If you could introduce a Constitutional Amendment What would it be

[SillyAmerican]

Highest on my list would be:

• President limited to a single six year term
• Senators limited to two six year terms
• House members limited to four two year terms
• A balanced budget amendment
• Clarification of the 14th amendment to indicate that US citizenship is denied anyone born in the US unless at least one parent is a US citizen, a permanent resident, or in the armed forces

[SillyAmerican]

Single terms are a bad idea. Then you end up like Mexico.

Given the fact that the electorate really doesn't pay enough attention to the process, term limits are the only way of ensuring a good level of turnover. The reason I think the executive branch should be limited to a single term is that it removes the need for the person holding the office of President from having to worry about campaigning while in office. (I'd prefer a single 7 year term, but I think that would become too expensive, making those be completely out of sync with congressional races...).

[SillyAmerican]

An amendment to prohibit all wars outside the event the United States is directly attacked on it's own soil (defined as the 48 Continental states, Alaska, Hawaii and territories) by a foreign nation.

So just to be clear, you'd remove the United States from NATO? And you'd remove the ability of the country from responding to aggression by an entity other than a nation state?

While it's a nice idea for an ideal world, we don't live in an ideal world.

[SillyAmerican]

Single terms are a bad idea. Then you end up like Mexico.

Given the fact that the electorate really doesn't pay enough attention to the process, term limits are the only way of ensuring a good level of turnover. The reason I think the executive branch should be limited to a single term is that it removes the need for the person holding the office of President from having to worry about campaigning while in office. (I'd prefer a single 7 year term, but I think that would become too expensive, making those be completely out of sync with congressional races...).

Why is a high level of turnover a priori a good idea?

I'd flip it around and say that having career politicians who entrench themselves in an office and end up worrying more about raising money for their re-election than about actually representing the people and governing, that that is, a priori, NOT a good idea.

[SillyAmerican]

Single terms are a bad idea. Then you end up like Mexico.

Given the fact that the electorate really doesn't pay enough attention to the process, term limits are the only way of ensuring a good level of turnover. The reason I think the executive branch should be limited to a single term is that it removes the need for the person holding the office of President from having to worry about campaigning while in office. (I'd prefer a single 7 year term, but I think that would become too expensive, making those be completely out of sync with congressional races...).

Why is a high level of turnover a priori a good idea?

I'd flip it around and say that having career politicians who entrench themselves in an office and end up worrying more about raising money for their re-election than about actually representing the people and governing, that that is, a priori, NOT a good idea.

Getting people with experience out of office, but leaving in place staffers and lobbyists who will find it easier to exert control over naifs seems like a bad idea to me. Why would your concerns not be addressed by modifying the relationship of money to campaigns, or by putting statutory time limits on campaign activity?

If someone can come up with effective ways of modifying the relationship of money to campaigns or of putting statutory time limits on campaign activities, I'm all ears. I'm not suggesting that term limits are the only (or necessarily the best) way of getting a healthy rate of turnover back into the system, but I think they'd be effective, and I believe that the problem they address is far larger and more insidious than the one you mention. I mean, the "experienced" folks from both parties have brought us to the point where we are $18 trillion in the hole, have a completely bloated government structure, have an undecipherable tax code, have instituted a nonsensical foreign policy, and have managed to do it in such a way that the people point and shout "It's THEIR fault". That's my admittedly cynical view of where we stand and what the "experienced" politicians have done for the country; perhaps it's time to let the "inexperienced" folks have a shot.

[SillyAmerican]

But again, why is turnover a priori important, if you can address the issues that you think are brought about by lack of turnover? You said that the issue is about people worrying about raising money and re-election more than doing their jobs. I asked about what you'd say if those issues were addressed, and you still seem to be stressing turnover as a positive good. Why?

No, like I say, I'm stressing entrenchment as a negative bad. We have reached a point where getting elected (and staying elected) have become the objective, an end in and of itself. That's what I object to. So how do you propose addressing entrenchment without fostering turnover? Perhaps I'm being dim here, but I think it's an either/or proposition, no?

[SillyAmerican]

You're positing that entrenchment is a bad that is worse than inexperience and naivete, but I'm not seeing any evidence for that assertion.

As I say, the evidence is all around us: $18 trillion in the hole, a completely bloated government, an undecipherable tax code, hyper-partisanship, polls saying that most people think the country is on the wrong track, approval rating for elected officials down in the gutter, etc. In an ideal world, you are absolutely right, we should be able to rely on the people to choose their representatives, and be able to rely on those representatives to work well for the people who voted them in. But in an ideal world, you wouldn't need three branches of government to provide checks and balances. Basically, we have to protect ourselves from ourselves. We should expect members of congress, the president, and judges to act honorably within a government structured to be of, by, and for the people. This is NOT what we have today, so I think corrective measures are needed. We've had several congressmen that have stayed in office for over 50 years. Do you think that's a good thing? That they're all doing a stellar job, and that people are complaining for no good reason? Is the government that we have today what the founding fathers wanted? If so, my suggestion is without merit, but if we do in fact have a serious problem, perhaps we should look at ways of correcting that problem.

[SillyAmerican]

So tell me what you would say to a voter who wants to reelect his representative, and who you want to deny that right.

The subject is changing the Constitution. Yes, this would be a change to the rules, so I suppose I'd tell such a voter the same thing I'd tell somebody today who wants a president to run for more than two terms: sorry, that's against the rules, as set forth in the Constitution. The beauty of the Constitution is that if things get too out of whack, we can adjust the document and move forward. No, it's not an easy thing to do, but it is doable.

[SillyAmerican]

I still don't see an argument that makes sense that the problems you keep pointing out are caused by the thing you're saying is causing them. It's fine to assert, but you don't have any evidence to back up the assertion of causality, or that your prescription would fix the problems you cite.

Fair enough. I believe that career politicians are at the root of the problem, and you believe otherwise. Ok, I understand. I've indicated how I'd go about trying to fix the problem. Given that folks are beginning to recognize that there is a problem, and that we've been operating in a rather insane way (you know, repeatedly doing the same thing and expecting different results), I think it would be worth a try. I fear for the health of our republic, I really do. So I'd ask you: (1) Do you think we have a problem? (2) What do you think is causing the problem? (3) What would you suggest we do to fix it?

[SillyAmerican]

The US Congress is hardly representative of the people, and I am trying to ameliorate that condition in three ways.  Of course I'm not suggesting that we do what the Texas state legislature does (and even it does not limit membership to the independently wealthy, although it does limit membership to those of means).  I'm merely suggesting that we limit it to those who really want to serve, and the wage I have suggested is already generously higher than the mean household--not individual!--income.

I think your proposed amendment has a lot of merit. I believe it would help to generate more citizen statesmen in place of the career politicians we currently have running the show. In my opinion, this is exactly the direction we should be going in...