Just what is it that you think term limits will accomplish?

[Montrovant]

Then the president should not have term limits either...

Untrue. The president is not our representative, and he needs to have checks in his power.

The president is the representative of the entire nation, while Congresspeople represent their states.

There are already checks on presidential power. Congress and the Supreme Court are there as checks on the President.

If I like my president, and I like what he has done for my country, what right do you have to tell me I have to give him up?

Because he needs that check on his power.

Why does the president need the check of term limits but other elected officials do not?

I can think of a couple of reasons. First, congressmen represent their state and the people of that state. The president does not. He is essential an employee hired to manage the government. For the federal government to tell the states who they can elect to represent them seems a little more than just heavy handed.

Secondly, we expect our congressmen to represent us, not lobbyist, legislative staff, and bureaucrats. The less time they spend in congress, the less they will know and the more they will rely on these people. Committees that serve as watchdogs over the administration would be staffed with less experienced and knowledgeable members and become depend on the people they are suppose to be monitoring.

Who said the federal government must create term limits for Congress? It could be a constitutional amendment or simply something decided on a state by state basis.

The president represents the entire country. I'm not sure where this idea that we have a representative government with Congress, but not the president, comes from. Yes, it's a different kind of representation, but so is a Congressperson and a governor, and many states have gubernatorial term limits.

I'm not sure how the Congress we have, which clearly is seen as representing lobbyists, legislative staff, and bureaucrats by many people, would be worse off in that regard with term limits. It seems to me it would be harder for the outside influences to work on the representatives because they would have less time to do so, and because the representatives would have fewer elections to worry about.

Experience is certainly an issue, but term limits do not have to be for a short period. There's no reason the term limit couldn't be 3 or 4 terms. Having the same Congressperson in office for 30+ years, often running unopposed, doesn't seem particularly representative to me.

Term limits are not some sort of magic wand to fix the problems in government, but the current system doesn't seem to be working all that well. Term limits have worked well enough for other offices, I don't think it would cause insurmountable problems to have them for Congress.

 

[Montrovant]

i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.

For one thing, we already have term limits, they are called elections. If I like my congressman, and I like what he has done for my district, what right do you have to tell me I have to give him up?

If he in doing a shitty job, he'll get voted out. My representative is not there to serve the nation, he's there to represent my interests.

FYI, my congressman is Alan (crazier than Bernie Sanders) Grayson, but that doesn't change my opinion.

What do you think term limits will accomplish?

We already have term limits!

Presidents may serve no more than two four year terms.

Senators serve for six years. Representatives serve for two. When their terms are up, it's up to the voters to decide their fate! That's the way it's supposed to be.

I don't see how you can say we already have term limits because the voters decide the fate of their representatives right after you point out that voters don't have a choice after their president serves a second term.

The way it is supposed to be? What do you base that on?

 

[Flopper]

Untrue. The president is not our representative, and he needs to have checks in his power.

The president is the representative of the entire nation, while Congresspeople represent their states.

There are already checks on presidential power. Congress and the Supreme Court are there as checks on the President.

If I like my president, and I like what he has done for my country, what right do you have to tell me I have to give him up?

Because he needs that check on his power.

Why does the president need the check of term limits but other elected officials do not?

I can think of a couple of reasons. First, congressmen represent their state and the people of that state. The president does not. He is essential an employee hired to manage the government. For the federal government to tell the states who they can elect to represent them seems a little more than just heavy handed.

Secondly, we expect our congressmen to represent us, not lobbyist, legislative staff, and bureaucrats. The less time they spend in congress, the less they will know and the more they will rely on these people. Committees that serve as watchdogs over the administration would be staffed with less experienced and knowledgeable members and become depend on the people they are suppose to be monitoring.

Who said the federal government must create term limits for Congress? It could be a constitutional amendment or simply something decided on a state by state basis.

The president represents the entire country. I'm not sure where this idea that we have a representative government with Congress, but not the president, comes from. Yes, it's a different kind of representation, but so is a Congressperson and a governor, and many states have gubernatorial term limits.

I'm not sure how the Congress we have, which clearly is seen as representing lobbyists, legislative staff, and bureaucrats by many people, would be worse off in that regard with term limits. It seems to me it would be harder for the outside influences to work on the representatives because they would have less time to do so, and because the representatives would have fewer elections to worry about.

