12-year term limits for National Office

People stay in office way too long. Over a hundred members have served for more than thirty-five years, forty members of Congress have served at least FORTY YEARS in their seats, with half a dozen over FIFTY years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_United_States_Congress_by_longevity_of_service

Citizens born after they were first elected can have grandchildren in that amount of time.

Likewise, more than a dozen Supreme Court Justices have been in office more than thirty years, with William O. Douglas lasting more than 36! Way, way too long.

Conversely, Presidents (i.e. POTUS) are only elected twice before term limits kick in. This means that for half the time they are in office, they are unaccountable directly to voters. HALF! Think back on the presidencies of Bush, Clinton, Reagan, and Nixon. When they at their worst? Last term. Because they didn't have to worry about being reelected.

So, I propose that, by amending the Constitution, all National Elected Offices be restricted (or in the case of POTUS, extended) to exactly 12 years concurrent. This would ensure much, much more turnover in Congress and the Supreme Court (thereby making them more representational and accountable). Ideally I'd like the Chief Justice to be an elected office as well (as the tie-breaker); the other 8 (12?) Justices would be still appointed for 12 years at a time, but there should be at least some direct representation by the people.

The President would also be more accountable, since we would have two chances to throw him/her out of office instead of just one. They'd only be directly unaccountable for a third of the time, instead of half. I also propose decoupling and staggering the Vice-Presidential election so that if the POTUS is screwing up, we can elect his main rival to VP.

So here's what my election cycle would look like (assuming term limits for all):

Year 00: New POTUS, all new House of Representatives, and 1st third of the Senate up for election.

Year 02: New Vice-President, New Chief Justice, the House, and 2nd third of the Senate.

Year 04: POTUS, the House, last third of the Senate.

Year 06: VP, Chief Justice, the House, and 1st/3rds Senate (last election for them)

Year 08: POTUS (last election), the House, 2nd/3rds Senate (last election for them).

Year 10: VP (last) & Chief Justice (last), the House (last election for '00 class), last 3rd Senate (last).

Year 12: New POTUS, new House and new 1/3 Senate (all from '00 election term limited).

Year 14: New VP, New Chief Justice, House, new 2nd third of the Senate.

Year 16: POTUS, House, new last third of the Senate.

And so on.

This amendment (12 years for all) would make the government more representative, dynamic, and, oddly, more contiguous because the VP and POTUS change power at different times. Seniority as a perk would be all-but-gone, and voters would be more inclined to send the best (or at least the most representative) officials to create laws respecting the will of the people.

Of course, I'd also like all laws to expire after 12 years as well...

More National Elections

For all the power the Federal Government has, there really is only one national office elected nation-wide, and that is only once every four years. That office is the President (with the VP as a package deal). Not nearly enough input from the voters, in my opinion.

Therefore I suggest that the office of the Vice-President be voted for separately, and every TWO years. So, instead of just voting for your congressmen (or not) on off years, a national vote for VP can be a national referendum on the party in power. Plus, it would add power to the office as a real heir-apparent, next-in-line, president-in-training. And it would be hilarious to split tickets.

The third national office (after POTUS and VP) would occur every four years, but staggered two years off from the POTUS. That office should be the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Yes, really. But, like the VP, he/she would only be allowed to vote in the case of a tie. Now at the moment there are 8 normal Justices plus the Chief, but 5/4 votes happen all the time. I also propose bumping up that number to 12 Justices plus the Chief Justice, making him the tie-breaker less likely. Could still work either way. Anyway, there are just so many issue voters (Abortion, 2nd amendment, gay marriage, etc) and all that weight is thrown behind Presidential selection, for good or ill, and his potential appointments to the court. Voters should be more directly involved in the process.

So, we have the President as the head of the Executive Branch, the VP as the head of the Senate and ostensibly the Legislative Branch, and the Chief Justice as the head of the Judicial Branch. And 2/3 elected every election year. These tweaks would make the national government much more representative and subject to the will of the American people. We are supposed to be a democratic republic, after all.

The 14th Amendment

Okay, so there have been some calls lately to 'adjust' the 14th amendment, which starts:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


For decades, this has been interpreted to mean that children born to 'unprocessed' immigrants (i.e. illegals) within the borders of the USA have been considered citizens. This has complicated the whole issue and led to the term 'Anchor Babies' because we wouldn't force a parent to part with thier child or send a minor citizen off to some terrible third world country, would we? And there are some pregnant mothers who come here for this very reason.

