The Triumph of Term Limits?

term limits are the people's way of assuring that no 'MACHINE POLITICS" gets started.

look what the kennedy's did for mass.

The only known "triumph" for term limits in the Michigan Legislature is that term limits succeeded in replacing the occupants of more than 40% of House seats by filling them with new bodies.

The real test of a "triumph" for term limits is whether this results in better representation and better legislation for the Michigan citizenry at large.  It is far too early to tell (one day into the new legislative session) if this latest turnover will deliver that benefit.  The history of turnover by term limit in Michigan is not at all promising in that regard.

sane...

can you say that keeping all those present legislators in office for twelve or more years would definately result in superior representation???

obviously not, or the people wouldn't have voted that way.

There is something inherently anti-American about term limits.

Democracy is stiffled when you "limit"  it !!

You want "term limits" ???

Get your butt out and ...........VOTE !!!

Term limits have caused change in the identity of seat warmers who vote on bills in the legislature,  But they have done nothing to change the influence peddlers who make up a significant element of the Lansing political class and community.

The influence of lobbyists who represent various special interests has been substantially strengthened rather than weakened by term limits.  Ordinary citizens and their interests are left out in the cold more than ever.

Term limits is anything but a "triumph" for ordinary Michiganders.

term limits simply act as a protest against crony government.  the theory being that if 'fresh faces' are introduced every so often, the lobbyists will have to become 'aquainted' with every new politician every few years.

long term relationships profitable to the lobbyists are hard to establish, and cronyism is reduced.

now, if there IS a group that should be controlled, and made more TRANSPARENT, it is the lobbyists.

their expenditures should be listed individually, and immediately.

by all rights, we should be able to pick a GOOD MAN and keep him around in government for as long as he will have the will to run for it, but the reality of the situation is that after a while, even the most idealistic representatives fall prey to the big money of powerful lobbiests, and give up representing their voter's interest, and take up representing their lobbyists interests.

Face it guys.  Term limits are not a triumph for the people of Michigan.

They sure look like a triumph for the special interests and lobbyists, though.

But for the plain folks, they are a flop.  A disaster.  A lousy experiment that turned out wrong.  

perhaps so, sane...

but they are a failed experiment that the people voted for.

and there is nothing unamerican about that.

Public opinion surveys frequently demonstrate that the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution would not be approved by today's voters.  The reason?  The Bill of Rights provides too much personal freedom.

Just for fun, let's put the US Constitution's Second Amendment up for popular vote, to see if it could be approved today.  Or, what about the Fourth or Fifth Amendments?  Or even the First?

Point is, simply because a majority of people vote to approve something like term limits doesn't make it a good idea, or a concept that matches up to fundamental, traditional American ideals.

Face it, guys.  Term limits may have "triumphed" in November by resulting in the replacement of more than 40% of Michigan House members.  But crowing about that obscures the real question:  Did Michigan's citizens triumph in that election by getting better representation in their legislature?

Only time will give us the actual answer to that.  But if history gives us a peek at what is likely to happen in the future, term limits again will prove to be a bust from the only perspective that counts..  

george washington started the idea of term limits, and the idea has lasted this long. he VOLUNTARILY stepped down after two terms, a person who would have been voted king if he wished it.

how do you define GOOD FOR THE PEOPLE?

is it the amount of social programs passed?

is it the amount of DO NOTHING LAWS passed?

is it the amount of RESTRICTIVE REGULATIONS passed?

is it the amount of NEW TAXES passed?

or is it the REFUSAL TO WRITE BAD LAWS???

Prove to us that term limits have been good for Michigan.  

Have they prevented the state's economy from going in the tank?  No.

Have they shown the way to overcoming structural problems with the state budget?  No.

Have they given us a safer, more livable Michigan?  No.

Term limits really have accomplished nothing of value for the people of the state.  What they have done is limit the people's options in sending elected officials of their own choosing to represent their interests in Lansing.  

At the same time, the stranglehold of special interests and political parties on the throat of Michigan governance has only been strengthened by term limits.  The ordinary people of the state, who foot the bill and pay the price for feckless government have been ill served by a terrible experiment in restricting democratic processes.  

perhaps the triumph of term limits is not visible from the left side of the isle.

the triumph of term limits is that the politician must earn the trust of the people by doing the right thing. notice that they DO NOT preclude a politician from being re-elected after sitting out a single term. so that politicians who have EARNED THE TRUST OF THE PEOPLE will be re-elected for further service.

so far, i've seen very few politicians re-elected in such a manner.

[“the triumph of term limits is that the politician must earn the trust of the people by doing the right thing. notice that they DO NOT preclude a politician from being re-elected after sitting out a single term. so that politicians who have EARNED THE TRUST OF THE PEOPLE will be re-elected for further service.”]

That must be a joke.  But I am not laughing.

Here is the actual language applicable to legislative term limits in Michigan:

Article IV, Sec. 54; Michigan Constitution

“No person shall be elected to the office of state representative more than three times. No person shall be elected to the office of state senate more than two times. Any person appointed or elected to fill a vacancy in the house of representatives or the state senate for a period greater than one half of a term of such office, shall be considered to have been elected to serve one time in that office for purposes of this section. This limitation on the number of times a person shall be elected to office shall apply to terms of office beginning on or after January 1, 1993.

“This section shall be self-executing. Legislation may be enacted to facilitate operation of this section, but no law shall limit or restrict the application of this section. If any part of this section is held to be invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining parts of this section shall not be affected but will remain in full force and effect.”

Restrictions on election to executive branch offices are comparable.

All term limits actually have accomplished in Michigan is to restrict the choices people have in electing the people they prefer to hold office in Lansing.  

As noted above, term limits have not kept the Michigan economy out of the dumper.

Term limits have not delivered solutions to correct structural deficits in the state budget.

Term limits have not made Michigan a safer, more hospitable and habitable place in which to live.

Any of those three things would have benefitted ordinary Michiganders had they been accomplished since term limits were imposed.  But they have not been accomplished.  At best, we have the same old stuff, just different sessions, and a state government unduly influenced by entrenched special interests and partisan hacks.

Show me one demonstrably positive thing term limits have done to really benefit Michiganders at large.  Not something based on theory or imagination, but actual accomplishment – something that demonstrably would not have happened without term limits – documented with real and pertinent facts.

I am open minded enough to give the current crop of legislators a chance to get it right and prove to me that term limits really do improve the quality of governance in our state.  But history does not encourage me to have high expectations.

It's not as good as a part time legislature but it'll have to do for now.

We need to change it so that they can't just run for a different office. This country was set up for citizens to get elected, do what they can and then go back to productive work. The public schools have so destroyed education that half of the public is so uninformed that they just vote for familiar names.

The system is flawed......The average Joe cannot even attempt to run for a political office......Now you have to be quite wealthy to do so.........serving as a state senator or to hold any public office should be set up like jury duty......You get picked, you serve your term, you are done. But you MUST be a native born American citizen!

    NOT A CANOOK

Help, I've been informed and I can't become igrnoant.

There is nothing iaelgll about keeping those cards, for as long as you can afford to pay your monthly dues. But you can request the bank to convert the same into a personal account  because  it can be done that way as well. Canceling that card is also an option, but doing that you will have to pay the total  existing obligation because a credit card company will never work on your request if the balance have not been zeroed out. Your card cancellation with them, however, will have the effect of barring you  from any future re-application. But there are other banks,so it's not a big deal.

tt10JT wow, awesome article post.Much thanks again.