Term Limits for The House and Senate

[MaggieMae]

IMHO i think a great way to keep our representatives and senators in check would be to impose term limits on their service. We current do this for the president (max 2 - 4 year terms) why is this done for congress.

look at this:

currently the longest tenured representative is John Dingell (D - Michigan) he has been serving for 51 years

the longest tenured Senator is Robert Byrd (D - WV) at 52 years

top 10 list

Robert Byrd (H,S) 57 years, 176 days
Carl Hayden (H,S) 56 years, 319 days
John Dingell (H) 54 years, 355 days
Jamie L. Whitten (H) 53 years, 60 days
Daniel Inouye (H,S) 51 years, 104 days
Carl Vinson (H) 50 years, 61 days
Emanuel Celler (H) 49 years, 305 days
Sam Rayburn (H) 48 years, 257 days
Joseph Gurney Cannon (H,I) 48 years, 0 days
Sidney R. Yates (H,I) 48 years, 0 days

really? does someone who has been in congress longer than many people have been alive really represent the people?

I think a reasonable term would be the following:

Senate (3 terms for a total of 18 years)
House (3 terms for a total of 12 years)

Senate and House Combined (4 Terms or a total of 20 years combined)

is this unreasonable?

What universe do you live in? It isn't the same one as rdean, because his universe elects the house every two years, like ours.

WTF rdean? You must be the one from another planet. Uranus?

 

[MaggieMae]

Term limits are a fundamentally sensible idea, and I'd favor them to be even more restrictive than other proposals: basically senators would be limited to a single term, with the possibility of re-election after sitting out at least one term; representatives would be limited to two terms (4 years), with possibility of re-election after sitting out at least two terms (4 years).

Something like that would keep fresh blood flowing more continually (or fresh garbage, at least), while still maintaining an "incentive" to do well (if such a thing exist). It's obvious that incumbent congresspeople have a huge statistical advantage, and usually because they can always amass more patronage to distribute and more pork with which to lure corporate dollars [and this because they live in Washington with the lobbyists and not at their district with the people they're supposed to represent]. Term limits at least attempt to keep the political class on their toes, it keeps them thinking in the long term and without such the heavy focus of elections EVERY 1.5 years for Reps or 5.5 years for Sens.

You would need to outlaw lobbying before reducing even further the existing term limits. As it is now, in the House, members actually WORK one year, then spend their second year campaigning, a' la dinners, parties, golf outings, etc., paid for by those friendly K Street folk.

 

[MaggieMae]

There are term limits.

They are called "elections".

If anyone has any problem with outcomes..maybe it's time to look into gerrymandering. Both sides do it and it insures that the same people get elected all the time.

Redistricting is also a constitutional requirement based on 10-year census results. That some politicians totally manipulate the boundaries is another thing.

 

[Common Sense]

There are term limits.

They are called "elections".

If anyone has any problem with outcomes..maybe it's time to look into gerrymandering. Both sides do it and it insures that the same people get elected all the time.

Redistricting is also a constitutional requirement based on 10-year census results. That some politicians totally manipulate the boundaries is another thing.

except in california, we passed an proposition that calls for a non-partisan citizens commission to now draw all districting lines, not the government.

hopefully though, this leads to progress...

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Federal judges enjoy lifetime tenure.
If a Congressmen exhibits signs of senility, he would (hopefully) be expected to be voted out of office.
(I'm not certain that's always true though)

How about pushing for a maximum length of service or a mandatory retirement age for Federal judges?

That should definitely be the next thing. Why should Judges serve 'til they die? That doesn't make any sense to me. A retirement age for judges would definitely be a good idea.

 

[Lepetomane]

Bumping this one instead of starting something new.

Of course career politicians aren't going to vote in a majority for term limits. There aren't enough lobbying jobs out there for how many would be leaving every election season.

Doesn't mean it isn't needed.

I imagine if put to a national vote, this would get more support than anybody who has won in the White House in a long long time.

Then again, if they brought a Senate term down to 4 years, a House term up to 4 years and allowed 2 terms each. Some people would get 16 years which is more than enough to get something done if that's what they really wanted. Also means they might have a primary against an incumbent at some point.

 

[Missourian]

There are term limits.

They are called "elections".

^^^This.

 

[regent]

One of the ironies is that the executive election, the one that gets the most people out to vote yet it is the election we have term limits, which was pure politics.
Do the Democrats or Republicans have a position on term limits, a real position, because that's where the battle would be fought, in the political arena. Maybe both parties would be against it?
And if passed, would a Congressman leaving because of the limits, just endorse his replacement? If states made voting easier, which they could do now, get more people out to vote? We now have a battle to keep people from voting.
In any case it ain't gonna happen.

 

[Avorysuds]

If the american voters were not so stupit we would not need even discuss term limits.
Why try and fix our stupidity with a law?

I agree, voters keep putting in Republicans then Dems, Republican then Dems... Always blaming the other side for why things are getting worse but never getting better.

 

[Avorysuds]

Term limits are a fundamentally sensible idea, and I'd favor them to be even more restrictive than other proposals: basically senators would be limited to a single term, with the possibility of re-election after sitting out at least one term; representatives would be limited to two terms (4 years), with possibility of re-election after sitting out at least two terms (4 years).

Something like that would keep fresh blood flowing more continually (or fresh garbage, at least), while still maintaining an "incentive" to do well (if such a thing exist). It's obvious that incumbent congresspeople have a huge statistical advantage, and usually because they can always amass more patronage to distribute and more pork with which to lure corporate dollars [and this because they live in Washington with the lobbyists and not at their district with the people they're supposed to represent]. Term limits at least attempt to keep the political class on their toes, it keeps them thinking in the long term and without such the heavy focus of elections EVERY 1.5 years for Reps or 5.5 years for Sens.

You would need to outlaw lobbying before reducing even further the existing term limits. As it is now, in the House, members actually WORK one year, then spend their second year campaigning, a' la dinners, parties, golf outings, etc., paid for by those friendly K Street folk.

Ain't never gonna happen, Dems had Obama, House, Senate and didn't even try... Reps had Bush, house, senate and still didn't even try. If this is an issue for someone, I wonder what party they should vote for.... hmm, Dem or Rep..... hmmmm.

 

[whitehall]

Term limits are an excuse for citizens to sit on their ignorant asses and do nothing and hope the next jerk they elect will do better while the Country falls apart.