Centerfield

Huzzah indeed! But he also nails why it probably won't happen.

In May 1995 the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that congressional terms could not be limited by states' statutes. Hence a constitutional amendment is necessary. Hence Congress must initiate limits on itself. That will never happen.

I really like this quote:

Liberals practice "K Street liberalism" with an easy conscience because they believe government should do as much as possible for as many interests as possible. But "K Street conservatism" compounds unseemliness with hypocrisy.

Tully-
Will is wrong; the states may initiate the process. As recounted in Julian Zelizer's tome The American Congress: the building of democracy and Origins & Development of Congress, by Robert A. Diamond, the 17th Amendment was forced through the Senate when a number of States passed resolutions calling for a Constituional Convention. Cowed (reasonably enough, in light of the exceeded mandate of teh last Constitutional convention) of the consequences of such a happening, the Senate conceded to its own popular election.

I'm not hostile to the notion of term limits, but I admit that I find the following objection to be a pretty reasonable one: that more power will cede to staffers and lobbyists, neither of whom is elected.

I also think it's fair to acknowledge that term limits dismiss as unimportant the possibility that experience, accumulated wisdom, and perserverance might be necessary components of passing important legislation. Term limits may lead to lobbyists developing more strategies that simply run out the clock on legislators who support ideas that lobbyists view as against their interests.

In other words, I think it's reasonable to presume that term limits will lead to a decrease in consolodiated power among congresscritters along with the allied temptations of curruption such power brings. But still I wonder, where bwill that power go? I'm far too skeptical a person to assume it will simply revert to the people.

I am much more interested in redistricting, and I like the idea of making some congresscritters run for re-election in different districts. Related to that, I might like the idea of term limits that apply only to the particular job held. So senators would be free to run for senator in a different state, congresspeople in different districts. And if they did so, they would not accrue seniority that carried over to new positions...

The problem with term limits is that it eleviates the voter of any responsiblity for ensuring that government remains representative and attentive. Let's face it, if the average American would actually involve themselves in the process we wouldn't even have to discuss term limits.

My attitude is a bit elitist; but average Joe Voter can't help but do a terrible job, AR. Considering that his/her decisions are usually based on sound bites and what s/he hears on talk radio, most will have an uniformed opinion.

Heck, I would go one step further and repeal the 17th amendment in addition to term limits. Go back to allowing state legislatures choosing Senators. Might get a few more people involved in the Senate who would not, otherwise, want to undergo an election process. It could also offer a bit of insulation by removing the need to fundraise in vast quantities to become a Senator. It will never completely remove that pressure, though. Cronyism could be an issue. However, I think the effect of a US Senate not in continuous campaign mode could be very beneficial in helping to cut back on some pork spending pressures.

The problem with term limits is that it eleviates the voter of any responsiblity for ensuring that government remains representative and attentive. Let's face it, if the average American would actually involve themselves in the process we wouldn't even have to discuss term limits.

Bull, are you telling me that there aren't politicians who win specifically because of their seniority and the bacon they bring home? How 'bout the rest of us? I am not saying that voters shouldn't pay more attention, but why is it that my representation in Congress should be less because my Senator has only served for two-terms? The system is broken and unequal because of those who are in Washington D.C. for way too long. Term limits is a sensible approach to fixing the problem.

I'm not hostile to the notion of term limits, but I admit that I find the following objection to be a pretty reasonable one: that more power will cede to staffers and lobbyists, neither of whom is elected.

Yup, term limits is a piece of the pie... The others should be drastic campaign finance reform and sharp regulation of what a lobbyist can and cannot do. This is one area where I thought Kerry had some good points during the election.

I know Simon, and Pat, are going to come back with certain short comings of McCain/Feingold, but just because something doesn't fully fix the problem, doesn't mean that it is a complete and utter failure or that its intentions aren't in the right place. I see McCain/Feingold as a stepping stone, something both McCain and Feingold agree with... They got what they could in the legislative process, now it needs to be revisited and improved upon.... You can start with banning 527's. And yes, Simon, there are loopholes in all regulations, but does that mean we abolish all laws or that we work to close the loop holes where it is sensible, and then possibly get rid of the ones where it isn't? Should we stop collecting taxes, for instance, or should we take a stab at reforming the system?

GW writes:

Although bribery already is a crime and lobbying is constitutionally protected (the First Amendment right "to petition the government for a redress of grievances"),

You know, I find it hilarious that the strict constructionists are the ones making the argument that somehow this constitutional protection involves lobbyists paying off elected officials to get them to do what they want them to. This system doesn't work, and if you want evidence, look at the Medicare Bill. I don't see how the First Amendment protects anything more than someone making an argument to their elected official, and to say that it does appears to be the very judicial activism that Will says he is so against.