Experience is certainly an issue, but term limits do not have to be for a short period. There's no reason the term limit couldn't be 3 or 4 terms. Having the same Congressperson in office for 30+ years, often running unopposed, doesn't seem particularly representative to me.

Term limits are not some sort of magic wand to fix the problems in government, but the current system doesn't seem to be working all that well. Term limits have worked well enough for other offices, I don't think it would cause insurmountable problems to have them for Congress.

When I say the president is not a representative of the people, I'm reflecting what the constitution says. You will find nothing in the constitution regarding presidential representation of the people. However, the constitution makes it quite clear that congress does represent the states and the people. Presidential representation is derived from the idea that the leader of a nation is it's representative.

Term limits are inherently antidemocratic. People should be free to elect to office whomever they want and that voters inherently have the power to limit terms simply by voting incumbents out. Also, term limits will not make the changes that is expected of them. The problems that are behind the call for term limits are not a result of Members of Congress remaining in office for lengthy periods of time. The real problem lies in the use, or misuse, of power in the federal government and the distribution of power.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We have term limits, they're called elections.

 

[Montrovant]

The president is the representative of the entire nation, while Congresspeople represent their states.

There are already checks on presidential power. Congress and the Supreme Court are there as checks on the President.

If I like my president, and I like what he has done for my country, what right do you have to tell me I have to give him up?

Because he needs that check on his power.

Why does the president need the check of term limits but other elected officials do not?

I can think of a couple of reasons. First, congressmen represent their state and the people of that state. The president does not. He is essential an employee hired to manage the government. For the federal government to tell the states who they can elect to represent them seems a little more than just heavy handed.

Secondly, we expect our congressmen to represent us, not lobbyist, legislative staff, and bureaucrats. The less time they spend in congress, the less they will know and the more they will rely on these people. Committees that serve as watchdogs over the administration would be staffed with less experienced and knowledgeable members and become depend on the people they are suppose to be monitoring.

Who said the federal government must create term limits for Congress? It could be a constitutional amendment or simply something decided on a state by state basis.

The president represents the entire country. I'm not sure where this idea that we have a representative government with Congress, but not the president, comes from. Yes, it's a different kind of representation, but so is a Congressperson and a governor, and many states have gubernatorial term limits.

I'm not sure how the Congress we have, which clearly is seen as representing lobbyists, legislative staff, and bureaucrats by many people, would be worse off in that regard with term limits. It seems to me it would be harder for the outside influences to work on the representatives because they would have less time to do so, and because the representatives would have fewer elections to worry about.

Experience is certainly an issue, but term limits do not have to be for a short period. There's no reason the term limit couldn't be 3 or 4 terms. Having the same Congressperson in office for 30+ years, often running unopposed, doesn't seem particularly representative to me.

Term limits are not some sort of magic wand to fix the problems in government, but the current system doesn't seem to be working all that well. Term limits have worked well enough for other offices, I don't think it would cause insurmountable problems to have them for Congress.

When I say the president is not a representative of the people, I'm reflecting what the constitution says. You will find nothing in the constitution regarding presidential representation of the people. However, the constitution makes it quite clear that congress does represent the states and the people. Presidential representation is derived from the idea that the leader of a nation is it's representative.

Term limits are inherently antidemocratic. People should be free to elect to office whomever they want and that voters inherently have the power to limit terms simply by voting incumbents out. Also, term limits will not make the changes that is expected of them. The problems that are behind the call for term limits are not a result of Members of Congress remaining in office for lengthy periods of time. The real problem lies in the use, or misuse, of power in the federal government and the distribution of power.

I agree that misuse of power is the problem. Less time in office would give the representatives less time to misuse their power.

 

[toxicmedia]

i have asked this question numerous times on Facebook but I'm not sure if I ever asked this here before.

For one thing, we already have term limits, they are called elections. If I like my congressman, and I like what he has done for my district, what right do you have to tell me I have to give him up?

If he in doing a shitty job, he'll get voted out. My representative is not there to serve the nation, he's there to represent my interests.

FYI, my congressman is Alan (crazier than Bernie Sanders) Grayson, but that doesn't change my opinion.

What do you think term limits will accomplish?

Term Limits will cause more idiots to have a turn at governing us.

 

[Flopper]

Because he needs that check on his power.

Why does the president need the check of term limits but other elected officials do not?

I can think of a couple of reasons. First, congressmen represent their state and the people of that state. The president does not. He is essential an employee hired to manage the government. For the federal government to tell the states who they can elect to represent them seems a little more than just heavy handed.

