Conference back40::soapbox

    Term limits is a legislative way of circumventing the will of the
    people and giving the minority party a better chance of parity.  As the
    long-time minority party, the Republicans have long been advocates of
    term limits (and the Democrats have tended to oppose it.)
    
    Now the Republicans find themselves in the majority.  Guess what?
    They are backpedaling on term limits.  At this moment there are only
    100 votes for term limits in Washington.  The Republicans have -- what?
    -- 230+.  How can this be?  Well, Republican Congressmen have been
    quoted as saying that no one can learn how the process works in less
    than six years, and only after that point do they become effective
    legislators.  One proposed constitutional amendment being floated calls
    for incumbents to be grandfathered: that is, Congress can limit the
    terms of everyone but them.
    
    Newt Gingrich, when reminded of the Contract, said that he was bound
    only to bring the matter to a vote, not to pass anything.
    
    What bilge!

    
    -1
    
    my idea of term limits is to get them out of there before they become
    "effective" legislators, so six years sounds about right.
    
    maybe i'm a tad cynical, but i don't believe that _any_ of these
    politicians are really for term limits - repub or dem.  

    On this morning's news show, Senator Dole said he is personally opposed
    to term limits, and that furthermore he doesn't have the votes to pass
    it.
    
    Now, when the Democrats were in charge and didn't agree on legislative
    strategy, they were generally perceived as incompetent.  I have the
    impression that the Republicans are hypocrites: one faction runs for
    office on a pledge to do something, knowing the other faction will kill
    it. Of course, I could be wrong -- they could simpoly be equally
    incompetent.
    
    Which do you think it is?

    the "contract", in spite of the dimm controlled media, was/is a stroke
    of brilliance, politically. it also reflects what a majority of
    americans want out of government.
    
    i have never seen the democratic party in such disarray as they are
    now. and most of that falls squarely on the shoulders of our good buddy
    slick. facinating to watch their demise. you watch. the remaining dimms
    in congress will abandon slick i massive waves now.

    
    I cn better afford GOP hypocrites than expensive cynical lyin'
    gerrymandering spinning mmush headed dims.
    
    every time we get a dim speaker we have an entrenched crook
    for 30+ years.
    
    my freedoms and my wallet are safer with GOP until such time
    as a Libertarian wave sweeps the electorate.

Amen.

    Amyn
    
    ?
    

    If ya was for term limits before gettin' elected, ya better be for term
    after gettin' elected...imho

re: .0

>    Term limits is a legislative way of circumventing the will of the
>    people and giving the minority party a better chance of parity.  As the

Term limits is a legislative way of overcoming the overwhelming advantage the
incumbent has in the areas of free campaign mailings and pork politics.

| <<< Note 72.4 by HAAG::HAAG "Rode hard. Put up wet." >>>


| the "contract", in spite of the dimm controlled media, was/is a stroke of 
| brilliance, politically. it also reflects what a majority of americans want 
| out of government.

	Gene, you absolutely amaze me. I agree with what you said above that it
was brilliance, but the part that amazes me is that you aren't upset by the
backpeddling, that it was just mere words used to get elected. When the dems do
it, yer all over them. It seems when the repubs do it, now the term changes to
brilliance. Sorry Gene, that sounds a little too hypocritical to me.

| i have never seen the democratic party in such disarray as they are now. 

	Disarray? They're sitting back and watching the repubs kill each other
off. If I didn't think it would cause such a problem for us people, I'd
probably be enjoying this.

| facinating to watch their demise. you watch. the remaining dimms in congress 
| will abandon slick i massive waves now.

	Nah... they will just watch the repubs kill each other off. Dole was
one who said term limits were a MUST. Now he is against them. More mere words
from a pollytiction. But they are a brilliant bunch those rebubs, aren't they?



Glen

                    <<< Note 72.1 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>
                          -< Head-spinning hypocrisy >-

    Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich repeatly told the public **BEFORE** the 
    election that they were personally opposed to term limits.  If they 
    -- or other leaders in the majority party -- changed their tune after
    the election, then you have an interesting point.  But they have been
    honest about this.

    This honesty is in clear contrast to, say, Bill Clinton, who dumped most
    of his campaign promises within a few weeks (such as the middle class 
    tax cut, his national program of public works to rebuild infrastructure,
    his industrial policy, and his retreat from the stimulus package). 

    Furthermore, all of the Republican leadership have indicated that the
    Contract for America was a contract to debate and vote on specific 
    solutions to issues.  No one ever said that these would pass, but Newt
    made it clear that the country would benefit from the debate.

    This is very good idea.

    I think that we can all agree that we have serious problems in this 
    country, and these problems need to be addressed.  The problem is that
    the majority party in Congress are so opposed to change that they refuse
    to even discuss these problems.  

    For example, when Bush was elected President, the number one issue in 
    the country was crime.  Bush and the Republican leadership proposed a 
    crime bill that the Democrats buried in committee.  After months of 
    trying and get the bill to the floor, Newt Gingrich staged a call-in 
    program for victims of violent crime to call their Congressmen about 
    their incidents.  Congressmen were encouraged to read these stories into 
    the Congressional Record.  Newt and Bob Dole went on TV to say that they
    were not insisting on their bill, they simply wanted a discussion about 
    this issue.  Under the relentless pressure, the Democrats wrote their 
    own bill, but they made it content free.  Bush vetoed the bill because 
    it didn't do anything to solve the problem.

    Part of Bush crime bill was a serious effort at dealing with domestic
    violence as a civil rights issue and closes several loopholes in the law
    where abusive partners can avoid detection by moving from state to state.
    It also provided for protection for people who move to another state to 
    get away from an abusive partner.  When this provision was not included 
    in the Democratic version of the crime bill, Bob Dole and a Congresswoman
    (whose name escapes me) introduced a bill to just address domestic 
    violence.  Bob Dole stated in a news conference that "if they wouldn't 
    accept it in the larger crime bill, maybe they'd accept it as a separate
    little bill."   No, they killed that too.

    Consider the line-item veto.  Bill Clinton campaigned that he was for it.
    Bill Clinton campaigned that he would ask Congress not to wait for a 
    Constitutional Amendment, but, instead, would ask Congress to add words
    to the appropriations bills giving the President the authority to make 
    cuts.  Of course, Congress refused.  The line item veto is an effective 
    part of many state constitutions, but at the Federal level, we have not 
    even had a discussion on this issue.

    It is time to debate some of these issue.

    The change in Congressional leadership is a good thing because we can 
    finally talk about the problems that threaten our future.

    As far as term limits go, I can understand your bitterness.  As a 
    supporter of what used to be the majority party, I can understand how 
    you would want to support the status quo.  However, all term limit do 
    is artificially produce greater turnover in elected offices.  This is 
    not a benefit to one party of another.  After all, a Democrat can 
    replace an incumbent Democrat.  

    Furthermore, there are politicians at the state and federal level who 
    routinely get re-elected simply because they "bring home the bacon" to
    their constituents.  Those of us who are against this kind of corruption
    can't get rid of these vermin because they represent people in other 
    districts or other states.  The only way that we can fight these people
    is through smaller government and term limits.

