PDA

View Full Version : Should the 22nd Amendment be repealed?



CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-17-2011, 03:08 AM
Do you think the 22nd amendment should be repealed?
Personally I do...and Ike and Reagan agreed with me.

Bailey
03-17-2011, 03:10 AM
Yes it should be repeal.ed

djones520
03-17-2011, 03:11 AM
Nope. And I wouldn't be against a reasonable limit set onto Congressional positions as well.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-17-2011, 03:16 AM
I think it should be repealed because people ought to be able to choose to vote for a President as many times as they like. Why should people's hands be held and told that they don't know what's good for them?

djones520
03-17-2011, 03:20 AM
I think it should be repealed because people ought to be able to choose to vote for a President as many times as they like. Why should people's hands be held and told that they don't know what's good for them?

Have you paid attention to what has been happening to our country? It's been brought about in large part by peoples complacency for just voting for the same old thing.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-17-2011, 04:00 AM
Have you paid attention to what has been happening to our country? It's been brought about in large part by peoples complacency for just voting for the same old thing.

What's happening to our country that is so out of the ordinary? Recessions have come and gone for nearly two hundred years. Aggressive politics has been around since our start; In the Founders' day, political rivals were MUCH more verbally aggressive than they are today, and the Republic survived.

National debt? We've had high national debt before, and we've survived it. We're not really living in that interesting or unusual of times. This isn't a replay of the 1780s or the 1860s or the 1940s or 1960s.

fettpett
03-17-2011, 08:28 AM
yes, we've had debt, but never to the extent that we have now. the main problem is the stagnation that the Obassiah's policies have created. Bush came in 2001 in a recession created after the internet bubble burst, then had 9/11. 2 years later we were out of the recession and had more employment than we did under Clinton. The only thing that screwed us was the overspending domestically and trying to fight two wars similatinously that at lest one probably shouldn't have been fought or waited till Afghanistan was done.

Starbuck
03-17-2011, 08:49 AM
yes, we've had debt, but never to the extent that we have now. the main problem is the stagnation that the Obassiah's policies have created. Bush came in 2001 in a recession created after the internet bubble burst, then had 9/11. 2 years later we were out of the recession and had more employment than we did under Clinton. The only thing that screwed us was the overspending domestically and trying to fight two wars similatinously that at lest one probably shouldn't have been fought or waited till Afghanistan was done.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=US%20Federal%20Debt%20As%20Per cent%20Of%20GDP&year=1792_2010&sname=US&units=p&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&col=c&spending0=35.10_32.14_25.30_21.25_20.43_20.01_19.3 2_17.82_17.29_16.28_17.94_16.05_16.31_14.70_12.41_ 11.93_10.19_8.39_7.60_6.32_5.80_5.83_7.62_10.85_15 .72_16.25_14.17_13.27_13.00_12.33_11.69_12.12_12.0 4_10.34_9.42_8.13_7.58_6.35_4.81_3.76_2.17_0.61_0. 39_0.00_0.00_0.02_0.21_0.63_0.23_0.32_0.85_2.11_1. 39_0.87_0.76_1.62_1.96_2.63_2.48_2.53_2.18_1.82_1. 15_0.90_0.80_0.69_1.11_1.34_1.49_1.97_9.05_14.70_1 9.19_27.13_30.85_32.11_32.05_32.97_32.05_31.00_27. 38_25.54_26.55_27.36_26.24_25.88_26.92_25.10_20.39 _17.84_15.72_15.32_15.51_16.07_14.55_12.65_12.18_1 1.65_10.28_10.04_9.69_10.04_11.58_10.74_11.42_11.2 2_9.93_10.22_10.37_9.61_8.96_8.50_8.81_7.90_7.54_7 .25_8.73_8.20_7.94_8.06_7.67_7.46_7.98_7.90_7.28_9 .58_19.25_34.98_29.36_32.58_31.29_26.17_24.45_22.6 4_20.27_19.38_18.07_16.34_17.75_21.96_33.20_39.96_ 40.99_39.16_40.31_39.64_43.16_43.86_50.00_45.41_48 .92_71.83_92.85_116.65_121.96_105.35_93.66_94.54_8 7.45_75.24_72.31_70.12_71.19_66.16_62.34_59.04_59. 86_56.74_55.19_53.72_51.72_50.23_47.63_44.82_41.70 _40.90_40.52_37.16_36.69_36.22_35.22_33.73_32.27_3 3.09_34.47_34.80_33.86_32.37_32.60_31.82_34.96_38. 81_39.80_43.09_47.54_49.53_51.00_52.31_55.28_60.05 _63.10_65.26_65.54_66.36_66.10_64.44_62.30_59.93_5 6.56_56.09_58.24_60.67_61.97_62.55_63.07_63.58_69. 15_83.29_93.25&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html
I wish I could support your statement that we are at an all time high in debt. As an absolute figure we certainly are, but as you can see from the chart, WWII caused an even higher debt when measured by the size of the economy.

