.

I've agreed with the comments by Mark Grannis. The main reason I want term limits is to return to the idea that America should be governed by citizen legislators, individuals who perform a civic duty by serving as a political representative for their communities. And then they return to their everyday careers and lives.

Modern political phenomena like PACs, 527s, lobbyists, etc. need to be addressed in addition to the application of term limits.

I'll elaborate on those later.

Great debate!

Term Limits tell the people that no matter how much they like a candidate they can't reelect him/her. If the people really want a candidate to be in office longer that should be their choice, including for the presidency.

There is a real problem with incumbency. However, there are other ways to make elections more competitive.

"them"= crimes, terrorist acts, al-Qaeda, oil spills...
Actually Term Limits were once pushed by politicians unable to reach the brass ring, so they must be bad.
Term limits is a corrupt concept.

Politicians don't like them; so they must be good!

To much power corrupts, and Politicians love Power. What we really need to go along with Term Limits (8 years maximum), is a selection process similiar to picking a Jury, or filling a quota with a draft.

Congress (both the House, and the Senate) need a maximum term limit, AND a maximum number of Lawyers (10%). We need all types of professional to step up to job. Scientist, Engineers, Programmers, Police Officers, Mechanics, Firemen, Doctors, Chefs, Business Owners and Managers, Bankers, Scholars, Farmers, etc.. We need diversity to keep things in check, and improve efficiencies in our government, by the people for the people.

Let's get rid of the political rancor and get some work done. Vote all Incumbents out of office no matter their political party.

"Get rid of the politics, the politicians and the political parties!"

Term limits have been implemented in California. As a municipal city manager, I can attest that term limits have resulted in very short-side thinking from our state legislature. Also, term limits have given more power to those that have no term limits--Sacramento lobbyists. I was once a supporter of term limits, but now after having experienced the difference between no limits and limits, I would argue against term limits.

Term limits clearly work against the cause. Enabling elected officials (like presidents) to make deals and pardons in the end without regard to public opinion, in many cases only making themselves even more popular among those that put them in power by doing so in the last days of their terms. And those that are true leaders and initiate good laws see their good works taken down and destroyed when short timers come in and take down what they have done by telling lies to get into office and destroy the good work...

Term Limits doesn't take the majority of players out of the game because they just change positions. The person out of office can run for another office, get an appointment or become a lobbyist. It doesn't hurt the lobbyist or party they still wield the power and influence. Even unelected staffers gain power and influence.
Maybe a more apt analogy would be flushing our toilets with no sewer system.

I am inclined to agree with Todd and Bill.

Is there really any way to truly keep those elected officials that are doing good in, and at the same time get the corrupt ones out? Term limits to me is like the whole movement a few years back where ranks and placements were frowned upon so that no one "felt bad". The good done by one was overwhadowed by some sort of need to bring everyone to mediocrity.

I am at a loss myself, but I will be thinking about it. Does anyone know of any states that have overcome this problem? Are there any political science journals that have done studies on this? Hmmm...

I'm not entirely sold on term limits myself. I need to do some additional reading. I understand the concern, but I think it's a band-aid to the larger problem myself.

-Keely

Pension plans are now passe in the private sector, most being substituted with 401K's. I suggest the public sector deserves no better than what common citizens have.

Replace the congressional pensions with 401K's, with the same rules applied.

The problem with Term Limits is, its an all or nothing proposition. With the "system" we have a politican and their State are rewarded for their longevity. I currently live in Las Vegas and before that lived in Alaska (talk about politicans that have been around too long) and their politicans are the only thing that gives them clout. Who would listen to Alaska if their Senator was not around for the last 35 years and carries all that power.

I fear that term limits serve only to increase the importance and power of lobbies and parties.

As Mr. Adams did not follow the Unity08 Posting Policy, his comments have been deleted from this and other inapplicable forums. However, if you are interested in following up on his concern, please check at http://unity08.com/node/56. We are happy to address questions in the appropriate forums.

Now, back to Legislative Term Limits.

KEN !!!
Go to Shoutbox then Suggest a Forum and register and put your relevant comments there.
I see threads all over disrupting debate of important issues.
I know this is important to you but there is a place for it and you are losing sympathy, empathy and support.

Ken is now interupting multiple forums with his personal issues. I think that constitutes the disrepect for the rest of us that warrants action under the policies of this website.

The elements of power corrupting elective offices are buried in campaigne financing, redistricting,and senority rules of legislative bodies. Reforming this functions has the best chance to reducing such corruption. Term limits just means we will be offered the parties favorite stooges in a two party system, and the real power in the country will be the perk vendors in the back room.

An impowered Unity08 and the discussions going with the related subject on this website can lead the way to making our elections the term limiter they were intended to be.

I think term limits are a knee-jerk response that doesn't really achieve what we want.

What we want are politicians that actually represent us and get rewarded for doing that well. I personally would prefer a career politician who really did his job and cared about the long term because he expected to be there himself.

