This thread was inspired by my other thread about the Constitutionality of the czars put in place by Obama. Senator Robert Byrd who is a Democrat and has been in place in the Senate before Obama was even born questioned the Constitutionality of the placement of czars over the populace. The issue of Senators Byrds age, 92, was then brought up to help explain the charges brought against Obama by a member within his own party. The charge against Senator Byrd is that his mental acuity was the reason this issue was even brought into question.
So the questoin begs, whether or not you agree with the charge that Senator Byrd is senile because they dare question Obama's domestic policies, should Congressment have term limits? Of course, the whole issue with Senator Kennedy also comes to mind with his age and recent diagnosis of brain cancer.
The issue is not only about discriminating against the aged and sickly, rather, it is also about the ability of Congressment to monopolize power for generations to come.
I suppose I will start things off. As for Senator Byrd, I suppose I would need more examples of his senility in order to by into the fact that the man is indeed senile. If so, he should go. As for his long standing position in the Senate, has this helped his state, WVU, and/or has it helped or hurt the country? I would think that the longer one is in power the more power one is able to secure and wield in influence. No doubt, this is helpful when tackling isues for his constituency over the years.
Originally posted by whodeyI think you took my comment about Senator Byrd a little too literally. I didn't mean that he's attacking Obama because he's senile. I just think you can't take him as seriously as you would have had he been, say, 62.
This thread was inspired by my other thread about the Constitutionality of the czars put in place by Obama. Senator Robert Byrd who is a Democrat and has been in place in the Senate before Obama was even born questioned the Constitutionality of the placement of czars over the populace. The issue of Senators Byrds age, 92, was then brought up to help explain ther, it is also about the ability of Congressment to monopolize power for generations to come.
But, to answer your question, we have term limits. They're called elections. Term limits for executives make sense because you want to avoid having them get too powerful. For legislators? Not really necessary. They're not very powerful in the first place.
Would I support an age cap for Senators (say, 80 or 85)? It might not be a bad idea. I would hope that the people of WV would be smarter than to think it's a good idea to have a 90 year old in the Senate, but I guess not...
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAnd accident insurance is not necessary as long as no accidents happen. 🙂
No single individual should have a great deal of power in a political system. If that is the case, term limits are not necessary.
Terms limits are one of the most effective checks on personal power -- which is why power-hungry individuals work hard to remove them.
Originally posted by spruce112358Term limits are just saying that the people are too stupid to be allowed to choose their leaders. Might as well cut right to the chase and have a king.
And accident insurance is not necessary as long as no accidents happen. 🙂
Terms limits are one of the most effective checks on personal power -- which is why power-hungry individuals work hard to remove them.
Term limits were proposed and defeated at the Constitutional Constitution. As usual, the Framers got it right.
Originally posted by no1marauderSo do you feel that the term limits on the President are unjust?
Term limits are just saying that the people are too stupid to be allowed to choose their leaders. Might as well cut right to the chase and have a king.
Term limits were proposed and defeated at the Constitutional Constitution. As usual, the Framers got it right.
Originally posted by spruce112358Simply not placing that much power at a single individual works much better.
And accident insurance is not necessary as long as no accidents happen. 🙂
Terms limits are one of the most effective checks on personal power -- which is why power-hungry individuals work hard to remove them.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou don't think them to be too stupid? They elected "W" for two terms and then Obama. You know, they aren't the sharpest tacks.
Term limits are just saying that the people are too stupid to be allowed to choose their leaders. Might as well cut right to the chase and have a king.
Term limits were proposed and defeated at the Constitutional Constitution. As usual, the Framers got it right.
Then again, the people chose HIllary over Obama didn't they? Also, according to you libs "W" stole the election from Gore so perhaps your right. 😉
Originally posted by sh76You know, with the health care and cushy life style the Senators have in the Senate I suspect this may become the norm rather than the exception. Heck, I bet Kennedy is still plugging away even though he is at deaths door. Then again, with the health care these people recieve and cushy life style he may last longer than I.
Would I support an age cap for Senators (say, 80 or 85)? It might not be a bad idea. I would hope that the people of WV would be smarter than to think it's a good idea to have a 90 year old in the Senate, but I guess not...[/b]
Originally posted by whodeyThe issue is not whether the Senators like being Senators. I'm sure they do. What's not to like?
You know, with the health care and cushy life style the Senators have in the Senate I suspect this may become the norm rather than the exception. Heck, I bet Kennedy is still plugging away even though he is at deaths door. Then again, with the health care these people recieve and cushy life style he may last longer than I.
The issue is whether their constituents keep reelecting them.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBut what if power is increased by their continuing to get elected? If they are able to secure power in their voting districts, they then form a monopoly of sorts. Then as they continually get elected, you then create powerful Senators on a national level like that of Kennedy. No doubt about it, the lack of term limits increase the power of these politicians as a whole so if it bothers you they should have term limits.
No single individual should have a great deal of power in a political system. If that is the case, term limits are not necessary.
Originally posted by sh76All I am saying is that we may see more Robert Byrds in Washington. That is all I am saying.
The issue is not whether the Senators like being Senators. I'm sure they do. What's not to like?
The issue is whether their constituents keep reelecting them.
Originally posted by whodeyWe've already had plenty. Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms, etc.
All I am saying is that we may see more Robert Byrds in Washington. That is all I am saying.
If anything, in the age of media coverage and media dogfights over every election, you might be less likely to see Senators serving forever than the days when most people never heard of most of these guys and people just elected the same guy over and over because he was an institution in the state.
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of avergae number of terms and number of long term Senators (5+ terms) now as opposed to decades ago. I'll bet that if anything it's decreased.