The rest of your post is dead on, and the chart shows why we had better watch our step. The world in general, and the U.S. in particular, is no longer in a position to grow its way out of debt the way it was in 1950.

Apocalypse
03-17-2011, 09:01 AM
Hell no, and to that, it should be extended to all people of political office.

Biggest problem is when they get elected they are all about doing the right thing, and they actually do try, but once they have been there for a few election cycles, they realize the only way to keep their jobs is serve the special interest.

Your never going to get rid of the special interest influence, so your only left with limiting the terms of those who hold office.

Gingersnap
03-17-2011, 10:06 AM
Do you think the 22nd amendment should be repealed?
Personally I do...and Ike and Reagan agreed with me.

It's vaguely interesting that they agree with you (as do a number of influential Democrats today) but why do you think it should be repealed? What do you consider the benefit of an open-ended Presidential run to be?

fettpett
03-17-2011, 11:10 AM
Term limits should be much more common than they are. 22nd should stay in place

fettpett
03-17-2011, 11:16 AM
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/usgs_line.php?title=US%20Federal%20Debt%20As%20Per cent%20Of%20GDP&year=1792_2010&sname=US&units=p&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&col=c&spending0=35.10_32.14_25.30_21.25_20.43_20.01_19.3 2_17.82_17.29_16.28_17.94_16.05_16.31_14.70_12.41_ 11.93_10.19_8.39_7.60_6.32_5.80_5.83_7.62_10.85_15 .72_16.25_14.17_13.27_13.00_12.33_11.69_12.12_12.0 4_10.34_9.42_8.13_7.58_6.35_4.81_3.76_2.17_0.61_0. 39_0.00_0.00_0.02_0.21_0.63_0.23_0.32_0.85_2.11_1. 39_0.87_0.76_1.62_1.96_2.63_2.48_2.53_2.18_1.82_1. 15_0.90_0.80_0.69_1.11_1.34_1.49_1.97_9.05_14.70_1 9.19_27.13_30.85_32.11_32.05_32.97_32.05_31.00_27. 38_25.54_26.55_27.36_26.24_25.88_26.92_25.10_20.39 _17.84_15.72_15.32_15.51_16.07_14.55_12.65_12.18_1 1.65_10.28_10.04_9.69_10.04_11.58_10.74_11.42_11.2 2_9.93_10.22_10.37_9.61_8.96_8.50_8.81_7.90_7.54_7 .25_8.73_8.20_7.94_8.06_7.67_7.46_7.98_7.90_7.28_9 .58_19.25_34.98_29.36_32.58_31.29_26.17_24.45_22.6 4_20.27_19.38_18.07_16.34_17.75_21.96_33.20_39.96_ 40.99_39.16_40.31_39.64_43.16_43.86_50.00_45.41_48 .92_71.83_92.85_116.65_121.96_105.35_93.66_94.54_8 7.45_75.24_72.31_70.12_71.19_66.16_62.34_59.04_59. 86_56.74_55.19_53.72_51.72_50.23_47.63_44.82_41.70 _40.90_40.52_37.16_36.69_36.22_35.22_33.73_32.27_3 3.09_34.47_34.80_33.86_32.37_32.60_31.82_34.96_38. 81_39.80_43.09_47.54_49.53_51.00_52.31_55.28_60.05 _63.10_65.26_65.54_66.36_66.10_64.44_62.30_59.93_5 6.56_56.09_58.24_60.67_61.97_62.55_63.07_63.58_69. 15_83.29_93.25&legend=&source=a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a _a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a_a
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_debt_chart.html
I wish I could support your statement that we are at an all time high in debt. As an absolute figure we certainly are, but as you can see from the chart, WWII caused an even higher debt when measured by the size of the economy.