Secondly, we expect our congressmen to represent us, not lobbyist, legislative staff, and bureaucrats. The less time they spend in congress, the less they will know and the more they will rely on these people. Committees that serve as watchdogs over the administration would be staffed with less experienced and knowledgeable members and become depend on the people they are suppose to be monitoring.

Who said the federal government must create term limits for Congress? It could be a constitutional amendment or simply something decided on a state by state basis.

The president represents the entire country. I'm not sure where this idea that we have a representative government with Congress, but not the president, comes from. Yes, it's a different kind of representation, but so is a Congressperson and a governor, and many states have gubernatorial term limits.

I'm not sure how the Congress we have, which clearly is seen as representing lobbyists, legislative staff, and bureaucrats by many people, would be worse off in that regard with term limits. It seems to me it would be harder for the outside influences to work on the representatives because they would have less time to do so, and because the representatives would have fewer elections to worry about.

Experience is certainly an issue, but term limits do not have to be for a short period. There's no reason the term limit couldn't be 3 or 4 terms. Having the same Congressperson in office for 30+ years, often running unopposed, doesn't seem particularly representative to me.

Term limits are not some sort of magic wand to fix the problems in government, but the current system doesn't seem to be working all that well. Term limits have worked well enough for other offices, I don't think it would cause insurmountable problems to have them for Congress.

When I say the president is not a representative of the people, I'm reflecting what the constitution says. You will find nothing in the constitution regarding presidential representation of the people. However, the constitution makes it quite clear that congress does represent the states and the people. Presidential representation is derived from the idea that the leader of a nation is it's representative.

Term limits are inherently antidemocratic. People should be free to elect to office whomever they want and that voters inherently have the power to limit terms simply by voting incumbents out. Also, term limits will not make the changes that is expected of them. The problems that are behind the call for term limits are not a result of Members of Congress remaining in office for lengthy periods of time. The real problem lies in the use, or misuse, of power in the federal government and the distribution of power.

I agree that misuse of power is the problem. Less time in office would give the representatives less time to misuse their power.

And more time for their replacements to do the same. The problem is the system. Congress monitors the administration and the Supreme Court monitors the legal actions of both but who monitors congress.

 

[PredFan]

The president is the representative of the entire nation, while Congresspeople represent their states.

There are already checks on presidential power. Congress and the Supreme Court are there as checks on the President.

If I like my president, and I like what he has done for my country, what right do you have to tell me I have to give him up?

Because he needs that check on his power.

Why does the president need the check of term limits but other elected officials do not?

I can think of a couple of reasons. First, congressmen represent their state and the people of that state. The president does not. He is essential an employee hired to manage the government. For the federal government to tell the states who they can elect to represent them seems a little more than just heavy handed.

Secondly, we expect our congressmen to represent us, not lobbyist, legislative staff, and bureaucrats. The less time they spend in congress, the less they will know and the more they will rely on these people. Committees that serve as watchdogs over the administration would be staffed with less experienced and knowledgeable members and become depend on the people they are suppose to be monitoring.

Who said the federal government must create term limits for Congress? It could be a constitutional amendment or simply something decided on a state by state basis.

The president represents the entire country. I'm not sure where this idea that we have a representative government with Congress, but not the president, comes from. Yes, it's a different kind of representation, but so is a Congressperson and a governor, and many states have gubernatorial term limits.

I'm not sure how the Congress we have, which clearly is seen as representing lobbyists, legislative staff, and bureaucrats by many people, would be worse off in that regard with term limits. It seems to me it would be harder for the outside influences to work on the representatives because they would have less time to do so, and because the representatives would have fewer elections to worry about.

Experience is certainly an issue, but term limits do not have to be for a short period. There's no reason the term limit couldn't be 3 or 4 terms. Having the same Congressperson in office for 30+ years, often running unopposed, doesn't seem particularly representative to me.

Term limits are not some sort of magic wand to fix the problems in government, but the current system doesn't seem to be working all that well. Term limits have worked well enough for other offices, I don't think it would cause insurmountable problems to have them for Congress.

When I say the president is not a representative of the people, I'm reflecting what the constitution says. You will find nothing in the constitution regarding presidential representation of the people. However, the constitution makes it quite clear that congress does represent the states and the people. Presidential representation is derived from the idea that the leader of a nation is it's representative.

