Sen. Specter goes to the dark side!

[usmarinemike]

Senators and Represenatives represent the states and districts that vote them there. So why should we deprive the very voters who elect their Congressmen of the choice to continue to do so? Just because I don't like Senator X from Idaho doesn't mean I should be able to force him out as a resident of Virginia.

You wouldn't be forcing someone else's elected official out. It would just be a new rule of the game.

The way we selected Senators was actually changed by the 17th amendment because of egregious corruption and the ineffectiveness in the system, leaving Senate seats vacant for long periods of time because of partisanship in the state legislatures, figure that. And it was the state legilatures that selected Senators and not the US Congress.

If voters are the ones who have the final choice, what is wrong with that?

State legislatures chose candidates and the Congress elected them. The Senatorial goat rodeo of pre-17th amendment was apparently mostly caused by the Civil War and all of the unbelievable instability that caused.

The idea that term-limits are somehow the solution is still laughable to me. We have single term limit on the governor in Virginia and it is politics as usual, just with a shorter time span. Partisan rancor is still there, stuff doesn't get done because of politics and money is still a huge factor.

That we will somehow get to a better place solely because of term limits, or that it is what the founders practiced (they may have preached, but many did not practice) is naive. One only has to look at any part of our history to find that almost all the problems, issues or complaints we have are repeated throughout our entire history. Term limits ain't going to fix it, it is the way of government in a democratic/republican system of government.

It's not a fix-all, but I think it would be worth a shot. But then, I'm all for a consumption tax and much, much more power for the states.

What is your solution for overcoming the unbelievably paradoxical overspending yet careerist government?

 

[mmx1]

Before anyone wants to make another argument about how far right the GOP has gone, you might want to remember that the GOP elected the quintessential moderate/maverick republican for their presidential candidate when there were no less then 3 other more conservative candidates to chose from. Splain that to me.

There was no candidate that Conservatives were truly happy with. Romney's Mass health plan scared the shit out of Conservatives. Giuliani is pro-life, pro-gay rights, pro-stem cell research, and had a rough divorce - what values voters was he attracting? Huckabee's late emergence and his appeal to Christian voters masked his liberal stances on taxes and immigration. FDT may have not gotten much bite from Republicans, but there was a bit of time he was floated as the "conservative" choice until people realized a few witty remarks didn't make up for a complete lack of campaigning. The conservative vote got split, and McCain walked away as the most "electable" candidate with the most mass appeal.

The McCain of late 2008, incidentally, was much, much more conservative than the McCain of 2000. He adopted a solid pro-choice stance, supported the bush tax cuts after he opposed them, and nominated a very conservative running mate as an olive branch to the Conservative wing of the party (possibly costing him the election).

It's unfortunate but this country only vaguely resembles the ideas that were set down in the late 18th century.

Fortunately, we no longer run our country like we're in the 18th century.

Mike- what is this political "class"? You mean profession? What exactly is wrong with the professional legislator or statesman? The founding fathers, as Flash pointed out, believed in curtailing the threat of a standing army by enforced amateurism. That folly was quickly and wisely discarded. How exactly is amateurism supposed help the political process? We are today lacking statesmen like Henry Clay, John Stennis, or Dan Patrick Moynihan, but that is hardly an argument to do away with career politicians altogether.

 

[wink]

How exactly is amateurism supposed help the political process? We are today lacking statesmen like Henry Clay, John Stennis, or Dan Patrick Moynihan, but that is hardly an argument to do away with career politicians altogether.

You think there are no more Clays, or Stennis' out there that can't get a toe hold or won't spend the money because of the current climate? Would there have been an inherent problem with Moynihan or Clay leaving after making great contributions for just 12 years instead of a lifetime? You don't think great men would make a contribution wherever they were? And how many do nothing leeches or has beens do we have in Congress for every Clay? Amateur performances are not based on years of service. Face it. Most our Senators and Representatives act like rank amateurs. It has nothing to do with the years you spend there.

