To Reform Congress, Enact Term Limits

~~~~~~
If that's the case, why have we limited the presidency to two terms? Shouldn't the People have the right to elect the person of their choice to the most important position (the Presidency) in the U.S.?
Politics brought on presidential term limits. Republicans finally got enough control that they never wanted to see a democrat president elected to more than two terms again.

You are very naive if you think term limits for Congress will fix anything. They will actually make things worse when you elect someone who knows they only have four years and then we have matters of national intelligence and security who will constantly be rookies.
 
I disagree.

We don't have a term limits problem, we have an incumbancy problem.

The system has to much emphasis on the current occupant of the office working toward reelection (pandering for money, special interests, etc.) instead of doing their job.

So instead of term limits we need Incumbancy Limits:
  • No Federal Elected office holder can run for or be elected to the same or any other federal office in back to back terms. (President, Vice President, Senate, House)
  • The holder of a Federal Office must be out of office for at least 1 year from the date of an election to be eligible to run for an elected Fedral Office.
  • Current holders of elected Federal Office cannot raise money, campiagn for, or form any type of election committee or PAC for future office while in office.
Simply put you do one term, then leave. If you want to get elected again start from scratch. Remove the incumbancy advantage.

WW
I'd go to all offices, President, House and Senate, is a one and done. I like the 1 year off before seeking another office. That way, they are not spending time getting reelected instead of working.
 
Politics brought on presidential term limits. Republicans finally got enough control that they never wanted to see a democrat president elected to more than two terms again.

You are very naive if you think term limits for Congress will fix anything. They will actually make things worse when you elect someone who knows they only have four years and then we have matters of national intelligence and security who will constantly be rookies.
~~~~~~
It has not been tried before so how do you know it won't work? I never claimed that Congresspersons could only serve 4 years. Senators are elected for 6 years terms. So serving twice is a twelve year stint.
For congress each term is 2 years if the term limit is made at 5 or 6 that would be sufficient for a Congressman.
So why is that so problematic?
 
~~~~~~
It has not been tried before so how do you know it won't work? I never claimed that Congresspersons could only serve 4 years. Senators are elected for 6 years terms. So serving twice is a twelve year stint.
For congress each term is 2 years if the term limit is made at 5 or 6 that would be sufficient for a Congressman.
So why is that so problematic?
Same as I said many posts ago. Senators are only allowed to serve one term and then voters decide if they want to throw them out or not. Those in the House only serve one term and then voters decide if they want to throw them out or not. I'm in favor of the voters deciding if these people only serve one term or more. The thing is, unless you live in a purple district or a purple state, if we had term limits, a democrat would replace a democrat and a republican would replace a republican, leaving us in the same boat whether we had term limits or not. I just don't understand the reasoning behind wanting term limits on these people. It is the parties that are the problem and when you do away with term limits, you're not changing the parties or the results.
 
Same as I said many posts ago. Senators are only allowed to serve one term and then voters decide if they want to throw them out or not. Those in the House only serve one term and then voters decide if they want to throw them out or not. I'm in favor of the voters deciding if these people only serve one term or more. The thing is, unless you live in a purple district or a purple state, if we had term limits, a democrat would replace a democrat and a republican would replace a republican, leaving us in the same boat whether we had term limits or not. I just don't understand the reasoning behind wanting term limits on these people. It is the parties that are the problem and when you do away with term limits, you're not changing the parties or the results.
~~~~~~~
You don't take into consideration the changes within cities that shift the number of Congresspersons based upon population

