Term Limits Needed to Help Restore Republic

I think we can agree that D.C. is broken, and that a restoration of limited, civic-minded and responsive governance is long overdue. The question is how do we bring that about. From my preliminary research, I have concluded that term limits is at the core of any meaningful remedy.

Though polls suggest that nearly 80% of the people support term limits, in US Term Limits v Thornton, 514 US 779 (1995) the Supreme Court narrowly ruled 5-4 that state-imposed term limits on members of Congress was unconstitutional and that only if the Constitution is amended may term limits be imposed. Citing that since authority to limit congressional term limits was not specifically reserved to the States, Justice Stevens reflected the majority opinion by stating that “in the absence of any constitutional delegation to the States of power to add qualifications to those enumerated in the Constitution, such a [State] power does not exist.”

Further, Storer vs Brown granted States the right to regulate election procedures but not to impose qualifications for Senators and Representatives. (It is important to note, however, that Justice Thomas dissented by opining that “where the Constitution does not speak either expressly or by necessary implication, the Federal Government lacks that power and the States enjoy it.”) Makes sense to me.

From my preliminary research of this subject, by the very fact that the Framers carefully omitted senatorial and representative qualifications for office—except age, citizenship and residency—it seems reasonable to opine that the founding fathers may have left the issue of term limits to the People alone and not to the States or to the federal government. This conclusion would be consistent with Robert Livingston’s view that “the people are the best judge of who ought to represent them.” However, it has become apparent to me that the Framers' views on this subject were sometimes ambiguous and their positions on the matter often conflicted.

However, it's important to note that Thomas Jefferson believed that the Framers’ failure to include term limits in the Constitution was one of two “principal flaws”--the other being the absence of a bill of rights (Ltr from Jefferson to Madison, 12/20/1787). Thus, his respect for the notion of term limits is obvious.

Interestingly, James Madison noted that term limits may be one of the “effectual precautions” which will better ensure that the people keep their representatives “virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust”. (Federalist Paper #57). In Federalist Paper #39, he conceded that "tenure for a limited period” was a defining characteristic of representatives in a republican form of government.
George Mason, another Framer, considered “periodical rotation essential to the preservation of republican government.”

So, though there appears to be plenty of Framer support for the concept of term limits, the Framers clearly saw no need to set term limits in the Constitution itself since they assumed frequent elections would result in regular turnover in both houses. To wit, James Madison anticipated that “new members would always form a large proportion” of the House.

Some Framers actually predicted a 2/3 turnover in congressional membership. Obviously, they did not foresee that their assumptions regarding a high turnover of membership would be so at odds with actual developments in modern day America. They never guessed that about 90% of today’s incumbents would be virtually assured of re-election and that temporary, civic-minded "citizen representatives" committed to public service alone would, for the most part, morph into an elite class of self-serving career politicians.

There are numerous arguments for and against term limits, but the following constitutes the nub of the issue for me. Many argue that representatives need more time to learn the ropes, thus enhancing their effectiveness as lawmakers; however, this assertion refutes itself. Simply put, we limit the President to two 4-year terms. Is the President’s job so much less demanding and complex that we can limit his tenure to 8 years, but a Senator or Representative needs more time?

Also, the biggest and most cogent argument against State-imposed term limits is this: Justice Stevens opined that “permitting individual states to formulate diverse qualifications for their congressional representatives would result in a patchwork that would be inconsistent with the Framers’ vision of a uniform national legislature representing the people of the US.” Hard to logically counter that argument. It could, indeed, be a mess. Thus, it would seem that only a constitutional amendment can ensure a uniformity in term limits.

Also, what appears disturbingly obvious to me is that for a long time now unresponsive and seemingly disconnected--even clueless--political careerists have often controlled the reins of legislative power. Obviously, that is not what the Framers had in mind for our republic. Thus, for me, term limits is the only remedy to cronyism and self-serving careerism.

Among other benefits, term limits will: 1) encourage new folks with fresh ideas; 2) encourage representatives to fashion policy on the basis of principles vs. the demands of re-election campaigns; 3) limit the level of corruption and the inordinate and counterproductive influence of lobbyists; 4) prevent the growth and entrenchment of a permanent ruling class more interested in feathering their own nests than in properly representing the legitimate interests of their constituencies and their country; and 5) term limits might well have the effect of moderating the damaging effects of gerrymandering.