Term limits are inherently antidemocratic. People should be free to elect to office whomever they want and that voters inherently have the power to limit terms simply by voting incumbents out. Also, term limits will not make the changes that is expected of them. The problems that are behind the call for term limits are not a result of Members of Congress remaining in office for lengthy periods of time. The real problem lies in the use, or misuse, of power in the federal government and the distribution of power.

And that misuse of power will not change because of shortened careers.

 

[PredFan]

Because he needs that check on his power.

Why does the president need the check of term limits but other elected officials do not?

I can think of a couple of reasons. First, congressmen represent their state and the people of that state. The president does not. He is essential an employee hired to manage the government. For the federal government to tell the states who they can elect to represent them seems a little more than just heavy handed.

Secondly, we expect our congressmen to represent us, not lobbyist, legislative staff, and bureaucrats. The less time they spend in congress, the less they will know and the more they will rely on these people. Committees that serve as watchdogs over the administration would be staffed with less experienced and knowledgeable members and become depend on the people they are suppose to be monitoring.

Who said the federal government must create term limits for Congress? It could be a constitutional amendment or simply something decided on a state by state basis.

The president represents the entire country. I'm not sure where this idea that we have a representative government with Congress, but not the president, comes from. Yes, it's a different kind of representation, but so is a Congressperson and a governor, and many states have gubernatorial term limits.

I'm not sure how the Congress we have, which clearly is seen as representing lobbyists, legislative staff, and bureaucrats by many people, would be worse off in that regard with term limits. It seems to me it would be harder for the outside influences to work on the representatives because they would have less time to do so, and because the representatives would have fewer elections to worry about.

Experience is certainly an issue, but term limits do not have to be for a short period. There's no reason the term limit couldn't be 3 or 4 terms. Having the same Congressperson in office for 30+ years, often running unopposed, doesn't seem particularly representative to me.

Term limits are not some sort of magic wand to fix the problems in government, but the current system doesn't seem to be working all that well. Term limits have worked well enough for other offices, I don't think it would cause insurmountable problems to have them for Congress.

When I say the president is not a representative of the people, I'm reflecting what the constitution says. You will find nothing in the constitution regarding presidential representation of the people. However, the constitution makes it quite clear that congress does represent the states and the people. Presidential representation is derived from the idea that the leader of a nation is it's representative.

Term limits are inherently antidemocratic. People should be free to elect to office whomever they want and that voters inherently have the power to limit terms simply by voting incumbents out. Also, term limits will not make the changes that is expected of them. The problems that are behind the call for term limits are not a result of Members of Congress remaining in office for lengthy periods of time. The real problem lies in the use, or misuse, of power in the federal government and the distribution of power.

I agree that misuse of power is the problem. Less time in office would give the representatives less time to misuse their power.

So you linit them to 12 years, they misuse their power for 12 then they are out. Someone else comes in and misuses their power for another 12 years. Term limits cannot solve that problem.

 

[PredFan]

If you want to make a strong case FOR term limits, just say the name John McCain.

 

[rightwinger]

Untrue. The president is not our representative, and he needs to have checks in his power.

The president is the representative of the entire nation, while Congresspeople represent their states.

There are already checks on presidential power. Congress and the Supreme Court are there as checks on the President.

If I like my president, and I like what he has done for my country, what right do you have to tell me I have to give him up?

Because he needs that check on his power.

Why does the president need the check of term limits but other elected officials do not?

I can think of a couple of reasons. First, congressmen represent their state and the people of that state. The president does not. He is essential an employee hired to manage the government. For the federal government to tell the states who they can elect to represent them seems a little more than just heavy handed.

Secondly, we expect our congressmen to represent us, not lobbyist, legislative staff, and bureaucrats. The less time they spend in congress, the less they will know and the more they will rely on these people. Committees that serve as watchdogs over the administration would be staffed with less experienced and knowledgeable members and become depend on the people they are suppose to be monitoring.

Who said the federal government must create term limits for Congress? It could be a constitutional amendment or simply something decided on a state by state basis.

The president represents the entire country. I'm not sure where this idea that we have a representative government with Congress, but not the president, comes from. Yes, it's a different kind of representation, but so is a Congressperson and a governor, and many states have gubernatorial term limits.

I'm not sure how the Congress we have, which clearly is seen as representing lobbyists, legislative staff, and bureaucrats by many people, would be worse off in that regard with term limits. It seems to me it would be harder for the outside influences to work on the representatives because they would have less time to do so, and because the representatives would have fewer elections to worry about.

