Get the politicians out of Washington!

[MyndFyre]

This post is about a ballot measure I'm planning on running through the State of Arizona.  I want to get your opinions.

I'd like to enact a state statute limiting the number of federal terms an elected official can serve from Arizona.  Essentially, I want to see if we can't impose term limits on the elected officials from Arizona, without going to the federal level, and then see if we can make this a trend that other states can pick up.

In doing my research, I noticed that the US Constitution does not outline that anyone may be a congressman or senator, but that it does specifically state things that disqualify them.  Under Amendment X, then, I believe that it is within the powers of the states to limit the number of terms its officers can serve in the federal legislature and executive.

This stems from my US History and Government classes.  As I recall, serving in Congress was not a particularly pleasant job when the country was founded, and people usually only served a few terms.  I'd like to return to this.  I'm proposing the following restrictions:
--A resident of Arizona may only serve a total of five federal terms in the federal legislature or executive:
----At most, two terms may be served in the U.S. Senate,
----At most, three terms may be served in the U.S. House of Representatives,
----At most, two terms as Vice President of the United States,
----At most, two terms as President of the United States.
--The Secretary of State, or the Recorders of the various Counties in the State of Arizona, shall not make available to a citizen of Arizona, who would seek to serve more than these terms, petitions for Nomination, for any positions in the Federal Legislature; nor shall any be accepted.
--Residents of Arizona who have served in these positions in other States shall be subject to the same restrictions as if they had served their terms as Representatives or Senators from the State of Arizona, and may not seek nomination or election to these federal bodies if they have reached the limit of terms.
--The Secretary of State shall not appoint Electors who will vote for the President or Vice President of the United States, where the election of such a person would cause the federal term limit to be violated.
--The sole exception to this term limitation would be for an incumbent President not in violation of the Constitutional term limit imposed by the U.S. Constitution, such that a person may run for a second term as President while occupying the office of the President. 
--Terms as Federal Judges or Justices are not accounted for with respect to this law.

Examples:
--A person has served five terms, the most recent of which has been as President.  The person may run for President again, but that is the only federal office available.
--A person serves three years in the House of Representatives while living in New Mexico.  After living in Arizona for the requisite number of years accorded by the US Constitution, that person may run for Senate, VP, or President from Arizona; however, since that person has served the maximum number of terms in the House already, that position is not available.

Current Law
In a 5-4 decision, the 1995 U.S. Supreme Court struck down an amendment to the Arkansas State Constitution which provided for term limits similar to those I proposed earlier.  The case, U.S. Term Limits, Inc. et. al., v Thornton, et. al. (514 U.S. 779), was very much constructions vs. originalist in its decision, with the majority being Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsberg, and Breyer; Thomas, Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Scalia dissented.

Primarily involved in this decision was the argument that the 10th Amendment supports the rights of states to impose restrictions on its citizens who serve in the federal government.  As Thomas writes:

These basic principles are enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, which declares that all powers neither delegated to the Federal Government nor prohibited to the States "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." With this careful last phrase, the Amendment avoids taking any position on the division of power between the state governments and the people of the States: it is up to the people of each State to determine which "reserved" powers their state government may exercise. But the Amendment does make clear that powers reside at the state level except where the Constitution removes them from that level. All powers that the Constitution neither delegates to the Federal Government nor prohibits to the States are controlled by the people of each State.

Thomas makes an even better point:

It is radical enough for the majority to hold that the Constitution implicitly precludes the people of the States from prescribing any eligibility requirements for the congressional candidates who seek their votes. This holding, after all, does not stop with negating the term limits that many States have seen fit to impose on their Senators and Representatives. Today's decision also means that no State may disqualify congressional candidates whom a court has found to be mentally incompetent, who are currently in prison, or who have past vote-fraud convictions.  Likewise, after today's decision, the people of each State must leave open the possibility that they will trust someone with their vote in Congress even though they do not trust him with a vote in the election for Congress.

(emphasis added, removed footnotes/citations).

Wow.  So what we're saying is that even though felons aren't allowed to vote, they *are* allowed to run for Congress.

The side of the Tenth Amendment that the majority took was that the state is given specific power regarding federal elections:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

...and that the qualifications for these positions in the federal government are explicitly listed in the US 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.
[...]
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Thomas responds to this criticism:

The Qualifications Clauses do prevent the individual States from abolishing all eligibility requirements for Congress. This restriction on state power reflects the fact that when the people of one State send immature, disloyal, or unknowledgeable representatives to Congress, they jeopardize not only their own interests but also the interests of the people of other States. Because Congress wields power over all the States, the people of each State need some guarantee that the legislators elected by the people of other States will meet minimum standards of competence. The Qualifications Clauses provide that guarantee: they list the requirements that the Framers considered essential to protect the competence of the National Legislature.

If the people of a State decide that they would like their representatives to possess additional qualifications, however, they have done nothing to frustrate the policy behind the Qualifications Clauses. Anyone who possesses all of the constitutional qualifications, plus some qualifications required by state law, still has all of the federal qualifications. Accordingly, the fact that the Constitution specifies certain qualifications that the Framers deemed necessary to protect the competence of the National Legislature does not imply that it strips the people of the individual States of the power to protect their own interests by adding other requirements for their own representatives.

What about the electorate?
A friend of mine, when I talked about him, said, "Well people will say, why doesn't the electorate just take care of it?"  My response is this:

(For example), Ted Kennedy is a very powerful and influential man in the Democratic Party.  At the time for the next Democratic Primary, some random guy in Massachusets wants to run against him.  The Democrats will go to that guy and say, "Look, fine if you want to run against him, but you're not getting any support from us."  A party shouldn't have that kind of power.  An elected official with a term limit has the motivation to get stuff he cares about done while he's in office, and stop dicking around playing political games trying to get re-elected.  I guarantee that if one-third of the House of Representatives was hitting their term limit this year, they wouldn't be pussying around the illegal immigration issue right now.  That has nothing to do with corruption - it's a fact of life.

What do you guys think?

[MyndFyre]

You guys suck.

[Grok]

Sorry, I've been busy.  I did read your post and meant to reply.

I agree with the position that one should be able to elect a convicted felon to represent them in Congress, so I oppose any law which would remove my freedom to vote for whomever I wish as my representative, or a law which would prevent my representative from serving in Congress.

When we have lawmakers creating laws saying who can be lawmakers, we might as well select a royal family from which only members can sit in power.

Further, if I have a professional politician who I believe does an exceedingly awesome job in Washington, and this person represents my interests, who are you in Arizona to tell me that I cannot have him represent me any more?  I elect who I want, you elect who you want, and let's send them both to Washington to do what's best for their states.

[Grok]

A better system is to replace the electoral college with ... well I don't know the term, but it's what they used in Iraq and as I mentioned, what they use in Sweden.  Ordered lists are made of everyone in a particular party that will serve.  The voters vote.  The parliament seats are distributed proportionately to the voting percent by party.  If your party got 20% of the popular vote, you get 20% of the seats in parliament.  If that's 118 seats, then the top 118 people on your list are now elected.

In the US, the two party system virtually guarantees that the public much choose A or B, or not be represented at all.

[MyndFyre]

I agree with the position that one should be able to elect a convicted felon to represent them in Congress, so I oppose any law which would remove my freedom to vote for whomever I wish as my representative, or a law which would prevent my representative from serving in Congress.

I wasn't saying necessarily that you shouldn't be able to elect a convicted felon.  I was commenting on the silliness of the fact that you can elect someone to make votes in Congress, who cannot vote for people to vote in Congress.

Further, if I have a professional politician who I believe does an exceedingly awesome job in Washington, and this person represents my interests, who are you in Arizona to tell me that I cannot have him represent me any more?  I elect who I want, you elect who you want, and let's send them both to Washington to do what's best for their states.

The point of the post (which you evidently missed) was not to make this a national initiative.  It would be great if it was, but we're having trouble getting it done at the state level.

I was arguing that it was the state's right to set additional qualifications above and beyond that set forth in the US Constitution for legislators (or for any official elected to the federal government).  Obviously an Arizona state law can't tell you that you can't keep voting in your whipped professional politician unless you live in Arizona.

The maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, which roughly means expressly one excludes all others, is what was used in this Supreme Court case.  Alabamans had decided through State Constitutional Amendment that they'd wanted to impose additional restrictions on who could be elected to Congress.  The maxim was interpreted that, because the Framers put in specific qualifications for legislators, these qualifications exclude all others.

Besides, the party system that we have now doesn't exactly work, for precisely the reason I said, and with the way you proposed it, things wouldn't change, because the same elites would keep going back.  I want McCain out -- he's fucked up campaign finance, now immigration.  The guy who I thought had really high hopes when I moved to Arizona turned out to be a total jackass, and the junior Senator is starting to pander too.  With a term restriction, at least I'd have the security of knowing that he could keep fucking up the country.  The Arizona Republican Party isn't going to support a candidate besides McCain when his next term is up for the simple fact that the incumbent enjoys a high probability of re-election.

With virtually no exception, the highest priority for an elected official is re-election.  Period.  If we take away that priority by imposing term limits, maybe the official will start acting in the best interests of the people (s)he represents.

[Grok]

I agree with the position that one should be able to elect a convicted felon to represent them in Congress, so I oppose any law which would remove my freedom to vote for whomever I wish as my representative, or a law which would prevent my representative from serving in Congress.

I wasn't saying necessarily that you shouldn't be able to elect a convicted felon.  I was commenting on the silliness of the fact that you can elect someone to make votes in Congress, who cannot vote for people to vote in Congress.

Here's an interesting question ... if you elect a convicted felon to Congress, where he has to vote on bills and propositions regularly, but cannot vote legally, what is he to do?

[Grok]

The maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, which roughly means expressly one excludes all others, is what was used in this Supreme Court case.  Alabamans had decided through State Constitutional Amendment that they'd wanted to impose additional restrictions on who could be elected to Congress.  The maxim was interpreted that, because the Framers put in specific qualifications for legislators, these qualifications exclude all others.

See this is where they went wrong.  The Supreme Court of the United States should NOT have heard this case.  This is a states-rights case, and the feds only have rights given to it by the states, which come from the individual.  Of course the Supreme Court of the US is going to decide in favor of the federal power, as they have done since the Roosevelt administration.  It's people's hierarchical power tendencies which make them think that US Supreme Court > US District Court > State Supreme Court > individuals.  Quite often, once something is decided by a state Supreme Court, that SHOULD be the end of it.  By people ignorantly allowing the US Supreme Court to hear the case, they're unwittingly giving de facto power where it does not belong.

In other words, I'm 100% in favor of Arizonians deciding what term limits to put on Arizonians representatives.  I'm also 100% opposed to any other state, or the federal government, having a darn thing to say about it.

[Grok]

With virtually no exception, the highest priority for an elected official is re-election.  Period.  If we take away that priority by imposing term limits, maybe the official will start acting in the best interests of the people (s)he represents.

Agree.  However, 4/6 years should be raised to 5/7 or 6/8 so that things can get done with minimal lame duck outages.