Kicked this idea around before, but would always love more opinions: If the United States is at war (defining war in a way that would be effective is its own challenge), national elections for the President, the House, and the Senate are held every year. I generally think term limits are a silly concept, but its hard to imagine wed still be in Afghanistan, or would have even gone to Iraq if everyone was fair game to get voted out in a years time. The obvious con is that elections are extremely expensive, and would probably make any sort of reasonable campaign finance reform far more difficult to attain as a result. Itd be a huge pain in the ass to actually do this. The other possible con is it could always prevent military action. Rarely, but sometimes military action is justified, and, in some of those instances, the cause isnt going to be super popular. That might not be a bad thing, if youre an isolationist leaning individual, but the possibility is worth considering either way. This aspect is best ignored when discussing the merits of the concept, but its still worth noting that this would be near impossible to get passed. Hard to believe any modern president would be for this idea (best bet would probably be Carter on his way out), and even less likely to be supported by many members of congress. Outside of the Pelosis and Ron Pauls of the world (those in extremely safe districts where they basically are congressional dictators because theyre never losing an election in a two party system), any bill with this sort of language would almost certainly die in committee. Ive seen a lot of similar type ideas proposed from a wide variety of people, and the reasoning seems solid, but feel like there are some huge criticisms that Im not seeing.
Posted on: Wed, 04 Dec 2013 10:51:34 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015