    >If ya was for term limits before gettin' elected, ya better be for term
    >after gettin' elected...imho
    
    that slimy weasel wellstone (d-mn) campaigned on a 2 term limit and
    then within a year of getting elected backpeddaled the whole nine
    yards. i've got the paper and quote and intend to use them at the
    appropriate time.

    Note 72.10 by BIGQ::SILVA
    
>Gene, you absolutely amaze me. I agree with what you said above that it
>was brilliance, but the part that amazes me is that you aren't upset by the
>backpeddling, that it was just mere words used to get elected. 
    
    i see no backpeddaling to date.
    

>| i have never seen the democratic party in such disarray as they are now. 
>
>	Disarray? They're sitting back and watching the repubs kill each other
>off. If I didn't think it would cause such a problem for us people, I'd
>probably be enjoying this.

    you obvviously are not reading accurate data. even the papers here, all
    hardcore slick supporters, admit that if this admin doesn't change its
    agenda and move to the center, and quick, the entire dimm party could
    implode into chaos. watch slick TRY to move to the middle and put the
    clamps on the witch - her bruised ego could cause serious problems.

     <<< Note 72.9 by ROWLET::AINSLEY "Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow!" >>>
    

>Term limits is a legislative way of overcoming the overwhelming advantage the
>incumbent has in the areas of free campaign mailings and pork politics.
    
    You got it, at least in part. The biggest problem is the exponentially
    increasing amount of money spent on campaigns. This heavily favors
    incumbents, followed by fabulously rich challengers. 
    
    The only way to get around that is blocked by the misuse of free speech
    arguments to block the limiting of the amount of money spent. The
    answer to virtually assured incumbency is money limits, lots of
    mandated free air time, some public funding.
    
    Term limits is not the answer because it doesn't solve the problem of
    whose interests are represented in a system so dependent on vast sums
    of money. Worse, it takes away our freedom to vote for whom we want.
    
    It boggles the mind to see people voluntarily given up their freedoms,
    especially when it won't solve the problem.
    
    Kit

    re: .5
    
    >> my freedoms and my wallet are safer with GOP until such time
    >> as a Libertarian wave sweeps the electorate.
    
    ...which will be soon if the Repubs show us that they're really no
    different than the Dems.  And that means *passing* bills to make real
    changes, not just bringing them up for debate, and not just yakking,
    and certainly not "compromising".  It's got to be substantive stuff
    that changes the way this broken government works.
    
    Frankly, I wonder if they're up to it.  They're as much part of the
    "big, unresponsive, unaccountable entrenched government" as the Dems.
    Any real or perceived backpedaling will have a high price at the next
    election.
    
    Chris

    Ironically, I am in agreement with my liberal counterparts...in a
    sense.
    
    Term limits is surprisingly a topic that alligns more with the liberal
    establishment...
    
    "We are going to impose term limits because you are too stupid to vote
    properly.  You cannot think for yourself."
    
    Fact is...alot of people ARE stupid.  It is important to remember that
    regardless of the power of a senator or congressman, there power is
    ONLY as strong as your vote.  A Kennedy or a Hatch can be rendered
    powerless by the mere check mark in your voting ballot.
    
    The problem isn't powerful lobbyists or rich powerful incumbants.  The
    problem is an uneducated constituency.
    
    -Jack

    re: .13
    
    "moving to the center".  Your analysis could be correct. This is
    usually the immediate prescription in a political rout. It may prove
    fruitful, at least in the short run.
    
    You should at least consider another possibility -- that a Democratic
    party purged of much of its right might come up with a coherent liberal
    vision that will eventually prevail.  The big losers were the
    conservative Democrats in areas that now feel comfortable voting for
    Republicans. Why vote for the imitation when you can vote for the real
    thing?  
    
    This is the pattern the Republicans followed for 30 years to victory.
    Goldwater's success was in defiance of the "Me-tooism" of the
    1950's Republicans. He sharpened and defined a conservative point of
    view, which prevailed in the Reagan win, and now the Congressional win.
    
    On the other hand, the Democrats' two successful presidential candidates
    in the last two decades have been moderates who explicitly said that
    the party had drifted too far to the left. Clinton himself was the
    founder of the DLC, whose sole purpose was to keep a liberal from
    getting the nomination. 
    
    Maybe that is the right way to go, tacticly. But it looks a lot like
    "Me-tooism" to me. And now that the Democrats no longer have their
    encrusted Congressional satrapies to defend, maybe they can work on a
    real alternative to the Republicans.
    
    Because the one thing I *do* know is that the Republicans' simplistic
    bromides, while useful for political purposes by focusing alienation,
    are no solution for the complex problems of the economy, the health
    care system, social disintegration or any other issue which they
    purport to address.
    
    Kit

    
    RE: .14  >...It boggles the mind to see people voluntarily given up
              their feeedoms, especially when it won't solve the problem.
    
      Unfortunately, people do it all the time, such as the recent 'assault
      weapons' ban. 
    
    Paul
    

    Anent .11: Kevin, let me understand what you are saying.  You are
    saying that Newt Gingrich signed a document pledging to do something he
    personally opposes?  And this is honesty?
    
    Would you mind looking up the definition of "hypocrisy"?
    
    There is no such thing as an honest hypocrite.  Senator Dole did not
    sign the Contract, so far as I know; only House candidates did, right?
    If so, he's off the hook.  If he did, he's as bad as the rest of them.

>    Anent .11: Kevin, let me understand what you are saying.  You are
>    saying that Newt Gingrich signed a document pledging to do something he
>    personally opposes?  And this is honesty?
    
    	Close.  Gingrich signed a document pledging to get congress to
    	DISCUSS something he personally opposes.
    
    	Can't see any dishonesty here, and in fact I find this admirable.
    
>    Would you mind looking up the definition of "hypocrisy"?
    
    	And what's your point?

>                       <<< Note 72.18 by RICKS::TOOHEY >>>
>
>    
>    RE: .14  >...It boggles the mind to see people voluntarily given up
>              their feeedoms, especially when it won't solve the problem.
>    
>      Unfortunately, people do it all the time, such as the recent 'assault
>      weapons' ban. 
    
    Now if this isn't a prime example of why we should tremble for the fate
    of the republic -- equating the gun control side-show with the taking
    of your freedom to vote.
    
    But then we've come to understand that there is a group of people for
    whom the constitution begins and ends with the second clause of the
    second amendment.
    
    Kit

    
    RE: -1
    
      Just as I thought - you didn't really mean what you said in .14.
    
    Paul
    

	Joe, you sign a contract for a new car and the salesman sounds like a
nice guy. He makes the contract sound like it's for you. It turns out he never
meant it. The contract was a lie. 

	You take this same scenerio and apply it to those people who voted for
republicans because of the contract, and you might begin to see why Steve, I
and others apply the word hypocrite lately to a lot of the repubs.


Glen

                   <<< Note 72.19 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>
               -< Not a good job of defending the indefensible >-

>    Anent .11: Kevin, let me understand what you are saying.  You are
>    saying that Newt Gingrich signed a document pledging to do something he
>    personally opposes?  And this is honesty?

