I got to thinking about term limits and recall provisions yesterday. The local city council was discussing an initiative to make provisions for recalling sitting city councilmen.
The analogy I came up with is the stock market; now this is a little stretch, so I'll ask you to bear with me. When you or I buy a stock, we're "voting" with our wallets, essentially. We think that giving our dollars to Exxon, or Altria, or whomever, is a better use of our dollars than what we could do with it. Investors expect an appreciation on their investment, and this can take the form of increased share value, a cash dividend, or both.
When you buy a stock - recall the voting interpretation - you keep it as long as it continues to do what you want it to: return value and justify your decision. If the stock loses value (or you lose faith in the company's management), you're free to dump it at any time, assuming of course that we're talking about widely-traded public companies for which there's almost always a market, even if a stock is declining. Only when the corporation is near-collapse does the market dry up, and if you're stuck, you're stuck.
Well, I got to thinking about recall provisions. This is your ability to "sell" your position. If your elected official isn't returning value - justifying your decision - you should be able to exit that position, so to speak. In this way, market accountability would reward good governors and punish bad ones. Naturally, to provide protection from simple partisan sniping, there would have to be a threshold for beginning a recall and making it valid. Nevertheless, I think the idea is a good one.
And here's where I may ruffle some feathers. I think term limits are a bad idea. We've discussed this at length in the past, but fundamentally, the right of the people to choose their governors is being infringed by instituting limits. Recall the stock market analogy. Suppose I have had my position in Exxon for about 5 years (this is roughly the case). Now imagine that I am compelled by statute to sell my position. The stock is doing great and I love it. Why should I be compelled to sell?
I think term limits are well-intentioned, but in the final analysis, inappropriate for liberty loving people in the long-term.
Showing posts with label Term Limits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Term Limits. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
The Stock Market Analogy
Saturday, July 21, 2007
The Challenge of Human Nature
I've ceased being amazed by the things that people say and do, and have begun to accept that it takes an awful lot of effort to change a person's mind. And how's that saying go? A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still?
Check out this link to the Sam Adams Alliance, and especially this commentary by Paul Jacob. I really like the Alliance; I've been to their events and am planning on attending their next one (unless I'm booted off the guest list, LOL). Yet, I feel compelled to respond to these things all the same.
It's a shortcoming of human nature, I suppose, that when the mind fixates on a thing - in this case an apparent solution - it becomes difficult to see beyond the idea to the consequences of such action. This is something I recognize, and I hope that we collectively keep this in mind as we support our own solution, Balanced Government, to our problems governmental.
I've posted a reply to Paul's piece, and I encourage you to do the same. Our efforts at education are going to take many forms, and if we can't educate friendly "competition" like the Alliance, then we've got bigger problems than we realize.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Revisiting an Old Topic
Recently this question of limiting United States Congressional members to one term of service was raised once again over at the Federalist Patriot blog. And as per the usual the discussion pretty much centered around the idea that restricting our servants to one term of service on the one hand, would bring fresh blood and fresh ideas into the United States Congress. This in turn, it is assumed, would result in actually getting things done in Congress....and good things at that. On the other hand, the opponents of term limits argued that term limiting Congress would effectively limit the People in their choices, not to mention that we already have virtual term limits in place - we just don't exercise them often enough, or more precisely, we just don't exercise them properly enough. Obviously the opinion of the contributers here falls more in line with the latter of the opposing viewpoints. We find ourselves squarely in that camp because it cannot be argued with any propriety that term limiting Congress is anything less than restricting the voters in their choices, nor can it be said that the People already possess anything less than the ultimate in term-limiting power - the elective franchise. In short, term limits exist in their purest form at the national level of our government, and their existence in that form merely restricts voting citizens to the most reasonable of terms - suitable age and character.
However, we believe the point is not really whether or not term limits are a good idea. Our position is rather that the attentions of would-be reformers should be directed more to the point of what is the most viable of our alternatives for accomplishing the shared goals of both camps. While we do not doubt the good intentions of those who advocate for term limits, we cannot stand idly by and allow the road to h*ll to be paved with those intentions. On the other hand, whenever this question comes up, there is generally a notable perspective often overlooked by the members of both camps - that of common ground. In other words, dear reader, from either perspective (advocating for term limits or advocating against them), the point is that the desired results, or effects, are in a general sense, shared desires of both perspectives. Both perspectives claim a common desire, and state as their goal more positives accomplished at the national level than we are currently getting. It is that common ground that we shall seek to emphasize.
It would be less than useful though, to offer up a common-ground alternative to term limits without first laying out in a rational fashion our reasons for which term-limits have not the potential to effect our common and desired goals. Nor would it be useful or honest in emphasizing this common-ground perspective to lend the slightest pretense to our having an open-mind with regard to the institution of Congressional term limits. No, dear reader, we do not believe term limits have the potential to effect our common goals. Indeed, we believe term-limits have the exact opposite potential, virtually guarantying the worsening of our national condition as opposed to the desired effects of making anything better.
In the conversation at the aforementioned blog, something of a unique perspective was offered on the subject. "Unique" I say, because whenever this subject raises its head on occasion, it is rarely, if ever, discussed from this perspective. In short, dear reader, the perspective amounts to this - our Congress, under term limits, would be perpetually comprised of a bunch of inexperienced sophomores. In fact, at the very moment that the upper house of that body gained its greatest experience, by law under term limits, the very members possessing the most experience in that body - fully one-third of the United States Senate - would all be replaced with persons possessing zero experience in that body. And that, my friends, can never be appropriate to our form of government. Allow me to rephrase that: It can never be appropriate to our form of government to have as its legislative arm a body of people with an overall sophomoric understanding of government, good intentions notwithstanding. The reasons for this are briefly covered under the following headings:
1. The Necessity of an Experienced Congress:
Among the nations of the world, the United States is arguably the most powerful, stable, and self-correcting of all the governments of the earth. One characteristic of our government which gives it such overall favorable qualities, internally and externally, is its tendency to reform, correct, and adjust itself to the ever-changing world around it slowly, methodically, and peacefully. With few exceptions, we may look to the most successful and stable corporations within and without our country and identify the same basic elements marking them, as well as our government, with the same outstanding qualities. Among these is an internal governmental structure which by design creates an air of stability with a singularity of purpose in mind - the best good of the whole. While one wouldn't argue that such a design compromises the basic integrity of a company or corporation, it seems that a large segment of our society would argue along those lines with regard to our national government. In any event, reason itself is assaulted whenever we, by inference and extension, argue that there exists no need, and indeed quite to the contrary, for the stabilizing influence experience and a knowledge of business is uniquely capable of providing in our national legislature.
