I amend my request for information on the states applying for an Article V convention. I see that you have such a list already published.

You are obviously very committed to this. I like your reference to Article V – could you share the proof that all 50 states have applied for such a convention because we would need proof to take any significant action.

However, while all agree to the fact that it is extremely difficult to get the bill for such a constitutional amendment passed in Congress, none of you has addressed the alternative method provided in Article V of the Constitution “for a convention for proposing amendments”, which Hamilton, in Federalist 85, has declared that when 2/3 of states have applied, will be peremptorily called by Congress.
All 50 states have applied. Congress has ignored this Constitutional duty.

Time to impeach Congress ? (see foavc.org)

These documents should contain only essential principles and should be tampered with only at great need. Making the amendment process easier would cheapen the value of the documents almost as much does the ignoring of the documents’ provisions.

I find myself on both sides of the term limits issue. I very much appreciate Jason’s suggestion that it may be good to toss even great statesmen because the office is more important than any person that may hold it. I also appreciate Obi Wan’s and Steve U’s articulations about the drawbacks of term limits. In effect, we would trade one set of problems for another. But it is also possible that the trade-off could be productive.

I agree that transparency is key, and that the internet is helping that greatly. However, the general apathy of Americans has not been; indeed cannot be; solved with technology. Unless the general voting public wakes up, incumbency will continue to be the shield that politicians will be able to wield against any attack from the thinking public. No matter how transparent a candidate or office holder is to you and me, they’re still safe because those who care enough to be watching are in the minority.

Second, I agree that we the people are the ultimate judges of whether a politician should keep his job. It certainly would be frustrating to lose a true statesman of a congressman to term limits, when the public wants him to stay. It was mentioned earlier that we don’t have term limits for our jobs – why should they? Well, the fact is that we do have term limits in many public offices – President, governors, school board members, PTA president. In general, there is a limit to how long an elected officer retains their office. We do that, in part I think, because the office is greater than the individual who holds it. If a public official holds a position of power for too long, they become (in their own minds, generally, and often in the minds of their constituents) the permanent embodiment of that office. If the integrity and elevated stature of an office are to be maintained, a fresh face is necessary. Even if the office holder is a true statesman – a Washington or a Lincoln a Churchill – we still need them to step down so that the power of the office is separated from the individual. Term limits protect the office from being cheapened by longevity.

The argument that we lose some of our popular sovereignty by enacting term limits is the best argument I know of against them, and one that very nearly sways me. But if we’re going to stand by that argument against legislative term limits, then it becomes very difficult to defend executive term limits – what if America wants Bill Clinton back? Why can’t the majority keep him in power indefinitely? History teaches us that this is a bad idea – look at Stalin, Hussein, Castro and now Chavez in Columbia. They aggrandize themselves at the terrible expense of their people, and merge themselves inseparably into their office. If it’s not good for executives, then why for legislators?

In general, I favor limited government. But more still I favor limiting the power of any individual or small group of individuals. I want that power to be shared by as many Americans as is practical.

One problem – in most, if not all, states, there is a process for the voters to directly make law by referendum. That’s how legislative term limits have always come about, because the legislators have been unwilling to limit their own terms. We do not have such a direct means of enacting federal law, so congressional term limits can only be made to happen if congressmen become willing to limit their own terms in favor of public sentiment (assuming that it is indeed the will of the people), which has not yet been done by any state legislature. I guess, then, that even if term limits are good, and if the majority of people wanted to see them enacted, the only way to accomplish it is for the people to vote their representatives out of office every so many years, because they’ll never vote themselves out of power.

I’m kind of hanging my hat on Steve’s comment that the internet will “blow open the doors” and that what was once done in private will now be public. We as citizens are no longer subject to the competence of the journalistic profession and can do our own research. We now have the tools to do our civic duty if we are astute enough to use those tools.

Best regards David. I appreciate your insightful posts.

Like blogging, incumbency should show whether an official is good/bad, wise/dumb, keepable/tossable, etc. The problem is that people don’t get or don’t take a clear look at what the incumbents are actually doing. I think it’s a rather crude tool to give all officials an expiration date and toss them after it passes. But — as is often the case — it’s also a crummy situation when they (we?) get a free pass just because their (our?) names are somewhat known, signs already are stored in the garage, a war chest is built up, etc.

I remain optimistic that the Internet will blow open the doors to government; people will get a close look at their representatives; and people will make informed decisions on whether to discard or recycle. Sunlight remains the best disinfectant.