Be it through lack on insight and intelligence or simply the reactionary nature of people the masses often seek a solution retrospectively rather than prospectively. That is, most people choose to face a problem after it has happened rather than take the effort to prevent the problem. Think of the people who change their lifestyle after having a heart attack.
This is not unlike politics and law. Every misapplication of a law or all the interpretations provided by higher courts can be predicted and avoided through proper wording of the law. What usually happens though is that those who craft the laws seek only to have the language accomplish their goal. Such is our child solicitation law that makes it a felony for any parent to advise his or her child under the age of 16 to wait and have sex after marriage. Sure it accomplished the admirable and intended goal of making it illegal for a person to ask a child to have sex with him or her at some time in the future, when the child is of age to consent, but it went too far. The law applies to everyone not just those seeking sexual satisfaction from a child.
So where is the link to term limits? Legislators, like judges, are not experts in every area of the law. I write child custody laws because that is my area of expertise. I advise legislators on the application, effect and possible unintended consequences of language in child custody bills. I am aware of how the Indiana Court of Appeals of Supreme Court has opined on the statutes. Some of the statutes I know verbatim. This is the area of law in which I specialize and it didn't happen quickly.
Recently, I spent nearly an hour on a teleconference with legislators and a staff attorney taking questions and advising them about the language to be used in a child custody bill. This included a Senator who authored the bill and another who had some concerns about the language. I have had numerous meetings with both senators in the past. Yet still, it took detailed explanations to get the exact language we needed.
Sometimes it takes nearly a full term to bring a legislator from the position of not considering supporting a bill to the point of wanting to sign on as a co-sponsor. The Indiana General Assembly has 150 members. In addition there are the auxiliary figures who play an influential role in drafting legislation and building support. I do not have the time to meet with and explain the long and detailed history of child custody law to each of them every few years.
To make the wisest or best decisions legislators need to be fully informed and aware of the consequences of the legislation they are asked to vote on. It would not be practical or logical to remove those legislators who I have spent years educating or others who have gained the necessary knowledge and experience in a particular area and who are now best positioned to make those decisions from the process.
I see term limits as another knee-jerk reaction to the uninformed, unintelligent and lazy electorate who fails to meet their obligation to elect the best qualified candidates and instead insist on remaining uninformed, unintelligent and lazy.
Term limits are already in place. It is called an election. Get informed and use it.
Subscribe
Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates
©2010 Stuart Showalter, LLC. Permission is granted to all non-commercial entities to reproduce this article in it's entirety with credit given.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Why I oppose "term limits"
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment