At face value, it sounds like a great idea. Limit terms of all politicians or political appointees, especially SCOTUS (which could be long, like FED members, 14 years). But you have to wonder what the catch is. There are decent arguments against it here: https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/10/18/13323842/trump-term-limits. Term limits are the surest way to weaken the legislative branch and empower the executive branch. Term limits are also a great way to empower special interests and lobbyists. Basically, what term limits do is shift power toward those who are there for the long haul. That's not a good outcome.
Maybe look into term limits plus three years for representatives, and mandatory retirement ages for scrotus. 2 years feels like non stop campaigning. Three years can be counter cyclical to the other campaigns though...
That doesn't quite make sense. If Americans are committing crimes, leaking classified info, working for foreign governments or being manipulated by them, Intel agencies should be spying on those folks. It kind of depends on how it is done. I do like the idea of more oversight, though. There is a way to make it work.
What you are talking about and what OSZ is reporting are two different topics. Someone with a TS clearance vs a Starbucks batista or Uber driver have two very different expectations. The government makes it clear that those with TS should expect some level of intrusion on their personal life. OSZ is referring to the average American that is not involved with sensitive information.
Which is why they have to be careful with the legislation passed and how it would be worded. Exactly what I was talking about.