2. Internal Stability is of Primary Concern:
Anyone who knows anything at all about the founding generation, knows that they were thoroughly persuaded that violent and sudden changes could rarely, if ever, be considered good for the country. By "violent and sudden changes" I mean to say - creating a situation (in this case, by the institution of term limits) wherein there is a rapid and regular turnover in Congress; the bringing in, on a continual and regular basis, of fresh blood, fresh ideas, and folks driven by the "fire in their bellies," yet, in so doing, and indeed as a goal in itself by the very institution itself, retaining no effective check against an overzealous approach by which to control that passion. In doing so, it does not take a large leap of faith to imagine our Senate, after two or three successive election cycles, being largely comprised of a bunch of zealous "reformers" bent on overthrowing certain national traditions the people have become rather accustomed to, only to have their "reforms" overthrown by a new group of zealous reformers bent on the same destructive practice. The internal disorders that would necessarily and regularly accompany such as this are too frightening to contemplate.
3. Too Much democracy; not enough Republicanism and Federalism:
Since we already find ourselves in the precarious position of our Senate being chosen by direct vote of the people, it could never be appropriate to that body specifically, to allow us through term limits, to slip ever closer to that of a pure democracy. We beg your indulgence in allowing us an explanation here: If term limits are ever instituted at the national level of our government, effectively we would be usurping the very foundations of federalism by throwing the whole government completely and utterly out of balance. What remnants of federalism (balanced government) we have left must be carefully guarded at all costs, until that day when we can re-establish balance as a central idea under this union. To grant the People term limits is again to give them more direct control over the national business, when they can be little knowlegable as to the vast array of details in which that national business operates and consists. And let us be clear in stating that while our argument that term limits restricts the voters in their choices seems at first blush to contradict our argument here that such an institution gives them more direct control, the fact is there is no contradiction to be found in the two arguments. By the institution itself voters would be restricted in their choices, there can be no doubt about that. However, by the same institution, Constitutional restrictions on their having a direct say in the national business would be virtually, and finally overthrown. On the one hand, their rights would be materially and really restricted. On the other, and by the same institution, they would assume a more direct and leading role in the conduct of the national business. This latter is a dangerous pursuit, and shall be further expounded upon in the remaining arguments.
4. External Wars would result from Term Limits.
Our Senators and representatives are called to perform specific Constitutional duties. By the Constitution of the United States, our Senate is called to confirm or reject the President's nominations for such vitally important posts as ambassadorships, seats on the Supreme and lower courts, and etc... This duty in itself requires a Senate that is very knowledgable of its business. Consider for instance that our national government is tasked, first and foremost, with the national security and defense of this nation. Part of that duty is comprised in our relationship with other Nations and States around the world. I ask you, my friends, what comfort could a friendly, not to mention a rogue nation derive from a Senate which exhibits no stability; which doesn't even as much as exhibit the appearance of being firm and knowledgable - indeed, much to the contrary? Yes, my friends, the simple institution of term limits would result, I doubt not, in effectively compromising the security of this nation. It would do so because in addition to the natural tendencies of other nations to distrust this one, and vice-versa, term limits would overthrow that one element to which heretofore other nations around the globe have looked upon our government with the most faith and certainty - stability. When we consider that we have international treaties that this nation has long committed itself to, not to mention that we are sure to form new alliances in the future, there can be no doubt about the detrimental impact term-limits would have on our national security. This nation has never seen the kinds and numbers of wars that would likely result from merely instituting term limits. We needn't give ourselves any more occasion for wars, just or unjust. Not only would it not be in our national interest to do so, but it would be a concurrent violation of our national duty to the international community to institute term limits at the national level.
5. An Exercise in Futility; A Surer Method of Reform.
Had term limits the slightest potential to effect the desired results of their advocates, we would be the first to acknowledge it, my friends. By the same token, if term limits are found to be so wantonly devoid of any such potential, upon even a rather cursory inspection, then we count it among our highest duties to do our small part in resigning the idea to the ash-heap. It is our firm belief that there exists a far superior alternative to term limits. This alternative offers all of us real potential to effect the designs generally intended by the institution of term limits. As was said before, we do not doubt the sincerity and the good intentions of advocates of term limits. We merely disagree that term limits are the best means to our common ends. Our common ends, or goals, can be summed up in these words - to reform and strengthen this government; to effect the kinds of changes that have long-term, positive results. We believe there is a way to accomplish this which would not require compromising our national security, our internal stability, nor the overall knowledge and experience of our legislative branch. The violent and sudden changes incident to the institution of term limits would be avoided by this method, and perhaps most appealing of all, this method would not require that anyone violate their core values. And once more, my friends, such an outstanding method is it, that in the very midst of internal reform, our nation would remain in the eyes of the world, and this very people, as strong and stable as ever it was. In a word, my friends, our common goals could be met in the fullest extent via the resurrecting of a simple, yet pure American idea - Balanced government. For more on this, see the other articles posted to this blog. Your comments and questions are as always, welcome.
