Doors and revolvers
I can’t decide which of these two approaches to term limits I like better. First, from Francis W. Porretto:
Along with term limits as conventionally understood, I’d really like to see limits that confine an officeholder to a single branch of government. That is:
- No one who’s ever been a legislator is permitted to serve in the executive or judicial branch;
- No one who’s ever been an executive is permitted to serve in the legislative or judicial branches;
- No one who’s ever been a jurist is permitted to serve in the executive or legislative branches;
- And maybe for good measure, no one who’s ever been appointed to a position that requires confirmation by the Senate is permitted to serve in an elective office at all!
Alternatively, from P. J. O’Rourke:
Term limits aren’t enough. We need jail.
I have basically quit hoping for what’s behind Door Number 3.
Gabrielle Dolly »
28 May 2009 · 2:19 pm
I think I’d rather see anyone going into — scorn quotes — “public service” be required to take a vow of poverty.
GFD
Jeff Brokaw »
28 May 2009 · 2:28 pm
P.J., I’ve learned, is nearly always right about anything to do with government. Even when it sounds like he’s just being funny. :)
McGehee »
28 May 2009 · 3:35 pm
I still like my idea: as soon as the winner of a U.S. Senate election is sworn in for his six-year term, he gets deported and told never to return, under threat of gruesome, agonizing death.
This can be extended to other positions when my congressman (he said, with just the barest hint of irony) decides not to seek re-election.
Lisa Paul »
28 May 2009 · 4:16 pm
I’m constantly mystified by this whole argument about term limits. We have them. They’re called “election cycles”. Every election you have your chance to keep the good ones or throw the bums out.
Dwayne "the canoe guy" »
28 May 2009 · 4:48 pm
Everytime you are elected, we cut off 3 fingers. When you can no longer succesfully pick your nose, you can no longer hold office
McGehee »
28 May 2009 · 6:34 pm
Lisa, the problem is (as in the irony noted in my previous comment) the people who see the idiocy of a given congressman tend not to live in his district.
And as long as only the people in a given congressman’s district get to vote on whether to keep him, the notion of “election cycles” as an effective way to keep pols from becoming Career Meddlers in Things They Know Nothing About™ — which is as a matter of fact 95% of the trouble we have with our elected officials — is nothing more than a ridiculous cop-out.
Career lawmakers were never the intent of those who drafted the Constitution. Somehow they didn’t seem to think it could become a problem so long as the government were small and its powers limited. Chicken or egg, I don’t care. Scramble the egg and let the chicken watch.
Donna B. »
28 May 2009 · 8:07 pm
Failing term limits, how about in-session limits? It’s obvious all legislators, from city councilmen to U.S. Senators have too much time on their hands.
CGHill »
28 May 2009 · 8:18 pm
Well, our state legislature ran overtime by a day, but now they’ve adjourned for the year.
Is it just that the longer the session, the greater the opportunity for bad ideas? (In which case, can we get Congress to shut down by Memorial Day? I wouldn’t even ask them to take a pay cut.)
Lisa Paul »
28 May 2009 · 8:25 pm
I don’t know, McGehee. I think voters are pretty much on a hair trigger these days. And stupid votes quickly affect the lives of those in that district. And they respond. Conversely, legislators who bring home the pork are forgiven anything. Only way I can account for the longevity of Ted Stevens.
McGehee »
29 May 2009 · 6:11 am
On the money. He was so universally loved for years that the Democrats always deliberately nominated sure losers to run against him. The one election I was there for, that Stevens was on the ballot, I wrote in the name of the guy that had run against Stevens in the GOP primary rather than vote for either Stevens or his Dem opponent.
McGehee »
29 May 2009 · 6:13 am
There does seem to be a lot less mischief overall, and a lot less career-pol featherbedding, when lawmakers have to leave their phony-baloney jobs at the Capitol and go back to their real jobs at home.
The reason California is ungovernable has less to do with ballot initiatives and more to do with its full-time Legislature.
Kirk »
29 May 2009 · 7:40 am
Because of the widespread practice of gerrymandering, term limits may be the only real solution to de facto life terms for certain elected officials. Personally, I prefer a variation on the Groucho Marx line about refusing to join any club that would have him as a member; I sometimes think that the mere expression of desire for an elective office should be disqualifying.
Francis W. Porretto »
29 May 2009 · 8:01 am
“I sometimes think that the mere expression of desire for an elective office should be disqualifying.”
Mega-ditto. But it introduces a problem of equal weight. If our public offices are to be filled by men who don’t want to be there, then we must conscript them — and the Thirteenth Amendment forbids it.
Wait, there’s an escape clause:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”
…so we could draft convicted felons to serve as our public officials! That would seem to slay two vultures with one stone:
1. No elections, no campaigns, and no pandering;
2. No more worries about governmental corruption: we’d know with perfect certainty that everyone in office is dishonest.
It’s a cancer cure, I tell you!
Francis W. Porretto »
29 May 2009 · 8:28 am
I’ve taken the concepts above a wee bit further here.
McGehee »
29 May 2009 · 9:53 am
I already know that, but whatevs. ;-)
McGehee »
29 May 2009 · 9:55 am
Jury service?
That’s what it would amount to — and paying them $50 a day would be a nice cost savings.