HOW ABOUT TERM LIMITS
ON LEGISLATORS?
[Feb 28, 2004]
AS WITH ALMOST ALL QUESTIONS, THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OUR LEGISLATURE SHOULD HAVE TERM LIMITS PLACED UPON IT HAS ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES.
THE MOST APPARENT ARGUMENT AGAINST TERM LIMITS IS THAT SHOULD A GENUINELY GOOD LEGISLATOR BE WORKING ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE, IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO GOOD GOVERNMENT TO FORCE THEM OUT AS LONG AS THEY ARE WILLING TO CONTINUE SERVING.
IN FAVOR OF TERM LIMITS IS THE ARGUMENT THAT EVENTUALLY A BAD LEGISLATOR WOULD HAVE TO LEAVE EVEN IF THEIR CONSTITUENTS WERE WILLING TO KEEP SENDING THEM BACK TO GOAT HILL. NOTE THAT THE WORD "EVENTUALLY" WAS DELIBERATELY CHOSEN , TO POINT OUT THAT EVEN THE SORRIEST LEGISLATOR EVER IMAGINED COULD CONTINUE TO CONTAMINATE GOAT HILL FOR SEVERAL YEARS UNTIL TERMS LIMITS FINALLY SENT THEM BACK TO THE ROCK THEY CRAWLED OUT FROM UNDER.
I DO NOT ENVISION TERM LIMITS AS PANACEA FOR A BAD LEGISLATURE; BUT AS ONLY A MINOR INEFFECTIVE REMEDY BEING USED IN A DOOMED ATTEMPT TO TREAT A CANCER ON OUR GOVERNMENT.
WOULD HAVING TERM LIMITS INSURE HAVING A BETTER STATE GOVERNMENT?
NO.
THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF TERM LIMITS IS THE WEAKER ARGUMENT.
THE KEY TO HAVING A BETTER GOVERNMENT IS CALLED THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM [I&R] PROCESS.
IF ALABAMIANS WANT BETTER GOVERNMENT THEY MUST DEMAND THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO MAKE ALABAMA THE 25TH STATE TO HAVE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM FOR THEMSELVES, AND THEY DESPERATELY NEED A LEADER TO UNITE THE VOTERS AND LEAD THEM IN THAT EFFORT.