    One more time: The Contract for America calls for a debate and a vote.
    When the debate comes, Newt Gingrich will probably give arguments against
    term limits, but he is strongly in favor of a debate.

    Yes: He signed a document that pledges to do something.  Namely, he 
    promised to have a debate and vote on term limits.

    No: He does not personally oppose a debate and vote on term limitis.

        Voltaire: "I will disagree with everything that you say, but I will 
        defend to the death your right to say it."

    That's how the democratic process works.  We lay out the problem, and we
    debate the possible solutions.  Newt gave a quick speech on the Friday 
    after the election.  It was shown on C-SPAN.  He was asked if it bothered
    him that many people where opposed to his ideas.  This is as close to an
    exact quote as I can get, but he said, "No, not at all.  The more people 
    we can have in the debate, the wider the range of ideas that we can have."

    This is in sharp contrast to the way that things have been done.  As I 
    indicated before, for the last thirty years or so the Democratic 
    leadership -- particularly in the House -- has decided what things will 
    be discussed and what things won't.  You like term limits or a line-item 
    veto, then let's talk about it.  You don't?  Well, be prepared to defend 
    your position. Let's bring all of the interested parties to the table in
    an open forum and decide this matter once and for all.  Let's not have a 
    select few dominate the agenda.

    The old saying goes: "The President proposes, and the Congress disposes."
    Well, for the last thirty years of so, we have had a Congress that has 
    "disposed" very, very well.  Maybe now we will have a Congress that is 
    willing to consider making changes.  



>   Would you mind looking up the definition of "hypocrisy"?

    Been there done.  Done that.  It doesn't apply in this case.



RE: Bob Dole

    As a Senator, I didn't sign the Contract.  He's off the hook?  Hardly.
    Many of the ideas that have been proposed and buried over the years now
    need to be debated in the Senate as well.  And if the House is half as 
    productive as they plan to be, the Senate will have a great deal of 
    legislation to consider.

>	Joe, you sign a contract for a new car and the salesman sounds like a
>nice guy. He makes the contract sound like it's for you. 
    
    	Sounds like a consumer problem to me.  Lately your examples like
    	this have had this problem...
    
>It turns out he never
>meant it. The contract was a lie. 
    
    	So far, what people here have been declaring "backpedalling"
    	(ie "he never meant it") have been shown to be EXACTLY what
    	the contract said, and EXACTLY what those "selling it" were
    	saying about it.  
    
    	So far the contract has not been a lie.
    
    	Woe to the current political supporters of it, though, when
    	it does become a lie!  You're just trying to find a lie when
    	it hasn't yet occurred.

    Kevin, you voted for politicans who promised to TALK about something?
    You didn't expect any results?  That's all you wanted?  That's enough
    for you?

    
    Yes, we did, unlike the Democrats, who REFUSED to talk about things.
    The majority Democratic House leadership never even allowed, under
    House rules, the Republicans to even bring their agenda to the floor.
    
    This did not happen in the Senate.
    
    Those days of closed rules are EXACTLY what Newt has been talking
    about destroying, over and over, to anybody who would listen, for
    years.  They intend to have an "open" house.  This is so
    revolutionary, everybody is scared of it.
    
      bb

Note 72.17 by CLUSTA::BINNS 

    >You should at least consider another possibility -- that a Democratic
    >party purged of much of its right might come up with a coherent liberal
    >vision that will eventually prevail.  The big losers were the
    >conservative Democrats in areas that now feel comfortable voting for
    >Republicans. Why vote for the imitation when you can vote for the real
    >thing?  
    
    i have considered this. if any organization is able to purge many of
    those in idealogical conflict with the majority it indeed would become
    stronger and more consistent with its policies. however, the dims are
    already realing in the minority. any more purges and it won't matter
    how solid its philosophy or politics are. they will be numerically
    unable to effect policy. that's what i'm counting on.

    	re .26
    
    	Now you're really straining to fabricate fault.
    
    	Careful that you don't get a brain hemorrhoid or something...

    Try to be civil, Joe.
    
    Kevin, let's talk about *your* Congressional representative.  Did your
    local Republican candidate sign the Contract?  Was your local
    Republican in favor of term limits or opposed, or did your candidate
    pledge merely to talk about it in Congress?  On what basis did you
    vote?

                   <<< Note 72.26 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>
            -< Wow!  I never expected someone to say this out loud >-

>    Kevin, you voted for politicans who promised to TALK about something?
>    You didn't expect any results?  That's all you wanted?  That's enough
>    for you?

    Oh, I want a great many things -- too many to talk about here.

    You attacked Newt Gingrich's position on term limits as hypocrisy.
    I simply wanted to point out that this is, in my humble opinion,
    incorrect.

    Besides, my expectations are not relevant.  The people who signed the
    Contract for America signed a specific document -- not my personal 
    expectations.  Two years from now, I'll get the judge how they did on
    this pledge, how they did on upholding the Constitution, and how did
    as my representative in Congress.

    Will it be enough?  We'll see.

    However, as I stated in my previous notes, any action on these 
    (and other) issues will be an improvement over what we got with the 
    Democrats.  Secondly, I have faith in the democratic process: the 
    momentum to change things will pick up quickly.  I believe that there 
    won't just be a discussion about these issues.  This will be a serious 
    debate about changes in Law.  Good things are bound to come out of it.

    One thing is certain: the status quo doesn't cut it.

    We simply cannot address the serious issues of our time without changing
    our political institutions, and the last two years have shown that we 
    cannot change our political institutions by sending Democrats to 
    Washington.

    
    Anyway, term limits would be a constitutional amendment, and so
    would require 2/3 both houses, plus 3/4 states.  President is
    not part of the amendment process.  So you need Democrats.  By
    the way, you'll get quite a few, but, oh by the way, you won't get
    all the Republicans.  Gee whiz, you mean neither Democrats or
    Republicans are mindless automatons of their parties ?  Shucks !
    Guess Newt is gonna have exactly the same problem all party leaders
    in America have.  Americans of any stripe don't follow orders worth
    a damn.
    
      A more interesting question is whether individual states can, in the
    absence of a federal term limit, make their own.  This is not yet
    decided by Supremes.  I think they will say it's OK.  So the fight
    for a term limits amendment will be between the states that put them
    in and the states that won't.  If it fails, each state will have its
    own rules.
    
      It may not matter, because Newt is kicking out seniority.  For the
    first time this century, some senior Republicans are passing over
    more senior Republicans for committee chairmen.  Some of them, who
    have waited 40 years, are true p***ed !  But he's right.  Let's
    take ALL the profit out of longevity in service.  NO MORE CLOUT !!!
    
      bb

    Kevin, you didn't answer my question.  What did your local Republican
    say, and did you vote based on that?
    
    As for term limits, I think it ought to be country-wide if it's enacted
    at all.  I am certainly not for term limits in Massachusetts but not in
    Georgia or California.  To make it country-wide, it ought to be a
    Constitutional amendment, and I think that's perfectly fine.
    
    However, it strikes me that any effort to impose term limits without
    striking down those already in power would be a horrible mistake. 
    Imagine: the current crop of legislators get to keep their jobs for
    life, but any replacements will be constrained by term limits.  Talk
    about pulling up the ladder after you!  I don't care *who* is in power
    now, that would be the most unfair thing we ever saw!  But it's *just*
    what I think the Republicans would like...

