Registered: Jun 2011
10-07-12 06:54 PM
that's the thing about you kids today, your memory is clouded and you think small. Yes from the times my babies were born I told them about how lucky they were because of the existence of Everett Dirkson. He was great man. Unfortuntately his escapades were not chronically recorded for all womankind. But yes, I agree, he immediately comes to mind.
Quote from piezoe:
Happy Sunday morning to all. Free Thinker and BSAM, you are two of the posters I always read and have great respect for your ideas.
I've been thinking a lot about BSAM's suggestions lately. Have come to believe that I've been wrong about the term limits issue. Used to think as you Free Thinker, but now recognize that while we already have term limits, the implementation is defective. I don't think hard and fast term limits are necessarily the best way to go however, but maybe better then the current flexible term limit implementation via election. Because we need experienced legislators to serve right along with new blood, there may be a better way to achieve nearly the same benefits that inflexible limits could, but with a better overall result.
Of course, staggering terms can go a long way toward solving this problem, nevertheless there may be some, not necessarily someone we agree with, that we may want to return to the legislative bodies time and time again because of their great value to discourse and ultimately to good government. In modern times, folks like Ron Paul, Sam Ervin, Tip O'Neill, Teddy Kennedy, Barry Goldwater, Gerry Ford, Robert Byrd and Everett Dirksen come immediately to mind.
Would a better way to go about this, rather than hard and fast term limits, be perhaps the removal of most of the incumbent's advantage? In other words, achieve, through legislation, as near a level playing field in elections as humanly possible. We could do this by funding all elections for Federal Office with public money and making illegal, with stiff penalties, any private political donation, in cash or in kind, so much as a penny; outlawing all political advertisement in the national media, and setting up a by-partisan election committee charged with seeing to it that all candidates, once they have qualified under state rules, have exactly the same resources and perfectly equal opportunity to express their views via the media, print and broadcast, and limiting of election campaigns to ninety days (or any other reasonably short period up to say 6 months).
At first this seems a pipe dream without changing the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment -- I once believed this -- but this is clearly wrong thinking. The only real impediment to doing this sort of thing is the U.S. Congress.
The Congress, through Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution has the power to pass legislation and at the same time forbid the Court from reviewing and ruling on it. In other words, the Constitution is very clear about making the Congress superior to the Supreme Court. (Gingrich, bless his evil heart, was right about this, however ineptly stated during the recent Republican "debates".) So far as I'm aware, this awesome power granted to Congress, was used only once in the nineteenth century, but it is there, waiting in the wings to be used once again for the great benefit of the American People.
What we need is some great benefactor, Soros leaps to mind, to champion this idea and fund a national campaign to get Congress to act.
Regarding a balanced budget amendment: this is an absolutely horrible idea if you believe as I do that Keynes was right. Such an amendment would hamstring the government, preventing it from leveraging up when the private sector is leveraging down. Had we such an amendment in place in 2008 we'd be in another Great Depression right now. Yikes!!! The very idea of it strikes terror into my heart!
From Artcle III, section 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
The above in italics is, I believe, what Gingrich was ineptly referring to.
How bout term limits on Standard Oil and The Ford Motor Comapany? Not to mention IBM and Google.
I aint that worried about shitheads that can get you to vote for them.
But yes, he was a great man.