However, we believe the point is not really whether or not term limits are a good idea. Our position is rather that the attentions of would-be reformers should be directed more to the point of what is the most viable of our alternatives for accomplishing the shared goals of both camps. While we do not doubt the good intentions of those who advocate for term limits, we cannot stand idly by and allow the road to h*ll to be paved with those intentions. On the other hand, whenever this question comes up, there is generally a notable perspective often overlooked by the members of both camps - that of common ground. In other words, dear reader, from either perspective (advocating for term limits or advocating against them), the point is that the desired results, or effects, are in a general sense, shared desires of both perspectives. Both perspectives claim a common desire, and state as their goal more positives accomplished at the national level than we are currently getting. It is that common ground that we shall seek to emphasize.
It would be less than useful though, to offer up a common-ground alternative to term limits without first laying out in a rational fashion our reasons for which term-limits have not the potential to effect our common and desired goals. Nor would it be useful or honest in emphasizing this common-ground perspective to lend the slightest pretense to our having an open-mind with regard to the institution of Congressional term limits. No, dear reader, we do not believe term limits have the potential to effect our common goals. Indeed, we believe term-limits have the exact opposite potential, virtually guarantying the worsening of our national condition as opposed to the desired effects of making anything better.
In the conversation at the aforementioned blog, something of a unique perspective was offered on the subject. "Unique" I say, because whenever this subject raises its head on occasion, it is rarely, if ever, discussed from this perspective. In short, dear reader, the perspective amounts to this - our Congress, under term limits, would be perpetually comprised of a bunch of inexperienced sophomores. In fact, at the very moment that the upper house of that body gained its greatest experience, by law under term limits, the very members possessing the most experience in that body - fully one-third of the United States Senate - would all be replaced with persons possessing zero experience in that body. And that, my friends, can never be appropriate to our form of government. Allow me to rephrase that: It can never be appropriate to our form of government to have as its legislative arm a body of people with an overall sophomoric understanding of government, good intentions notwithstanding. The reasons for this are briefly covered under the following headings:
1. The Necessity of an Experienced Congress:
Among the nations of the world, the United States is arguably the most powerful, stable, and self-correcting of all the governments of the earth. One characteristic of our government which gives it such overall favorable qualities, internally and externally, is its tendency to reform, correct, and adjust itself to the ever-changing world around it slowly, methodically, and peacefully. With few exceptions, we may look to the most successful and stable corporations within and without our country and identify the same basic elements marking them, as well as our government, with the same outstanding qualities. Among these is an internal governmental structure which by design creates an air of stability with a singularity of purpose in mind - the best good of the whole. While one wouldn't argue that such a design compromises the basic integrity of a company or corporation, it seems that a large segment of our society would argue along those lines with regard to our national government. In any event, reason itself is assaulted whenever we, by inference and extension, argue that there exists no need, and indeed quite to the contrary, for the stabilizing influence experience and a knowledge of business is uniquely capable of providing in our national legislature.
2. Internal Stability is of Primary Concern:
Anyone who knows anything at all about the founding generation, knows that they were thoroughly persuaded that violent and sudden changes could rarely, if ever, be considered good for the country. By "violent and sudden changes" I mean to say - creating a situation (in this case, by the institution of term limits) wherein there is a rapid and regular turnover in Congress; the bringing in, on a continual and regular basis, of fresh blood, fresh ideas, and folks driven by the "fire in their bellies," yet, in so doing, and indeed as a goal in itself by the very institution itself, retaining no effective check against an overzealous approach by which to control that passion. In doing so, it does not take a large leap of faith to imagine our Senate, after two or three successive election cycles, being largely comprised of a bunch of zealous "reformers" bent on overthrowing certain national traditions the people have become rather accustomed to, only to have their "reforms" overthrown by a new group of zealous reformers bent on the same destructive practice. The internal disorders that would necessarily and regularly accompany such as this are too frightening to contemplate.
3. Too Much democracy; not enough Republicanism and Federalism:
Since we already find ourselves in the precarious position of our Senate being chosen by direct vote of the people, it could never be appropriate to that body specifically, to allow us through term limits, to slip ever closer to that of a pure democracy. We beg your indulgence in allowing us an explanation here: If term limits are ever instituted at the national level of our government, effectively we would be usurping the very foundations of federalism by throwing the whole government completely and utterly out of balance. What remnants of federalism (balanced government) we have left must be carefully guarded at all costs, until that day when we can re-establish balance as a central idea under this union. To grant the People term limits is again to give them more direct control over the national business, when they can be little knowlegable as to the vast array of details in which that national business operates and consists. And let us be clear in stating that while our argument that term limits restricts the voters in their choices seems at first blush to contradict our argument here that such an institution gives them more direct control, the fact is there is no contradiction to be found in the two arguments. By the institution itself voters would be restricted in their choices, there can be no doubt about that. However, by the same institution, Constitutional restrictions on their having a direct say in the national business would be virtually, and finally overthrown. On the one hand, their rights would be materially and really restricted. On the other, and by the same institution, they would assume a more direct and leading role in the conduct of the national business. This latter is a dangerous pursuit, and shall be further expounded upon in the remaining arguments.
