Explain to a non-American why it makes sense to change Congress every two years!

I've talked to a couple of congressmen, and both told me the same thing, that they must spend 50% of their time fundraising due to the high cost of campaigns these days. That's 50% of a congressperson's time they could be devoted to improving the lives of Americans. I feel, either we extend their terms, or remove private money from campaign funding.

 

That was the original idea, but the forefathers were unable to predict how the high cost of campaigns these days has the practical effect of forcing congresspersons to spend, literally, 50% of their time fundraising for the next election.

so, given that reality, I'd say the 2 year term gives us, given modern circumstances, exactly half of productive time than we could get if we

1. Extended the term for 4 years, which would free up about 2 years of 100% productivity, OR.....
2. Remove private money from campaign costs.

 

I think the frequency of congressional elections now is the best mix of getting the corrupt out and having enough time for the legit to get stuff done between campaigning.

Congresspeople are like diapers in that they need to be changed frequently because of how quickly they tend to turn into shitbags.

 

Would an additional two years really make that much difference?

 

I don't see how it would improve anything. What we do need is term limits.

 

I forgot to post my usual waring of *sarcasm in play

Term limits, IMO, not only helps prevent corruption, but does provide fresh insight and ideas on how to address current problems. What a congressweasel does after they have left office in the private sector, is not within the voter's realm. I could expand in a number of directions with preventatives (no weasel may work as a lobbyist) but first and foremost, the embedded 'benefits' at the taxpayer expense is gravy for even the absolute worst of the lot.

 

Well it would improve stability wouldn't it? When the American people vote in a President, they should be able to get something from it. And I'm not sure how that's entirely realistic when things can be RADICALLY changed half way into a President's first term.

 

Only the important things, with wide support from the people - which was the intent.

 

What do you mean "wide support?"

 

Yes, I've always found it strange how the Secretaries are a bunch of random unelected folk. You would like Australia - our 'Ministers' ('Secretary' equivalent) are all elected members of our House of Representatives. Although, while you don't like that they're elected, you must surely like that the result is that they don't become 'career politicians.'

Sorry, which "features?"

Yes. I guess you just mean the staff in each Department, such as the DOD.

No. What a strange question!

 

Exactly, so there is no check and balance to keep the the Judiciary in line - the courts can basically do whatever they want, making whatever LAWS they want! Roe v Wade and Obergefel v Hodges come to mind! If courts have gone rogue, then it seems to me that your three branch system has failed in terms of checking and balancing - I'm not sure that there's any other way around it! Courts making laws simply doesn't happen in Australia or the UK to my knowledge.

 

Actually, in that way, having no term limits creates stability in a system which has the potential to be INSANELY unstable with the POTENTIAL to be radically changed every two years. What would seem to me to be a better system would be to have a four year term limit, but only have the elections every four years to coincide with the Presidential election. Then at least the President has a full term of stability to get things done, as the American people deserve when they vote in a President. A compromise might be to have eight year term limits elections every four years, so that after two election cycles there is a complete turnover.

 

Except that the system has failed, given that you have rogue courts which decide laws!

 

What is the alternative to be had in the united states? A system where the courts hold no power, no authority, are largely symbolic in nature, and cannot overturn bad legislation that the legislature itself will refuse to repeal even if the people oppose its passage?

 

Struth's explanation is spot-on.

I believe another significant reason why members of the House of Representatives are limited to two year terms and increased accountability to the people is their power to tax.

