According to the Constitution of the United States, there currently are no term limits for members of Congress. If Robert Byrd wants to run for a 13th Senate term, there is nothing in the Constitution preventing that from happening. He has been in the Senate since 1953, and his current term is good until 2012. Nothing prohibits him from being elected yet again, that is, if his constituents will elect him again.
Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) proposed an amendment back in December to the Constitution that would change this. His proposal (H.J.Res.63) would amend the Constitution to limit terms to 18 years (3 terms in the Senate, 9 terms in the House). Opencongress.org gives this proposal a 93% user approval, but I am skeptical about this resolution.
The reason that there currently are no term limits is because we, the people, hold our representatives and senators accountable. If they fail to represent my district or my state, we hold him/her accountable by not re-electing them. The motive for these politicians to represent the people is that they know they will not get re-elected if they fail. If this resolution were to pass, representatives/senators in their final term have absolutely no motive to do what their constituents want, because they have no possible way of running again. This is evidenced simply by the fact that presidential approval ratings (traditionally) fall in the president's second term, because they have no reason to please the people, because they already know they aren't going to campaign again.
This is the problem I have with it - I want the ability to hold our congressional leaders accountable. A senate term is 6 years. That's a long time. Can you imagine how bad it could be if we had a senator in his/her last term, not able to run again, and they were in there for SIX YEARS representing themselves, and not their constituents. I think that could cause some problems. Because representatives only have 2-year terms, I think there is more of a likelihood of that succeeding, and being beneficial. But still... if they are representing their constituents well, and they are liked in their district, why not let them run continuously? They're doing their job, why not?? They still have to run every 2 years, and get re-elected every 2 years.
The purpose of differing terms is simple. Let me explain what I mean by starting with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life - they never have to get "re-elected." The purpose behind that is we don't necessarily want the Supreme Court's opinions swaying with the people - we want their opinions solidly based in the Constitution. They don't have to worry about being unpopular, because they never have to run for re-election. We want their emphasis not on being liked, but on doing what's right.
Members of the House of Representatives, on the other hand, are up for re-election every two years. The purpose behind this is simple: their job is to REPRESENT, not do whatever they want, or randomly doing "this or that." We hold them to a high accountability, because if they fail to represent, they won't be re-elected, and that's the point. Their number 1 job is to represent the common interests of their district. If they fail at doing that, they won't stick around very long.
A final interesting point about H.J.Res.63 is that it has been in the House Judiciary Committee since it was first introduced, and the chair of that committee is Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), who has been in the House since 1965 - he's serving his 23rd term. Do you honestly think Conyers, the 45 year veteran, is in a hurry to pass a bill through his own committee that will force him to retire? Fat chance.
Friday, February 5, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
9/11 Conspirators: Civilian Trial?
Whether you've been following the story in the news or not, 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others are about to be tried for their crimes of terrorism against the USA. Back in November, President Obama announced that KSM (and possibly several others) would be tried in a federal court under normal civilian court procedures (read the NY Times story here).
Many were opposed to having KSM and other 9/11 terrorists stand trial just blocks from the former location of the World Trade Center. Sources indicate it would be unnecessarily expensive, and they did not know if court officials and NYPD could secure a location in lower Manhattan, where the trial was set to take place.
However, despite Obama's attempts to have KSM tried in civilian court, several key Senators may have found a way to stop it. On February 2, Sen. Lindsey Graham [R-SC] and at least 20 co-sponsors introduced a bill to prevent these terrorists from seeing a federal court on U.S. soil. S.2977 has an ambitious goal of blocking the use of any federal funds appropriated for the Department of Justice for civilian trials of the alleged 9/11 conspirators, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind himself.
This bill is still very new, as it was introduced less than 24 hours ago. It is slowly gaining popularity as the American public is becoming aware of its existence. Sites like opencongress.org are slowly beginning to indicate that a bill like this is favored by the American public.
Currently, the bill has 23 sponsors and co-sponsors, from both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately for those of us who support this bill, it is currently sitting in the Senate's Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-VT]. Leahy has gone on record in at least one occasion indicating that he is strongly opposed to S.2977
This bill could be stalled in the Senate's judiciary committee, so we need as much support as we can for this bill. The people who have the most say on this bill are the members of the Senate's Committee on the Judicary (click here). Luckily, the bill's original author (Graham) also holds a seat on the Judiciary Committee. With your support, and a little bit of luck, this bill can be brought to consideration by the Senate floor.
Many were opposed to having KSM and other 9/11 terrorists stand trial just blocks from the former location of the World Trade Center. Sources indicate it would be unnecessarily expensive, and they did not know if court officials and NYPD could secure a location in lower Manhattan, where the trial was set to take place.
