🚀 go-pugleaf

On 30 Aug 1995, dogboy wrote:
> Claudia Lynch (lynch@unt.edu) wrote:
> > In article <41d5mq$qda@digdug.pencom.com>, robin@pencom.com wrote:

> > What people who support term limits don't seem to realize is that by
> > limiting ELECTED officials terms (although it is probably a moot point
> > anyway, since it seems to be really unconstitutional), you are allowing
> 
> Thats why it requires an ammendment.

But what are the chances of that being accomplished?

> > far more power to be in the hands of UNELECTED officials. All the
> > congressional aides, etc. who are hired to keep the place running, for
> > example.
> 
> The staff and aides are hired by /for the congressperson. When
> the congressperson, changes, the aides and staffs do too.
> Term limits would reduce, not increase the formal power held
> by these people. The goal IS to elminate entrenchment. 

Staff and aides may be hired by Congresspersons, but that is not
to say that they are not 'entrenched.'  Congressional staff is
often recycled, mostly for the benefits of having the experienced
workers needed for the everyday tasks involved with researching
legislation, etc.  Don't think that limiting Congressional terms
would create a huge turnover in these positions.  I agree with
Claudia.  It would lead to a greater reliance upon staffers and--
more importantly--lobbyists.

--------
Michael Williams
Georgetown University School of Foreign Service
williamf@gusun.acc.georgetown.edu
--------
"Now maybe I ought to just pick it up and go back to
 Little Rock.  Chuck it!"
                            --President Bill Clinton
                              August 5, 1994