The rest of your post is dead on, and the chart shows why we had better watch our step. The world in general, and the U.S. in particular, is no longer in a position to grow its way out of debt the way it was in 1950.


Big difference between then and now though is that the majority of that debt was for fighting a war that HAD to be fought and we were building up a military that was let to flounder between WW1 and WW2. This debt is from idiotic spending that doesn't need to be spent

Lanie
03-17-2011, 12:08 PM
I think it should be repealed because people ought to be able to choose to vote for a President as many times as they like. Why should people's hands be held and told that they don't know what's good for them?

Because one half of the country will go eternally insane.

Lanie
03-17-2011, 12:10 PM
Okay, I was just thinking of Putin in Russia. He would be revoted back in. However, he would ensure that the press only covered stuff that made him look good and gave little to no time on other candidates. Of course people wanted to vote him in again.

Supposed Obama or Bush did that. They'd be the President forever and that's just not fair.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-17-2011, 01:05 PM
Okay, I was just thinking of Putin in Russia. He would be revoted back in. However, he would ensure that the press only covered stuff that made him look good and gave little to no time on other candidates. Of course people wanted to vote him in again.

Supposed Obama or Bush did that. They'd be the President forever and that's just not fair.

I think Russia's just a tiny bit different from the US.

Adam Wood
03-17-2011, 02:11 PM
I would prefer an overall "time inside the Beltway" limit of 25 years for anyone who has ever had a Cabinet position or been elected to either house of Congress. So, you can do three terms in the Senate, and then you can run for President, but if you're elected, you're a one-termer.

Molon Labe
03-17-2011, 02:54 PM
Sometimes I think it probably wouldn't be so bad to repeal just about every amendment passed after the 10th.

fettpett
03-17-2011, 03:10 PM
Sometimes I think it probably wouldn't be so bad to repeal just about every amendment passed after the 10th.

including the 13th and 14th?

Molon Labe
03-17-2011, 03:25 PM
including the 13th and 14th?


If people took the term "inalienable rights" seriously before hand, then there would have never been a reason to pass a law that says you can't make someone a slave, or further down the line, that a woman human being now has the same rights of a man.

fettpett
03-17-2011, 03:36 PM
If people took the term "inalienable rights" seriously before hand, then there would have never been a reason to pass a law that says you can't make someone a slave, or further down the line, that a woman human being now has the same rights of a man.

/sigh thats putting our 21st Century cultural morals on a an 18th/19th Century culture. doesn't work that way. Yes, slavery was a horrible institution and it sucks that it was brought to the new world in the way that it was, but it can't be changed.

Molon Labe
03-17-2011, 03:42 PM
/sigh thats putting our 21st Century cultural morals on a an 18th/19th Century culture. doesn't work that way. Yes, slavery was a horrible institution and it sucks that it was brought to the new world in the way that it was, but it can't be changed.

the founder's weren't perfect, but I believe they established the best form of government ever invented. It's just my opinion that once the culture realized that slavery was wrong, then it could have been abolished using a correct interpretation of the established law. No need to make a new one.

Kind of like today when someone passess a law that says owning a firearm is illegal...yet no one to my knowledge has repealed the 2nd amendment

fettpett
03-17-2011, 04:16 PM
the founder's weren't perfect, but I believe they established the best form of government ever invented. It's just my opinion that once the culture realized that slavery was wrong, then it could have been abolished using a correct interpretation of the established law. No need to make a new one.

Kind of like today when someone passess a law that says owning a firearm is illegal...yet no one to my knowledge has repealed the 2nd amendment

except that they couldn't, it was perfectly legal before the 13th Amendment, the SCOUS ruled as such a number of times. It TOOK an Amendment to make it illegal.

MrsSmith
03-17-2011, 05:36 PM
What's happening to our country that is so out of the ordinary? Recessions have come and gone for nearly two hundred years. Aggressive politics has been around since our start; In the Founders' day, political rivals were MUCH more verbally aggressive than they are today, and the Republic survived.

National debt? We've had high national debt before, and we've survived it. We're not really living in that interesting or unusual of times. This isn't a replay of the 1780s or the 1860s or the 1940s or 1960s.