However, despite Obama's attempts to have KSM tried in civilian court, several key Senators may have found a way to stop it. On February 2, Sen. Lindsey Graham [R-SC] and at least 20 co-sponsors introduced a bill to prevent these terrorists from seeing a federal court on U.S. soil. S.2977 has an ambitious goal of blocking the use of any federal funds appropriated for the Department of Justice for civilian trials of the alleged 9/11 conspirators, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind himself.
This bill is still very new, as it was introduced less than 24 hours ago. It is slowly gaining popularity as the American public is becoming aware of its existence. Sites like opencongress.org are slowly beginning to indicate that a bill like this is favored by the American public.
Currently, the bill has 23 sponsors and co-sponsors, from both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately for those of us who support this bill, it is currently sitting in the Senate's Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-VT]. Leahy has gone on record in at least one occasion indicating that he is strongly opposed to S.2977
This bill could be stalled in the Senate's judiciary committee, so we need as much support as we can for this bill. The people who have the most say on this bill are the members of the Senate's Committee on the Judicary (click here). Luckily, the bill's original author (Graham) also holds a seat on the Judiciary Committee. With your support, and a little bit of luck, this bill can be brought to consideration by the Senate floor.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
The 72-Hour Rule
The House of Representatives may soon be required to publicize all legislation at least 72 hours before considering a final debate on the bill. Current House Rules include no such thing, but as we all know, Obama campaigned on "political transparency" in Washington, and allowing the American people the opportunity to read bills prior to consideration, as well as televising on C-SPAN key floor debates and conference committees.
The most likely of these to pass, (H.Res 554), was introduced last June by Brian Baird, a Democrat from Washington. Since its initial introduction into the House, the proposed resolution has received 215 co-sponsors, from both sides of the aisle.
By definition, this bill has bi-partisan support. On OpenCongress.Org, H.Res 554 has 449 members in favor, with only 4 opposed. I think it's safe to say this bill has a lot of support. So, the question is, why has this resolution not been considered by the full House yet? It has been around for seven long months, but why has nothing been done with it??
Lately, democrats in both chambers have violated their own promise (and Obama's promise for transparency), as negotiations over Health Care reform between House democrats and Senate democrats has been done behind closed doors, after hours, during "informal meetings," instead of the more traditional, more transparent conference committees.
With so much support, H.Res 554 has an almost guaranteed passage in the House, but it would certainly make what the House is doing against the rules, and the House would be out of order. I guess this is the problem you have when you have people voting on their own rules and restrictions.
You can bet this much-liked resolution will not reach the House floor for consideration before the final Health Care bill is considered; you have Nancy Pelosi to thank for that one.
But, passing a resolution like this would mean that the House would have to change the way they do things. As you may or may not know, there were about 25 bills passed in 2009 that were rushed through in less than 72 hours. These are major legislations, including cash for clunkers, the estate tax, the stimulus bill, among others. You can view the full list of them by clicking here.
Let's hope people like Nancy Pelosi are not re-elected for yet another term. We have one more year to suffer through this, then hopefully we can get some politicians in who are ready to do their job: represent the people.
The most likely of these to pass, (H.Res 554), was introduced last June by Brian Baird, a Democrat from Washington. Since its initial introduction into the House, the proposed resolution has received 215 co-sponsors, from both sides of the aisle.
By definition, this bill has bi-partisan support. On OpenCongress.Org, H.Res 554 has 449 members in favor, with only 4 opposed. I think it's safe to say this bill has a lot of support. So, the question is, why has this resolution not been considered by the full House yet? It has been around for seven long months, but why has nothing been done with it??
Lately, democrats in both chambers have violated their own promise (and Obama's promise for transparency), as negotiations over Health Care reform between House democrats and Senate democrats has been done behind closed doors, after hours, during "informal meetings," instead of the more traditional, more transparent conference committees.
With so much support, H.Res 554 has an almost guaranteed passage in the House, but it would certainly make what the House is doing against the rules, and the House would be out of order. I guess this is the problem you have when you have people voting on their own rules and restrictions.
You can bet this much-liked resolution will not reach the House floor for consideration before the final Health Care bill is considered; you have Nancy Pelosi to thank for that one.
But, passing a resolution like this would mean that the House would have to change the way they do things. As you may or may not know, there were about 25 bills passed in 2009 that were rushed through in less than 72 hours. These are major legislations, including cash for clunkers, the estate tax, the stimulus bill, among others. You can view the full list of them by clicking here.
Let's hope people like Nancy Pelosi are not re-elected for yet another term. We have one more year to suffer through this, then hopefully we can get some politicians in who are ready to do their job: represent the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)