Article

2015-01-12 Home Front: Politix

More House Dems want to limit time at the top

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Fred 2015-01-12 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11135 views ] Top

#1 Appoint appointments from out of Congress to run the show - then you will see real change and accountability.

Posted by Chush Sinatra1609 2015-01-12 00:11|| 2015-01-12 00:11|| Front Page Top

#2 Term limits for Congress, period. Full Stop. 2 terms is good enough for the President, so 2 terms should be enough for the Senate, 8 years is enough for the President, so 8 years (4 terms) should be enough for the House. Max 20 years in Congress. No more of the octogenarian f**ks like Byrd, or Kansas' Roberts or the senile coot Cochran.

Posted by OldSpook 2015-01-12 03:19|| 2015-01-12 03:19|| Front Page Top

#3 The whole idea is to limit the republicans, any extensions will come later.(Gotta keep the important people in power there's money to be made here.)

Posted by Redneck Jim 2015-01-12 03:55|| 2015-01-12 03:55|| Front Page Top

#4 Since the vast majority of voters don't give a damn about term limits - proven every two years, if you get my drift - why should I?

Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2015-01-12 06:08|| 2015-01-12 06:08|| Front Page Top

#5 #2, add 12 years for Federal judges. They've played politics (not Constitutional law*) from the bench, they may as well be accountable to the citizenry.

* as in where in the hell do you find that in the friggin document?

Posted by Procopius2k 2015-01-12 09:13|| 2015-01-12 09:13|| Front Page Top

#6 Since the vast majority of voters don't give a damn about term limits...

The "vast majority of voters" are of the low information variety, they don't know enough to care. Sort of like...you for instance.

Posted by Woozle Scourge of the Wee Folk4194 2015-01-12 09:14|| 2015-01-12 09:14|| Front Page Top

#7 A growing faction of House Democrats wants to bring back term limits... Of course they do now that there has been a power shift in both houses of Congress.

How about a term limits amendment so the Donks can't change the law down the road when they might happen to be in power? Hypocritical assholes.

Posted by JohnQC 2015-01-12 09:35|| 2015-01-12 09:35|| Front Page Top

#8 A better solution would be to simply return to the original district population numbers for representation, and expand the number of Reps. About 100K per rep makes them much more accessible, easier to make geographically and socially coherent districts, resulting in less gerrymandering, and better representation of the people. Your congressional rep should be as easily reachable as a small city mayor.

Posted by OldSpook 2015-01-12 12:17|| 2015-01-12 12:17|| Front Page Top

#9 It'll take a bigger Capital building to hold thousands of Congreemen.

Posted by Glenmore 2015-01-12 12:35|| 2015-01-12 12:35|| Front Page Top

#10 Dems get rid of Pelosi and RINOs get rid of Boehner. Works for me.

Posted by Ebbang Uluque6305 2015-01-12 13:02|| 2015-01-12 13:02|| Front Page Top

#11 Glenmore, with all the remote meeting technology available today, there is no real reason for the Congress critters to even be in DC anymore. They could stay in their home districts so they could be close to the
constituents.

Of course, this would make it tough for lobbyists, who would have to travel around, or hire many more lobbyists. I see this as a win win, so it will never happen

Posted by Rambler in Virginia 2015-01-12 14:15|| 2015-01-12 14:15|| Front Page Top

#12 I like Old Spook's formula. Its like a narrowing pipe-line. California has a billion congressmen but can only have two Senators so those congressmen are culled or forced to look for other positions if they want to be life-time politicians.

Posted by rjschwarz 2015-01-12 14:59|| 2015-01-12 14:59|| Front Page Top

#13 At 100k per Rep we'd have over 3,000 of them. Perhaps we could go per 100K voting age population, which would drop it to around 2,000 I'd guess. Cut their pay to $50K a year and have the sessions in summer. Then you'd end up with a crowd of 5 or 6 hundred on any given day and only a Full House on important national questions when their constuents bring the pressure for attendance. Fund field offices fully so continent services can be maintenance or even increased, that's mostly what they do from day to day.

Posted by Shipman 2015-01-12 18:23|| 2015-01-12 18:23|| Front Page Top

#14 iPad she hatin on me

Posted by Shipman 2015-01-12 18:24|| 2015-01-12 18:24|| Front Page Top

#15 No. Same as the original limits int he constitution. If that means thousands, then so be it. The number of reps isn't important, its the people per rep that is one of the problems with Congress. If we have to expand then so be it.

Side effect is that it makes it possible for third party candidates to capture a seat here and there. And damned near impossible for one single rep to be so important as to be bought by lobbyists - it complicates lobbyists jobs massively. It also ensures that House of Representative votes will much more closely resemble the votes of the population - look at the county-by-county map for an example.

Posted by OldSpook 2015-01-12 20:12|| 2015-01-12 20:12|| Front Page Top

#16 ...with remote teleconferencing et al, there's really no need for them to spend so much time in the Beltway. Limit it 60 days a year. Force the lobbyists to maintain offices in 50 states and upteen districts. That'll be rather costly.

The senate is suppose to represent the states, not the population. Proportional representation is for the House. Do like the electoral college in each state with each county/parish getting one electoral vote. Takes the power away from the big city machines.

Posted by Procopius2k 2015-01-12 20:52|| 2015-01-12 20:52|| Front Page Top

#17 I love the idea of part time legislature. It works for Texas.

Posted by OldSpook 2015-01-12 21:28|| 2015-01-12 21:28|| Front Page Top

#18 OS,Less chance to do damage?

Posted by JohnQC 2015-01-12 21:33|| 2015-01-12 21:33|| Front Page Top

#19 Virginia also has a part time legislature. From Wikipedia: 'The state constitution specifies that the General Assembly shall meet annually, and its regular session is a maximum of 60 days long in even-numbered years and 45 days long in odd-numbered years, unless extended by a two-thirds vote of both houses. The governor of Virginia may convene a special session of the General Assembly "when, in his opinion, the interest of the Commonwealth may require" and must convene a special session "upon the application of two-thirds of the members elected to each house.'"

Posted by Rambler in Virginia 2015-01-12 21:56|| 2015-01-12 21:56|| Front Page Top

23:31 49 Pan
23:29 KBK
23:08 g(r)omgoru
23:01 g(r)omgoru
22:32 trailing wife
21:56 Rambler in Virginia
21:33 JohnQC
21:28 OldSpook
21:15 Mugsy Glink
20:52 Procopius2k
20:40 Pappy
20:38 Pappy
20:12 OldSpook
20:10 DepotGuy
20:10 Fred
19:41 Hupineger Glomomp7489
19:40 swksvolFF
19:25 chris
18:49 Canuckistan sniper
18:26 swksvolFF
18:24 Shipman
18:23 Shipman
18:17 Ebbomosh Hupemp2664
18:04 Shipman