4 ms·

> FIRST propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress. If he does this alone, then he's made a huge impact. I'm really

> FIRST propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress. If he does this alone, then he's made a huge impact. I'm really concerned he might be assassinated.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
I honestly don't believe there's any chance of that passing. However, if Donald Trump actually can make that happen, I will forgive everything I hold against him, because it would clear out most of our government rot within the next two elections.
- dugmartin 10y ago
  I doubt it would make much of a difference - money is like water in politics, it will find its way in. Instead of the money coming in as donations for future elections it will be about promises of huge salary for the job after you hit your term limit, unless of course you only want those who don't need to work hold our elective offices.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    Ah, but the fourth item on his list is to forbid outgoing Congresscritters from those jobs for half a decade. At the least, he (or someone working for him) seems to have considered that.
    - Retra 10y ago
      How do you enforce that?
- rblatz 10y ago
  My biggest fear of term limits would be the deep state respecting legislative oversight even less than it already does. A 2 term congressman can be waited out, but a 5-10 term congressman can really dig in.
- pc2g4d 10y ago
  Maybe, but it would also be a huge blow against the power of congress, which could only strengthen the executive. Without consistent leadership, congress would be even more feckless than ever.
geofft 10y ago
A president's power to propose a constitutional amendment is only greater than a presidential candidate's power to propose a constitutional amendment because of his symbolic authority. The states need to vote on it. There's other stuff he can do on his own authority (e.g., a hiring freeze), or that requires the power of the presidency (e.g., nominating a justice).
incompatible 10y ago
A proposal alone doesn't do anything. What is that chance that it gets a two-thirds vote of approval in Congress?
- meddlepal 10y ago
  Almost no chance since career politicians would be giving up their cushy career jobs.
elihu 10y ago
Constitutional amendments need a 2/3 majority in the House and Senate to officially be proposed (except when proposed through a constitutional convention, which hasn't happened since the original constitution was written), and must be ratified by 3/4 of states to take effect. So, this won't happen unless there's suddenly a bi-partisan consensus that term limits are needed. (Also, congresspeople are unlikely to be willing to vote themselves out of a job.)
- croon 10y ago
  Reality doesn't seem to be a relevant factor here, unfortunately. Hopefully this will get clearer sometime into his presidency, when most likely nothing will happen, but otherwise a downward spiral.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
dloose 10y ago
I'm not sure that Congressional term limits are necessarily a good thing. Lobbyists and other special interests don't have term limits. It seems to me that if we impose term limits on Congress members, then the lobbyists will be the ones with the most experience drafting and passing legislation. I'm all for limiting the influence of money in politics and making more Congress seats "vulnerable" (something like 90% of incumbents get re-elected), but when we find a good legislator I think we should be allowed to keep them.
- internaut 10y ago
  > when we find a good legislator I think we should be allowed to keep them. It's a fair point. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the 'term limits' mean, whether they are similar to presidential term limits (my original assumption) or not. The question I find myself wondering is: Is the range of possible upside equivalent to the range of possible downside? My intuition is that there's a limited amount marginal improvements except in special cases but the potential downside goes from bad to worse to flat out catastrophic. Maybe it is like how most programmers can improve a code base, but a single bad actor could fuck it to hell and back with greater ease. I'm looking at you Dianne Feinstein. Evil bat-witch.
- ninjakeyboard 10y ago
  moral of the story, you can't make these changes without some sort of analysis to show that they will have the intended effect. He's pulling the trigger w/o understanding the end effect imo.
drzaiusapelord 10y ago
It does nothing to stop corruption in government. The same forces that have a 20 year Senator begging for campaign money and being in the pocket of various special interests will continue against the freshman Senator that replaces him. Its feel-good nonsense for the most part. It barely addressed the symptoms of Washington corruption, let alone the cause. >I'm really concerned he might be assassinated. Over a toothless regulation that affects only a small percentage of Congress and mostly guys ready to retire anyway?
icantdrive55 10y ago
The look on the Secret Service personnel last night was palatable. I have seen the look of vigilance before, but will never forget the looks on those guys faces last night. I have to hand it to the Secret Service. I didn't think they could protect Obama, but they did.
dragonwriter 10y ago
> If he does this alone, then he's made a huge impact No single action could increase the power of lobbyists and unelected officials not directly accountable to voters more than this, it's true. It would be an enormous impact.
- internaut 10y ago