>    As for term limits, I think it ought to be country-wide if it's enacted
>    at all.  I am certainly not for term limits in Massachusetts but not in
>    Georgia or California.  
    
    	I've generally seen this as unfair too.

    
    RE: -1, -2.
    
    Why is this unfair? If the people of a particular state want term
    limits for their Congress critters, then so be it.
    
    Paul
    
    

    Well, then, Paul, why don't you vote to de-clout your legislators, and
    the rest of us will keep ours, thank you.
    
    Oh, too late, we voted to de-clout *our* legislators.  Newt can stay in
    Congress for the rest of his like, but Marty Meehan has to leave. 
    Wonderful 8^(

    
      All I'm saying is that if the voters freely choose term limits, then
      it is not 'unfair'. It is only unfair if it is imposed.
    
      By the way, I live in Ma. and I did vote for term limits. 
    
      Paul
    
    

    
    
    Who's Marty Meehan?  I don't think you can say that.....
    
    
    
    
    Terrie
    

    
    Unfortunately, Marty Meehan is my Congresscritter, from Ma.
    
    Paul
    

    
    
    Ah, I see....well, I don't think you can say what you 
    said about him.  Something to do with defamation of 
    character.......
    
    
    
    Terrie
    

                   <<< Note 72.33 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>
                         -< What was your answer...? >-

>    Kevin, you didn't answer my question.  What did your local Republican
>    say, and did you vote based on that?

    I answered .26.  I just read .30.

>    Kevin, let's talk about *your* Congressional representative.  Did your
>    local Republican candidate sign the Contract?  Was your local
>    Republican in favor of term limits or opposed, or did your candidate
>    pledge merely to talk about it in Congress?  On what basis did you
>    vote?

    None of this is relevant to a discussion on whether or not Newt Gingrich 
    and other Republicans are being hypocritical by opposing term limits but
    advocating a debate on the issue.

    However...

    YES: Charlie Bass signed the contract.
    YES: He favors term limits.  I believe that he voted for term limits 
         in the state Senate.  However, I hope that before he votes that he
         will hold hearings on the issue and let us talk to him about it.

	 I have supported the concept of term limits for about ten years now.
         It's a gimmick, but it appears to solve several problems with the 
         current system.  However, I would like to take a fresh look at the 
         issue, and hopefully, the debate will bring out the pros and cons.

    RE: On what basis did you vote?

    Several reasons, including but not limited to:

    1.  For most of my adult life I was a liberal Democrat.  For example, 
        I debated in favor of socialized medicine.  I fully supported the
        wonderful goals of the Democratic Party.

        I got an education living in Massachusetts under Dukakis.  Yes, the
        Democratic Party has wonderful goals, but truly the road to hell is
        paved with good intentions.  I don't have the time to put down the
        incredible stupidity and corruption of that state's political system.
        I've lived in several places, but I've never seen anything like that.
        Suffice to say that when I moved to Massachusetts, I was excited 
        about being there.  After a few years I couldn't wait to get out.

        I'll think twice before voting for a Democrat.

    2.  The incumbent Democrat was an unprincipaled wretch who would say 
        anything to get elected.  He defended his vote to increase gasoline 
        taxes as a "user fee".  He held hearings on issues, announced his
        decision to vote one way, and then switched his vote under pressure
        from special interest groups at the last minute or when he thought
        no one was looking.  He ran a huge number of TV ads telling folks 
        what a nice guy he was, and then ran radio ads that were nasty slurs 
        about his opponent.

    3.	I support the concept of the Contract for America.  Everyone -- 
        Democrats and Republicans -- will benefit from a debate on the 
        issues.  I stand by my earlier statements: we need change.  Hundreds
        of people, mostly young males, will die in Washington, D.C. this 
        year from crime and drugs, living in conditions that make a Gulag 
        look like a resort.  And those conditions can be found throughout 
        the country.  I don't believe that that is the best that we can do.

        I'll shorten one of my earlier statements: 

        We simply cannot address the serious issues of our time without 
        changing our political institutions, and we cannot change our 
        political institutions by sending Democrats to Washington.

    
      RE: .40
    
      Meehan's a public figure. Besides, what I said has nothing to do with
      his character, it has to do with his voting record and his political
      philosophy.
    
      Paul
    

    	re .35
    
    	What is unfair is that if seniority gets you status and clout
    	in the government, if my state has term limits and the next
    	state doesn't, my congressman may not have the same shot at
    	"clout" as someone from the other state.
    
    	It is not unfair to my congressman.  It is unfair to me.
    
    	Having said this, I still want to say that I voted for term
    	limits, and will continue to do so if given the chance.  I
    	think the loss of potential clout is outweighed by the removal
    	of political inbreeding.

    Joe,
    
    In case you hadn't realized.  Term limits start kicking in for state
    and Federal level people next year.  We will get rid of haeffley yet,
    without having to wait for him to retire.
    
    meg

    	And I voted for that.  What's your point, Meg?  Are you crying
    	that we'll also be dumping Patsy Schroeder?  It works both ways.

    Kevin, don't you feel foolish voting for someone based in part on his
    stand for term limits, when the leadership of his party does not plan
    to pass it?
    
    I mean, if all you wanted was to hear the concept debated, why didn't
    you just join Toastmasters?
    
    (I realize you're in the 'Box, which can be said to address the issue
    8^)

    This is interesting.  Especially when I started topic 91 after some
    research.
    
    "WATCH MY FIST!    *POW*  HA HA!, NO...THE OTHER ONE SILLY"  
    
    Your vote has elected a representative for yourself in the corporate
    government.  You have waived your right to decide what laws pertain
    to you as a sovereign by authorizing a representative within the
    government to act on your behalf - a power of attorney.  The rules
    and regulations of government that exceed the limits of the common
    law (as stipulated in the Constitution) are now binding upon you.
    **SURPRISE!!**
    
    All our natural rights are unalienable, and bestowed upon us by
    our Creator.  You have to register to vote with the government
    (and get their permission) to excersise the RIGHT to vote.
    
    [Congress] shall be ..chosen... by the People (capital P) of the
    several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the
    Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous branch
    of the State Legislature..."  Article 1, Section 2  Constitution
    for the United States of America.
    
    To be an Elector requires one to register as a citizen of the State,
    accepting the right of the government to govern you.  They can now
    compel you to perform duties....
    
    

    I have to agree that there's nothing wrong with the Contractors saying
    that they just want these issues brought up and voted on, and that
    there's nothing sleazy in then saying "but I oppose this one or that
    one".
    
    It's true that they were a bit disingenuous in quietly implying that
    they agreed with all of the points, but that was relatively minor
    political machination, nothing to get frothed up about. And old
    warhorses like Dole, Hyde, and Gingrinch were always pretty clear about
    their problems with term limits.
    
    As well they should be. It's a gross intrusion on our right to vote. As
    I said, the issue is money, which won't go away with term limits.
    
