From: cdpert01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: Re: Patsy Schroeder on Term Limits
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 21:29:25 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville
Followup-To: talk.politics.misc

In article <92Nov16.150720edt.441@neuron.ai.toronto.edu>, steeg@cs.toronto.edu ("Evan W. Steeg") writes:
>   A couple of otherwise "conservative" readers assert their belief
> in term limitations: 
> 

[Summary -- Rep. Patricia Schroeder: "If you like term limits, then 
 move to Mexico." -- cdp] 
       
>   Perhaps I've missed the definitive television, print, or usenet
> argument for term limitations, but I remain unconvinced as to
> its merits as well as surprised that so many "conservatives"
> are backing it.

     It's not being backed by conservatives only -- otherwise, it
wouldn't have passed in every state (which had it on the ballot).
 
>   To the extent that modern, or neo-, conservatism has a
> coherent central philosophy, it would seem to me to consist
> in a belief that citizens should be unhindered by big government
> in the economic and political (if not social, sexual, etc. ) realms.
> It is the "liberals", or so goes the diatribe, who are always
> trying to use laws and regulations to effect "social engineering",
> and they must be stopped.

     Term limits and "social engineering" have very little in
common.  Was the 22nd Amendment an act of social engineering? 

>   It strikes me as somewhat inconsistent, if not despicably
> hypocritical, for "conservatives" to urge laws which say,
> in effect, "you can't vote for the people you want to
> vote for".  Either citizens should be allowed to elect
> whichever fellow citizens they please, according to democratic 
> voting practices, or not.  And if not, then why stop with
> term limitations?  Why not other laws which "protect" the
> electorate from their own stupidity?

     So, is the 22nd Amendment despicably hypocritical?  What about
Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution?  What about 
Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 and Section 3, Clause 3?  I am a
"fellow citizen," however I'm not Constitutionally qualified to become
a Senator because I am not 30 years old.  Regarding "protecting
the electorate from their own stupidity," you might want to read the
Federalist papers -- that's one reason why we have a representative 
democracy.

>   It seems that many "conservatives" are opting for term
> limits not out of principle, but rather out of the simple
> frustration and nastiness that comes from their recognition
> of the fact that their ideological enemies have majorities
> in both houses of Congress.  I.e., the Republicans,
> intellectually dishonest libertarians, and further-right
> wackos just want to get rid of the Democrats, and can't
> do it through more purely democratic means; they therefore
> resort to a "legislate Ted Kennedy out of existence" approach.
> It's understandable, but evil and dangerous.  For we all
> have frustrations with democracy and with the slow ways
> of a republic.  And if we indulge *your* anti-democratic
> desires, what will you think when we indulge *mine*?
> What about laws against the election of people who
> don't have IQ's over 130 or advanced degrees?  Or against
> the election of people who believe too strongly or appeal
> too loudly to ancient and dogmatic religions which I
> find implausible?  Or ban political ads which appeal
> to an overly simplistic and slimy version of patriotism?

     The Presidency had a two-term *tradition*.  U.S. Grant and
Teddy Roosevelt ran for third terms, and both lost.  However,
FDR actually got elected for a third term (and then a fourth
term).  This was not in the spirit of the original intent of
the framers of the Constitution -- hence, the 22nd Amendment
(I know, I'm greatly simplifying this...).  Similarly, having
many "tenured" representatives in the House is not really what the
framers envisioned.  (It's a different story for the Senate.)

>   I think it's a dangerous road you're heading down.
> Leave the power in the hands of the electorate, and
> *convince* us to throw the bums out -- don't wield
> "the coercive power of the state" at us to "force"
> us to throw out them out. 
> 
>   -- Evan

     Oh, the proverbial "slippery slope" argument.  Look, if one
really loves one's representative, one should encourage him/her to 
run for the Senate when his/her limit expires.

     C. Perttunen