I know Pat and Simon have eloquently stated that further regulating campaign finance will inhibit our ability to reach the masses and that it will not work because their will always be a smart attorney waiting around the corner, but I am not convinced. Further, the only alternative offered seems to be the status quo, which is unacceptable. Although I give you credit where it is due for bringing up term limits, Simon, and I strongly agree... I don't see how term limits on its own fixes the problem.

I guess in some part, I do want to inhibit the ability of certain group to access public officials... The NRA, Right to Life, the AFL-CIO, the Sierra Club, the ACLU, insurance companies, etc., etc. and bring them down to the level of the average citizen who doesn't fully agree with any of these groups. Furthermore, I don't see why that is a bad thing, and second of all, I don't see why the First amendment says anything different. To throw our hands in the air and say fixing the system is never possible, is a cop out.

I really like this quote:

Liberals practice "K Street liberalism" with an easy conscience because they believe government should do as much as possible for as many interests as possible. But "K Street conservatism" compounds unseemliness with hypocrisy.

To be fair, many liberals such as our friend Carla, would argue that this is not the case, but that it is the DLC-centrist wing of the Democratic party that has become addicted to K Street. I think this is in part fair, and in part naive, but it is worth pointing out that the Clinton's brought a whole new meaning to corporate political contributions during their tenure. I think in some way, although I agree that everyone is guilty to some extent, the Democratic Party is an example of where the centrists are more guilty than the activists. Many liberals, see: Russ Feingold, were highly critical of the Clintons campaign tactics, and rightfully so.

This is one area, where I am admittedly not a centrist.

My attitude is a bit elitist; but average Joe Voter can't help but do a terrible job, AR. Considering that his/her decisions are usually based on sound bites and what s/he hears on talk radio, most will have an uniformed opinion.

And whose fault is that? Do we just totally dismiss anyone and everyone of all responsiblity. Sure, the average voter makes their decision based on sound bites and talk radio, perhaps, but that's the voters fault! A huge majority of Americans have internet access, and for those who don't, there are public libraries all over this country with access. If the average Joe voter truly cared and respected their own role in the process, they could quite easily educate themselves. But, no, everyone just wants it read to them or acted out in front of them.

And whose fault is that? Do we just totally dismiss anyone and everyone of all responsiblity. Sure, the average voter makes their decision based on sound bites and talk radio, perhaps, but that's the voters fault!

AR, I agree with your point. How can it be fixed though? I am not wanting to absolve them of the responsibility. However, how do you force a group of people who are only interested in living in their own little part of the world to open themselves up and educate themseves on the bigger issues when they don't want to?

I like to use the example of retention of Supreme Court Justices in the state of Florida. Ever since judicial retention of justices has been put to a vote, never has a judge not been retained. Even when elaborate campaigns to not retain a judge were put on, they have never been close to successful. To most voters the Supreme Court is not something that affects them, so they just figure they are doing a good job and vote yes. I think most voters deal with incumbents the same way. If the incumbent does nothing to directly tick off a voter, they see no reason to change. Even when convicted of felonies or being dead, they have been reelected to office in some Congressional cases. The voters really don't seem to care and I don't know how to make them care.

So the question is, if the voters are not going to take the time to learn the details and there is no way to force them to learn, do we have to have term limits to protect the minority from the majority?

I like to use the example of retention of Supreme Court Justices in the state of Florida. Ever since judicial retention of justices has been put to a vote, never has a judge not been retained. Even when elaborate campaigns to not retain a judge were put on, they have never been close to successful. To most voters the Supreme Court is not something that affects them, so they just figure they are doing a good job and vote yes. I think most voters deal with incumbents the same way. If the incumbent does nothing to directly tick off a voter, they see no reason to change. Even when convicted of felonies or being dead, they have been reelected to office in some Congressional cases. The voters really don't seem to care and I don't know how to make them care.

You couldn't be more right. I'm trying to remember the name of the Justice they were all up in arms over a couple of years ago...there was a big drive to knock him (maybe it was her) off the court. I don't think it was Pariente--anyway, it was a failure, despite the best efforts of religious conservatives. People are tired by the time they get to that portion of the ballot--with all of those stupid amendments we are always voting on (i.e. pregnant pigs), it's just a race to finish at that point.

How do we make them care? That's the question I keep asking myself. I honestly don't know the answer.