Experience is certainly an issue, but term limits do not have to be for a short period. There's no reason the term limit couldn't be 3 or 4 terms. Having the same Congressperson in office for 30+ years, often running unopposed, doesn't seem particularly representative to me.

Term limits are not some sort of magic wand to fix the problems in government, but the current system doesn't seem to be working all that well. Term limits have worked well enough for other offices, I don't think it would cause insurmountable problems to have them for Congress.

If voters think a candidate has served long enough....let them vote them out
If a representative is still doing a good job after 30 years, why shouldn't voters be allowed to elect him again

I live in NJ where we had Frank Lautenberg as Senator for five terms. In his last two terms, I thought he was losing his edge and voted against him. Others reelected him.

That is the way the system should work....let the voters decide

 

[Montrovant]

The president is the representative of the entire nation, while Congresspeople represent their states.

There are already checks on presidential power. Congress and the Supreme Court are there as checks on the President.

If I like my president, and I like what he has done for my country, what right do you have to tell me I have to give him up?

Because he needs that check on his power.

Why does the president need the check of term limits but other elected officials do not?

I can think of a couple of reasons. First, congressmen represent their state and the people of that state. The president does not. He is essential an employee hired to manage the government. For the federal government to tell the states who they can elect to represent them seems a little more than just heavy handed.

Secondly, we expect our congressmen to represent us, not lobbyist, legislative staff, and bureaucrats. The less time they spend in congress, the less they will know and the more they will rely on these people. Committees that serve as watchdogs over the administration would be staffed with less experienced and knowledgeable members and become depend on the people they are suppose to be monitoring.

Who said the federal government must create term limits for Congress? It could be a constitutional amendment or simply something decided on a state by state basis.

The president represents the entire country. I'm not sure where this idea that we have a representative government with Congress, but not the president, comes from. Yes, it's a different kind of representation, but so is a Congressperson and a governor, and many states have gubernatorial term limits.

I'm not sure how the Congress we have, which clearly is seen as representing lobbyists, legislative staff, and bureaucrats by many people, would be worse off in that regard with term limits. It seems to me it would be harder for the outside influences to work on the representatives because they would have less time to do so, and because the representatives would have fewer elections to worry about.

Experience is certainly an issue, but term limits do not have to be for a short period. There's no reason the term limit couldn't be 3 or 4 terms. Having the same Congressperson in office for 30+ years, often running unopposed, doesn't seem particularly representative to me.

Term limits are not some sort of magic wand to fix the problems in government, but the current system doesn't seem to be working all that well. Term limits have worked well enough for other offices, I don't think it would cause insurmountable problems to have them for Congress.

If voters think a candidate has served long enough....let them vote them out
If a representative is still doing a good job after 30 years, why shouldn't voters be allowed to elect him again

I live in NJ where we had Frank Lautenberg as Senator for five terms. In his last two terms, I thought he was losing his edge and voted against him. Others reelected him.

That is the way the system should work....let the voters decide

In principle I agree.

However, with the stranglehold the two major parties have over American politics, the amount of money it takes to campaign for election, the long term relationships built by lobbyists with politicians, and the number of people who seem content to simply pull the lever with the proper party letter next to it, I think the reality is that term limits might serve a useful function.

 

[Montrovant]

Why does the president need the check of term limits but other elected officials do not?

I can think of a couple of reasons. First, congressmen represent their state and the people of that state. The president does not. He is essential an employee hired to manage the government. For the federal government to tell the states who they can elect to represent them seems a little more than just heavy handed.

Secondly, we expect our congressmen to represent us, not lobbyist, legislative staff, and bureaucrats. The less time they spend in congress, the less they will know and the more they will rely on these people. Committees that serve as watchdogs over the administration would be staffed with less experienced and knowledgeable members and become depend on the people they are suppose to be monitoring.

Who said the federal government must create term limits for Congress? It could be a constitutional amendment or simply something decided on a state by state basis.

The president represents the entire country. I'm not sure where this idea that we have a representative government with Congress, but not the president, comes from. Yes, it's a different kind of representation, but so is a Congressperson and a governor, and many states have gubernatorial term limits.

I'm not sure how the Congress we have, which clearly is seen as representing lobbyists, legislative staff, and bureaucrats by many people, would be worse off in that regard with term limits. It seems to me it would be harder for the outside influences to work on the representatives because they would have less time to do so, and because the representatives would have fewer elections to worry about.