    Kit

    
    In both 92 and 94 the turnover has been great, unlike the previous
    five or six elections.  A few more like this, and the whole thing
    would go away.  Note that Senator Paul Simon announced he will not
    run again in Illinois in 96 already.  Look for many more quitting,
    including some surprising Republicans.  The problem is clinging to
    office too long.  In the Senate this has been less of a problem,
    because seniority is NOT king any longer - that was reformed in a
    bipartisan manner.  The Democratic House leadership is gone - there
    are no incumbents !  NOW is the time to STUFF seniority.  I hope
    both parties take this opportunity to really get rid of this concept.
    
      bb

    Joe,
    
    FWIW no I am not crying about congresswoman Patricia Shroeder, or the
    fact that Roemer is the last 3 term governor this state will see.  
    
    However we already have term limits.  2 years for congresscritters, 6
    for senators, and four years for governors and presidents.  if "the
    people in their infinite wisdom continue to elect idiots, it isn't my
    problem.  I have voted against every incumbant after a second term
    since I was 18, many after their first.  Can you say the same?
    
    

                   <<< Note 72.47 by TNPUBS::JONG "Steve" >>>
                      -< I think you've been hoodwinked >-

>    Kevin, don't you feel foolish voting for someone based in part on his
>    stand for term limits, when the leadership of his party does not plan
>    to pass it?

    If the leadership of the GOP controlled the agenda and controlled the
    membership, then you might have a point.  However, this is not the case.


>    I mean, if all you wanted was to hear the concept debated, why didn't
>    you just join Toastmasters?

    1.  I don't have the time to join any organizations of that type.
    2.  I want it debated in a national forum so that we as a nation can 
        decide this once and for all.
    3.  I want it debated in a group with the authority to change the Law.
    4.  I want it debated by experienced people in government and the Law.
    5.  It will be good for the Congress to get out of it's mode of fighting
        to avoid debate and get used to a different way of doing business.
    6.  It may also happen that the debate will center on the mechanics of 
        the Constitutional amendment, and the GOP may simply try to pass the
        amendment so that the states can decide the matter.  That's hard to
        do unless they can mobilize enough public pressure to get gain some 
        Democratic votes.
    7.  It may also happen that we as a nation get a list of problems that 
        were to be solved by term limits, and we find other solutions to 
        those problems.  For example, one of the previous notes in this 
        conference indicated that incumbents often get re-elected because
        they can out-spend their opponenets.  We can fix that.  Another 
        problem is that incumbents gain power through senority.  We can fix
        that, too.  Is bringing home the pork a problem?  Maybe the line-item
        veto will put a curb on some of that.  Maybe we can think of other 
        solutions.


    In any case, we'll see if the new Congress can become -- at last -- 
    an instrument for change.  As for your assertion that the Contract is 
    "bilge" and "hypocrisy", I don't think you built a good case.

    Anent .52 (Kevin):
    
    >> If the leadership of the GOP controlled the agenda and controlled the
    >> membership, then you might have a point.  However, this is not the case.
    
    "If"?
    
    Newt Gingrich is the principal architect of the Contract With America,
    both as writer and as strategist.  He is Speaker-presumptive.  The
    Republicans control an absolute majority of the House.  You think he's
    not in control?  He darn well ought to be.
    
    I think you will see some well-orchestrated political maneuvers in the
    next year, starting with this little hornswagle.

    re: .50
    
  >  In both 92 and 94 the turnover has been great, unlike the
  >  previous five or six elections
    
    Actually, I think you would find that turnover throughout the last 20
    years has been substantial, and in line with Congressional turnover
    throughout our history.  
    
    The problem is that that turnover is basically voluntary -- incumbents
    retire or run for other offices.  The lack of *involuntary* turnover is
    what distinguishes the modern era from earlier ones.
    
    Again, the reason for this is money, and the answer is to level the
    playing field, not shoot the players with term limits, which will
    *not* affect who finances these campaigns.
    
    Kit

    	.51
    
>    However we already have term limits.  2 years for congresscritters, 6
>    for senators, and four years for governors and presidents.  
    
    	Get a dictionary.  Read a book.  Something.  Just don't delude
    	yourself into believing that what you describe is "term limits".
    
>    I have voted against every incumbant after a second term
>    since I was 18, many after their first.  Can you say the same?
    
    	No I can't.  What you describe sounds to me like a mindless way 
    	to cast votes.
    
    	Of course, with you living in a primarily conservative area, I 
    	can understand why you might want vote that way...  So can I
    	assume that you voted against Roy Romer?

    .55
    
     >	No I can't.  What you describe sounds to me like a mindless way 
     >	to cast votes.
    
    No more mindless than giving up your right to vote unilaterally by term
    limits.
    
    Kit

    Joe,
    
    What Kit said.  Termi limits are already guaranteeing that my voting
    method will become status quo.  Or did you bother to read up on them
    before you voted for term limits.  
    
    PS,
    
    Wonder how many repubs are really going to favor term limits now that
    they are in power?

    <<< Note 72.53 by TNPUBS::JONG "This is revolting! May I have more?" >>>
                          -< What do you mean, "if"? >-
    
>    Newt Gingrich is the principal architect of the Contract With America,
>    both as writer and as strategist.  He is Speaker-presumptive.  The
>    Republicans control an absolute majority of the House.  You think he's
>    not in control?  He darn well ought to be.

    That's silly.

    YES: Newt Gingrich is the pricipal architect of the Contract.
    YES: He is likely to be Speaker of the House.
    YES: The GOP has a majority in the House.
    NO:  He is not in control.  The other members of his party are not 
         mindless automatons.  No one elected Newt Gingrich Dictator of 
         the House.  If he was, then we wouldn't need to debate the issues.
         We'll just let Newt tell us what's going to pass and what isn't.
    NO:  He ought **NOT** to be in control.  Even though he is a strong 
         personality with definite ideas, we cannot let one person dominate
         the process.


>    I think you will see some well-orchestrated political maneuvers in the
>    next year, starting with this little hornswagle.

    That's a safe bet.  To get this, or any other part of the Contract passed
    will take considerable political maneuvering.  All of the Constitutional 
    amendments will need votes from Democrats.

>    No more mindless than giving up your right to vote unilaterally by term
>    limits.
    
    	Disagree, in part.  Yes, I might be denied the ability to vote
    	for certain incumbents, but I am NOT denied the right to vote.
    	There will be other candidates to take the place of those forced
    	out by term limits.
    
    	In fact, currently in many races I am not given a choice at all 
    	because of the entrenched power of the multi-term incumbent.

    Shoot, forget term limits, it's all smoke and mirrors.  Most of those
    don't have an effect on the incumbents for another fifteen or twenty
    years, anyway.
    
    Vote 'em out.  Y'all did a respectable job of that.  Congratulations.
    
    Except for Massachoose-zits.

>    Vote 'em out.  Y'all did a respectable job of that.  Congratulations.

Not true.  Most of the seats the Republicans took from the Dems were vacant.

    
      Also, of the 177 incumbent Republican House members, Senators, and 
      state Governors up for re-election, zero lost.
    
      Paul
    

    this is saddening...I've been too busy.

