Favorable or Unfavorable #297: Tom Foley

[vcczar]

Speaker Tom Foley (WA-D) was very establishment. He has few actions because he would tow the line, not really introduce any landmark bills, typically avoided scandal (unless you want to count 1992 a scandal), and etc. Not an action, but it is worth noting that he did preside as Speaker for US House legislative success during the Bush I years and early Clinton, of which there were some considerable bills that were passed. Historically, however, he's pretty forgetable, aside from having been defeated for his seat while being Speaker. For this reason, he may be a trivia answer. 

His actions:

Foley, Tom	1977	reports not enough votes for admin ag plan
Foley, Tom	1989	Elected Speaker of the US House
Foley, Tom	1992	Successfully challenges WA state initiative to term limit US Sen and US Reps from WA as unconstitutional; contributes to his defeat in 1994
Foley, Tom	1994	1st incumbent Speaker to be defeated for his US Rep seat since 1862
Foley, Tom	1997	Appt Amb to Japan by Clinton

[vcczar]

I'm not strongly in favor. I dislike his 1992 action. He doesn't really do anything worth favoring. I was almost inclined to vote unfavorable, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt of voting with his party, which was preferable to me than the GOP during this time. 

[OrangeP47]

I mean, it is unconstitutional, plain and simple.  I personally think term limits are undemocratic and hand too much power to unelected lobbyists, but aside from that, it's a simple reading that a state cannot impose limits on a federal office.  To impose limits on President, US Rep, US Senator, you need a US Constitutional Amendment, and Case Law has confirmed that.

[OrangeP47]

Because this is another thing that sets me off like the line item veto:  To acquiesce to states setting term limits on federal officials would open the flood gates of even more screwed up gerrymandering.  You think Citizens United is bad, in an alternate timeline it's U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton we're all cursing.

[OrangeP47]

This one isn't in AMPU I guess... I'd recommend adding it, except it'd require new rules rather than just cosmetic effects...

[Rezi]

3 hours ago, vcczar said:

I'm not strongly in favor. I dislike his 1992 action. He doesn't really do anything worth favoring. I was almost inclined to vote unfavorable, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt of voting with his party, which was preferable to me than the GOP during this time. 

His 1992 action is incredibly based actually

[vcczar]

2 hours ago, OrangeP47 said:

I mean, it is unconstitutional, plain and simple.  I personally think term limits are undemocratic and hand too much power to unelected lobbyists, but aside from that, it's a simple reading that a state cannot impose limits on a federal office.  To impose limits on President, US Rep, US Senator, you need a US Constitutional Amendment, and Case Law has confirmed that.

 

27 minutes ago, Rezi said:

His 1992 action is incredibly based actually

I like term limits. Incumbents stay in power for far too long. I’m okay with having a term limit come with amendments to alleviate some of the issues mentioned above by Orange, if possible. I think term limits have been great for the presidency, and they’d play the same role in the US Sen and US House. 2 terms for US Sen and 6-terms for US House. Let’s say 12 years for Justices as well.