Never before in US history has entitlement spending been more than 1/2 the overall budget. After any other war, military spending decreases. There is no end to the War on Poverty, the spending will only go higher and higher. There is no way out without destroying entitlement programs.

FeebMaster
03-17-2011, 06:13 PM
Yes.


Two terms is way too long. That goes for any office.

Articulate_Ape
03-17-2011, 06:17 PM
Short answer: No.

Madisonian
03-17-2011, 09:38 PM
Unilaterally repealed, no.
Pair it up with a repeal of the 17th (direct election of Senators) and I would say it would be a worthwhile compromise.

MountainMan
03-17-2011, 09:58 PM
Do you think the 22nd amendment should be repealed?
Personally I do...and Ike and Reagan agreed with me.

No.

Adam Wood
03-17-2011, 10:11 PM
Unilaterally repealed, no.
Pair it up with a repeal of the 17th (direct election of Senators) and I would say it would be a worthwhile compromise.
I'm on board with that. And toss in birthright citizenship getting pulled out of the XIVth and we'd be making incredible progress here.

Rockntractor
03-17-2011, 10:23 PM
I'm on board with that. And toss in birthright citizenship getting pulled out of the XIVth and we'd be making incredible progress here.

Birthrighter!:eek:

Molon Labe
03-23-2011, 01:21 PM
except that they couldn't, it was perfectly legal before the 13th Amendment, the SCOUS ruled as such a number of times. It TOOK an Amendment to make it illegal.

No it wasn't. It was illegal. The federal government just wasn't applying the law correctly.

"All Men Created Equal" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal)

The federal government routinely breaks it's own laws. The SCOTUS routinely defies the constitution...as they have numerous times with regards to the 2nd amendment.

That doesn't mean we need another law to say it's is illegal. That means you need another government who will apply the law correctly.

fettpett
03-23-2011, 01:42 PM
No it wasn't. It was illegal. The federal government just wasn't applying the law correctly.

"All Men Created Equal" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal)

The federal government routinely breaks it's own laws. The SCOTUS routinely defies the constitution...as they have numerous times with regards to the 2nd amendment.

That doesn't mean we need another law to say it's is illegal. That means you need another government who will apply the law correctly.

The Deceleration of Independence has NO legal standing in American law, period. Slavery was legal, the first restrictions on slavery per the Constitution weren't put in place until 1808 when importation of NEW slaves was made illegal. What this did was drive up the costs of slaves within the US and created an environment that the slave owners would take better care of their slaves because they weren't cheap.

The Federal Government kept it's hands off the slavery question and left it up to the States on the legality of the institution until the Missouri Compromise. The Corwin Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment) was purposed to keep Slavery from being interfered with ever by the Federal Government.

As vile an institution that slavery is/was it was perfectly legal in the United States until the 13th Amendment was passed.

Molon Labe
03-23-2011, 02:25 PM
The Deceleration of Independence has NO legal standing in American law, period. Slavery was legal, the first restrictions on slavery per the Constitution weren't put in place until 1808 when importation of NEW slaves was made illegal. What this did was drive up the costs of slaves within the US and created an environment that the slave owners would take better care of their slaves because they weren't cheap.

The Federal Government kept it's hands off the slavery question and left it up to the States on the legality of the institution until the Missouri Compromise. The Corwin Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment) was purposed to keep Slavery from being interfered with ever by the Federal Government.

As vile an institution that slavery is/was it was perfectly legal in the United States until the 13th Amendment was passed.

And it's pretty legal today to keep people from bearing arms......in direct violation of the 2A. That's the point.

Natural law need not be written down to be true. The Declaration was a summary of why King George was violating natural rights. Of course I know you know that.

So, again....the federal government has a history of violating natural law and any other type of law you wish to list.

fettpett
03-23-2011, 03:12 PM
And it's pretty legal today to keep people from bearing arms......in direct violation of the 2A. That's the point.

Natural law need not be written down to be true. The Declaration was a summary of why King George was violating natural rights. Of course I know you know that.

So, again....the federal government has a history of violating natural law and any other type of law you wish to list.