  Can you provide a supporting line of reasoning? I think corruption is like a weed. It grows when you become acclimatized to your environment and start to exploit it. Term limits get us closer to a part-sortition. From the wiki: Author James Wycliffe Headlam explains that the Athenian Council (500 administrators randomly selected), would commit occasional mistakes such as levying taxes that were too high. Additionally, from time to time, some in the Council would improperly make small quantities of money from their civic positions. However, "systematic oppression and organized fraud were impossible". These Greeks recognized that sortition broke up factions, diluted power, and gave positions to such a large number of disparate people that they would all keep an eye on each other making collusion fairly rare.
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    There are three key groups at work in the legislation: legislators, the professional staff on whom legislators rely, and lobbyists. Reducing the average level of experience in the particular legislative institution, and in legislative affairs generally, of the first group increase the relative advantage in systematic knowledge and effectiveness of the latter two groups compared to the first. Term limits aren't sortition (it's not random, and political parties and the donor class are actively involved in choosing who stands for seats and how much support they have, so, the effects you point to in sortition of breaking up factionsome and reducing corruption simply aren't present.) And, in any case, the level of complexity of a modern nation of 300+ million people different considerably from that of ancient Athens.
    - internaut 10y ago
      > Reducing the average level of experience in the particular legislative institution, and in legislative affairs generally, of the first group increase the relative advantage in systematic knowledge and effectiveness of the latter two groups compared to the first. That's a good point. How would you solve for X here? > Term limits aren't sortition (it's not random, and political parties and the donor class are actively involved in choosing who stands for seats and how much support they have, so, the effects you point to in sortition of breaking up factionsome and reducing corruption simply aren't present.) I was thinking broadly of the system being more or less organized and how in some way incompetence may be less truly dangerous than a bad actor abusing the system. How about we simply put restrictions on politicians and their interaction with mass media? This many minutes on television, paid for by the State so you don't have to scrounge around for cash? That is just a half-baked example, I take it you understand what I mean by it. Corruption is a problem in every country but I don't think lobbying and donors exert such an influence in my country Ireland (could be naive here!). > in any case, the level of complexity of a modern nation of 300+ million people different considerably from that of ancient Athens. Ha! True. We need a new OS, that is for sure. That is why Patri Friedman (seasteading) has so many of my sympathies.
elevenfist 10y ago
Get real, this is an amazing boon for lobbyists. Members of congress would not be able to gain experience at crafting legislation and dealing with the entire shitshow process at the federal level. Lobbyists can still be lobbyists for life. On top of that, this significantly weakens congress's position when raising funds for elections. They've got to dance to the right tune quickly, they can't slowly ramp up a career and build a brand. With their bargaining power lowered...ugh. America is probably going to get totally fucked now. And no, not necessarily because of this. But this policy proposal is the best Trump could come up with? This isn't even half-baked, it's fucking flour in a pot and he's calling it cookies. How can this be called a contract.
- 1024core 10y ago
  Anecdata time. I was at a conference. During the dinner, a couple sat next to me, and the husband happened to be a lobbyist in Sacramento (CA). We talked about term limits, and he was laughing at how he, having been around so long, was the go-to resource for incoming newbie representatives in the committee he lobbied. With a "trust me", he could get stuff into legislation with ease. This is not to say that term limits are bad. But just term limits alone may not be enough to curb corruption.
  - maxmax 10y ago
    That, and the delegation of rulemaking by lawmakers to "unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats" within state agencies. Term limits will accomplish the opposite of the stated intent.
- exclusiv 10y ago
  The longer they are there, the more sold out they become. Career politicians are the worst. Completely disconnected from the people because the only thing they know is how to get elected and work the system for personal enrichment and job security. They help pass laws which affect people and the economy they've never participated in. The bad ones are hard to get rid of. Kind of like tenured professors. So you might lose an exceptional one from time to time but they can switch houses or branches in that case. If you like no term limits, why do we have one for the President?
mrschwabe 10y ago
Mixed opinion on this because it seems there is nothing wrong with no term limits on GOOD politicians. It would have been a shame if Ron Paul would have been prevented from his hugely successful 22+ years service in office. And Americans should really have no qualms about letting folks like Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffez serve indefinitely.