Experience is certainly an issue, but term limits do not have to be for a short period. There's no reason the term limit couldn't be 3 or 4 terms. Having the same Congressperson in office for 30+ years, often running unopposed, doesn't seem particularly representative to me.

Term limits are not some sort of magic wand to fix the problems in government, but the current system doesn't seem to be working all that well. Term limits have worked well enough for other offices, I don't think it would cause insurmountable problems to have them for Congress.

When I say the president is not a representative of the people, I'm reflecting what the constitution says. You will find nothing in the constitution regarding presidential representation of the people. However, the constitution makes it quite clear that congress does represent the states and the people. Presidential representation is derived from the idea that the leader of a nation is it's representative.

Term limits are inherently antidemocratic. People should be free to elect to office whomever they want and that voters inherently have the power to limit terms simply by voting incumbents out. Also, term limits will not make the changes that is expected of them. The problems that are behind the call for term limits are not a result of Members of Congress remaining in office for lengthy periods of time. The real problem lies in the use, or misuse, of power in the federal government and the distribution of power.

I agree that misuse of power is the problem. Less time in office would give the representatives less time to misuse their power.

So you linit them to 12 years, they misuse their power for 12 then they are out. Someone else comes in and misuses their power for another 12 years. Term limits cannot solve that problem.

Just as some have been complaining that it takes time to learn to be a Congressperson, I think it takes time to build the kinds of relationships with other politicians, lobbyists, and special interest groups that make up a good portion of the misuses of power. Term limits would hopefully mitigate that.

 

[PredFan]

Because he needs that check on his power.

Why does the president need the check of term limits but other elected officials do not?

I can think of a couple of reasons. First, congressmen represent their state and the people of that state. The president does not. He is essential an employee hired to manage the government. For the federal government to tell the states who they can elect to represent them seems a little more than just heavy handed.

Secondly, we expect our congressmen to represent us, not lobbyist, legislative staff, and bureaucrats. The less time they spend in congress, the less they will know and the more they will rely on these people. Committees that serve as watchdogs over the administration would be staffed with less experienced and knowledgeable members and become depend on the people they are suppose to be monitoring.

Who said the federal government must create term limits for Congress? It could be a constitutional amendment or simply something decided on a state by state basis.

The president represents the entire country. I'm not sure where this idea that we have a representative government with Congress, but not the president, comes from. Yes, it's a different kind of representation, but so is a Congressperson and a governor, and many states have gubernatorial term limits.

I'm not sure how the Congress we have, which clearly is seen as representing lobbyists, legislative staff, and bureaucrats by many people, would be worse off in that regard with term limits. It seems to me it would be harder for the outside influences to work on the representatives because they would have less time to do so, and because the representatives would have fewer elections to worry about.

Experience is certainly an issue, but term limits do not have to be for a short period. There's no reason the term limit couldn't be 3 or 4 terms. Having the same Congressperson in office for 30+ years, often running unopposed, doesn't seem particularly representative to me.

Term limits are not some sort of magic wand to fix the problems in government, but the current system doesn't seem to be working all that well. Term limits have worked well enough for other offices, I don't think it would cause insurmountable problems to have them for Congress.

If voters think a candidate has served long enough....let them vote them out
If a representative is still doing a good job after 30 years, why shouldn't voters be allowed to elect him again

I live in NJ where we had Frank Lautenberg as Senator for five terms. In his last two terms, I thought he was losing his edge and voted against him. Others reelected him.

That is the way the system should work....let the voters decide

In principle I agree.

However, with the stranglehold the two major parties have over American politics, the amount of money it takes to campaign for election, the long term relationships built by lobbyists with politicians, and the number of people who seem content to simply pull the lever with the proper party letter next to it, I think the reality is that term limits might serve a useful function.

Term limits will fix none of the problems you just mentioned, so what useful function would it serve?

 

[rightwinger]

I can think of a couple of reasons. First, congressmen represent their state and the people of that state. The president does not. He is essential an employee hired to manage the government. For the federal government to tell the states who they can elect to represent them seems a little more than just heavy handed.

Secondly, we expect our congressmen to represent us, not lobbyist, legislative staff, and bureaucrats. The less time they spend in congress, the less they will know and the more they will rely on these people. Committees that serve as watchdogs over the administration would be staffed with less experienced and knowledgeable members and become depend on the people they are suppose to be monitoring.

Who said the federal government must create term limits for Congress? It could be a constitutional amendment or simply something decided on a state by state basis.