    
    SCOTUS heard Arkansas case yesterday.  Expect a fairly quick
    ruling whether this requires a Constitutional Amendment or not.
    Court observers were unable to predict the result.  If it doesn't
    require an amendment, a federal bill can be expected to pass easily
    unless vetoed.  It it does require one, there are not enough votes
    in the Congress.  You would need a bipartisan compromise.  By the
    way, for this particular amendment, state ratification would be brisk.
    Imagine all those people in state legislatures lusting for a chance
    in the big leagues !  But to get Congress to vote 2/3 both houses for
    its own death, you probably have to set generous limits and not apply
    it to years already served.
    
      bb

   Term-Limits Debate in Supreme Court Shows Justices Seeking Basis for
 Ruling - by Paul M. Barrett, Staff Reporter of The Wall Street Journal
 Wednesday 11/30/94

   WASHINGTON - Oral arguments before the Supreme Court on the legality
 of congressional term limits yielded one clear insight : The justices
 haven't found much guidance on the question in court precedents,
 constitutional history or lawyers' arguments.
   Yesterday's 90-minute session at the high court suggested the justices
 are starting from scratch on the politically hot dispute and haven't even
 settled on a method for resolving it, let alone reaching a conclusion.
   Several members of the court expressed exasperation in response to
 lawyers supporting an Arkansas term-limit law.  Justice Sandra Day O'Connor
 dismissed one assertion by Arkansas Attorney General J. Winston Bryant as
 "a very remarkable proposition."  Justices Anthony Kennedy and David
 Souter echoed that the state's position is "very odd".
   But a lawyer for the League of Women Voters, who oppose state-imposed
 term limits, appeared to provoke similar dismay when he readily
 surrendered on a key point of constitutional interpretation.  His retreat
 put him at odds with the position of his ally, the Clinton administration.
   Solicitor General Drew Days, representing the administration, captured
 the unusually wide-open state of play when he suggested that if the court
 can't identify language in the Constitution that clearly applies to term
 limits, the restrictions could be thought of as "unidentified flying
 objects" that are impermissible under any definition.
   In a wave of anti-incumbent fervor, 22 states have enacted term limits
 for their members of Congress.  The Arkansas provision bans anyone who
 has served three two-year terms in the House from being listed on the
 ballot as a candidate for that body.  Similarly, the law bars anyone who
 has served two six-year terms in the Senate from being listed on the
 ballot as a candidate for that chamber.  The Arkansas Supreme Court
 struck down the restriction, saying that the only qualifications for
 Congress are those specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution - age,
 citizenship, and state residency.  The court said states can't add to
 those qualifications.
   Mr. Bryant of Arkansas told the justices that term limits aren't a
 qualification, but only a "ballot access regulation," similar to
 procedural rules that states have long been permitted to impose on
 elections.  The Arkansas restriction would allow incumbents to run as
 write-in candidates.  But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg emphatically
 observed that despite the write-in option, incumbents would be
 "categorically hobbled" by the Arkansas provision.
   Before he got bogged down on technical constitutional matters, Mr.
 Bryant argued that term limits reflect the desire of "our founding fathers"
 for "a Congress of citizen-legislators."  Louis Cohen, the attorney for
 the League of Women Voters, countered that "the Constitution gave that
 choice [of federal representatives] to the people every second year,"
 in the form of elections.  Moreover, he noted, Congress could avoid the
 need for arcane legal debate by passing a constitutional amendment
 limiting legislative terms.
   House Republicans promised in their "Contract With America" to vote on
 such a term-limits amendment.  But even with new GOP majorities in both
 houses, many lawmakers - including Republicans - have said they doubt
 that the necessary two-thirds votes can be mustered in the next Congress.
 (U.S. Term Limits vs. Thornton, Bryant vs. Hill)

   Rule of Law : The Constitution Lets States Impose Term Limits

   by Ronald P. Rotunda, professor at University of Illinois College of Law,
 in Champaign, Illinois :

   The Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in what may be one of
 the most significant cases of this generation, rivaling in importance
 Baker v. Carr (1962), the case that prohibited malapportioned legislatures
 and required one person, one vote.  In U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton,
 the Supreme Court will decide whether voters of a state can place term limits
 on U.S. senators and representatives.
   Arkansas voters in 1992 enacted an amendment to the state constitution
 providing that, after two terms as a senator or three terms as a
 representative, the incumbent could no longer be listed on the ballot (but
 could run as a write-in candidate).  A divided state supreme court ruled that,
 while term limits on state legislators are constitutional, term limits on
 federal legislators are not.
   The court relied on Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution: "No person
 shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of Twenty
 five years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who
 shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall
 be chosen."  A similar Qualification Clause governs senators.
   The state court ruled that the Constitution intended this list of
 disqualifications to be exclusive; therefore states cannot add to them.
 This argument is the major tenet of those who oppose term limits.
   The court referred to history, which it admitted is inconclusive.  Justice
 Joseph Story, in an 1833 book on the Constitution, argued that the phrasing
 of the Qualification Clauses "imply a negative" of other qualifications.
 On the other hand, Story admitted that no less an authority than Thomas
 Jefferson believed that the Constitution chose "the middle way", by
 mandating "some disqualifications" - those dealing with age, state
 residency, and U.S. citizenship - while allowing the states to impose other,
 nonuniform disqualifications that are otherwise constitutional.
   The Arkansas court's interpretation of the Qualification Clauses is not the
 most natural reading of the language; it is also an atypical method of
 constitutional interpretation.  If the Framers had meant the list of
 disqualifications to be exclusive, they could easily have said that.  After
 all, when they gave states a limited power to impose duties in order to
 execute their inspection laws, they said the states could do so only when
 "absolutely necessary."
   Those who claim that the Qualifications Clauses list the exclusive
 qualifications for office must deal with the untidy fact that, as so
 interpreted, they are inconsistent with other clauses of the Constitution
 that impose additional qualifications for office.  In another clause, the
 Constitution disqualifies anyone who holds any other federal office from
 becoming a member of Congress.  If the Senate impeaches someone, it can
 impose a disqualification from becoming a member of Congress.  Senators
 or representatives who meet the minimum requirements of age, U.S.
 citizenship and state residency are still disqualified from serving if
 they refuse to take the constitutional oath of office.
   Moreover, the Constitution specifically refers to Senators and
 representatives in forbidding the states from imposing any religious test
 for any federal office.  This would be an unnecessary prohibition if the
 Qualifications Clauses by themselves excluded states from imposing
 additional qualifications.
   Most telling of all, the Constitution says nothing about members of
 Congress being elected by districts within a state.  Initially,
 representatives all ran at large until some states began requiring that
 their representatives be elected by district.  Justice Story objected to
 this requirement, because he recognized that it was inconsistent with his
 view.  In 1842, Congress enacted a statute requiring states to elect House
 members by district.  This added federally mandated district qualification
 still exists.  (Incredibly, there is no district residency requirement in
 the federal statute, nor have I been able to find one in any state statute.)
   States have long imposed various requirements besides those listed in the
 Qualification Clauses, and the Supreme Court has upheld them if they are
 reasonable and do not violate specific guarantees, such as free speech.
 Thus, the court has upheld state laws disqualifying state judges from
 running for Congress.  States may require that congressional candidates
 must win a primary before they can be listed on the ballot, although the
 Constitution nowhere contemplates a primary election.  When the court upheld
 a state law forbidding a candidate from running for Congress as an independent
 if he had voted in an immediately preceding party primary, the justices
 rejected as "wholly without merit" the argument that the state law established
 "an additional requirement for the office of Representative" (Storer v. Brown,
 1974).
   In the Arkansas term limits case, the state supreme court, while arguing
 that neither the states nor Congress may add to the list of qualifications,
 did not distinguish the inconvenient fact that the requirement that 
 representatives be elected by districts, or a host of others, is not found
 in the Qualifications Clauses.  The court said, "If there is one watchword
 for representation, it is uniformity."  But the requirements for voting and
 for running and getting on the ballot have never been uniform in the states.
 Some states even allowed 18-year olds to vote before the enactment of the
 26th Amendment.
   A quarter of a century ago, in Powell v. McCormack, the Supreme Court
 ruled that the House acted unconstitutionally when in the guise of
 disciplining Adam Clayton Powell, the flamboyant representative from
 Harlem, it excluded him although he met the minimum requirements of age,
 citizenship and residency.  Powell dealt with the power of one chamber of
 Congress to discipline one of its members.  The court was not talking about
 term limits, and it said nothing about the power of the states to enact
 term limits or the power of both houses of Congress to pass a law governing
 all candidates.
   If the court allows term limit legislation, we will learn if its promises
 are real or hollow.  The tentative evidence, on the state level, is
 positive.  In California, where many state legislators retired this year in
 anticipation of the term limit law that kicks in in 1996, women won nearly
 50% of the legislative seats (and Hispanics more than 20%) opened by term
 limits, and the new state legislature passed the first on-time budget in many
 years.  Perhaps time will prove that the great majority of voters are wrong,
 and if so, the voters can repeal the laws, or Congress can override them.
 In the meantime, states are supposed to be the laboritories that can
 experiment with such issues.