> FIRST propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress. If he does this alone, then he's made a huge impact. I'm really concerned he might be assassinated.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago

I honestly don't believe there's any chance of that passing. However, if Donald Trump actually can make that happen, I will forgive everything I hold against him, because it would clear out most of our government rot within the next two elections.

dugmartin 10y ago
I doubt it would make much of a difference - money is like water in politics, it will find its way in. Instead of the money coming in as donations for future elections it will be about promises of huge salary for the job after you hit your term limit, unless of course you only want those who don't need to work hold our elective offices.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  Ah, but the fourth item on his list is to forbid outgoing Congresscritters from those jobs for half a decade. At the least, he (or someone working for him) seems to have considered that.
  - Retra 10y ago
    How do you enforce that?
rblatz 10y ago
My biggest fear of term limits would be the deep state respecting legislative oversight even less than it already does. A 2 term congressman can be waited out, but a 5-10 term congressman can really dig in.
pc2g4d 10y ago
Maybe, but it would also be a huge blow against the power of congress, which could only strengthen the executive. Without consistent leadership, congress would be even more feckless than ever.

geofft 10y ago

A president's power to propose a constitutional amendment is only greater than a presidential candidate's power to propose a constitutional amendment because of his symbolic authority. The states need to vote on it. There's other stuff he can do on his own authority (e.g., a hiring freeze), or that requires the power of the presidency (e.g., nominating a justice).

incompatible 10y ago

A proposal alone doesn't do anything. What is that chance that it gets a two-thirds vote of approval in Congress?

meddlepal 10y ago
Almost no chance since career politicians would be giving up their cushy career jobs.

elihu 10y ago

Constitutional amendments need a 2/3 majority in the House and Senate to officially be proposed (except when proposed through a constitutional convention, which hasn't happened since the original constitution was written), and must be ratified by 3/4 of states to take effect. So, this won't happen unless there's suddenly a bi-partisan consensus that term limits are needed. (Also, congresspeople are unlikely to be willing to vote themselves out of a job.)

croon 10y ago
Reality doesn't seem to be a relevant factor here, unfortunately. Hopefully this will get clearer sometime into his presidency, when most likely nothing will happen, but otherwise a downward spiral.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

dloose 10y ago

I'm not sure that Congressional term limits are necessarily a good thing. Lobbyists and other special interests don't have term limits. It seems to me that if we impose term limits on Congress members, then the lobbyists will be the ones with the most experience drafting and passing legislation. I'm all for limiting the influence of money in politics and making more Congress seats "vulnerable" (something like 90% of incumbents get re-elected), but when we find a good legislator I think we should be allowed to keep them.

internaut 10y ago
> when we find a good legislator I think we should be allowed to keep them. It's a fair point. I guess we'll have to wait and see what the 'term limits' mean, whether they are similar to presidential term limits (my original assumption) or not. The question I find myself wondering is: Is the range of possible upside equivalent to the range of possible downside? My intuition is that there's a limited amount marginal improvements except in special cases but the potential downside goes from bad to worse to flat out catastrophic. Maybe it is like how most programmers can improve a code base, but a single bad actor could fuck it to hell and back with greater ease. I'm looking at you Dianne Feinstein. Evil bat-witch.
ninjakeyboard 10y ago
moral of the story, you can't make these changes without some sort of analysis to show that they will have the intended effect. He's pulling the trigger w/o understanding the end effect imo.

drzaiusapelord 10y ago

It does nothing to stop corruption in government. The same forces that have a 20 year Senator begging for campaign money and being in the pocket of various special interests will continue against the freshman Senator that replaces him. Its feel-good nonsense for the most part. It barely addressed the symptoms of Washington corruption, let alone the cause. >I'm really concerned he might be assassinated. Over a toothless regulation that affects only a small percentage of Congress and mostly guys ready to retire anyway?

icantdrive55 10y ago

The look on the Secret Service personnel last night was palatable. I have seen the look of vigilance before, but will never forget the looks on those guys faces last night. I have to hand it to the Secret Service. I didn't think they could protect Obama, but they did.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> If he does this alone, then he's made a huge impact No single action could increase the power of lobbyists and unelected officials not directly accountable to voters more than this, it's true. It would be an enormous impact.