The president represents the entire country. I'm not sure where this idea that we have a representative government with Congress, but not the president, comes from. Yes, it's a different kind of representation, but so is a Congressperson and a governor, and many states have gubernatorial term limits.

I'm not sure how the Congress we have, which clearly is seen as representing lobbyists, legislative staff, and bureaucrats by many people, would be worse off in that regard with term limits. It seems to me it would be harder for the outside influences to work on the representatives because they would have less time to do so, and because the representatives would have fewer elections to worry about.

Experience is certainly an issue, but term limits do not have to be for a short period. There's no reason the term limit couldn't be 3 or 4 terms. Having the same Congressperson in office for 30+ years, often running unopposed, doesn't seem particularly representative to me.

Term limits are not some sort of magic wand to fix the problems in government, but the current system doesn't seem to be working all that well. Term limits have worked well enough for other offices, I don't think it would cause insurmountable problems to have them for Congress.

When I say the president is not a representative of the people, I'm reflecting what the constitution says. You will find nothing in the constitution regarding presidential representation of the people. However, the constitution makes it quite clear that congress does represent the states and the people. Presidential representation is derived from the idea that the leader of a nation is it's representative.

Term limits are inherently antidemocratic. People should be free to elect to office whomever they want and that voters inherently have the power to limit terms simply by voting incumbents out. Also, term limits will not make the changes that is expected of them. The problems that are behind the call for term limits are not a result of Members of Congress remaining in office for lengthy periods of time. The real problem lies in the use, or misuse, of power in the federal government and the distribution of power.

I agree that misuse of power is the problem. Less time in office would give the representatives less time to misuse their power.

So you linit them to 12 years, they misuse their power for 12 then they are out. Someone else comes in and misuses their power for another 12 years. Term limits cannot solve that problem.

Just as some have been complaining that it takes time to learn to be a Congressperson, I think it takes time to build the kinds of relationships with other politicians, lobbyists, and special interest groups that make up a good portion of the misuses of power. Term limits would hopefully mitigate that.

I think term limits will only make it worse

If you are a Senator or Congressman in your last term you are looking for a new career. Politically, you are a lame duck. You are more likely to engage lobbyists who will help you to get a lucrative position once you leave.

 

[PredFan]

I can think of a couple of reasons. First, congressmen represent their state and the people of that state. The president does not. He is essential an employee hired to manage the government. For the federal government to tell the states who they can elect to represent them seems a little more than just heavy handed.

Secondly, we expect our congressmen to represent us, not lobbyist, legislative staff, and bureaucrats. The less time they spend in congress, the less they will know and the more they will rely on these people. Committees that serve as watchdogs over the administration would be staffed with less experienced and knowledgeable members and become depend on the people they are suppose to be monitoring.

Who said the federal government must create term limits for Congress? It could be a constitutional amendment or simply something decided on a state by state basis.

The president represents the entire country. I'm not sure where this idea that we have a representative government with Congress, but not the president, comes from. Yes, it's a different kind of representation, but so is a Congressperson and a governor, and many states have gubernatorial term limits.

I'm not sure how the Congress we have, which clearly is seen as representing lobbyists, legislative staff, and bureaucrats by many people, would be worse off in that regard with term limits. It seems to me it would be harder for the outside influences to work on the representatives because they would have less time to do so, and because the representatives would have fewer elections to worry about.

Experience is certainly an issue, but term limits do not have to be for a short period. There's no reason the term limit couldn't be 3 or 4 terms. Having the same Congressperson in office for 30+ years, often running unopposed, doesn't seem particularly representative to me.

Term limits are not some sort of magic wand to fix the problems in government, but the current system doesn't seem to be working all that well. Term limits have worked well enough for other offices, I don't think it would cause insurmountable problems to have them for Congress.

When I say the president is not a representative of the people, I'm reflecting what the constitution says. You will find nothing in the constitution regarding presidential representation of the people. However, the constitution makes it quite clear that congress does represent the states and the people. Presidential representation is derived from the idea that the leader of a nation is it's representative.

Term limits are inherently antidemocratic. People should be free to elect to office whomever they want and that voters inherently have the power to limit terms simply by voting incumbents out. Also, term limits will not make the changes that is expected of them. The problems that are behind the call for term limits are not a result of Members of Congress remaining in office for lengthy periods of time. The real problem lies in the use, or misuse, of power in the federal government and the distribution of power.