To understand this it's helpful to put the drafting of our Constitution in its historical context, thus it is important to remember that the American Revolution began as a revolt against the illegal taxes that the British Parliament imposed on the American colonists following the Seven Years War (we know the American theater of this war as the French and Indian War). These taxes, which were imposed on the Colonists without their representation and consent in Parliament, were intended to defray the expenses Britain incurred during the war and to fund the deployment of its troops in America after it. The trouble began with the Sugar Act of 1764 and escalated with the passage of the Stamp Act the following year. Things got increasingly worse upon the enactment of the Townshend Acts (1767-68 ), which included a new tax and measures designed to quell Colonial opposition to Parliament's taxes. In response to the Townshend Acts, John Dickinson, the so-called Penman of the Revolution, articulated the necessity of keeping the legislative body that was granted the power to tax the most accountable to the public in his famous Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania. It's an obscure topic to us today but back then it was prominent in everyone's minds. Consequently, when the Framers enacted the Constitution, they gave the members of the body that was granted the power to tax (the House of Representatives) the shortest term they deemed reasonably and practically possible - two years.

Another thing to remember here is that Dickinson and his colleagues didn't come up with this concept on their own. He learned it during his studies of British law and history at the Middle Temple in London and his fellow Americans picked it up from the British tradition, as well. It's really not an American construct, and this should not come as a surprise given that the Founders and Framers were British subjects most of their lives.

One may disagree with it, but the power to tax had a lot to do with the decision to limit members of the House to such a short term in office, and personally I'm fine with both the logic and the decision.

 

All correct. One thing of interest: Going along with the Convention of the States effort are proposed amendments that would term limit justices, and that would, with constraints and limitations, allow Congress or the state legislatures to overturn court rulings.

 

But instability -- read ineffectiveness -- is not all bad in governance. Like a hammer sees nothing but nails or a dentist sees nothing but cavities, a legislature sees nothing but passing laws and rules. The Arizona Daily Star, Tucson's newspaper, publishes (at least used to) the laws passed each session of the Arizona legislature. It usually is printed in small size font and takes up 2 or 3 full size pages. Texas, which does have its share of picayune laws and regulations, has a legislative session that is somewhat time limited and is held only every other year. They don't do a lot of harm passing laws, rules and regulations.

 

Good informative post.

 

Surrificnent support that meaningful numbers from both parties vote for it.

 

Both the executive and the legislature have checks against the judiciary, from funding, to the creation of lower courts, to the number justices appointed, to restricting their appellate jurisdiction, to re-issuing laws and executive orders that remain in effect until the judiciary overturns them.

And then, because the branches are co-equal, the legislature and executive can simply ignore the courts in certain cases.

 

There is a new house of representatives every two years but, unfortunately, the same names are on the doors. The senators have a six year term.

 

Thank you, Rod.

 

I didn't mention this in my previous post about term limits, but one could consider John Dickinson the Father of American Conservatism. Like his British counterpart Edmund Burke, Dickinson had a great respect for history, precedent and existing laws, traditions and institutions, and valued the lessons they taught us and how they could inform and safely guide human action.

Several years ago I took the time to read his Letters from a Farmer from Pennsylvania and I was blown away by Dickinson's brilliance. In an age full of geniuses he may have possessed the greatest intellect of them all, which is saying a lot.

 

It would make life easier for the members of the house. It would give those not likely to make a career of it two more years to plunder.

 

1) Selecting a Muppet like Rick Perry to run the Department of Energy is a pretty good example of a random appointment.

2) Features like I mention back in my first post on your thread, eh?

It is insanity....

Constitutionally Interlocked bicameral houses of congress and the executive supported by a full time federal bureaucracy of mind boggling scope that has become accepted as the backbone of both the legislature and the executive functions. Businesses are subject to CFR codes for example that are well beyond any explicit language passed into law by the congress and the president.

A two year freshman congress representative has little chance of making any kind of impact for his/her district, much, much less of a chance to make any change that his/her constituents would like to see made on behalf of the overall national interest.

3) Just out of curiosity I was able to find a great source that actually lists many of the civilian sector career federal professionals by name. You can even browse through the top 10% according to pay from every department of the US federal government.

Here for example is a list of the overall 100 top paid federal employees of 2018:

https://www.federalpay.org/employees/top-100

4) Apologies, but it is not a strange question given the methods I've seen some folks around here use in an attempt to support unsupportable arguments.