Issues To Vote On

While casting about for something to write today I began thinking about what issues are important to me. There are many political subjects I am interested in, but not always new material to write about. Sometimes there is discussion worth following that I don’t feel I have anything to add (like the current warm-fuzzies coming from the “let’s move on from referendum 1” discussion). Other times the news is truly dead or full of things I have no interest in. At those times I have subjects that I am interested in, but I am looking to discuss the issues and not just pontificate in a vacuum. The question is, what should I discuss that other people are interested in?

The answer seemed obvious – ask.

If I were talking about what modifications to our primary election system who would be interested? What if I were talking about the value of term limits for elected officials?

Based on past experience there seems to be some interest in those subjects, but I would like to hear whether others think those are worth discussing and would be interested in participating in such a discussion. Please let me know which of these would interest you – “both” and “neither”
are perfectly valid answers.

About David

David is the father of 8 extremely organized children (4 girls / 4 boys) who is constantly seeking answers to tough questions related to parenting, education and politics while moonlighting for 40 hours each week as a technology professional. He also enjoys cooking, gardening, and sports.
This entry was posted in meta, politics and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.


11 Responses to Issues To Vote On

  1. Lewis Walsh says:

    No question, Congressional term limits. We know that entrenched power becomes evil very quickly. Term limits a can be an effective antidote, but how to get it done. Constitutional Convention, legislative enactment? Let us not be ridiculous.

    Legislators are unlikely to approve any action that would limit terms of office. And, if such a law were to pass, the Supreme Court is likely to strike it down. We can clean up the mess in Washington only if we individually take action to limit congressional terms. The most negatively skillful of the permanent political class and their allies can not stop action taken by the Six Years and Out movement because it is citizen imposed; we need no legal or judicial concurrence.

    Six Years and Out, The Pledge:

    With the recognition that there are huge numbers of intelligent, talented and qualified citizens who are prepared to limit their public service. I hereby pledge that I will not vote a second term for any United States Senator and no more three terms for any United States Congressman.

  2. David says:

    That is interesting. Without universal term limits there would be disadvantages for areas where people consistently went with Six Years and Out.

    Why do you think the supreme court would strike down a term limit law? We have term limits for the president, why not others?

  3. Jason Black says:

    In Missouri, where we have legislative term limits, it was brought about by the voters. Enough signatures were applied to petitions to get the initiative on the ballot for a direct vote from the people. The legislature did everything in their power to oppose and stop the term-limit law from passing. Too bad for them it passed 3 to 1. There are 15 other states that also have legislative term limits. If you live in a state that doesn’t have legislative term limits, find out how to push for it. Take a look at USTL (US Term Limits)

  4. David says:

    Thanks for that link Jason. I can just imagine if another 20 states adopted term limits and then we made a term limit law for the federal government.

  5. Lewis Walsh says:


    There are disadvantages to all human endeavor. You should be asking yourself what is better; some doubtful disadvantage to some not known group somewhere or a known quantity of corruption and pay-to-play politics where citizen’s wishes are meaningless and Americans have become a laughing stock throughout the world.

    By the way, the Supreme Court is part and parcel of a systemic problem. How do you think they were appointed by immaculate conception?

    You may find my article Prelude to Tyranny of interest. It can be viewed at:

  6. David says:

    That was an interesting read. (Those who are interested can click here to go directly to that article.) I did not notice any commentary related to the Supreme Court so I still wonder why they would strike down a term limit law.

  7. Lewis Walsh says:


    Apparently, you found my previous comment regarding the Supreme Court wanting for details. In addition to the fact that their tenures come about distilled through a disfunctional electoral process – remember these people are confirmed by the permanent political class – their discissions appear to have nothing at all to do with the Constitution; in other words, they are very contemporaniously political.

    After they stripped Florida of the state’s right to manage its own election process during the 2004, no one could possibly believe that the Court is a-political. There is absolutely no provision in the Constitution that allowed for the userption of state legal process by this Court. What the Supreme Court does is decide what best in their opinions for country (elite group, then it tried to find law to support their decissions.

  8. David says:

    I agree that we have ample evidence that they are not apolitical, but does that mean that they would strike down a term limit law when there is already a precedent for such a law in the Constitution?

  9. Lewis Walsh says:

    Sorry David, my previous comment was sent accidentally before I could revise and do an appropriate edit. Nonetheless, the message does deliver the substance of my thinking.

    Here is my direct answer to your simple and direct question: The Court is conservative to reactionary. It will decide issues in the best interest of their class (the ruling class). I don’t think that any provision in the Constitution will deter them from that, as amply demonstrated in 2004. Congressional term limits are a threat to the permanent political structure of the United States. I cannot say with certainty that they would strike down a term limits law; again, you must remember, they did go to the extreme in 2004 in protecting elitist prerogatives and, remember, I did say likely, I did not say certainly. I think the Court’s record indicates that indeed it is likely. Even if you have further difficulty in evaluating my position, I don’t think that there is anything more that I could add, you will need to consult with someone older and wiser than I am.

  10. David says:

    I don’t think that we would have to worry about what the Supreme Court would say about a term limit law until we have figured out how to promote and pass such a law. How the Supreme Court can or will react will differ depending on our approach. For example, if we could push it through as another amendment then the court would have no opportunity to strike it down.

  11. Pingback: David Miller » Blog Archive » Term Limits

Comments are closed.

Loading Facebook Comments ...