Term Limits.. it's time has come?

[Lumpy 1]

I think people are getting plenty pissed with the House and Senate, heck with Government overall. Perhaps... it's time to review the possibilities...eh..

---------------------


However, when the states ratified the Constitution (1787–88), several leading statesmen regarded the lack of mandatory limits to tenure as a dangerous defect, especially, they thought, as regards the Presidency and the Senate. Richard Henry Lee viewed the absence of legal limits to tenure, together with certain other features of the Constitution, as "most highly and dangerously oligarchic."[8] Both Jefferson[9] and George Mason[10] advised limits on reelection to the Senate and to the Presidency, because said Mason, "nothing is so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation." The historian Mercy Otis Warren, warned that "there is no provision for a rotation, nor anything to prevent the perpetuity of office in the same hands for life; which by a little well timed bribery, will probably be done...."[11]

Term limits in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[FA_Q2]

I have heard this a few times but I can't see how this would change anything. Please, explain the benefits.

 

[Sarah G]

I have heard this a few times but I can't see how this would change anything. Please, explain the benefits.

Just shaking things up could get them motivated.

 

[FA_Q2]

I have heard this a few times but I can't see how this would change anything. Please, explain the benefits.

Just shaking things up could get them motivated.

My issue with is that people usually default to that fact that they are always in campaign mode and pandering to their constituents instead of getting things done. Term limits would end that for the last term. HOWEVER, people always forget the other side of that. On their last term, the constitutes are no longer much concern other than party issues. In other words, after your last term you can piss everyone off worth terrible legislation and not really care as there is no price to pay. I can't tell if that positives outweigh the negatives in this case. Maybe this thread will help...

 

[Lumpy 1]

I have heard this a few times but I can't see how this would change anything. Please, explain the benefits.

Are you admitting to a limited imagination... then...

 

[editec]

Members of the former Soviet Union's Politboro had a greater turnover of personnel than Congress has.

I don't actully think that term limits will change much except the roster, but I also see nothing wrong with the idea as long as we don't shorten potential terms too much. I think a total 12 years in Congress is probably a decent limit.

What I do think we ought to do is greatly expand the number of Representatives

We ought to have one Rep for about every 30,000 citizens.

While we at it we ought to double the number of Senators per state, too.

Right now legislative power is way too concentrated.

Were it up to me, I'd change our legislative system to a parlimentary system, too.

This would give us a much better chance of getting more than two parties on board.

If course there's not a chance in hell that's going to happen.

 

[Sarah G]

Members of the former Soviet Union's Politboro had a greater tornover of personnel than Congress has.

I don't actully think that term limits will change much except the roster, but I also see nothing wrong with the idea as long as we don't shorten potential terms too much.

What I do think we ought to do is greatly expand the House of Representative.

We ought to have one Rep for about every 30,000 citizens.

While we at it we ought to double increase the number of Senators, too.

Right now legislative power is way too concentrated.

Hmm I'll have to think about that one. 200 senators? Could become very murky..

 

[strollingbones]

term limits ....we have them...its called elections....the citizens vote etc.....why are you wanting to take this power out of the voters hands and turn more power over to the government? if you want to change term limits then you will have to change the entire way the senate functions on seniority...

 

[Lumpy 1]

term limits ....we have them...its called elections....the citizens vote etc.....why are you wanting to take this power out of the voters hands and turn more power over to the government? if you want to change term limits then you will have to change the entire way the senate functions on seniority...

I'm not all in or all out on this..I'm just considering the possibilities...

My view is that our government is dysfunctional.. their working less for the people and more for their re-election. Term limits may affect this...

 

[strollingbones]

how would term limits effect this? go on ....tell me how? if you have term limits how will you decide who is on what committees etc? seniority has always been the method used

before you toss out the system you need to have a replacement in mind.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

term limits ....we have them...its called elections....

....Where the typical rallying-cry (for the voting-population) is:

"Throw 'em ALL out....except for MY reps!!"​

 

[Lumpy 1]

how would term limits effect this? go on ....tell me how? if you have term limits how will you decide who is on what committees etc? seniority has always been the method used

before you toss out the system you need to have a replacement in mind.

So we're agreeing that term limits would effect the structure of how the Senate and the House operate...