Watching aged reps barely able to walk or speak coherently suggests to me that to better ensure accountability and to restore congressional relevance and competence, perhaps the most sensible term limit solution lies somewhere in the commonsense middle.

I opt for no more than three consecutive 2-year terms for Representatives (total 6 yrs) and no more than one consecutive 6-year term for Senators (total 6 yrs). And to ensure that the people, the ultimate guardians of our republican form of government, are able to determine who should represent them in D.C., at the conclusion of their term limit a Senator or Representative would be permitted to run for a seat in the other chamber, thus ensuring that the electorate is not denied the future sterling services of an especially popular favorite son whose tenure in one chamber has ended.

To retain the people's authority over who will represent them in D.C., a tenured-out Senator or Representative may opt to seek re-election in the same chamber, but only after the requisite break in his or her service in that chamber. This formula would also ensure that a lame duck rep who is still interested in public office at a later date would strive to be productive, responsive, energetic and engaged until the conclusion of his tenure. Representatives’ talents wouldn’t be wasted, “institutional memory” wouldn’t be lost, a more vigorous competition of ideas would ensue, a “citizen congress” vs a mob of lobby-dominated career politicians would blossom once again, and otherwise entrenched congressional staffers with, perhaps, questionable lobbyist ties and commitments would be replaced more frequently with fresh blood. Upshot:  “we the people” would , at long last, be better served. At least that's my take.

Though the amendment process normally takes years, I'm convinced that we need to move the process forward. So, let’s light the fire under both our DC and State representatives to begin the amendment process, whether that process originates with Congress or the States.

As we all know too well, of course, a ruling bureaucracy is never self-correcting, and an entrenched elite even less so; thus, it will clearly require an intensely hot flame to move things forward.

HR 450: A Sliver of Hope for our Tattered Constitution

Once in awhile some upbeat initiative provides some welcome relief from the prosaic and outrageous. And so it is with HR 450, the Enumerated Powers Act, which, with the co-sponsorship of 19 other Republicans, was once again introduced by Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ).

Citing the inviolability of the 10th Amendment’s provision that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”, Rep. Shadegg’s bill, if enacted, would compel lawmakers to cite specific constitutional authority for any bill passing through Congress. (Wow! Can you just imagine the D.C. Aristocracy's finally adhering to Constitutional Law and limited government? Nor can I, but the prospect is exciting nonetheless.)

With the unrestrained expansion of federal government into every sector of society, the bill’s purpose is to oblige lawmakers to be mindful of the framers’ intent with respect to drawing a clear distinction between what constitutes Federal and State powers. (Civics 101, huh?)

Specifically, HR 450 stipulates that “each Act of Congress shall contain a concise and definite statement (subject to review by the Supreme Court) of the constitutional authority relied upon for the enactment of each portion of that Act," and that "the failure to comply with this section shall give rise to a point of order in either House of Congress. “

Given progressive dominion in Congress, the bill, of course, has precious little chance of making it to the floor, much less escaping the House Rules and House Judiciary Committees ruled by Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and John Conyers (D-MI) respectively.

Nonetheless, Mr. Shadegg is to be commended for his determination to return our runaway government to its “limited government” constitutional parameters. It is reassuring to know that in addition to constitutional sticklers like Governor Perry of Texas who is reasserting the insuperability of the 10th Amendment, there are lawmakers in Washington, D.C. too who honor and cherish the Constitution.

I hope others join me in personally commending and encouraging Mr. Shadegg for his patriotism--Washington Office: 202-225-3361. A quick supportive phonecall to Rep. Lee's office here in Rochester might also be helpful--663-5570.

"Maersk Alabama" Crew Does Us Proud

Apologizing for America and harping on its myriad failures, both real and imaginary, during his recent self-indulgent whirlwind sweep through European capitals, Mr. Obama's anemic and embarrassing kumbaya performance is in stark contrast to the steely backbone and resolve displayed by the unarmed Maersk Alabama crewmen who recaptured control of their ship from Somali pirates on Wednesday.