4. External Wars would result from Term Limits.
Our Senators and representatives are called to perform specific Constitutional duties. By the Constitution of the United States, our Senate is called to confirm or reject the President's nominations for such vitally important posts as ambassadorships, seats on the Supreme and lower courts, and etc... This duty in itself requires a Senate that is very knowledgable of its business. Consider for instance that our national government is tasked, first and foremost, with the national security and defense of this nation. Part of that duty is comprised in our relationship with other Nations and States around the world. I ask you, my friends, what comfort could a friendly, not to mention a rogue nation derive from a Senate which exhibits no stability; which doesn't even as much as exhibit the appearance of being firm and knowledgable - indeed, much to the contrary? Yes, my friends, the simple institution of term limits would result, I doubt not, in effectively compromising the security of this nation. It would do so because in addition to the natural tendencies of other nations to distrust this one, and vice-versa, term limits would overthrow that one element to which heretofore other nations around the globe have looked upon our government with the most faith and certainty - stability. When we consider that we have international treaties that this nation has long committed itself to, not to mention that we are sure to form new alliances in the future, there can be no doubt about the detrimental impact term-limits would have on our national security. This nation has never seen the kinds and numbers of wars that would likely result from merely instituting term limits. We needn't give ourselves any more occasion for wars, just or unjust. Not only would it not be in our national interest to do so, but it would be a concurrent violation of our national duty to the international community to institute term limits at the national level.
5. An Exercise in Futility; A Surer Method of Reform.
Had term limits the slightest potential to effect the desired results of their advocates, we would be the first to acknowledge it, my friends. By the same token, if term limits are found to be so wantonly devoid of any such potential, upon even a rather cursory inspection, then we count it among our highest duties to do our small part in resigning the idea to the ash-heap. It is our firm belief that there exists a far superior alternative to term limits. This alternative offers all of us real potential to effect the designs generally intended by the institution of term limits. As was said before, we do not doubt the sincerity and the good intentions of advocates of term limits. We merely disagree that term limits are the best means to our common ends. Our common ends, or goals, can be summed up in these words - to reform and strengthen this government; to effect the kinds of changes that have long-term, positive results. We believe there is a way to accomplish this which would not require compromising our national security, our internal stability, nor the overall knowledge and experience of our legislative branch. The violent and sudden changes incident to the institution of term limits would be avoided by this method, and perhaps most appealing of all, this method would not require that anyone violate their core values. And once more, my friends, such an outstanding method is it, that in the very midst of internal reform, our nation would remain in the eyes of the world, and this very people, as strong and stable as ever it was. In a word, my friends, our common goals could be met in the fullest extent via the resurrecting of a simple, yet pure American idea - Balanced government. For more on this, see the other articles posted to this blog. Your comments and questions are as always, welcome.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
On the Concept of Term Limits - No. II
To the Citizens of the United States of America:
We have begun to address the issue of term limits, and in our first installment committed to show that term limits conflict with Liberty; that they encourage apathy and laziness and are inconsistent with self-government; that they exist already today in their right and proper form, yet remain unused; and that they create an inappropriate balance of power in our federal republic. We will prove the above with an understanding of human nature and that most effective teacher, experience, and demonstrate that term-limits are incompatible with the concepts of Americanism and Federalism.
On Liberty
How does one endeavor to define Liberty? The most appropriate definition must include that freedom to both act and think as one wishes, unrestrained by an outside force; Liberty is that state of being that mankind reaches when free to physically act as one wants, but also to think and exercise one's will without restraint.
Yet there is a qualifier. Liberty becomes license when one acts in contravention to the laws of Nature or Nature's God. License is the abuse of freedom, the difference being that license speaks more toward permission, or leave to do whatever one pleases, even if contrary to law or accepted norms.
For such a complex object, our attention turns to the Father of American Education, Federalist Noah Webster. Says he:
"LIB'ERTY, n. [L. libertas, from liber, free.]
1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty, when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys liberty, when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions.
2. Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.
3. Civil liberty, is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. Civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.
The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others.
In this sentence, the latter word liberty denotes natural liberty.
4. Political liberty, is sometimes used as synonymous with civil liberty. But it more properly designates the liberty of a nation, the freedom of a nation or state from all unjust abridgment of its rights and independence by another nation. Hence we often speak of the political liberties of Europe, or the nations of Europe.
5. Religious liberty, is the free right of adopting and enjoying opinions on religious subjects, and of worshiping the Supreme Being according to the dictates of conscience, without external control.
6. Liberty, in metaphysics, as opposed to necessity, is the power of an agent to do or forbear any particular action, according to the determination or thought of the mind, by which either is preferred to the other.
Freedom of the will; exemption from compulsion or restraint in willing or volition.
7. Privilege; exemption; immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant; with a plural. Thus we speak of the liberties of the commercial cities of Europe.
8. Leave; permission granted. The witness obtained liberty to leave the court.
9. A space in which one is permitted to pass without restraint, and beyond which he may not lawfully pass; with a plural; as the liberties of a prison.
10. Freedom of action or speech beyond the ordinary bounds of civility or decorum. Females should repel all improper liberties.
To take the liberty to do or say any thing, to use freedom not specially granted.
To set at liberty, to deliver from confinement; to release from restraint.
To be at liberty, to be free from restraint.
Liberty of the press, is freedom from any restriction on the power to publish books; the free power of publishing what one pleases, subject only to punishment for abusing the privilege, or publishing what is mischievous to the public or injurious to individuals." (Italicized emphasis mine. Source: Webster's 1828 Dictionary at http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=liberty)
For our purposes, it is essential to focus in on Webster's third meaning of Liberty, and one particular phrase in specific: "A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression."
Term Limits Destroy Civil Liberty
Term-limits are in substance inherently opposed to Liberty. By definition, a term limit provides a statutory mechanism by which a candidate is prohibited from seeking office. The criteria for prohibition is that he or she has already served in such a capacity for a defined period of time.
The best example for refuting the foolish nature of term limits is one from our own history. Franklin Roosevelt was the last President to serve more than two terms, and largely the public returned President Roosevelt to office to maintain a consistent course in prosecuting the war against the Axis in the second World War. In grave matters such as war and national security, a citizenry would properly choose to reelect the executive who is best equipped to chart a course to peace; he or she that understands the conflict and can apply every God-granted ability and skill to the successful completion of hostilities.