 

[wink]

Senators and Represenatives represent the states and districts that vote them there. So why should we deprive the very voters who elect their Congressmen of the choice to continue to do so? Just because I don't like Senator X from Idaho doesn't mean I should be able to force him out as a resident of Virginia.

It is a national system. A congressman from Idaho makes laws for Virginia. That is why the federal government/Constitution can set various limits on candidate eligibility, terms, campaign rules, etc. That is also the rational behind allowing a big out of state organization to come into my state and spend a million dollars getting a guy elected that I don't want elected and may not have been elected without out of state money. That is why the UAW, and the NRA can support and promote candidates all over the country. So if enough Americans think it is better for the nation to have term limits then the guy in Idaho will just have to suck it up.

If voters are the ones who have the final choice, what is wrong with that?

Then you don't support the term limit on the chief executive?

 

[Flash]

State legislatures chose candidates and the Congress elected them. The Senatorial goat rodeo of pre-17th amendment was apparently mostly caused by the Civil War and all of the unbelievable instability that caused.

I see nothing in the Constitution about Congress electing the Senators, only state legislatures.

Either way, the system was broken and needed fixing.

It's not a fix-all, but I think it would be worth a shot......What is your solution for overcoming the unbelievably paradoxical overspending yet careerist government?

I don't want to change things drastically on a maybe, especially when the 15 state legislatures that have term limits still have of the same issues that legislatures without term limits have, like overspending, etc. Have term limits really helped California?

I don't have a solution, but I certainly don't think term limits will even come close to providing one. It certainly hasn't helped some of the states that have instituted them, how do you explain that?

It is a national system. A congressman from Idaho makes laws for Virginia.

But the congressman from Idaho is that state's/district's representative in Congress, not Virginia's.

So if enough Americans think it is better for the nation to have term limits then the guy in Idaho will just have to suck it up.

So I guess if most Americans support gun control, say a reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban, all is good then? Amend the Constitution to reflect that? I guess you would have to suck that one up, like it or not.

Then you don't support the term limit on the chief executive?

Apples and oranges, the President as a single person holds as much power, if not more, than the 535 voting members of Congress.

 

[SkywardET]

I don't have a solution, but I certainly don't think term limits will even come close to providing one. It certainly hasn't helped some of the states that have instituted them, how do you explain that?

I have a solution, but it can never be done. Increased emphasis on civil discourse and civics from the population at large. There are numerous road blocks to this. The preponderance of money is against it, the only class of people that can truly effect it have neither political rights nor representation in any form, and we are accelerating, not slowing, our civil decline (as determined by rates of broken homes).

Flash, I wasn't really arguing for or against term limits. I was merely pointing out that elections are not term limits. I tend to think of it in a different light. I think it is dishonorable to cling to power for the sake of power. I believe an election should be treated more like a mandate, and for the most part they have been. When the mandate becomes to stay in power, that's when it's time to go.

 

[wink]

But the congressman from Idaho is that state's/district's representative in Congress, not Virginia's.

But a single vote by the senator from Idaho can pass a bill that will be the law of the land across the entire U.S. Ah, that includes Virginia.

So I guess if most Americans support gun control, say a reinstatement of the Assault Weapons Ban, all is good then? Amend the Constitution to reflect that? I guess you would have to suck that one up, like it or not. .

OF COURSE!! I would fight the proposed amendment. But once changed, yup. I am opposed to gun control first and foremost because it is unconstitutional (though there are other moral and logical arguments). But if the Constitution is changed, fair is fair. I try to be consistent.

Apples and oranges, the President as a single person holds as much power, if not more, than the 535 voting members of Congress.

So how do you feel about the number 100, as in senators. I don't believe when the Constitution was amended wrt Presidential terms they had in mind that a single president was too powerful. If that were so then they could have changed the Constitution to reduce the power of the presidency or provide for co presidents, or a parliamentary system.