TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

fickman wrote:I left the poll open so that you can change your answers. . . for any of those who might have been swayed by reading through the discussion.

OK, I voted "undecided." That'll learn yah!

Another chapter in my book of unintended consequences.

I left the poll open so that you can change your answers. . . for any of those who might have been swayed by reading through the discussion.

rotor wrote:Basically the question should be, do you want more government or less government? Do you want more ridiculous laws or less laws? Think about it. Originally the concept was that people served part time in the congress and went back to their real jobs, much like the Texas legislature which meets every two years. When you have career politicians, what do they do? They pass laws, many of them sound good on paper but in reality are nightmares, like Obamacare, like assault rifle bans, etc. If you believe in a conservative view of government perhaps we should take more of the libertarian view that the sole purpose of government is to provide a military to protect us from foreign invasion, provide a banking and currency system and perhaps not a lot more. Right now we concentrate on "gun control" in this group, adding more stupid laws to the tons of other stupid laws out there. Don't forget, CHL was the reversal of previous law banning conceal carry- passed by the legislature. I think we should lean to less governmnet, fewer laws, end career politicians existence and let them return to a real job instead of vegetating and controlling our lives for example like Harry Reed does. Might as well be a dictator. So, I support term limits, less government, fewer laws especially those that make progressives feel good but take away my constitutional rights (Ms Feinstein are you reading this?)

To explore this some: wouldn't term limits require a new law. . . essentially more government. . . a new law to protect us from ourselves by limiting our freedom to keep a great representative around for a long time?

I'm surprised how many people are seemingly settled on this. I left the poll open so that we can change our selection. . . I've gone between "No" and "Only in very limited cases".

I can see the potential for a President to entrench himself and dangerously increase the powers of the office. In the head executive office, limits might be worthwhile.

But Senators? Representatives? Lt. Governor? Land Commissioner?

I don't see the pressing need. I understand anti-politician rhetoric, but this will just make more politicians, many of them likely to be far more unpredictable.

steveincowtown wrote:If term limits were in place right now, I would be willing to bet wide and sweeping gun control would have passed this year.


Having Politicians worry about getting reelected isn't necessarily a bad thing....

I think this thought is exactly what prompted me to start mulling this topic over a few months ago. . .

baldeagle wrote:Repeal the 17th Amendment. Then let's see what impact that has before we make any further changes.

wholeheartedly with this. Although at the time, the backroom deals for choosing Senators had led to significant allegations of corruption. Still, the states lost their voice at the Federal level and the Republic has suffered ever since.

baldeagle wrote:I find the notion of being afraid of term limits rather quaint. It's like saying, I love this guy that represents me now and there's not another person in my state who could do as well as he does. Really? How do you know if you don't try?

That's a dangerous standard. The "how do you know if you don't try" sounds like, "well, there's only one way to find out". . . close our eyes, do it, and live with the results! (I'm exaggerating that characterization. Obviously at the state level in Texas there will be more coming up, but now, they'll all be motivated to watch for what's next. Move up? Slide into corporate life? Their motive for self preservation won't change, it'll just refocus to new jobs instead of holding on to the one they've got.)

More importantly, if the electorate unilaterally loves the person representing them, why should they be forced by law to choose somebody new?

FWIW, there are bills at the state level wanting to enforce term limits on any statewide office. . . not just the guys who office in D.C.

Where does it end? State reps? County commissioners? City council? School boards? HOA committees?

Great points. ..

I saw an interesting quote from an old thread when I was searching to see if this poll had been done before:

Paraphrase of TexasCHLforum member wrote:We already have term limits. They're called elections. We regularly get to reassess a politician's performance and throw them out if we don't like it.

Do we need more laws to protect us from ourselves? (And, as I stated above, could they actually backfire and make things worse?)

Term limits is one of those topics that seems like a slam dunk at first glance, and then the longer I think about potential unintended consequences of such a move, I think I've talked myself out of supporting them.

The rallying cry is generally to prevent career politicians who become insiders who only look out for their own hide, take care of the powerful lobbyists, vote benefits for themselves, and become insulated from the concerns of the citizens they represent.

However, imagine the potential unintended consequences:
- Great performers cannot keep their job, even if they earn it in the view of the electorate
- In the final term, the voters essentially lose all accountability over the politician's actions
- Experience and wisdom would constantly be thrown out in exchange for unproven novices
- All politicians would constantly be at the beginning of the learning curve
- Politicians may spend more time looking to set themselves up for their post-office career. . . this could counter-intuitively lead to MORE corruption, not less
- The behind-the-door selection process for who gets to stand in line for the next turn could become nasty

Politics is a dirty profession, but I don't know that term limits will clean it up. Strict term limits could lead to the same handcuffing of the system as the zero-tolerance policies at schools that cause so many of us to bang our heads into walls. Statutorily reducing choice, discretion, and freedom essentially removes an element of power from the electorate. . .

I can understand limiting the terms of the President. I could get my head around limiting the terms of the Governor. But Senators, Representatives, Lt. Governor, Land Commissioner, Railroad Commissioner, and on down the line? I think the resulting situation could be worse than the status quo.

Just trying to stimulate some interesting dialogue on the subject. . . mostly thinking out loud.