Term Limits; Lounge Chair for Apathy

The Citizens of Nebraska have voted for term limits at General Election several times in the last 10 years. Previous attempts by the voting Public have been rebuffed by the courts, and it looks like the issue will be back before the Nebraska Supreme Court in the next few months.

Under the term limit statute several State Senators are serving their final term in the Unicameral. One Senator in particular (No it is not Ernie Chambers, but he is thinking about it) filed a petition to run for re-election and was denied by the powers that be under the term limit statute. This Senator knew he would be denied the opportunity to run again and has a prepared lawsuit to challenge the Constitutionality of the term limit statute.

Note: The names of the parties are not important, and that information can found just about anywhere. It doesn't matter who is suing who over the statute, the question is; Is it Constitutional?

Term limits on the surface may seem like a good idea, but in my reality it is not.

People of voting age have gotten continuely apathetic about who it is that represents them since the end or World War II. Without a doubt there have been some fairly incompetant people elected to higher office in the last sixty years, from both parties.

The answer to this seems to be; We're to busy to vote so we will limit the time they have to slop at the public trough and all will be well.

How's that for apathy??

Some scumbag politico gets elected and we don't have to worry about voting because in a few years he/she'll be out on their pompus ass in a few years anyway.

Such a system is an excuse for a person not to perform their Civic Duty; "Well yea I really oughta vote, but the asshat will be out of office in a few years anyway so why bother".

What about me and all of the others that take our Civic Duty seriously by studying the issues and voting for whom we feel is the most qualified candidate?

Quite possibly I may think the incumbant has been doing a very good job and would very much like to vote for him/her again.

Term Limits Deny me the right to vote for the candidate that I deem most qualified.

The apathetic people all turned out to vote for term limits so they wouldn't have to pay attention to the issues and make an informed decision at the ballot box. Too many people can't be bothered to become familiar with the issues, it gets in the way of their sewing guild, bowling league of kids soccor games.

If more people would do their Civic Duty and vote we would not need the term limits that deny me my right to vote for the candidate I deem best suited for the job.

In fact it is even easier today to become informed that it ever has. A very large portion of the public has, or knows someone who has access to the internet. A few minutes spent on any of the state, county or local websites will inform a prospective voter of all the information they need to know about the candidates.

Here are a couple of suggestions;

Dad - instead of surfing for porn tonight after Mom and the kids go to bed, why not look up some info on the candidates?

Mom - instead of spending that 5 or 6 hours in a chatroom today while hubby is at work and the kids are at school, why not look up some info on the candidates?

How's this for an idea? Put the kids to bed and both of you get online and learn something about the people that represent you.

As I said earlier the names of the parties are not important, I don't even care if we share the same philisophical ideas on any of the other issues. We do agree on this one. I hope that the State Supreme Court finds the statute unconstitutional.

Term Limits are a bad idea and in my mind always have been. It lets the apathetic go on being apathetic.

Their is no excuse for apathy when it comes to ones Civic Duty and term limits are not the answer to that apathy. Term limits encourages the apathy to continue.

BY IMPOSING TERM LIMITS YOU ARE DENYING ME THE RIGHT AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE I DEEM MOST EFFECTIVE FOR THE OFFICE.