At 08:36 PM, Wednesday, 10/23/02, Gary Smith wrote:
One more thing. We need to put term limits on all Congress. One term for
Senate, two for House. Then we wouldn't have people fighting to keep
themselves forever in office, and it would reduce the amount of voter
bribes. New Senators and Congressmen have a vision to fix America. Old
ones are mostly interested in keeping their position.
I disagree on the matter of term limits because it violates the spirit of the Constitution. There needs to be a balance of power among the three branches of government. Over the past two centuries the national legislature has irresponsibly been giving up more and more of its power over the executive branch. Term limits would just accelerate that shift. Without checks and balances we will have dictatorship. And checks and balances only work if the three branches of the federal government are more or less evenly balanced.

I believe the idea of term limits was discussed by those in the original Constitutional Drafting Convention and it was rejected. I haven't done the study to learn what their reasons were.

In any case, I object to term limits on Constitutional reasons. I know that puts me at odds with my fellow conservatives, but then William F. Buckley campaigned for giving away the Panama Canal Zone. Not every person with the public persona of a conservative actually is one.

Finally Brigham Young didn't like the idea of term limits. He once said that if a good man is in the office, he should be kept there indefinitely to keep the scoundrels out of that seat. Term limits can backfire. Actually they usually do.

"I don't think I'm alone when I say I'd like to see more
and more planets fall under the ruthless domination of
our solar system." --Jack Handy
All my opinions are tentative pending further data. --JWR

/// ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at ///
/// ///

This email was sent to:

Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to