    One interesting item in the news yesterday:

    CNN had a comment by Senator Thurman (R-NC) [?].  He said, and this 
    is as close to an exact quote as I can get:

        I'm against term limits, but the people say they want 'em.
        So i'll vote for term limits."

    Thurman is not one of my favorite people.  In fact, he's probably a 
    good reason to have term limits.  However, I like his view on this.

    There are times when a politician must do what is right -- even if the 
    constituents don't like it.  I don't think that fighting your 
    constituents to stay in office falls into that category.  If the people
    want to see new faces in government, then our public officials should 
    honor that wish.

    
    
    Sen Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. won't vote for it.
    
    "The Last Three elections have taken care of the problem. Term limits
    aren't needed"
    
    

   <<< Note 72.67 by STAR::OKELLEY "Kevin O'Kelley, OpenVMS DCE Security" >>>
                          -< Thurman on term limits >-

    Correction: Senator Thurmond (R-SC).

    I have a question for all those who oppose term limits for members of
    Congress:
    
    Would you be for an ammendment to repeal the Constitutional ammendment
    that limits the terms of the President?  It would have to be a
    Constitutional ammendment because a regular law would be
    unconstitutional.  Why or why not?  What is the difference?
    
    ME

>                                 -< Been busy >-

Well, then, that explains it.

	I think a prez should be able to stay in power until we, the people,
throw her/him out!  

    Agreed...Repeal that ammendment.
    
    I find it interesting that it was pushed for when Eisenhower was
    president.  Just goes to show you the pendulum swings both ways!
    
    -Jack

    Jack, the two-term limit amendment was *not* proposed during the
    Eisenhower administration; it was proposed, and ratified, during the
    Truman administration.  (And it was seen at the time as a Republican
    ploy to prevent any more FDR-style presidencies *and* to prevent Harry
    Truman from serving two terms in addition to the three years he served
    after FDR died.)

    Ooops...Sorry!

    Yup, repeal the amendment.  And when we are done with that one, there
    are a few others I'd like to repeal...  8^)

    	I vote to repeal it.

    .74
    
    Wordy:
    
    Your history is wrong again.  The admendment was past while Truman was
    in office but he would still have been eligible to run for additional
    terms as President since it wasn't grandfathered before he assumed the
    office of Presidency.
    
    No Republican ploy...just another Jong red-herring!

    
    Yes.  Truman WAS eligible in 1952 - see McCullough's biography
    of Harry.  He was helped in his decision not to run by his party,
    which advised him not to, as he would surely lose.  This is similar
    to LBJ's decision.
    
      bb

    Anent .78, .79: Yes, you're right.  I looked at the amendment again,
    and Truman was grandfathered in.

    By the way, my silly-sounding argument with Kevin O'Kelley about
    whether the Republicans pledged to pass legislation or merely talk
    about it has been resolved by Speaker Gingrich, who said yesterday that
    he planned to *pass* all ten items in his Contract With America within
    100 days.

    
    The term limits people held a big shindig yesterday.  Cameos by
    Gingrich/Armey/other GOP reps, plus a number of dems - including
    Massachusetts' own Marty Meehan, who talked to the assembled media
    about how great it is to be a citizen legislator, etc.  They had a
    big board, with 160+ signatures on it.  But somehow 290 votes seems
    a very long way away to me.  I think they'll fall short.  But then, I
    predicted the GOP would take only the Senate and fall short in the
    House, so don't go by my crystal ball !
    
      bb

    GOP Just Says Maybe To House Term Limits 
    
    
    Washington 
    
    In a bizarre session that reflects the turmoil over term limits, the
    House Judiciary Committee yesterday approved a constitutional amendment
    that would limit the terms of House members to 12 years. 
    
    But the committee also voted to allow members to serve 12 consecutive
    years, take a two-year break and then serve another 12 years, a move
    that would seem to sabotage the whole idea.
    
    The untidy voting by Republicans on a number of term-limit measures,
    including the passage of one that would overturn existing state limits,
    hints at difficulties for this part of the Republicans' Contract With
    America when the legislation reaches the House floor. 
    
    The central problem, as framed by the Democrats, is that the
    Republicans want to appear to favor term limits, but at heart they 
    hate the idea. 
    
    Although the committee defeated measures to limit House members to six
    years and eight years, those measures still will be brought up on the
    floor because the Republican leadership wants them aired. All the
    measures would limit senators to two six- year terms. 
    
    The Democrats, who generally oppose term limits, did their best to make
    hay of the Republicans' multiple measures on term limits, nearly
    forcing them at one point into approving a measure that would make term
    limits retroactive. 
    
    Such a requirement, of course, would doom the bill, and it was offered
    by Representative Barney Frank, D-Mass., in just such a subversive
    spirit. 
    
    But seemingly more subversive, although not intentionally so, was a
    proposal offered by Representative George W. Gekas, R-Pa. It would
    allow House members to serve 12 years, sit out a term, then serve
    another 12, thus not really limiting terms but giving members what
    Frank called a sabbatical. 
    
    Sensing just how disruptive such a proposal could be, all 15 Democrats
    eagerly supported it. They were joined by six Republicans, and the
    measure passed, 21 to 13. 
    