Read more:
 
~~~~~~~
You don't take into consideration the changes within cities that shift the number of Congresspersons based upon population

Read more:
One thing I do know is that I worked in retail and the fourth quarter was always a bitch. You hire new cashiers to work the holiday season, with them knowing that after Christmas they will be gone. So, they often steal and rob the store blind knowing that they only have one term and won't be coming back.
 
I still don’t see the advantage of electing an unknown with no political experience.
Yes, how did the Republic survive and thrive without "experienced" politicians? Seems to me it did fine.
 
Yes, how did the Republic survive and thrive without "experienced" politicians? Seems to me it did fine.
When was that?

Should we have told our founding fathers….Sorry, your time is up
 
Commentary:
I fully agree with the author and I've previous on these boards claimed that term limits are necessary for both Houses of Congress, or at the least place a cap on the age a person can serve in Congress.
Here's hoping that Trump can throw the spear into the heart of this matter and get the ball rolling for term limits in Congress.

Term limits is nothing more than a head fake.


I am convinced that those who promote term limits fall within one of two categories:


They know fully well that term limits would do nothing to encourage Congress to act fiscally responsible or end deficit spending, and even if term limits is adopted it will keep the current swamp creatures reckless spending and borrowing alive.

or

They simply mean well and have not realized what the root cause is which actually allows and encourages Congress's reckless spending and borrowing.


That root cause is, there is no structural mechanism into our constitution or ordinary legislation which encourages each State’s Congressional Delegation to adopt sound fiscal policies and helps to end reckless spending and borrowing, or actually requires Congress to extinguish an annual deficiency from revenue raised during the course of a fiscal year from imposts, duties and excise taxes, and do so in a timely manner?

Congress has proven it is incapable or unwilling to act fiscally responsible, has plundered the U.S. Treasury of untold $Trillions during the past thirty years or so, which find their way into the pocket of political campaign donors, or simply fattens the fortunes of Washington’s inner circle friends, here and abroad, and has gone far beyond spending for the common defense and general welfares’ specified list of particulars found beneath Article 1, Section 8.

And that is exactly why we need to add a structural mechanism into our rule of law system, which not only encourages each State’s Congressional Delegation to adopt sound fiscal policies and help to end reckless spending and borrowing but actually requires Congress to extinguish an annual deficiency from revenue raised during the course of a fiscal year from imposts, duties and excise taxes.

One such proposal is, the Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment, or similar type legislation:


Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment



“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay any tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, sales, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money.


NOTE: these words would return us to our Constitution’s original tax plan as our Founders’ intended it to operate! They would also end the experiment with allowing Congress to lay and collect taxes calculated from lawfully earned "incomes" which now oppresses America‘s economic engine and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling the property each has in their own labor, not to mention the amendment would end federal taxation being used as a political weapon to harass and attack political opponents!

"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."


NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption [preferably articles of luxury]. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the direct apportioned tax to be laid in order to balance the budget on an annual basis.


"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by the agreed upon apportionment formula found in our Constitution, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected as done on July 14th, 1798 LINK scroll to page 62, and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."

NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish an annual deficit would be:

States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE OF DIRECT TAX

Total U.S. Population


The above formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to ensure that each state’s share towards extinguishing an annual deficit is proportionately equal to its representation in Congress, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation! And if the tax is laid directly upon the people by Congress, then every taxpayer across the United States would pay the exact same amount!


Note also that each State’s number or Representatives, under our Constitution is likewise determined by the rule of apportionment:


State`s Pop.

------------------- X House size (435) = State`s No. of Representatives
U.S. Pop.


"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."


NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.


"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.

JWK

"In matters of power let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. ... Thomas Jefferson’s Fair Copy of the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798
 
Last edited:
It requires an amendment because the Constitution does not limit a person from running again.

The Constitution doesn't say you can't limit them either, but to me once they passed the two term only amendment for President, they answered the question of any term limit requiring an amendment.
 
Two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for supper
The Snob Mob Also Has Contempt for Its Supporters

Representativism is one wolf making all the political decisions for hundreds of thousands of sheep. Those who call the alternative "mob rule" are pathetic brown-noses who want to feel far superiority to the rest of us.
 
The Constitution doesn't say you can't limit them either, but to me once they passed the two term only amendment for President, they answered the question of any term limit requiring an amendment.
Allegedly the US Constitution is so well written, it just seems to be forever puzzled over what the wording means, covers, or doesn't cover.

Obviously it needs updated and rewritten.
 
Allegedly the US Constitution is so well written, it just seems to be forever puzzled over what the wording means, covers, or doesn't cover.

Obviously it needs updated and rewritten.
~~~~~~
Where does one begin? Your thoughts..
 
Allegedly the US Constitution is so well written, it just seems to be forever puzzled over what the wording means, covers, or doesn't cover.

Obviously it needs updated and rewritten.
Is English your primary language? It is mine, and it seems to me the document is very well written and easy to understand, especially if one reads books written by scholars about it.

Just a few examples are "The Supreme Court's Constitution" by Bernard Siegan, "The Bill Of Rights" by Akhil Reed Amar, "The Rights Retained by the People" by Randy Barnett.

Maybe along the lines of what you've mentioned, consider another by Randy Barnett in 2004, consider "Restoring the Lost Constitution"
 
Is English your primary language? It is mine, and it seems to me the document is very well written and easy to understand, especially if one reads books written by scholars about it.

Just a few examples are "The Supreme Court's Constitution" by Bernard Siegan, "The Bill Of Rights" by Akhil Reed Amar, "The Rights Retained by the People" by Randy Barnett.

Maybe along the lines of what you've mentioned, consider another by Randy Barnett in 2004, consider "Restoring the Lost Constitution"
If you're American, your first language is Butchered English. The document is not well written because you guys forever fight over it's wording. For a start, you've clearly not read the posts in this thread, and clearly you've missed the gazillion threads arguing over the wording in the 2nd Amendment threads.

So, the bits you guys can't agree on, I suggest you rewrite and update them.

EVERY country has a constitution. It can be in one document, that's called Codified like America's, or Uncodified, where it's found across many documents like the UK's. EVERY country, bar one, is happy with their constitution, they know what's in it, they check it once in a blue moon when something needs checked.
That 'bar one' is America.

You guys every day go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on with your constitution as though it's the only one on the FUCKING PLANET. So there's either a problem with your constitution or there's a problem with Americans.

Which one is it?
 
If you're American, your first language is Butchered English. The document is not well written because you guys forever fight over it's wording. For a start, you've clearly not read the posts in this thread, and clearly you've missed the gazillion threads arguing over the wording in the 2nd Amendment threads.

So, the bits you guys can't agree on, I suggest you rewrite and update them.

EVERY country has a constitution. It can be in one document, that's called Codified like America's, or Uncodified, where it's found across many documents like the UK's. EVERY country, bar one, is happy with their constitution, they know what's in it, they check it once in a blue moon when something needs checked.
That 'bar one' is America.

You guys every day go on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on with your constitution as though it's the only one on the FUCKING PLANET. So there's either a problem with your constitution or there's a problem with Americans.

Which one is it?
"You guys"?

I do not believe that ours is the only one on the FUCKING PLANET. That ignorant statement falls in line with the rest of your post.
 
Back
Top Bottom