I don't disagree with you. And you can make the case that the Deceleration of Independence was a statement of moral law for the US. But it was a different time and even men who had higher ideal didn't necessarily practice them, Jefferson himself got criticism then for his stance on slavery but also owning slaves.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-24-2011, 08:44 AM
I see in many of these posts a return to the 1800s in many ways...Astoundingly and depressingly amazing. I don't know, I think 2011 is a lot better than 1840.

Molon Labe
03-25-2011, 08:59 AM
I don't disagree with you. And you can make the case that the Deceleration of Independence was a statement of moral law for the US. But it was a different time and even men who had higher ideal didn't necessarily practice them, Jefferson himself got criticism then for his stance on slavery but also owning slaves.

And I agree. I love Jefferson and many of the founders. They weren't perfect men...none of us are. But I agree with you they were in direct violation of the liberty they were preaching.

Arroyo_Doble
03-25-2011, 09:18 AM
Nope. And I wouldn't be against a reasonable limit set onto Congressional positions as well.

I agree.

Adam Wood
03-25-2011, 09:37 AM
I see in many of these posts a return to the 1800s in many ways...Astoundingly and depressingly amazing. I don't know, I think 2011 is a lot better than 1840.I'll go double-check, but I'm pretty sure we didn't have a $13T debt or a $2T deficit in 1840. I'm pretty sure that we had a small, relatively weak federal government and states that were sovereign, as the Founders specifically intended. So perhaps a return to 1840 wouldn't be such a bad thing.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
03-25-2011, 09:46 AM
I'll go double-check, but I'm pretty sure we didn't have a $13T debt or a $2T deficit in 1840. I'm pretty sure that we had a small, relatively weak federal government and states that were sovereign, as the Founders specifically intended. So perhaps a return to 1840 wouldn't be such a bad thing.

Insanity. Just pure insanity.

Adam Wood
03-25-2011, 10:33 AM
Insanity. Just pure insanity.Howinahell is that insanity? That's how our country has functioned for most of its history, and it's done well. A great big federal government is a relatively new thing to this land.

Apache
03-25-2011, 11:26 AM
Leave it stay, and provide term limits on all elected federal officials... I'm tired of these know-nothings telling me what the real world is like when they have spent no time in it...:mad:

Apache
03-25-2011, 11:27 AM
Howinahell is that insanity? That's how our country has functioned for most of its history, and it's done well. A great big federal government is a relatively new thing to this land.

perspective Adam, it's all he knows...:rolleyes:

Adam Wood
03-25-2011, 11:46 AM
perspective Adam, it's all he knows...:rolleyes:I know, but he's a kid. There's still hope for him if we can get him to think.

Apache
03-25-2011, 11:52 AM
I know, but he's a kid. There's still hope for him if we can get him to think.

Hey, he's stuck around this long, there's hope....:D

Odysseus
03-25-2011, 12:23 PM
A chief executive generally cannot hide his actions, and is more likely to get voted out of office for malfeasance of incompetence than a legislator, who has hundreds of other members to hide among. (note that congressional reelection rates routinely exceed 95%, while more presidents in the post 22nd Amendment period lose their reelection bids rather than win them. I would repeal the 22nd Amendment and replace it with one that applies to congress, but goes way beyond term limits. Here's the text:



Congress shall make no law to which it exempts itself or other civilian employees of the United States, nor shall any member of Congress or civilian employee be exempted from, or benefit exclusively from, any law, except as specified in Article I of the Constitution.
Congress shall make no law extending compensation to members in excess of the salary paid during their terms, to include health or pension.
Members currently collecting such benefits shall be permitted to continue to do so for five years after the ratification of this amendment.
Members of Congress shall be limited to two six-year terms in the Senate, or six two-year terms in the House of Representatives, or any combination thereof, not to exceed 12 years in total.
Members of the House of Representatives shall be subject to recall by a 2/3 vote of their constituents at any time after they have been certified, however, no member shall be subject to recall more than once in their term.
Senators shall be selected by the legislatures of the States and shall not stand for general election, except under the terms of recall.
Senators shall be subject to recall by the voters of their states or by the legislture at any time.
The membership of the House of Representatives shall set at a ratio of 1:100,000 constituents, excluding non-citizens.
No person who has been impeached from any federal office, convicted of a felony or discharged under other than honorable conditions from the Armed Forces of the United States shall be eligible to hold membership in the Congress.