It is pure conjecture to theorize on how differently WWII might have ended had the public not been able to return FDR to office four times. However, our current struggle against terrorism and Islamofascism may yet show us the error of our ways. The 2008 Presidential election may see a victor who applies an entirely different approach to the War on Terror. It remains to be seen - God Bless and keep America safe! - how such a change will affect our standing in the world and influence the fortunes of this Republic or Her enemies.
Necessary or Expedient for the Public?
This is the grave question we must ask ourselves with respect to restricting Liberty - and term limits are no exception. Upon examination, no reasonable person can answer in the affirmative with respect to the subject at hand. Some artful dissenters might offer as an example a long-tenured Senator or Representative; and yet, such an example fails to invalidate the rule. For the liberty to choose one's representatives in a republic goes both ways. Good representatives and bad may both be chosen, or not. Such circumstances, as they are, offer no valid evidence that term limits are either necessary or expedient for the public.
A system such as ours was designed without term limits because our Founders knew the value that a self-governing citizenry places on Liberty in choosing our governors.
We have begun to address the issue of term limits, and in our first installment committed to show that term limits conflict with Liberty; that they encourage apathy and laziness and are inconsistent with self-government; that they exist already today in their right and proper form, yet remain unused; and that they create an inappropriate balance of power in our federal republic. We will prove the above with an understanding of human nature and that most effective teacher, experience, and demonstrate that term-limits are incompatible with the concepts of Americanism and Federalism.
On Liberty
How does one endeavor to define Liberty? The most appropriate definition must include that freedom to both act and think as one wishes, unrestrained by an outside force; Liberty is that state of being that mankind reaches when free to physically act as one wants, but also to think and exercise one's will without restraint.
Yet there is a qualifier. Liberty becomes license when one acts in contravention to the laws of Nature or Nature's God. License is the abuse of freedom, the difference being that license speaks more toward permission, or leave to do whatever one pleases, even if contrary to law or accepted norms.
For such a complex object, our attention turns to the Father of American Education, Federalist Noah Webster. Says he:
"LIB'ERTY, n. [L. libertas, from liber, free.]
1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty, when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys liberty, when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions.
2. Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.
3. Civil liberty, is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. Civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.
The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others.
In this sentence, the latter word liberty denotes natural liberty.
4. Political liberty, is sometimes used as synonymous with civil liberty. But it more properly designates the liberty of a nation, the freedom of a nation or state from all unjust abridgment of its rights and independence by another nation. Hence we often speak of the political liberties of Europe, or the nations of Europe.
5. Religious liberty, is the free right of adopting and enjoying opinions on religious subjects, and of worshiping the Supreme Being according to the dictates of conscience, without external control.
6. Liberty, in metaphysics, as opposed to necessity, is the power of an agent to do or forbear any particular action, according to the determination or thought of the mind, by which either is preferred to the other.
Freedom of the will; exemption from compulsion or restraint in willing or volition.
7. Privilege; exemption; immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant; with a plural. Thus we speak of the liberties of the commercial cities of Europe.
8. Leave; permission granted. The witness obtained liberty to leave the court.
9. A space in which one is permitted to pass without restraint, and beyond which he may not lawfully pass; with a plural; as the liberties of a prison.
10. Freedom of action or speech beyond the ordinary bounds of civility or decorum. Females should repel all improper liberties.
To take the liberty to do or say any thing, to use freedom not specially granted.
To set at liberty, to deliver from confinement; to release from restraint.
To be at liberty, to be free from restraint.
Liberty of the press, is freedom from any restriction on the power to publish books; the free power of publishing what one pleases, subject only to punishment for abusing the privilege, or publishing what is mischievous to the public or injurious to individuals." (Italicized emphasis mine. Source: Webster's 1828 Dictionary at http://65.66.134.201/cgi-bin/webster/webster.exe?search_for_texts_web1828=liberty)
For our purposes, it is essential to focus in on Webster's third meaning of Liberty, and one particular phrase in specific: "A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression."
Term Limits Destroy Civil Liberty
Term-limits are in substance inherently opposed to Liberty. By definition, a term limit provides a statutory mechanism by which a candidate is prohibited from seeking office. The criteria for prohibition is that he or she has already served in such a capacity for a defined period of time.
The best example for refuting the foolish nature of term limits is one from our own history. Franklin Roosevelt was the last President to serve more than two terms, and largely the public returned President Roosevelt to office to maintain a consistent course in prosecuting the war against the Axis in the second World War. In grave matters such as war and national security, a citizenry would properly choose to reelect the executive who is best equipped to chart a course to peace; he or she that understands the conflict and can apply every God-granted ability and skill to the successful completion of hostilities.
It is pure conjecture to theorize on how differently WWII might have ended had the public not been able to return FDR to office four times. However, our current struggle against terrorism and Islamofascism may yet show us the error of our ways. The 2008 Presidential election may see a victor who applies an entirely different approach to the War on Terror. It remains to be seen - God Bless and keep America safe! - how such a change will affect our standing in the world and influence the fortunes of this Republic or Her enemies.
Necessary or Expedient for the Public?
This is the grave question we must ask ourselves with respect to restricting Liberty - and term limits are no exception. Upon examination, no reasonable person can answer in the affirmative with respect to the subject at hand. Some artful dissenters might offer as an example a long-tenured Senator or Representative; and yet, such an example fails to invalidate the rule. For the liberty to choose one's representatives in a republic goes both ways. Good representatives and bad may both be chosen, or not. Such circumstances, as they are, offer no valid evidence that term limits are either necessary or expedient for the public.
A system such as ours was designed without term limits because our Founders knew the value that a self-governing citizenry places on Liberty in choosing our governors.
