From: jfr@RedBrick.COM ()
Subject: Re: Termlimits
Organization: Red Brick Systems, Los Gatos, CA
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 16:59:10 GMT

In article <farenebt.720939727@craft.camp.clarkson.edu> farenebt@craft.camp.clarkson.edu (Bri Farenell ("Droopy")) writes:
>14 states passed term limit initiatives.
>What I am interested in is how many of Congressmen and Senators
>were re-elected from those states who would have exceeded the term
>limit specifications had they been in effect already.
>
>In other words, how many Senators were elected to their 3rd+ term
>or REps to their 5th+ term (or whatever the numbers for the indiv.
>state was) from states where term limits were approved?

  Well, I don't know the exact numbers, but this was discussed on one
  of the analysis shows Tuesday night and it is quite a few.  So, as
  you are suggesting, this is sort of like the baseball owners yelling
  "Pass a baseball rule to stop us from spending all this money 
  before we go broke paying higher and higher salaries to these
  undeserving baseball players because we don't know how to stop
  ourselves."  (Did you see that Ryne Sandberg is going to get $7M 
  a year next year - attaway to go Ryne baby!)         

  Jeez, and to think that most of those people voting for term limits
  consider themselves conservatives (i.e., they DON'T want the
  government telling them what to do :-)  

  In California, we have now guaranteed that within 6 years, we will
  no longer have any way of having a Congressman be on Ways and Means,
  be a chairperson or be Speaker of the House (three very important
  potential positions).  With no more than 6 years seniority, we are
  doomed.  This was appropriately called, in another post, unilateral
  political disarmarment.                              

  People have always had a way to impose term limits, just go out
  and vote the buggers out.  Obviously, in most states that passed
  term limits, the voters consider THEIR congressman or senator or
  assemblyman worth reelecting but want to stop everyone else from
  doing the same thing.  Unfortunately, they will find out the hard
  way that they have lost significant political leverage.

  I do not understand why all the "term limit mongers" have always
  used the Presidential term limits as an model of why we need
  term limits.  The President's term was limited by Republicans
  after FDR's 4 consecutive terms because it was felt (probably
  with some justification) that the President, as the leader of
  the country, had too much influence as an incumbent to be easily
  removed and that as the executive of the country, not a legislator,
  it was a good thing to have a change every eight years or so.
  I think that is reasonable thinking.  There is a big difference
  between being an single executive with vast powers at your command
  including a large armed force and an incredible beauracracy,
  and one congressperson out of 435 or one senator out of 100.  
  
  Sure, special interest groups probably have too much influence
  and I expect (or at least hope) that the new partnership will
  result in some kind of campaign finance reform to help solve
  that problem.  And I don't particularly like arrogant long-term
  Congressfolk and have voted against them (and voted them out of
  office) on occasion.  But I want that right myself, not dictated
  to me by some stupid law, particularly if the playing field is
  uneven (i would feel a little better if this was passed as a
  federal law or amendment, but not much).      

  The states that DIDN'T pass term limits are right now pinching
  themselves to make sure they aren't dreaming.  In a few years,
  they will have all the power and we (California) will have none.

  And no, most of those states (the small Eastern states) WON'T
  pass initiatives to add term limits.  Initiatives are mostly a Western
  states phenomenon.  I was amazed when I discussed this with my
  fellow workers how many of them assumed that every state has
  the ability to put constitutional amendments or laws on their
  state ballot.  NOT!  In many Eastern states, there is simply no
  way for term limits to be passed unless the legislature does it
  (right, that's like asking the condemned man to graciously pull
  the switch himself :-)  

  One of my co-workers voted for term limits because he felt that
  he could send a message "and the courts will strike it down as
  unconstitutional anyway".  Well, I hope so, but the California
  law was drafted in a pretty cagy way.  It doesn't exactly set
  a qualification for membership in the House or Senate (which 
  probably WOULD be unconstitutional).  In fact, it is perfectly
  acceptable to be elected to Congress 20 times in a row in
  California if the last 17 times are by write-in vote.  All they
  did was bar someone from appearing on the ballot if they have
  served the required number of years in Congress.  Since ballot
  regulations are often deemed within the authority of the state,
  I am not convinced that this law will be struck down.  Sigh...

  Jon Rosen