Let's give them something to think about…posted by Bill Arnett @ 3:34 PM Permalink …since no one seems to be much of a thinker these days (although I think I think and therefor I think I am). Fr'instance, take a look at this and examine it using the normal standards that words mean what the common man understands them to mean or as a dictionary defines them and, second, that within the context of legal documents the presumption is that the writer stated exactly what he or she intended.
Bearing this in mind, I would kindly refer the reader to two provisions of the United States Constitution that, at least to me, seem to comport with the idea of "citizen legislators" who would serve a brief term in the House or Senate then return to their home states to again become an inhabitant of that state, and thus eligible to, at a future date, again run for a Constitutional Office.
I know that much derision and scorn will likely be heaped upon me for having the audacity to point out these simple words and the logically simple result of those words.
From the official version of the Constitution as recognized by the Legislative Branch:
Section 2, Clause 2: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.Keeping in mind the standards that ordinary words denote their ordinary meaning and that the writer(s) of a legal document have stated exactly what they wish to state, It seems perfectly clear that upon election a Representative or Senator is no longer an inhabitant of the state from which he or she was chosen and therefore cannot run again for office from or for that state until such time as he or she has returned to their state as ordinary citizens and reestablished their status as an inhabitant of that state.
Section 3, Clause 3:No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.
This comports with the expressed ideal of "citizen legislators" who serve their term and then must return to their state for whatever period of time that state has ruled sufficient to establish inhabitancy. This cessation of inhabitancy upon election would seem, perforce, to render unnecessary any need for "term limits" as the non-inhabitant officeholder would have to leave their elected position and reestablish their inhabitancy in a state to again be eligible to run for office, allowing for the constant refreshing of the Legislative bodies since only an inhabitant of a state may run for public office and that inhabitancy is removed, destroyed, eliminated, rendered null, and no longer exists after election.
This simple interpretation of the plain words used would also eliminate the domineering influence of Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Corporations, and Big Anything or Anyone wealthy enough to buy a politician with their money, influence, lobbyists, power or any other inducement.
The republicans have long demanded "strict interpretation" judges that would decide issues within the four corners of that most precious and inspiring document ever written, to date, by mere men whom, though they be flawed and subject to the same influences, corruption, and corruptors, nonetheless wrote a document to eliminate Kings, those who would be King by the gathering of sycophants and the use of the wealth and influence of those who would corrupt government for their own end.
I say: LET'S DO IT and end forever the titular fiefdoms and corrupt bases of power that are inevitably constructed by men who have come to view it as their right to remain in the Legislative Branch for thirty or forty years and accumulate Midas-like wealth from their patronage to the wealthy desiring ever greater wealth and the benefits of that wealth that is, in turn, shared with the patron.
How is it that every single member of the Senate is a multi-millionaire when leaving office if not when entering it? (A superfluous and rhetorical question.)
Let's think for a change about what our Constitution actually says. I welcome challenges based upon the terms of the Constitution itself, not those based on illogic, or just stating I am wrong without some basis in fact bearing in mind what this document says. Calling my names, stating, "Our current system is the way it has always been done…", etc. will receive no recognition nor bear any weight as a valid argument.
Ciao, bella âmi.
Please Note: I modified the first paragraph to hopefully promote a better understanding of what I meant to say.