As I listened to the news yesterday, I quickly recalled America's undeclared wars with N. African pirates in 1805 and 1815, the so-called Barbary Wars, which were successfully prosecuted by America's then fledgling naval and marine forces. Still reeling from the heavy losses sustained during the Revolutionary War, until America was able to bring its military power to bear America had no choice but to pay ransom to these pirates for years in order to protect its merchant ships plying the Mediterranean. At one point, the ransom amounted to nearly 20% of America's national budget! But, with the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812 behind, America was finally able to successfully stop cold the attacks and the ransoms.

And here we are two centuries later with an unarmed American merchant ship transporting relief supplies to E. Africa attacked by pirates. Unlike attacks on ships of other nations, the courageous American crew wouldn't give up the ship, nor would they be cowed by their assailants. It didn't matter if the American crew was unarmed. They simply weren't going to surrender. This precisely illustrates what an Americans' character is all about. And at a time when our government appears to be embarked on a foolhardy path of self-abasement and appeasement, the Alabama crew should make us all feel a full measure of pride once again.

In all of this, what strikes me as acutely inane is the prohibition against a crew's carrying weapons to defend themselves against attack. Looks like insurance liability issues alone take precedence over the common sense prioritywhich should be the safety of our crews. This insanity must end, failing which America must exert overwhelming military force against the pirates' Somalian coastal bases. Complete "shock and awe" would put them and others everywhere on notice that Americans aren't to be trifled with under any circumstances. Unquestionably, such a credible show of force would be an effective deterrent, but for obvious reasons my guess is that it just won't happen. Not on this Administration's watch anyway.

Why? Our Chief Executive's sophomoric kumbaya foreign policy clearly militates against such a forthright demonstration of strength, national sovereignty and resolve. I suspect he might will be content now and in the future to rely on hostage negotiations alone and, by implication and extension, shipping company ransom payments later. Doesn't it just tug at your patriotic heart strings to know that Mr. Obama occupies our once venerable White House?

The courageous American crew who wouldn't give up the ship or be cowed by our enemies should make us all mindful of who we are and who we want to continue to be--justifiably proud and thoroughly unapologetic Americans. Yes, we value compassion and generosity, but, historically, we haven't abided being trod upon. Unfortunately, I am convinced these are American values not entirely shared by our effete Chief Executive or by his transnational minions in the State Department.

Let's hope this post-American Chief Executive learns something from this intrepid American crew. Who knows. He might even start feeling and acting like a proud and unapologetic American himself. Perhaps it's merely a matter of a learning curve he must navigate before he finally gets there. Let's hope the ephiphany comes sooner rather than later. Hopefully, not too much later. Anything's possible, I suppose. But, I, for one, am not holding my breath. I believe I understand what we have today in the White House guiding our precious nation. And that disturbing reality should give us all pause.

Could A Perfect Storm Be Brewing?

Tasked by the FBI to provide "informational analysis" on conditions which could be construed as potentially harmful to civil order and national security, InfraGard, of the FBI's National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC), issued an unclassifed Protective Intelligence Communicatiion report in March 2009 regarding the "crescendo" of public concern about Mr. Obama's presidential eligibility.

Authored by Dr. Lyle J. Rapacki, Protective Intelligence Specialist and Agent, the report summarizes the substance of legal challenges to Mr. Obama on the question of his constitutional eligibility and concludes that if it "should be discovered Mr. Obama is ineligible, a constitutional crisis would ensue attempting to determine which of his executive branch orders should be valid." It goes on to warn that "if...Mr. Obama fights revealing his documentation, there is growing concern of civil unrest, or worse, being unleashed in the streets of our nation. The economic crisis coupled with this type of a constitutional crisis could prove to be a flashpoint that would test conventional law enforcement and elements of homeland security."

The stream of law suits, the most recent of which have been tendered by high ranking military officers and state legislators, to compel Obama to prove his eligibility have been unremitting and increasingly vocal. A request for "quo warranto" action, an apparent last-ditch legal remedy, was recently delivered to both the US Attorney for the District of Columbia and to the Attorney General.

Dovetailing with this unsettling assessment, and pretty much out of public view, are the following national security developments which, in their totality, could well signal acute domestic instability in the period ahead.

