bank secrets

[--Pete]

Hi,

First of all, term limits are not a new idea in democracies. In the original articles of confederations, the fifth article was "no person shall be capable of being a delegate [to the continental congress] for more than three years in any term of six years."

Just because the idea has been around doesn't make it good (or bad). And we all know how well the Articles of Confederation worked. But note that even in that (flawed) document, the limit is only on what fraction of the time a person can be in office. It does not limit the number of total terms, nor does it limit the total time in all offices combined.

You mean other than the legacy of people like Strom Thurmond who serve so long (1956 - 2003) that they named the Senate portable oxygen cart after him. You have fixtures, not servants. People like Robert C. Byrd, Ted Kennedy, Charles Rangel (with both House and Senate longevity records!).

Ever look at how old the top Forbes people are? Or notice how many of them made their *real* fortune after what many consider the retirement age? Dumping a useful person, a person with experience, a person of proven quality, simply because they are old, or have been in a position past an arbitrary time limit, is both wrong and foolish. A sufficient restriction would be that they could not hold the office for two continuous terms. That would negate the incumbent advantage which could keep a 'fixture' in office. But as long as they are capable of running for, and getting elected to, public office, then for so long should they be permitted to.

Changing the representatives periodically will keep people involved in their districts politics.

No. Some people are involved, the majority are apathetic. That's why most people who vote (and that is already a relatively small portion of the whole population) vote the straight party ticket -- they don't give a damn, they can't be bothered to actually think. Your proposal would hardly change that.

It would be good to till the ground at least once every 12 years to keep things from getting stale.

Poor analogy. The ground gets more worn out year after year without change. A person gets more experienced as the years go by.

Mostly, (and I was thinking this was obvious) it is to prevent any one person from aggregating too much power from seniority in the Congress, or the Senate.

I don't see that as too much of a problem. The House is so big, the power so dilute, that even powerful representatives are relatively weak. The Senate might be more of a concern, but it is the two party system, more than seniority, that concentrates power (and worries me, at least as little as the legislature worries me at all).

Besides, it is right and just that ancient fixtures rule in the Senate; senate, seniority, and senility all come from the same Latin root. They belong together, :whistling:

--Pete