Term Limits for Congress

#1
TennNC

TennNC

a lover, not a fighter
Joined
Dec 7, 2006
Messages
5,669
Likes
0
#1
For or against them? Why/why not?

How would you structure the terms? How many years? How many terms?

Any differences btwn Senate and House?

Discuss.
 
#2
#2
Term limits would fix about 80% of what is wrong with Washington in my opinion. Politicians are like diapers, they should be changed frequently and for the same reason.
 
#5
#5
notverycrucial said:
I don't like this topic -- unless we're talking about term limits for certain football coaches.
Click to expand...

4 years max per term.

2 terms.

stagger the terms so that no state is starting fresh each year with a new crop of senators or house members.

for football coaches, I'm for term limit - not limits - for anyone named phil. the limit would be however long he's been coaching.
 
#6
#6
TennNC said:
4 years max per term.

2 terms.

stagger the terms so that no state is starting fresh each year with a new crop of senators or house members.

for football coaches, I'm for term limit - not limits - for anyone named phil. the limit would be however long he's been coaching.
Click to expand...

:hi:

It would be a nice start...
 
#7
#7
House - 4 consecutive terms max. 8 total terms.

Senate 2 consecutive terms max. 4 total terms.
 
#9
#9
volinbham said:
House - 4 consecutive terms max. 8 total terms.

Senate 2 consecutive terms max. 4 total terms.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I like the idea of forcing someone to leave for a term, only to come back for a couple more. If you get defeated, so be it.

I also don't know if I like the idea of 2-year terms in the House. Too short. They spend all but 4 months campaigning. Make it 4, and make them actually work during that time.
 
#10
#10
TennNC said:
I don't know if I like the idea of forcing someone to leave for a term, only to come back for a couple more. If you get defeated, so be it.

I also don't know if I like the idea of 2-year terms in the House. Too short. They spend all but 4 months campaigning. Make it 4, and make them actually work during that time.
Click to expand...

There is value to having good people up there. If they leave and decide to go back and people support them I see no reason to not let them back (same with POTUS).

I'm sticking with 2 years also for the House. Since they are the true people's representatives, I'd err on the side of being able to remove them.
 
#11
#11
volinbham said:
1) There is value to having good people up there. If they leave and decide to go back and people support them I see no reason to not let them back (same with POTUS).

2) I'm sticking with 2 years also for the House. Since they are the true people's representatives, I'd err on the side of being able to remove them.
Click to expand...

on #1, why not just make it 3 terms total? why force them out after two and then make them wait for the next go-round? i'd agree to 3 terms total. i don't really care if they are consec or not.

fair point on #2, but I've seen firsthand how pathetically short 2 years is to get anything done. Perhaps some mechanism where constituents could offer a referendum to remove someone from office if he or she were screwing up royally.
 
#12
#12
I'm just structuring it the way the POTUS works. 2 in a row then out. If you can get back in, go for it. By then you'll have a track record everyone can look at and decide if you deserve another shot. Some (a very few) likely do - most do not. For the Senate, 6 years out of office will probably discourage many from trying to re-up.
 
#13
#13
If the majority of voters honestly wanted term limits, a law creating them wouldn't be necessary.
 
#14
#14
If they live up there (their whole adult life), being treated like royalty. How can they possibly understand what its like to live a normal life, work a normal job, run a business?
 
#15
#15
Repeal the 17th Amendment and restore the original role of the Senate as representatives of the interests of the several states.
 
#16
#16
TennNC said:
For or against them? Why/why not?

How would you structure the terms? How many years? How many terms?

Any differences btwn Senate and House?

Discuss.
Click to expand...

Obstacles: either the Congress would have to impose such limits, which is against their interest, or the states would have to do it on a state-by-state basis (declared unconstitutional in 1995).

Basically, it's like wondering if Congress would ever give itself a pay cut -- ain't gonna happen.
 
#17
#17
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I am opposed to term limits on any elected official. If that official keeps getting electing, then why limit the people? Is that not a way of limiting the freedom of expression of the people? People can point all they want to the precedent set by George Washington, however, he was a reluctant President in his first term. The man stepped down when he felt that the young republic could finally stand united without having him at the helm.

I think what would fix most of the problems in Washington would be materially lowering, or eliminating, salaries for our Representatives and Senators. Then, they would only propose legislation they felt strongly about and would only vote on highly important issues. Senators and Representatives would have day jobs that would occupy their time...after all, idle minds are the devils handy work.
 
#18
#18
How about letting them choose between:
1. Term Limits
or
2. A balanced budget ammendment
or
3. A flat tax
 
#19
#19
therealUT said:
I am going to go out on a limb here and say that I am opposed to term limits on any elected official. If that official keeps getting electing, then why limit the people? Is that not a way of limiting the freedom of expression of the people? People can point all they want to the precedent set by George Washington, however, he was a reluctant President in his first term. The man stepped down when he felt that the young republic could finally stand united without having him at the helm.

I think what would fix most of the problems in Washington would be materially lowering, or eliminating, salaries for our Representatives and Senators. Then, they would only propose legislation they felt strongly about and would only vote on highly important issues. Senators and Representatives would have day jobs that would occupy their time...after all, idle minds are the devils handy work.
Click to expand...

I think those are all good points. Only thing I would add is that even if you could persuade Congress to cut its own pay, you still have people born into wealth who would be vying for those jobs. In fact, it would prevent more "ordinary" Americans from running, because only Bloomberg types would be able to afford it. Having a job and also being a member of Congress is really not workable. The travel alone back and forth to D.C. would kill you.
 
#20
#20
CaedmonVol said:
I think those are all good points. Only thing I would add is that even if you could persuade Congress to cut its own pay, you still have people born into wealth who would be vying for those jobs. In fact, it would prevent more "ordinary" Americans from running, because only Bloomberg types would be able to afford it. Having a job and also being a member of Congress is really not workable. The travel alone back and forth to D.C. would kill you.
Click to expand...
The government could easily pick up the tab for official flights (from hometowns to D.C., functions, etc.) without having to pay a salary.

I would have to think that the amount of wealth that certain Congressional Members had acquired prior to to being elected would not change all that much from the current situation.
 
#23
#23
BigPapaVol said:
or line item veto
Click to expand...

Declared unconstitutional by Supreme Court in 1998. I've always wondered why candidates keep talking about that -- maybe there's a way to restructure it to get around the law, or maybe the Supreme Court has sufficiently changed in the last 10 years to get a new ruling. Still, that's a tough one.
 
#24
#24
CaedmonVol said:
Declared unconstitutional by Supreme Court in 1998. I've always wondered why candidates keep talking about that -- maybe there's a way to restructure it to get around the law, or maybe the Supreme Court has sufficiently changed in the last 10 years to get a new ruling. Still, that's a tough one.
Click to expand...
I think we can structure it to get it right.
 
#25
#25
BigPapaVol said:
I think we can structure it to get it right.
Click to expand...

The Constitution gives Congress the spending power, so a line-item veto would in essence transfer that legislative power to the President, thus violating the separation of powers. I think your best hope is a Constitutional amendment. In other words, won't happen. McCain during this campaign basically says he'll veto every bill that contains pork, but that really sounds unworkable -- he'd have to veto every single bill that comes across his desk, and nothing would get done.
 
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top