Upon the recommendation of the Army's Strategic Studies Institute, The Army Times reported that a somewhat euphemistically dubbed "Consequence Management Response Force (CCMRF)", currently the role of the 3rd Infantry Division's 1st Brigade Combat Team, but which, reportedly, might eventually comprise upwards of 80,000 troops, is being trained and readied to deal with what could be widespread civil disorder resulting from an "unforeseen economic collapse" or "loss of a functional political and legal order."

Symptomatic of festering civil unrest are the many "tea parties" springing up around the country, growing fears of economic disintegration and of both crippling terrorist attacks and even of perceived federal overreaching. Add to this the very real threat of a rogue nuclear EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) attack on the homeland which could instantaneously reduce the country to a paralytic pre-industrial condition, plus the unrest on our southern border, and there appears to be ample and justifiable cause for concern and appropriate contingency planning at every level of government.

Clearly, a perfect storm could, indeed, be brewing. Thus, it is only prudent that we are all properly prepared. Boy, we sure live in an intensely interesting time. Wow!

HR 40 Keeps Victimhood Alive and Well

You won't believe this one, folks! Take a deep breath before proceeding. You'll need it. You're going to be bowled over by this legislative travesty.

Rascist opportunism and what's-in-it-for-me "victimhood" are fluorishing in these United States of America, and it looks like it's coming to a head in our erstwhile hallowed halls of Congress.

Shamelessly sponsored by Representatives John Conyer (D-MI), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Bobby Scott (D-VA), Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Melvin Watt (D-NC), HR 40, currently in committee, is intended "to acknowledge the fundamental injustice, cruelty, brutality, and inhumanity of slavery in the United States and the 13 colonies between 1619 and 1865 and to establish a commission to examine the institution of slavery, subsequently de jure and de facto racial and economic discrimination against African-Americans, and the impact of those forces on living African-Americans, to make recommendations to the Congress on appropriate remedies, and for other purposes."

Jaw-dropping, yet? Wait.

Entitled "Commission to Study Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act", this bill would create a commission to examine the "capture and procurement of Africans", "their transport to the United States and the colonies" and their "treatment as chattel property in interstate commerce."

The Commission which would be established by the bill would be tasked with "examining lingering negative effects of the institution of slavery" and would recommend "appropriate remedies" which might include--now, how did you guess?--"compensation".

Membership in this judicious and august commission would be restricted to those "persons especially qualified...by virtue (their word, not mine) of their...experience, particularly in the field of African-American studies".

I mean, I understand the morally superior liberal me-first entitlement mindset which continually gropes for government handouts, but these lame excuses for thoughtful leaders have absolutely no class and no sense of proportion or decency. They are, indeed, a plague on our house.

Beware Senegal, Ghana & other African nations. These odious hyphenated American victims might well attempt to extort reparations from you as well. Remember it was your forebears who captured and sold their own to those mean 'ole white Americans in 1619! That's 1-6-1-9, or 323 years before I and my fellow slave masters sprang forth.

If this hubris weren't so insidious and intellectually offensive, it would be side-splitting laughable.
No, Conyers, over my dead body will you get a pay-off! Enough is enough! You and your odious co-conspirators offend reason, propriety and common sense. You are each a hideous embarrassment to every proud American.

Broadcast Freedom In Real Danger Again

By way of update, with the DC Voting Rights Act (S 160) stuck in committee, Sen. DeMint's Amdt 573 (Sec 10 of the Act), which would prevent the Federal Communications Committee (FCC) from reinstating the Fairness Doctrine, is in serious trouble.

Going forward, there are two problems with S 160: 1) short of a constitutional amendment, congressionally granting the District of Columbia a voting representative in the House is, most likekly, inevitably doomed--or, at least, it should be; and 2) if the bill were to pass, Sen. DeMint's amendment might well be effectively nullified by Sen. Durbin's Amdt 591 (Sec 9 of the Act) which is also included in the bill.

Sen. DeMint's amendment "denies the FCC authority to require broadcasters to present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance commonly referred to as the Fairness Doctrine."

Sen. Durbin's amendment directs the FCC to "take action to encourage and promote diversity in communication media ownership and to ensure that broadcast station licenses are used in the public interest."