Monday, May 29, 2006
On the Concept of Term Limits - No. I
To the Citizens of the United States of America:
It is evident upon no more than a cursory inspection, that the citizenry in general is supportive of the concept of term limits for Congress and the office of President of the United States. The former is a regular topic of conversation among people, on radio talk shows, and on political discussion boards of every persuasion; the latter, an accepted Amendment to our Constitution. In either case, such sentiment, however well-intentioned, is notable for its fallaciousness and is indicative of an incompletion of thought; furthermore, our tradition of Americanism and Federalism is directly opposed to the convention of term limits, a point we will prove in the course of the following essays. A brief history of term limits is warranted as a beginning.
Presidential Term Limits
Early Presidents adhered to a tradition of two terms until after the Civil War. According to the internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia: "Ulysses S. Grant sought a third term in office after serving from 1869 to 1877, but his party failed to nominate him. Theodore Roosevelt, who served from 1901 to 1909, sought to be elected in 1912 (non-consecutively) for a second time—he had succeeded to the presidency on William McKinley's assassination and already been elected in 1904 to a full term himself—but he lost to Woodrow Wilson. In 1940 Franklin Delano Roosevelt became the first person to be elected President three times, with supporters citing the war in Europe as a reason for breaking with precedent. In the 1944 election, during World War II, he won a fourth term, but died in office the following year." (1)
Presidential term limits were instituted with the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, proposed in Congress in 1947 and ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951. The rationale at the time appears to have been the concern that one person could assume the position of an almost "benevolent dictator", without Constitutional limits to Presidential terms.
Such sentiment, however, assumes that human nature itself changes, and there occurs a complete and abject failure on the part of the citizenry. Such a scenario - that a President would assume dictatorial powers - is predicated upon either a most evil conspiracy or minimally the implicit approval of the other branches of government, both the Legislative and Judiciary. As each guards with extreme jealousy its Constitutionally-mandated sphere of power (and indeed experience would show that each branch seeks where possible to extend its influence beyond such limits), human nature therefore, to say nothing of a desire to uphold the Constitution, provides a sufficient guarantee that no one man could rise to such a station in a federal representative republic. But, if one can conjure up such a scenario - despite how chimerical it may seem - one still fails to account for the citizenry, who vote for the office every four years and exercise our Second Amendment Rights. Such a people, enamored with Liberty as we are, as a general rule can sense a charlatan when one comes before us, and even if elected, would not last in office for long. The number of one-term Presidents is evidence of the discernment of the American people: again, as a general rule, when a poor administrator comes along, his tenure in office is not long. Any discerning mind can propose exceptions to the rule, yet acknowledge that the existence of exceptions fails to invalidate the accepted generalization.
If such was the reasoning at the time - that one man might become de facto President for life, and therefore term-limits are necessary - upon what basis is it acceptable today that an error, merely because it has been endured for an extended period of time, should not be rectified? It is said that a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it the superficial appearance of being right. We trust that with inspection, a wise and energetic citizenry will cast aside superficial appearances.
Congressional Term Limits
Term limits, with respect to Congress, are more and more commonly a topic for discussion among supposedly thinking persons. Such a sentiment, again though well-intentioned, is folly born of experience and frustration at an unchanging force: I speak again of human nature.
When such a discussion comes up, the proponent invariably says: “Look at the Senator from Massachusetts, Edward Kennedy. He is Senator for life! How can this be, that he returns to office every election, when his moral character is so poor and his ideas so remarkably socialistic in nature?”
Other supporters of term limits focus on the corruption of Congress – rather than that body's actual or perceived ignorance – as the effect of unlimited public service. This argument assigns guilt to the system for the sins of public servants. This most common theme of proponents of term limits is summarized thus: term-limited public servants will somehow create legislators who are more upright, moral, and not prone to corruption. They will be insulated from the influence of lobbyists and faithful to the concerns of their constituents.
A Comprehensive Response to Correct Inaccurate Thinking
We will endeavor to show that term-limits in every form are poor policy. Term-limits conflict with Liberty; they encourage apathy and laziness and are inconsistent with self-government; term-limits exist already today in their right and proper form, yet remain unused; and term-limits create an inappropriate balance of power in our federal republic. All of these reasons will be proven through a review of experience and an understanding of human nature, rendering term-limits incompatible with the tenets of Americanism and Federalism.
Footnotes: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
It is evident upon no more than a cursory inspection, that the citizenry in general is supportive of the concept of term limits for Congress and the office of President of the United States. The former is a regular topic of conversation among people, on radio talk shows, and on political discussion boards of every persuasion; the latter, an accepted Amendment to our Constitution. In either case, such sentiment, however well-intentioned, is notable for its fallaciousness and is indicative of an incompletion of thought; furthermore, our tradition of Americanism and Federalism is directly opposed to the convention of term limits, a point we will prove in the course of the following essays. A brief history of term limits is warranted as a beginning.
Presidential Term Limits
Early Presidents adhered to a tradition of two terms until after the Civil War. According to the internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia: "Ulysses S. Grant sought a third term in office after serving from 1869 to 1877, but his party failed to nominate him. Theodore Roosevelt, who served from 1901 to 1909, sought to be elected in 1912 (non-consecutively) for a second time—he had succeeded to the presidency on William McKinley's assassination and already been elected in 1904 to a full term himself—but he lost to Woodrow Wilson. In 1940 Franklin Delano Roosevelt became the first person to be elected President three times, with supporters citing the war in Europe as a reason for breaking with precedent. In the 1944 election, during World War II, he won a fourth term, but died in office the following year." (1)
Presidential term limits were instituted with the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution, proposed in Congress in 1947 and ratified by the requisite number of states in 1951. The rationale at the time appears to have been the concern that one person could assume the position of an almost "benevolent dictator", without Constitutional limits to Presidential terms.