I agree that misuse of power is the problem. Less time in office would give the representatives less time to misuse their power.

So you linit them to 12 years, they misuse their power for 12 then they are out. Someone else comes in and misuses their power for another 12 years. Term limits cannot solve that problem.

Just as some have been complaining that it takes time to learn to be a Congressperson, I think it takes time to build the kinds of relationships with other politicians, lobbyists, and special interest groups that make up a good portion of the misuses of power. Term limits would hopefully mitigate that.

As someone here already pointed out, changing them frequently will do the opposite because the new guys will depend a lot more on the lobbyists and special interest groups more because they don't know the ropes yet. The new guys could also be more susceptible to influence because they are rookies and don't know the game.

 

[Flopper]

Why does the president need the check of term limits but other elected officials do not?

I can think of a couple of reasons. First, congressmen represent their state and the people of that state. The president does not. He is essential an employee hired to manage the government. For the federal government to tell the states who they can elect to represent them seems a little more than just heavy handed.

Secondly, we expect our congressmen to represent us, not lobbyist, legislative staff, and bureaucrats. The less time they spend in congress, the less they will know and the more they will rely on these people. Committees that serve as watchdogs over the administration would be staffed with less experienced and knowledgeable members and become depend on the people they are suppose to be monitoring.

Who said the federal government must create term limits for Congress? It could be a constitutional amendment or simply something decided on a state by state basis.

The president represents the entire country. I'm not sure where this idea that we have a representative government with Congress, but not the president, comes from. Yes, it's a different kind of representation, but so is a Congressperson and a governor, and many states have gubernatorial term limits.

I'm not sure how the Congress we have, which clearly is seen as representing lobbyists, legislative staff, and bureaucrats by many people, would be worse off in that regard with term limits. It seems to me it would be harder for the outside influences to work on the representatives because they would have less time to do so, and because the representatives would have fewer elections to worry about.

Experience is certainly an issue, but term limits do not have to be for a short period. There's no reason the term limit couldn't be 3 or 4 terms. Having the same Congressperson in office for 30+ years, often running unopposed, doesn't seem particularly representative to me.

Term limits are not some sort of magic wand to fix the problems in government, but the current system doesn't seem to be working all that well. Term limits have worked well enough for other offices, I don't think it would cause insurmountable problems to have them for Congress.

When I say the president is not a representative of the people, I'm reflecting what the constitution says. You will find nothing in the constitution regarding presidential representation of the people. However, the constitution makes it quite clear that congress does represent the states and the people. Presidential representation is derived from the idea that the leader of a nation is it's representative.

Term limits are inherently antidemocratic. People should be free to elect to office whomever they want and that voters inherently have the power to limit terms simply by voting incumbents out. Also, term limits will not make the changes that is expected of them. The problems that are behind the call for term limits are not a result of Members of Congress remaining in office for lengthy periods of time. The real problem lies in the use, or misuse, of power in the federal government and the distribution of power.

I agree that misuse of power is the problem. Less time in office would give the representatives less time to misuse their power.

So you linit them to 12 years, they misuse their power for 12 then they are out. Someone else comes in and misuses their power for another 12 years. Term limits cannot solve that problem.

The most powerful members of congress are committee heads and committee members in certain committees and this is where the greatest abuse of power occurs. These are the people that determine whether legislation lives or dies. Bills are killed and rewritten in committees. Investigative committees make and break careers of those being investigated. Although rules differ between the House and Senate, membership and leadership in these committees are determined mostly by seniority. Having newer less experienced members running these committees will not lessen their power and influence nor misuse of that power. In fact in may actual increase the misuse of power.

 

[Flopper]

It was Benjamin Franklin who summed up the best case for term limits more than two centuries ago: “In free governments, the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors . . . . For the former to return among the latter does not degrade, but promote them.”

In other words, when politicians know they must return to ordinary society and live under the laws passed while they were in government, at least some of them will think more carefully about the long-term effects of the programs they support. Their end-all will not be re-election, because that option will not be available.

The notion of citizen-legislator is a popular idea among the public. However, is it really practical today? I say no because the size of government and complexity is such that it's care and management is well beyond the capabilities of the novice. If government were smaller and with less power, yes it would work but it isn't and likely never will be.
Why Term Limits? | Lawrence W. Reed

 

[the_human_being]

I am all in favor of term limits. I feel rather strongly that Hillary should not be inconvenienced by a prison term exceeding twenty-five years and one day.