I appreciate the difference of opinion in his response to my letter referencing Rep. Marino's term limits bill, but feel I must respond to the parts of a letter where the facts are refuted.
I stated this bill will lessen my rights; Mr. Graybill responded, "It will not do that." For instance, say I like the job Senator Bob Casey has done; in my mind, he has provided fair representation and maintained his integrity. I would like to vote for him again. Mr. Marino's bill says, "No, you can't, Mr. Swartz!"
My rights haven't been lessened? This claim is not just spurious, it is blatantly fallacious. The term-limit bill does not target long-serving congressmen; they cannot be there without you, the elector. This bill targets you; it restricts the right you currently have to elect your own representatives!
This bill, in effect, says "Although it is your constitutional right, you are not able to wisely elect your own representative, so I am going to help guide you." If my constitutional right is not being changed, why is a constitutional amendment necessary to implement it? This is just plain logic, folks.
Elections represent the will of the people and, yes, things are changed through elections when that is what the electing people want. I would argue, albeit subjectively as I offer no numbers, that long-serving congressmen are of more benefit to our country than a detriment. Elder statesmen have been revered throughout the history of the country.
In any case, if you read carefully, the gist of my initial letter was not the term limits bill per se. It was about Mr. Marino's duplicity in invoking the staid sanctity of the constitution to refuse support of one bill, while being more than willing to alter the constitution to propose another. That was the basis of my letter, and that cannot be denied.
And, oh yes, I found it highly ironic that a Republican politician would raise the topic of gerrymandering.