Such sentiment, however, assumes that human nature itself changes, and there occurs a complete and abject failure on the part of the citizenry. Such a scenario - that a President would assume dictatorial powers - is predicated upon either a most evil conspiracy or minimally the implicit approval of the other branches of government, both the Legislative and Judiciary. As each guards with extreme jealousy its Constitutionally-mandated sphere of power (and indeed experience would show that each branch seeks where possible to extend its influence beyond such limits), human nature therefore, to say nothing of a desire to uphold the Constitution, provides a sufficient guarantee that no one man could rise to such a station in a federal representative republic. But, if one can conjure up such a scenario - despite how chimerical it may seem - one still fails to account for the citizenry, who vote for the office every four years and exercise our Second Amendment Rights. Such a people, enamored with Liberty as we are, as a general rule can sense a charlatan when one comes before us, and even if elected, would not last in office for long. The number of one-term Presidents is evidence of the discernment of the American people: again, as a general rule, when a poor administrator comes along, his tenure in office is not long. Any discerning mind can propose exceptions to the rule, yet acknowledge that the existence of exceptions fails to invalidate the accepted generalization.
If such was the reasoning at the time - that one man might become de facto President for life, and therefore term-limits are necessary - upon what basis is it acceptable today that an error, merely because it has been endured for an extended period of time, should not be rectified? It is said that a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it the superficial appearance of being right. We trust that with inspection, a wise and energetic citizenry will cast aside superficial appearances.
Congressional Term Limits
Term limits, with respect to Congress, are more and more commonly a topic for discussion among supposedly thinking persons. Such a sentiment, again though well-intentioned, is folly born of experience and frustration at an unchanging force: I speak again of human nature.
When such a discussion comes up, the proponent invariably says: “Look at the Senator from Massachusetts, Edward Kennedy. He is Senator for life! How can this be, that he returns to office every election, when his moral character is so poor and his ideas so remarkably socialistic in nature?”
Other supporters of term limits focus on the corruption of Congress – rather than that body's actual or perceived ignorance – as the effect of unlimited public service. This argument assigns guilt to the system for the sins of public servants. This most common theme of proponents of term limits is summarized thus: term-limited public servants will somehow create legislators who are more upright, moral, and not prone to corruption. They will be insulated from the influence of lobbyists and faithful to the concerns of their constituents.
A Comprehensive Response to Correct Inaccurate Thinking
We will endeavor to show that term-limits in every form are poor policy. Term-limits conflict with Liberty; they encourage apathy and laziness and are inconsistent with self-government; term-limits exist already today in their right and proper form, yet remain unused; and term-limits create an inappropriate balance of power in our federal republic. All of these reasons will be proven through a review of experience and an understanding of human nature, rendering term-limits incompatible with the tenets of Americanism and Federalism.
Footnotes: (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Monday, May 15, 2006
Terms Limits a Well-Intentioned Nonsense
An idea that gets a lot of play is that of term limits for elected officials.
I hear it on talk radio a lot. You can see it on just about any discussion group or message board. When people really start quantifying the number of things wrong with our government, invariably someone will volunteer that maybe the solution is term-limits.
If you're in agreement with this idea, then I've hit my target audience perfectly, and I'll only require a little of your time. Sit back, relax, and let me share my views on the subject. You see, I think people who reflexively offer term limits as the solution aren't thinking.
Once you get beyond the rosy warm feeling you get when you think about Ted Kennedy working in the private sector, things don't hold up to any sort of deep examination. Term limits got their start thanks to none other than the Republican party. Allow me to go back, way back in time.
After General Washington served, there was a long-standing practice, really a precedent, that no President served longer than two terms. The founders considered the topic, but concluded that the specter - one man becoming like a king - was too chimerical to be taken seriously, and too insulting to the wisdom and energy of the American people.
And so it went until FDR. Unable to beat him, the GOP instituted Presidential term limits, and so we have the phenomenon of modern Presidencies. Presidents who serve two terms always have more productive and successful first terms. Returned to office for their stellar service, their second term becomes a battle as Congress generally asserts itself and becomes some degree of impediment to the President's agenda. Our current President has been impeded by Democrat enemies, the press, and leaky sources in his own administration, although this is not unique relative to other Presidents. Reagan had Iran-Contra in his second term, and low approval ratings. Clinton was impeached, although this was his own doing; I'm not sure that more needs to be said of Clinton. This creates an impression - a wrong one, I might add - that second terms are "lame duck" because that's just the way it is.
The dynamic between the Executive and the Legislative is the reason, not because second terms are inherently hamstrung. The unintended consequence of term limits is that the right and proper balance of power shifts - imperceptibly - creating this phenomenon. An energetic and active Executive is necessary for things as serious as the defense of the nation and as mundane as the proper functioning of the federal government.
Beyond the practical problem of term limits, there's a fundamental philosophical issue with it, namely: an infringement on the people's Liberty. Suppose there is a long and protracted war, much like the one we face against Islamic terror. Suppose again that the incumbent President was prosecuting this war with great success, such that our country didn't fear being attacked as much as right after the beginning of the conflict. Because of the term limit, that President will be asked to leave after his second term, thankyouverymuch, and on-the-job training begins for the new President. The People's right to elect whom they wish has been infringed.
Since Congress won't vote themselves term limits, there's an improper balance between the branches. Furthermore, experience has shown that congressional term limits are a bad idea too. I'll look into it further, but my recollection is that Nebraska has these in its Constitution (see: http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/1-03282006-632564.html), and faces the unique challenge of a majority of freshmen legislators, given its unicameral legislature.
True to my pen-name, I think that Presidential term limits should be abolished; this should be a part of any good and proper Federalist platform. So as not to appear to be a Bush apologist, I'd even suggest waiting until after he leaves office, or excluding him from eligibility.
I'll close with a suggestion to anyone who still thinks term limits would be a good idea: term limits exist today. It's called voting for someone else. Senator Kennedy, after all, hasn't suspended elections and named himself "Senator for Life." That the people of Massachusetts keep electing him is their choice, or fault, depending on how you look at it.