Would you also agree that incumbents develop an unfair financial advantage and fresh ideas and candidates are suppressed?

I don't honestly have a replacement in mind but I'm willing to discuss the possibilities....

Darlin.. it's a topic for discussion..

 

[idb]

It's clearly an elitist concept.
It means you don't trust anyone else to elect a suitable representative.

 

[WillowTree]

Term LImits or a third Party. It's time for a change.

 

[Jroc]

Here's a couple of good reasons...Unbelieable how long these people stay in congress, I guess they like thier staff who do all the work and can also wipe thier drool for them.

Dingell was honored at the White House with a Presidential lunch for his 50th anniversary in Congress on December 13, 2005

.

Conyers has been reelected 22 times, never facing serious opposition. He is the second longest-serving current member of the House, as well as the second longest-serving member of either house of Congress in Michigan's history. Only Dingell outranks him on both lists. He is the last surviving member of the Democrats' large freshman class of 1965. By one measure, Conyers was found the sixth most Progressive member of Congress after World War II

 

[Lumpy 1]

It's clearly an elitist concept.
It means you don't trust anyone else to elect a suitable representative.

 

[editec]

The argument AGAINST term limits is that it takes TIME to get up to speed on subjects that Congress oversees.

And without enough time Congress becomes much less effective in overseeing and controlling the Bureaucracy.

I'm not entirely sure I buy into this argument, and I know perfectly well I don't if the term limit was set at 12 years in Congress.

 

[bripat9643]

The argument AGAINST term limits is that it takes TIME to get up to speed on subjects that Congress oversees.

And without enough time Congress becomes much less effective in overseeing and controlling the Bureaucracy.

I'm not entirely sure I buy into this argument, and I know perfectly well I don't if the term limit was set at 12 years in Congress.

The only thing members come up to speed at is back scratching, log rolling and selling out their constituents. The longer a person is in Congress, the more effective the bureaucracy becomes at controlling him.

 

[code1211]

Members of the former Soviet Union's Politboro had a greater turnover of personnel than Congress has.

I don't actully think that term limits will change much except the roster, but I also see nothing wrong with the idea as long as we don't shorten potential terms too much. I think a total 12 years in Congress is probably a decent limit.

What I do think we ought to do is greatly expand the number of Representatives

We ought to have one Rep for about every 30,000 citizens.

While we at it we ought to double the number of Senators per state, too.

Right now legislative power is way too concentrated.

Were it up to me, I'd change our legislative system to a parlimentary system, too.

This would give us a much better chance of getting more than two parties on board.

If course there's not a chance in hell that's going to happen.

As always, a very thoughtful and reasonable comment.

I'm with you in theory, but I don't really see a need to have more snakes in the pit than are currently there.

A Parlimentary system would very likely have prevented Obamacare and very likely have produced a different President before now.

We need a pretty dramatic change and the only folks who don't seem to understand this are running the Senate and the White House. The guys in the House are at least looking for change.

The first step to solving a problem is admitting you have a problem.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I think people are getting plenty pissed with the House and Senate, heck with Government overall. Perhaps... it's time to review the possibilities...eh..

---------------------


However, when the states ratified the Constitution (1787–88), several leading statesmen regarded the lack of mandatory limits to tenure as a dangerous defect, especially, they thought, as regards the Presidency and the Senate. Richard Henry Lee viewed the absence of legal limits to tenure, together with certain other features of the Constitution, as "most highly and dangerously oligarchic."[8] Both Jefferson[9] and George Mason[10] advised limits on reelection to the Senate and to the Presidency, because said Mason, "nothing is so essential to the preservation of a Republican government as a periodic rotation." The historian Mercy Otis Warren, warned that "there is no provision for a rotation, nor anything to prevent the perpetuity of office in the same hands for life; which by a little well timed bribery, will probably be done...."[11]

Term limits in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All things being equal, I support term limits in congress.

If congress ever starts taxing us simply and fairly, with one rate for all that they can affect only by raising or lowering that one rate for all, that will shift a lot of power away from congress and back to the people. If congress strips itself of the power to tax different legal entities at different rates, I could be persuaded to back off support for term limits, but as long as they hold as much power as they do, I say put 'em on as short a leash as possible - The corruption must end.