What we have now is a rigged system where politicians' careers are determined more by whose pocket they are in, than by whether they are doing their job.

If we only impose term limits, gerrymandering will just guarantee that the same party is incumbent instead of the same person.

Our real goal needs to be fixing the incentive structure so there is much less reward in gaming the system. Right now, gaming the system gives such a huge advantage that any politician who's actually honest doesn't stand a chance.

MrGrannis - I see where you were going with that now. Okay, let's start again. And by the way, it's nice to have a good debate here and I appreciate your back-and-forth with me on this.

Your understanding of my position: "You seem to me to be saying that we should not prevent the voters from keeping people in office for decades, because those officeholders might be doing a very good job and it's up to the voters to decide whether it's time to remove them. Hence, we should not have a rule; we should leave it to the voters on a case-by-case basis. In other words, "We should not prevent X, because X could be either good or bad, and it is up to the people to decide case by case."

That's pretty much what I was saying, though I never specified "decades" it is acceptible to me. In my point and your formula X="long years of service". And that's what I can't understand about your viewpoint. You're trying to prevent "long years of service" when your goal should be to prevent corruption. Long terms do not equal corruption. Your X for that formula is wrong.

Gerrymandering is certainly an issue - and one I hadn't considered. But unfortunately even term limits would not fix that. States like Texas have gerrymandered not by/for individual incumbants but by/for an organized state party no continue dominance. Being a party 'team player' would still motivate term-limited candidates to follow their Party/PACs and slant the electorate every 10 years during redistricting to favor their party's long-term strategy. As an aside: strangely, racial Gerrymandering is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment but partisan gerrymandering is not. Go figure.

Going back to your equivalency arguements. I still don't get how they are relavent, and they're confusing examples to me if they are to support your position. My response by the numbers:
(1) My arguement is that voters are fulfilling constitutional obligation to democratically elect their leaders. The idea that long public service is equal to an oligarchy just doesn't hold water to me. But to follow your example I have to point out that the people of Delaware VOTED to create a repulican form of government and become part of the United States. They are just one of the original 13 colonies to do so. They could have sided with Britain. Further, the south voted and pulled out of the US, choosing to form a different government. It's happened before, and even recently was in the news. Many angry Democrats and even a pundit on the McLaughlin Group floated "blue state" succession in 2024 after the loss to GWB.
(2) The illegality of forced confessions is settled law. One of many decisions made case-by-case forming court precedants.
(3) Free speech is currently legislated against, and also legislated for. Protesters can't protest at presidential visits lately, but you can scream about it on every news channel. You can get lesser-known info through FOIA and publish it. You can't yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theater. Hate speech inciting riots is illegal. So... I don't know where we go with that one except to say legislators at the national, state and local levels look at each situation case-by-case.
(4) Again with war. We don't allow the president to declare war without consent of congress but he can "make war" for some 60 days or so without congress. I don't know what the point is there, but it seems the framers allow the president to make war because each situation has to be taken case-by-case.

You write "The point I was trying to make is simply that the framers repeatedly rejected the position that structural rules are unnecessary because the voters will be smart enough to sort it all out. Instead, they identified certain actions, techniques, and outcomes that were to be taken off the table -- not because they could never possibly be appropriate, but because the risk that they would be used inappropriately was too great and the chance that they would be used appropriately too small.".

Yes, they did, and I never said structural rules are unneccesary. They exist in all levels of government and rules of order. I think TERM LIMITS are unneccesary because there is a structural rule already in place by the framers of the constitution - every x years faith in a politician must be confirmed through a vote by the people. Voting. I don't see long service as being constitutionally unacceptable, and if the problem is voters who can't figure it out -- instead of taking away the ability to make the decision, help them get involved and make an informed decision to help better candidates win.

Regarding the power of the PACs being less with term limits. I have to pull a quote from Operation Petticoat, "In confusion there is profit". PACs have a lot of money and undue influence. They always have and always will since business and other interests can always benifit from friendly legislation. Term limits make parties need to fight harder and probably dirtier for every seat (just look how hard parties fight now for the advantage), and that takes money. Lots and lots of money, which they'll get from the PACS. And to ensure they keep getting money for their candidates, which they'll have to replace every X years, parties will align tighter with the PACs and make them even more powerful. Imagine an entire congress half-full of lame-duck politicians. Thats a fertile ground for PACs to pick replacements.

Mark, I understand we all want less corruption and more responsive government but I don't see term limits improving candidates, just making it worse. Work on the voters and they can improve the candidates - that's what we're doing with Unity 08.

To conceed a point though, it would be interesting to see what would happen with an all-new congress over the course of say 8 years. That would likely shake things up and make voters more interested for a change. After the initial jolt though, I think we'd have a flood of lousy PAC-owned candidates (worse than now) in dirtier campaigns and a congress full of rookies making rookie mistakes at the highest levels. I could be wrong. Let me ask the Magic 8 ball...

ASK AGAIN LATER.

Doh!