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

There's still a new Senate every two years. That's my point.

 

And is that a good thing or a bad thing?

 

No. The Senate doesn't have a term. The senators have a six year term. Most of them are reelected term after term. I believe we need a single term limit for all political offices. But nobody agrees with me. I have disdain for the idea of making a career out of politics.

 

True. The Court has assumed power and authority that the Constitution does not grant them. Although it is usually done under the cloak of constitutionality by interpreting certain sections and phrases as more expansive than they were intended.

 

A top government official ensconced in position for a long time is normally not a good thing.

 

The term is two years. That doesn't preclude them from being reelected. So, no, that wasn't the meaning there.

 

The cases you cite arose under state,not federal law.

 

Yes, but surely there are SOME seats which switch after every election. When was the last time that zero seats changed?

Actually, just about every single contributor to this thread agrees with you on that! Haven't you noticed?

 

Then why the hell was SCOTUS involved?

 

The appeals process.

 

Not without chose who introduced and voted on said bad legislation to begin with, decide to undo what they or a previous congress did and present legislation to achieve such a goal. And such rarely if ever happens.

 

So why the hell don't the courts need those "who introduced and voted on said bad legislation to begin with, decide to undo what they or a previous congress did and present legislation to achieve such a goal?"

 

Yes, but why weren't the appeals restricted to the STATE where it all began? At some point it crossed over to the Federal side.

 

And with Secretaries often changing every five minutes, they're on the opposite end of the spectrum to Congress people with one thousand year tenures. And that's surely not a good thing either.

 

Well then how in the hell were they able to assume power?

 

What reason for existence would the judicial branch of government have in such a situation? What would the purpose be in even having three separate branches of government if it only needs two?

 

Because the framers put no real checks on the supreme court thinking the court was a very weak sister to begin with -- in a brief and uncommon lapse of brain function. So as it turns out there is virtually nothing the legislative or executive branches can do to the court, other than the indirect impeachment process, and that cannot be done over bad rulings, only bad behavior, and it still would not alter any rulings. This is one of the reasons, IMO, the proposed amendment that, with limitations, lets a super majority of state legislatures or congress overturn court rulings is so vital.

 

Changing Secretaries every 5 minutes would be very inefficient, but you cannot under any circumstances limit what the president can do with principle officers in his administration.

 

Good question. No law, state, federal, or local, can go against the Constitution, so any party with standing can file a suit against any law they think is unconstitutional. If the suit is filed in a State Court it can still be appealed to a federal District, Appeals, or the Supreme Court.

You open another big can of worms however. That is whether or why for instance a suit filed in California by Californians but gets appealed to a federal District (or eventually Appeals or Supreme), that federal court's ruling should apply to anyplace other than within the District Courts jurisdiction. Yet this happens frequently. A federal district court with jurisdiction within the San Francisco area makes a ruling that then gets applied to the entire U.S. For example, if that District judge rules that nobody can sell black colored pencils, that can (but not always) mean that nobody in the U.S. can sell black colored pencils. This gives District judges enormous power that was not contemplated in the Constitution.

 

When the state potentially violates the right of an individual under the US constitution, it goes to a federal court.
And even if it did stay in the state court system, the ruling of the state supreme can be appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

I know that the Supreme Court pick and chose what cases they hear. Do you know what led to the Supreme Court deciding to hear the Obergefel and Roe v Wade cases?

 

I've seen a few posters address how public service wasn't meant to be lifelong career.

If most agree with that, why is it not an issue to limit the terms of service?

 

No, not really, but they were cases with widespread and strong public appeal.

 

IMO, almost all voters think others' Representatives and Senators probably should be term limited, but not their own Representative and Senator.

 

Yes.