In any crisis it is human nature to make bad choices. The more dire people believe the crisis is, the more expedient the decision is to make. They think about the quickest way to alleviate a perceived problem more than they do the long term consequences. In a crisis where time is limited, they feel like it is most pertinent to act now and in doing so, more often times than not, it doesn't allow much time for thinking, especially critically . Is the idea of supporting Term limits just that sort of decision? I believe it is. As a matter of fact many decisions this country makes are based on crisis (as well as conspiracy) not on wisdom.
When you make decisions what do you personally base your decisions on? Is the process you use make to make serious decisions the same as going buy a cheeseburger or perhaps a television? What about marriage or having children? It seems to me that many people have confused the critical thinking processes to think that changes in our constitution should be more like buying a cheeseburger than getting married or having children. Instead of saying "if it feels good do it," we say "if it sounds good do it" without even bothering to think critically about the consequences of those decisions.
I am no fan of Term Limits and there are reasons why. I know those that support them also say they have their reasons. It isn't that I don't understand why they feel that way, as a matter of fact I do too but how do the two compare?
If one supports Term Limits and they use phrases like "We can't just do nothing!" or use the name Nancy Pelosi to make their point, and that is all they have, I would say that their decisions are extremely short-sighted and emotionally-driven or are based on ignorance or all of the above but I do understand the emotional drive because neither of us want to lose our country.
If I were to argue that I opposed Term Limits, or anything else for that matter, the first question I would ask myself is if what I am supporting is Constitutional. The next thing I would ask is would our Founder's have supported them? I may further ask, is it Biblical, or who would it hurt or who would benefit, maybe who would be empowered by the decision I made but in no instance would I be so quick to make a decision of this magnitude on a whim just because it may sound good. As I recall being told by the Serpent that "we will not surely die when eating of the tree of good and evil" sure sounded good didn't it?
I talk to many people that call themselves American Patriots, they love God, The Constitution and the Principles of Freedom but...they support things like Term Limits? Why?
To me, it is simple, if I am a Christian, there are certain requirements to claim to be something: One is to love God and the other is to love thy neighbor. Although we all fall short, we should, in that case acknowledge when we fall short and at least agree that attempting to support the Bible and live as Christ did is a basic tenant.
If I call myself an American Patriot, I also believe there are certain things that are required: One is a love of country, maybe a love of God as the Creator and certainly the Constitution and our other Founding Documents. I think it would also be fair to say as Patriots with a reverence of our Constitution, we should acknowledge the wisdom of our Founders and be very very careful when making decisions that are in direct contradiction to what they intended for our Constitution. We should at least take the time to understand why they made the decisions they did before just haphazardly doing what they warned us not to but in America today it seems that we are not interested in learning the mistakes of history, we would rather just go it alone and this is where the danger is and this direction is not the direction for the restoration we all want, it will instead lead to our demise.
Many Patriots "Support Our Troops" as if sending them into undeclared wars under UN command is patriotic because it is a feeling and no one wants their feelings to be challenged especially if those feelings are in contradiction to what you say you are supporting but is doing so living a lie?
Whether it be Term Limits or American troops in "war" Patriots are funny in that although they claim to have love of country and God and our constitution, they are willing to side-step it if the feeling is strong enough. I mean, if our government has defined and declared an enemy, we should fight right? No matter who's command we are under or for how long? Term Limits or supporting a state's application for an Article 5 convention is the same way in that it doesn't matter what the Founders intent was for either or if they were constitutional or not, "if it sounds good, do it!"
It seems to be that our Founders also told us that we have the government we deserve by what we would be willing to tolerate and that the government we had would exemplify the moral and educational actions of the people. If the people be ignorant, or arrogant or corrupt, the government would also be those things. Today the people want to look at founding ideas or look to the written document or a way around that written document to find solutions, there really is no consistency either and many times they don't even look and think that certain ideas will accomplish the desired goal and they don't realize they won't. The solution that escapes most is individual, concerted, consistent action. The federal government has certain powers and so do the states and the People. The People cannot expect at any time to think that words on paper have any enforcement because if that were true we would have no need for law enforcement because we surely have enough laws on the books today! Could my statements be any more clear when the actions of the government continually side-stepping the constitution for a "crisis de jure" are the same as the people's willingness to do do so to "rein them in?"
The answer is found in our history and the wisdom is in and surrounded by our Founding documents and the answers to war, term limits and controlling an out of control government are all there, what we really need is people to be educated enough to understand that fact.
The answer to war isn't the UN, the answer to an out of control government isn't supporting a Constitutional convention or term limits, support for all of these are based on feelings.
As it pertains to Term Limits consider the following, then ask yourself if you think in your position you know more than the Founders did about human nature, forms of government and philosophy and ask yourself if you have the humility to consider the wisdom based on the Founder's decisions before you base your decisions on mere feelings.
On this issue Alexander Hamilton said: “Nothing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more ill-founded upon close inspection.”9 The Constitution does not establish term limits for the simple reason that the Continental Congress had already had term limits and they did not work. Why? Because term limits gave the country a perpetual lame duck Congress. Under term limits a politician knew he would never have to stand for re-election; consequently, if the man was prone to corruption, he got his corruption over with in a hurry.
During the 1787 Convention, Gouverneur Morris objected to a proposed term limits clause by pointing out that, “The ineligibility proposed by the clause as it stood tended to destroy the great motive to good behavior, the hope of being rewarded by a re-appointment. It was saying to him ‘make hay while the sun shines.’” 10
Deputy Roger Sherman added that, “Frequent elections are necessary to preserve the good behavior of rulers. They also give permanency to the government by preserving that good behavior because it ensures their re-election…. In Connecticut we have existed 132 years under an annual government, and as long as a man behaves himself well, he is never turned out of office.”11
When you have an uninformed electorate, What happens when you remove "corrupt politician's" from their office? Who will you replace them with? I argue the same type of people you will be removing based partly on your ignorance and the other part upon the fact that many that run are not well known and if all that is needed is to sweet-talk the voting base, its like Russian Roulette where you find out after the fact. No republic can be maintained or restored with such unknown variables.
The con-con promoters study the same documents we study; therefore, we know that they know that term limits is a phony issue. They cling to the term limits ruse apparently because the idea has appeal and looks “plausible at first sight.” Has anyone asked if this was in some way related to the conspiracy to render the Constitution powerless?
The facts are these...the greatest term limit device ever invented is the ballot box. What people really want when they support term Limits is an educated electorate, actually one where those they elect know more than those that elected them. If this were not true, people would know more than they do and understand the importance of holding government accountable but they don't. Additionally, how can they desire others to be educated when they themselves are in need of the same education and if it is true that the government we have is that which the people deserve?
Changes to our Constitution should not be based on feelings or ignorance, they should be based on history, and mindset of those that created it.
Comments