When I again contacted Sen. DeMint's office today, this time the spokesperson was clearly less optimistic that Sen. Durbin's amendment would not, in fact, effectively nullify Sen. DeMint's amendment. There was also doubt about Sen. DeMint's amendment surviving joint committee scrutiny.

So, anticipating that Sen. DeMint's amendment would be altogether dropped by the House, on March 10th Senators DeMint, Inhofe and Enzi joined in support of Sen. Thune's amendment (#662) to the Omnibus Appropriations bill (HR 1105) which mirrors Sen. DeMint's original amendment in S 160, the difference being that Sen. Thune's less ambitious amendment would have denied any FCC funding intended to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine during FY 2009.

Well, it may all be moot now anyway. On a vote of 47-50, Sen. Thune's amendment failed, and, minus Sen. Thune's amendment, HR 1105 was signed into law on March 11th.

While we can still hold out hope that Sen. DeMint's Amdt 573 will survive the legislative axe, I'm not at all that optimistic.

The heavy hand of an increasingly undisguised progressive tryanny does not portend well for public talk radio, or, for that matter, very much else Americans hold dear. On too many fronts, it appears that our republic is, indeed, in retreat.

HR 1503 Would Mandate Presidential Candidate Eligibility Requirements

You may recall my previous post on this subject which underscored the conspicuous omission in our legal system of a process for properly vetting the eligibility of presidential candidates--whether Republican, Democrat, Green Party or Communist Party USA.

Finally, some progress. On March 12th, freshman Congressman Bill Posey (R-FL) introduced a bill which would require all future presidential candidates to properly document their eligibility. If passed, which, given the liberal lock on Congress, is doubtful, the commonsense provisions of this bill would be effective 2012 and would not be retroactive.

In the face of some vicious personal attacks on his mental health and judgement, Rep. Posey observed that he "had been called some pretty nasty things," going on to say that "the more I get called names by leftwing activists, partisan hacks and political operatives, the more I think I did the right thing." And so you did, Mr. Posey.

Noting how very surprised he was to find that to "run for President it's not required for presidential candidates to file [eligibility documentation] when submitting their statement of candidacy with the FEC," he pointed out that his poll showed that 75% of Americans support such a requirement. He went on to explain that partisanship did not shape his rationale for submitting this bill, but that the glaring absence of proper vetting provisions for presidential candidates did. And for that he should be applauded by all Americans, not condemned. The rule of law should trump blind partisanship.

With scant chance of passage in the Democrat-controlled Congress, HR 1503 would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 by requiring that "the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of president include...a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution." A pretty straightforward, bi-partisan, rational requirement, I'd say. Certainly nothing to be feared by any candidate, right?

As we all know by now, Hawaiian officials have confirmed they have a birth certificate for Barack Obama on file, but cannot release it without his permission. To date, disclosure of his vaulted birth certificate has been strenuously blocked tooth-and-nail by his legal team. HR 1503 would mandate future candidates to divulge all pertinent evidence of their eligibility, inclusive of their birth certificate. With passage, courts would then have clear jurisdiction in such issues and would be able to order candidates to comply, something the courts are currently unable to do.

When I phoned Mr. Posey's DC office on March 24th to express my gratitude and support and to enquire as to the bill's progress, his spokesman noted that the bill was in committee, which "didn't mean much", but that he was "encouraged" by the large number of supportive phonecalls from around the country. Beyond that, the spokesman couldn't accurately predict the bill's fate.

Though many suits are going forward around the country demanding that Obama divulge evidence of his eligibility, without a law requiring him to do so, and absent his voluntary compliance, those suits stand precious little chance of success. But, they go forward in earnest nonetheless.

If HR 1503 should pass, a very remote possibility, and should Mr. Obama opt for re-election, he would finally need to show evidence of his eligibility to run for office in the 2012 prsidential election. The irony is bittersweet, to say the least. But, better late than never, I suppose. Until then, I just hope America can survive what now clearly appears to be a "presidential usurpation". And on that acutely unsettling score, I fear I no longer have any rational doubts. I sincerely wish I did.

("All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." Thomas Jefferson)