    The bill moving the 12-year limit to the floor passed by a 21-to-14
    vote along party lines. 
    
    Published 3/1/95 in San Francisco Chronicle

>	12 years , then 2yr sabbatical, then 12 more?  HA!

	This actually is a better idea than strict term limits.  After being in
Washington for so long, you lose touch with the people you represent.  The two
year sabbatical would place the congressperson to live under the laws that he/she
passed.  Also, this sabbatical would also force (kind of, anyway) the 
congressperson to reaquaint his/herself to the people they are representing.

	Tell me, DougO, what is wrong with that?

ME

    What stops them from doing it NOW, Komar?  Any Congressman wants to do
    this, can.  This is no term limit!
    
    DougO

>    What stops them from doing it NOW, Komar?  Any Congressman wants to do
>    this, can.  This is no term limit!
    
    	What FORCES them into doing it now?

    	All along I've supported the idea of term limits, but with
    	the provision of allowing then to get back in AS A NON-INCUMBENT.

    	It is the entrenched incumbency that's the problem.  If they
    	can get reelected without the power and privs that incumbency
    	provides, then they deserve the seat.

    re: .85
    
    	Is that the best you can do?
    
    	As .86 states, nothing forces congresspersons out into the real
    world after X years.  If that congressperson was good, then he/she can
    be elected after the sabbatical.
    
    ME

    Komar, whats the point of term limits?  To me, it isn't just forcing
    them out of office, its disabling the whole crooked-money influence
    peddling scam that gives lobbyists more power than constituents.  If
    all that this bill is going to do is give them a two year "sabbatical",
    then they maintain all the old ties with the money changers at the
    temple and they stay bought.  Term limits is supposed to break that
    system, but this doesn't have a chance of cleaning it up.
    
    DougO

    	Will the money changers still be there when you have no influence. 
    In politics, as in many other things, it's what have you done for me
    lately.  Since the congressperson is out of office, he has no control
    over a bill, except as a lobbyist - and I believe there are laws against
    that.
    
    ME

    The congressperson may be out of office this term, but he'll be back
    for the next six terms after that.  He'll stay cozy with the PACs and
    their money and he'll stay bought.  They'll be happy to fund his return
    to office campaign, and happy to pad his expenses for the next twelve
    years; after all, he's a known quantity.
    
    This 'sabbatical' nonsense is not at all what ordinary citizens had in
    mind when Newt wrote 'term limits' into the Contract With America. 
    Nobody told 'em about the fine print.
    
    DougO

>    This 'sabbatical' nonsense is not at all what ordinary citizens had in
>    mind when Newt wrote 'term limits' into the Contract With America. 
>    Nobody told 'em about the fine print.
    
    	It is PRECISELY what I had in mind before there was even a
    	"Contract With America".

Joe, you're far from an "ordinary citizen."

    
      It will be a very weak term limits law, and if it is a constitutional
     amendment, it will fail.  A federal law they might pass, as long as
     it was 12 years or so, not retroactive, and not forever.
    
      Really, they should wait for the Supremes to rule in the Arkansas
     case.  If Ark. can term limit its federal candidates, then there is
     point in a constitutional amendment.  Scotus will rule before June.
    
      bb

    
    The two amendments from the "Contract With America" which were to be
    voted on on the house floor:
    
    (From HJRes 38 from the 103rd Congress)
    
    No person who has been elected to the Senate two times shall be
    eligible for election or appointment to the Senate. No person who has
    been elected to the House of Representatives six times shall be
    eligible for election to the House of Representatives.
    
    (From HJRes 160 from the 103rd Congress)
    
    Section  1. No person may serve in Congress more than 2 full terms as
    a Senator. No person may serve in Congress more than 3 full terms as a
    Representative.
    
    Section  2. Service as a Senator or Representative before this article
    takes effect shall not be taken into account in determining service
    under section 1.
    
    								-mr. bill

    Vote on term limits delayed by House GOP
    
    Maneuvering to stave off a defeat, House Republican leaders said
    Wednesday they would delay a vote on a constitutional amendment to
    impose term limits on members of Congress.
    
    House Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, announced the decision in a
    letter to colleagues in which he pledged the GOP leadership ``will be
    working hard'' to rally support for the politically troubled measure,
    which is part of the Republicans' ``Contract With America.''
    
    Term limits command strong support in public polling, but the idea is
    resisted by many senior lawmakers of both parties. Opponents say it
    would rob Congress of needed experience and transfer power to unelected
    bureaucrats. [N722]
    
    Published 9 Mar 95 by San Jose Mercury News online edition

    
    There are not enough Democratic votes to pass any Constitutional
    term limits amendment in the Senate.  It would be hard enough to
    hold the Republican votes.  My understanding is there ARE the two
    thirds needed in the House, but only for a very weak amendment.
    
    It is not known for certain that an amendment is needed.  It is surely
    better to wait for the ruling by the Supremes this spring.  Perhaps
    all they have to pass is a law.  To pass it and have Clinton veto it
    would be perfect politically.
    
    I have this funny feeling this is congressional Republicans taking
    Dole's side vs. Gramm for the GOP nomination ?  Poor Dole !  The House
    is passing the whole shebang, and it just piles up outside his office.
    How can he get the nomination if this keeps up ?
    
      bb

    
    Well, after watching Robert Byrd's speech prior to victory over
    Balanced Budget Amendment, and his speech yesterday in defeat on
    the Line Item Veto, I would like to say (as I have before) that
    while I have supported the Contract with America, and most of the
    other Republican agenda items, I part company on Term Limits.
    
    Look at what has happened !!!  Do you REALLY want to have no more
    Bob Doles, no more Robert Byrds, no more McCains or Ted Kennedys or
    Strom Thurmonds or Patrick Moynihans or Richard Lugars ?
    
    We have enough fuzzyfaced young spam liberals and spam conservatives.
    I think this is a bad idea, and I'm sorry that so many other
    conservatives think it is a good one.  I admit that in the House,
    you have a better argument, and I admit incumbents have too much of
    an advantage.  But some things, even when broken, are just too
    traditional to throw away.
    
      bb 

    
    -.1
    
    I agree that term limits are a bad idea.
    
    jeff

  There are a few alternatives to term limits.

  One possibility is that after the given number of terms they could allow
reelection by a 2/3rds vote. Then if some district really liked their rep
a lot, they could keep them.

  Another possibility would be to allow people to run again after stepping down
for a term. There would be cases where a couple people switched off but it
would increase change and increase the difficulty of buying votes.

  George

    a contractual SNARF!

Uh, if memory serves, the recent Massachusetts term limit thing simply denied
the incumbent the right to have his/her name on the ballot... you could still
write them in.

    
    re. alternative to term limits ...
    
    IMO the problem is not that "good" folks get re-elected.  It's that lousy
    folks get re-elected.  Incumbants win a huge percentage of the times
    they run.  In addition, the on ewith the most money (almost always the
    incumbant) win a huge percentage of the time.  Reforming campaign
    financing first would probably yield a turnover rate that would reduce
    the need for term limits for lots of folks.
    
    Greg (Common Cause member for almost 10 years now)
    
    

They do.  They serve only until death.

    Some of them stop serving long before they die.