Your obedient and faithful servant,
A. Hamilton, aka The Monarchist
I hear it on talk radio a lot. You can see it on just about any discussion group or message board. When people really start quantifying the number of things wrong with our government, invariably someone will volunteer that maybe the solution is term-limits.
If you're in agreement with this idea, then I've hit my target audience perfectly, and I'll only require a little of your time. Sit back, relax, and let me share my views on the subject. You see, I think people who reflexively offer term limits as the solution aren't thinking.
Once you get beyond the rosy warm feeling you get when you think about Ted Kennedy working in the private sector, things don't hold up to any sort of deep examination. Term limits got their start thanks to none other than the Republican party. Allow me to go back, way back in time.
After General Washington served, there was a long-standing practice, really a precedent, that no President served longer than two terms. The founders considered the topic, but concluded that the specter - one man becoming like a king - was too chimerical to be taken seriously, and too insulting to the wisdom and energy of the American people.
And so it went until FDR. Unable to beat him, the GOP instituted Presidential term limits, and so we have the phenomenon of modern Presidencies. Presidents who serve two terms always have more productive and successful first terms. Returned to office for their stellar service, their second term becomes a battle as Congress generally asserts itself and becomes some degree of impediment to the President's agenda. Our current President has been impeded by Democrat enemies, the press, and leaky sources in his own administration, although this is not unique relative to other Presidents. Reagan had Iran-Contra in his second term, and low approval ratings. Clinton was impeached, although this was his own doing; I'm not sure that more needs to be said of Clinton. This creates an impression - a wrong one, I might add - that second terms are "lame duck" because that's just the way it is.
The dynamic between the Executive and the Legislative is the reason, not because second terms are inherently hamstrung. The unintended consequence of term limits is that the right and proper balance of power shifts - imperceptibly - creating this phenomenon. An energetic and active Executive is necessary for things as serious as the defense of the nation and as mundane as the proper functioning of the federal government.
Beyond the practical problem of term limits, there's a fundamental philosophical issue with it, namely: an infringement on the people's Liberty. Suppose there is a long and protracted war, much like the one we face against Islamic terror. Suppose again that the incumbent President was prosecuting this war with great success, such that our country didn't fear being attacked as much as right after the beginning of the conflict. Because of the term limit, that President will be asked to leave after his second term, thankyouverymuch, and on-the-job training begins for the new President. The People's right to elect whom they wish has been infringed.
Since Congress won't vote themselves term limits, there's an improper balance between the branches. Furthermore, experience has shown that congressional term limits are a bad idea too. I'll look into it further, but my recollection is that Nebraska has these in its Constitution (see: http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/1-03282006-632564.html), and faces the unique challenge of a majority of freshmen legislators, given its unicameral legislature.
True to my pen-name, I think that Presidential term limits should be abolished; this should be a part of any good and proper Federalist platform. So as not to appear to be a Bush apologist, I'd even suggest waiting until after he leaves office, or excluding him from eligibility.
I'll close with a suggestion to anyone who still thinks term limits would be a good idea: term limits exist today. It's called voting for someone else. Senator Kennedy, after all, hasn't suspended elections and named himself "Senator for Life." That the people of Massachusetts keep electing him is their choice, or fault, depending on how you look at it.
Your obedient and faithful servant,
A. Hamilton, aka The Monarchist
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Getting Started
I've toyed with this idea for some time, and have decided to finally - in the immortal words of some 5th Avenue genius - just do it.
Who is The Monarchist? Well, this was a bit of 18th century name-calling by the political opponents of probably one of the greatest of our Founders, Alexander Hamilton. Anyone who is familiar with his life and work would readily admit his status as a brilliant and gifted statesman, and a perfectly human and flawed individual. From time to time, I'll share some of the more interesting aspects of his life because, well, I can.
Secondly, this name is also fitting because I'm solidly opposed to Presidential term limits. A great thinker once wrote about the difference between that which is seen and that which is not seen. People will readily acknowledge the former (no one man can become like a king), but few recognize the latter (the people's liberty to vote for who they wish has been infringed). There's something inherently... incomplete with the thinking behind term limits. But I'll change my mind just as soon as Congress votes themselves term limits.
There's something else as well. Maybe it's just my two tyrant-heads, as the saying goes, but human nature never changes, and when people start calling you names, well, that's a good sign you're doing something right.
So, stop by and visit. I've got real-world responsibilities like most people do, and will update this as time permits. Oh yeah, and I should tell you what most of this blog is going to be about, right? American Federalism, which I consider a system of thought, belief, and action based on the founding principles of this Republic. That's a pretty broad stroke, I know, but that's the idea.
Who is The Monarchist? Well, this was a bit of 18th century name-calling by the political opponents of probably one of the greatest of our Founders, Alexander Hamilton. Anyone who is familiar with his life and work would readily admit his status as a brilliant and gifted statesman, and a perfectly human and flawed individual. From time to time, I'll share some of the more interesting aspects of his life because, well, I can.
Secondly, this name is also fitting because I'm solidly opposed to Presidential term limits. A great thinker once wrote about the difference between that which is seen and that which is not seen. People will readily acknowledge the former (no one man can become like a king), but few recognize the latter (the people's liberty to vote for who they wish has been infringed). There's something inherently... incomplete with the thinking behind term limits. But I'll change my mind just as soon as Congress votes themselves term limits.
There's something else as well. Maybe it's just my two tyrant-heads, as the saying goes, but human nature never changes, and when people start calling you names, well, that's a good sign you're doing something right.
So, stop by and visit. I've got real-world responsibilities like most people do, and will update this as time permits. Oh yeah, and I should tell you what most of this blog is going to be about, right? American Federalism, which I consider a system of thought, belief, and action based on the founding principles of this Republic. That's a pretty broad stroke, I know, but that's the idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
