Often, no. Example: when the Tea Party came to power in New Hampshire in 2012 it brought in a bunch of fresh faces who basically brought the legislature to a standstill and destroyed the mostly-civil atmosphere that had previously dominated state politics.
Throwing the whole group out every 4 years would mean losing institutional knowledge, with each new generation having to re-learn how to legislate from scratch.
The framers believed that the House was naturally less enlightened but more representative of the people in contrast to the elite Senators, who were assumed to be wealthy and educated. However, the framers never imagined that weâd develop a professional group of elected representatives so dependant upon other peopleâs money. I think they assumed everyone would take their turn and move on.
Term limits could help by keeping the Representatives to six two-year terms, and then members of Senate would be limited to two terms. This Amendment may have more than a snowballâs chance in hell to pass (but, god, itâs still an uphill battle), but I think it has a better chance of passing than rewriting Article I.
Good point - but was that inexperience or clashing ideologies? Seems to me if a person is unyielding or willing to compromise, it wouldnât matter if they were rookies or not.
Conversely, had they been new law makers with different attitudes, wouldnât you think the results would be different?
I agree there is a certain amount of efficiency and knowing where to grease the wheels that comes with experience. And all that is good if it is in the peoplesâ best interests. But how do we prevent the secret deals, buddy deals, and self serving deals law makers are prone to?
Agree.
But you canât âtweakâ the Constitution; you amend it.
I donât think that you can do both.
Exactly. And thatâs the conundrum.
I think massive monetary campaign finance reform is the best way to combat this. Unfortunately, no elected Congressperson is willing to introduce an amendment to limit and reform contributions because they need votes from their peers. And why would they? Itâs a interesting job that has a lot of perks.
Canât the prez just mint and deposit a trillion dollar coin in the US Treasury and get someone to sponser a bill called âbigger stickâ wherein we just reform campaign finance through the back door?
Let Congress vote to give themselves a fuckload of money. As much as they want.
Iâd rather have pre-bought shills working for the taxpayers than have congresspeople kissing the ass of everyone in their districts making over a million, scrounging for pocket change.
Therein lies another problem. An elected person would want the people he/she trust advising them. Also, the people elected the âLinda Smithâ not the advisors.
Perhaps itâs a good thing that video phones havenât taken over. Imagine Ted Cruz trying to look like this:
yes, grey eminences are reality and restricting terms for elected will make the emergence of governance by the second row more likely
Right - itâs an amendment, not a gutting.
Eh - yes to a degree. I think if we had a mentor system and like I said experienced staff it would go a long way. Remember a rookie congressperson is not a rookie in life. Someone who has been around the block may have good communication ro negotiation skills.
And having advisors or mentors doesnât make them a puppet. I mean now they have handler that are like, you have to go raise money now, you have to goto the floor now, you need to meet with Sen. Cartwright Wednesday. Etc. People to answer their questions and direct them on how the process works doesnât mean they are controlling them are overly shaping their opinions.
I missed this the first time, or did you add it? Is that what you call the current mess? Institutional knowledge? Why would it be really lost? Like I sad, a mentor system, a manual on the process, etc. We have the largest pool of knowledge and the broadest ability to share it in the history of mankind. Is the fact that Mr. Smith likes Asian hookers and blow they key to getting your legislation passed?
Speaking of passing legislation, how about all the experienced people who hardly make or pass any bills. I mean Sanders had just 3 bills signed into law, out of the 353 he put his name on (not necessarily writing). Wow that is dismal. And I am not really bagging too much on Sanders, as while his pass rate is low, a high pass rate isnât that much higher. I dunno, I am not sure they they know how to legislate either.
So far as I can tell, itâs 3 out of 353 that he introduced. Apparently Clinton managed 3 out of 409 that she introduced. That total doesnât include ones theyâve cosponsored.
Cruz has managed 1 out of 57, apparently. Rubio was 1 for 106, Paul 0 for 141.
I just think thatâs representative of how few bills become law on top of how dysfunctional and partisan congress is, mostly. Do we really want lots more new laws being passed, anyway?
Next time you talk to a lab scientist, ask her how much of her time is spent writing grant applications. And how much of the rest of her time is doing other things to keep the lab running that arenât actually science.
I think rookies are mentored by other experienced lawmakers. I also think experienced staff makes the moves around capitol hill anyway. Iâm almost positive that a newly elected lawmaker doesnât arrive with a friend or a relative as their main legislative assistant.
My issue was the reliance of this other staff, you know the readers, the researchers, PR, whoever else the rookie lawmaker is pressed upon using by either his mentor, the party, or the current speaker. We elect a person to make decisions, not the other way around. The bottom line is that a new legislator needs to feel comfortable.
Greasing the wheels, secret deals is part and parcel of doing deals on Capitol Hill. My comment had to do with naivety; a rookie doesnât know how to exactly make the deal until theyâve been seasoned (IDK, maybe three months+). I would want my elected rep to make the deal, not legislative aide Tad, who was made his way in from a mentorâs office.
Right - which is why I said this isnât really bagging on Sanders, as even people with GOOD records arenât that much better.
No not really, but even those that passed were like renaming Post offices and other really non-important things.
I think it involves tapping your toe into a bathroom stall, doesnât it?
Which would be different from the present situation how, exactly?
We have an unusually inactive Congress for the last eight years and I think itâs pretty high in this respect, actually.
Bills are introduced, then often tabled for lots of different reasons. Everything starts in committee and/or subcommittee. Many of the sessions are legislative proclamations, etc., like the one Sen. Boxer introduced for my mom when she died (she was very active volunteer before and after retirement, former wwii army nurse, and a five-time elected hospital board memberâŚjust to toot her horn!).
Also, quality over quantity. Iâm not sure that having laws and acts passed left and right is actually a plus. Take a look at the federal statutes/laws. (I kind of think ignorance of the law should be defense with respect to federal laws.)
Yes, that may be one reason to purge that âinstitutional knowledgeâ that @Brainspore was talking about.
Lots of people would like to fight fair, but nobody trusts their opponent to.
Being the only one that decides to fight fair just sucks
