Term limits: Unnecessary government intrusion

Terry E Peele, Las Vegas

Monday, Aug. 4, 2008 | 2:04 a.m.

For those conservatives who support term limits, yes, term limits are now the law of Nevada. And, yes, we must abide by the decision of the Nevada Supreme Court. That said, such doesn’t make the concept of term limits right. And the fact that the voters backed them, twice, by large margins, doesn’t make the concept correct.

What is interesting here is that Nevada is considered a conservative state. That being the case, one just might think that the citizens of this state would seek less government involvement in individual choices. Yet voters overwhelmingly, not once, but twice, decided to allow government to insert itself in what should be an individual choice.

For those who think what I’ve just written is a crock, consider the case of Bruce Woodbury. He chose to run for reelection to the Clark County Commission, and government, in the form of the Nevada Constitution, says: Sorry, this is not your choice to make, this choice belongs to the government. Some will counter this with: No, this is not the government, but the will of the people. One simple question: How does the will of the people exert itself except through government?

Government has deprived Mr. Woodbury of an individual choice. To the voters of his County Commission district desiring his reelection, the government has said: Your wishes be damned, even if you may be in the majority.

I find it ironic that the voters of a conservative state would invite more government involvement into their individual choices. Then again, why should I? Conservatives have never shunned government involvement when it is advancing their agenda.