Arroyo_Doble
03-25-2011, 12:48 PM
(note that congressional reelection rates routinely exceed 95%,

Is that still the case?

The most powerful argument against the necessity of term limiting Congress has been the changes made to both houses over the last few election cycles.

Odysseus
03-25-2011, 01:58 PM
Is that still the case?

Yeah, pretty much. This last election was unusual, but not by much. Excluding opens seats, incumbents still won over well over 90% of their races. Of course, more than a few decided not to run again, but it was still not that big a shift in terms of turnover.

http://www.samueljscott.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/house-turnover.png

The Senate usually has a higher rate of turnover than the house, with only 80% incumbency rates, but again, the vast majority of incumbents usually sail to reelection.


The most powerful argument against the necessity of term limiting Congress has been the changes made to both houses over the last few election cycles.

Except that the changes have come around the margins. The composition of the House and Senate are determined by a handful of races, while the vast majority of seats remain uncompetitive. A national term limit would not only turn out candidates in swing districts, but those in "rotten boroughs" who continue to plague the nation from safe seats. For example, Teddy Kennedy was elected in 1962, the year that I was born. During his tenure, he was constantly involved in scandals and despicable public and private behavior which his constituents were willing to overlook (or perhaps not, if they were considering how much safer the local streets were with Teddy consigned to Washington). Term limits limit the amount of time that the people of a given district can inflict a Charlie Rangel, Nancy Pelosi or Pete Stark on the rest of us. For your side of the aisle, substitute whatever Republicans you would like to see leave the public stage after 12 years. It would also force the parties to campaign in more places, since incumbency wouldn't guarantee them the seats indefinitely, which would naturally force them to address constituent concerns.

Also, the House is currently too small for the nation. When the Constitution was ratified, the ratio of Representatives to represented was 1:20,000. Today it's 1:600,000. Expanding the House to meet a 1:100,000 ratio would make it possible for people to actually know and interact with their representatives. A 1,200 member House of Representatives would be far more responsive to constituents and far less insular, and the reduced footprint would reduce the need for mass market media buys, which would reduce the need for the kinds of campaign expenditures that we see today, without limiting the right of the people to weigh in on the candidates.

Arroyo_Doble
03-25-2011, 02:39 PM
You put alot of work into that so instead of telling you that you are preaching to the choir I will say that you've convinced me.

As far as this part"


Expanding the House to meet a 1:100,000 ratio would make it possible for people to actually know and interact with their representatives. A 1,200 member House of Representatives would be far more responsive to constituents and far less insular, and the reduced footprint would reduce the need for mass market media buys, which would reduce the need for the kinds of campaign expenditures that we see today, without limiting the right of the people to weigh in on the candidates.


I could not agree more. It would dilute the power of re-districting and the desire to create political ghettos and it would also have the added benefit of bringing the Electoral College more in line with the population of the United States.

Odysseus
03-25-2011, 03:33 PM
You put alot of work into that so instead of telling you that you are preaching to the choir I will say that you've convinced me.

As far as this part"


Expanding the House to meet a 1:100,000 ratio would make it possible for people to actually know and interact with their representatives. A 1,200 member House of Representatives would be far more responsive to constituents and far less insular, and the reduced footprint would reduce the need for mass market media buys, which would reduce the need for the kinds of campaign expenditures that we see today, without limiting the right of the people to weigh in on the candidates.


I could not agree more. It would dilute the power of re-districting and the desire to create political ghettos and it would also have the added benefit of bringing the Electoral College more in line with the population of the United States.

Redistricting would still be an issue, but I agree that it would be dilluted. It would certainly reduce the amount of mischief that could be done, and smaller districts would be much more likely to be contiguous. Not sure about what you mean about the Electoral College, as that's reevaluated after each census.

Another advantage is that a larger House would require less staff, rather than more, as the expanded body would have the manpower to accomplish most of the tasks that are now delegated to a permanent bureaucracy. For example, if members actually read bills, instead of having staffers read them, we'd have a much better informed membership. This would also reduce the size of bills, and the corresponding temptation to pad them with extraneous nonsense.

Arroyo_Doble
03-25-2011, 03:57 PM
Not sure about what you mean about the Electoral College, as that's reevaluated after each census.


Article II

Section 1.

...

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress:


Enlarge the House and you enlarge the Electoral College.