internaut 10y ago
Can you provide a supporting line of reasoning? I think corruption is like a weed. It grows when you become acclimatized to your environment and start to exploit it. Term limits get us closer to a part-sortition. From the wiki: Author James Wycliffe Headlam explains that the Athenian Council (500 administrators randomly selected), would commit occasional mistakes such as levying taxes that were too high. Additionally, from time to time, some in the Council would improperly make small quantities of money from their civic positions. However, "systematic oppression and organized fraud were impossible". These Greeks recognized that sortition broke up factions, diluted power, and gave positions to such a large number of disparate people that they would all keep an eye on each other making collusion fairly rare.
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  There are three key groups at work in the legislation: legislators, the professional staff on whom legislators rely, and lobbyists. Reducing the average level of experience in the particular legislative institution, and in legislative affairs generally, of the first group increase the relative advantage in systematic knowledge and effectiveness of the latter two groups compared to the first. Term limits aren't sortition (it's not random, and political parties and the donor class are actively involved in choosing who stands for seats and how much support they have, so, the effects you point to in sortition of breaking up factionsome and reducing corruption simply aren't present.) And, in any case, the level of complexity of a modern nation of 300+ million people different considerably from that of ancient Athens.
  - internaut 10y ago
    > Reducing the average level of experience in the particular legislative institution, and in legislative affairs generally, of the first group increase the relative advantage in systematic knowledge and effectiveness of the latter two groups compared to the first. That's a good point. How would you solve for X here? > Term limits aren't sortition (it's not random, and political parties and the donor class are actively involved in choosing who stands for seats and how much support they have, so, the effects you point to in sortition of breaking up factionsome and reducing corruption simply aren't present.) I was thinking broadly of the system being more or less organized and how in some way incompetence may be less truly dangerous than a bad actor abusing the system. How about we simply put restrictions on politicians and their interaction with mass media? This many minutes on television, paid for by the State so you don't have to scrounge around for cash? That is just a half-baked example, I take it you understand what I mean by it. Corruption is a problem in every country but I don't think lobbying and donors exert such an influence in my country Ireland (could be naive here!). > in any case, the level of complexity of a modern nation of 300+ million people different considerably from that of ancient Athens. Ha! True. We need a new OS, that is for sure. That is why Patri Friedman (seasteading) has so many of my sympathies.

elevenfist 10y ago

Get real, this is an amazing boon for lobbyists. Members of congress would not be able to gain experience at crafting legislation and dealing with the entire shitshow process at the federal level. Lobbyists can still be lobbyists for life. On top of that, this significantly weakens congress's position when raising funds for elections. They've got to dance to the right tune quickly, they can't slowly ramp up a career and build a brand. With their bargaining power lowered...ugh. America is probably going to get totally fucked now. And no, not necessarily because of this. But this policy proposal is the best Trump could come up with? This isn't even half-baked, it's fucking flour in a pot and he's calling it cookies. How can this be called a contract.

1024core 10y ago
Anecdata time. I was at a conference. During the dinner, a couple sat next to me, and the husband happened to be a lobbyist in Sacramento (CA). We talked about term limits, and he was laughing at how he, having been around so long, was the go-to resource for incoming newbie representatives in the committee he lobbied. With a "trust me", he could get stuff into legislation with ease. This is not to say that term limits are bad. But just term limits alone may not be enough to curb corruption.
- maxmax 10y ago
  That, and the delegation of rulemaking by lawmakers to "unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats" within state agencies. Term limits will accomplish the opposite of the stated intent.
exclusiv 10y ago
The longer they are there, the more sold out they become. Career politicians are the worst. Completely disconnected from the people because the only thing they know is how to get elected and work the system for personal enrichment and job security. They help pass laws which affect people and the economy they've never participated in. The bad ones are hard to get rid of. Kind of like tenured professors. So you might lose an exceptional one from time to time but they can switch houses or branches in that case. If you like no term limits, why do we have one for the President?

mrschwabe 10y ago

Mixed opinion on this because it seems there is nothing wrong with no term limits on GOOD politicians. It would have been a shame if Ron Paul would have been prevented from his hugely successful 22+ years service in office. And Americans should really have no qualms about letting folks like Trey Gowdy and Jason Chaffez serve indefinitely.