Now Republicans, in an effort to out-do one another, have come up with this bold idea to amend the Constitution to stop this practice and win points from the Tea Party movement in the process.

Firstly, I'm glad to finally hear mainstream politicians talk about the Constitution. That might encourage them to actually read it. I'm overjoyed to hear people talk about ammending the
Constitution, a tacit admission that government recognizes some kind of rules and limitations, and that there is an actual process to changing those.

Secondly, are they out of their minds?!? Illegal aliens are already an underclass with few rights and ripe for exploitation. And they want to make that class permanent? Whatever your position on the whole mess, at least the situation is limited to one generation. Children who are born here are fully citizens, the same as the rest of us. (I would change it so that anyone who survived and graduated thru high school should be granted the same status, but thats just me.)

But if children born here were not citizens of the United States of America, what would they be? Citizens of a country they had never seen? Nationless migrants consigned forever to the edges of society? Defacto endentured servants or slaves?

No, no, no. This idea is just so very bad. It would turn a temporary problem into a permanent one. Absolutely the wrong direction to go. I apprecieate the sentiment and the attempts at problem-solving, but no. Try again.


Lurker
(Why does no one talk about expanding LEGAL immigration?!?)

Open letter to JD Hayworth running for Senate against McCain

Dear J.D. Hayworth,

You have declared war on big government "conservatives" by challenging McCain.

Start acting like it.


You need the following endorsements to get traction with the Tea Party movement:

Tucker Carlson

Pat Buchanan

Lew Rockwell (of LewRockwell.com)

Judge Andrew Nepolitano

Gov. Jesse Ventura

Gov. Gary Johnson (of New Mexico)

Barry Goldwater Jr.

Ron Paul and the rest of the Liberty Caucus


Main issues where you and Tea Party are in sync:

Anti-Tax

Anti-Bailouts

Anti-Cap & Trade

Anti-Obamacare (must apologize for 2003 Prescription Drug vote)

Pro-Constitution (must apologize for expansions of executive power)


You were swept into office in the '94 revolution, lost your way, and kicked out of office in 2006 for turning away from the principals of limited government along with the rest of the Republicans.

You are the poster boy for what the Republican party had become.

You have to show us that you "get it".

Stop trying to out-republican McCain, he has no principals and will say anything. You must take on the big government Washington beltway "conservatives" he represents, expose them for what they are.

Make this fight about the heart and soul of the Republican party. Start talking about the 9th and 10th amendments, not just the 2nd. Start talking about actual spending cuts and not just tax cuts. Put your Social Conservatism in a box because it's not going to win you any new voters.


I can help you become the national Tea Party spokesman that Palin is not. All you have to do is stop addressing issues and start addressing principals. If you want McCain's seat you have to rise to his stature.

The Tea Party is another American Revolution. Become our Patrick Henry.


"Give me liberty, or give me death!"


DH the Lurker

End the Wars, Pay Down the Deficit

We the people are spending trillions of dollars on undeclared wars and policing the world.

Who thinks this is a good idea? Constitutional? Moral? Sustainable?

The Democrats were elected on an anti-war platform and are looking for something to cut that isn't a sacred entitlement. The Ron Paul Revolutionaries (the backbone of the Tea Party movement) are vehemently anti-deficit and in favor of a drastic reduction in military spending.

The time is now for the next stage in the Revolution.


The Federal Budget under Obama is way over a trillion dollars in the red this year and for many to come. Something has to give. Actually, many, many things have to give. But bringing the troops home from Iraq (125,000+), Afghanistan (~50,000), Germany (~57,000), Japan (~33,000) , Korea (~27,000), Italy (~10,000), UK (~10,000), and thousands more in dozens of other countries is a good start. Iraq and Afghanistan, say what you will, are not in any way the slightest overt military threat to us or their neighbors. And what's with all the leftover troops in the former Axis powers? Really? Not really a threat anymore, right? Now Korea is a whole 'nother issue, but even there I'd say our leaving would do more good than harm, leading to reunification sooner and ending that whole 60 year standoff behind us.

The purpose of the military (well, ours at least) should be very straight forward: a rapidly deployable destructive force pointed towards things you want to blow up and die. They aren't supposed to be nice, they are the exact opposite of politically correct, and anytime you have them trying to win over 'hearts and minds' instead of engaging the enemy... objectives become insubstantial and moral suffers.

Support our troops: bring them home. Stop bailing out the world.


Lurker