Voters can IMPOSE term limits

[nels96]

Very tight Term Limits on Congress would go a long way to reduce corruption.

There is only one infallible way to make term limits happen: The American voter must IMPOSE term limits on Congress, by NEVER REELECTING anyone in Congress. Not your guy, nor your party’s guy, nor even a ‘good’ guy. Reelect nobody!

In other words, don't let anyone serve more than one term. That's the only way to teach them that the voter is the boss! The “one term limit” can be changed AFTER we citizens get control of Congress.

Congress will never allow you to term limit them. Your only choice is to NEVER REELECT them.

Remember too, it makes no difference who you vote for, as long as it is NEVER for any incumbent!

 

[jillian]

Very tight Term Limits on Congress would go a long way to reduce corruption.

There is only one infallible way to make term limits happen: The American voter must IMPOSE term limits on Congress, by NEVER REELECTING anyone in Congress. Not your guy, nor your party’s guy, nor even a ‘good’ guy. Reelect nobody!

In other words, don't let anyone serve more than one term. That's the only way to teach them that the voter is the boss! The “one term limit” can be changed AFTER we citizens get control of Congress.

Congress will never allow you to term limit them. Your only choice is to NEVER REELECT them.

Remember too, it makes no difference who you vote for, as long as it is NEVER for any incumbent!

oh no... stop me before i vote again.

you don't want to re-elect someone, vote against them and leave everyone else to THEIR vote.

and if you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that congress people don't even get to know their constituents well during the first term and have no ability to get anything done til they've been their a while and know the ropes.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Very tight Term Limits on Congress would go a long way to reduce corruption.

There is only one infallible way to make term limits happen: The American voter must IMPOSE term limits on Congress, by NEVER REELECTING anyone in Congress. Not your guy, nor your party’s guy, nor even a ‘good’ guy. Reelect nobody!

In other words, don't let anyone serve more than one term. That's the only way to teach them that the voter is the boss! The “one term limit” can be changed AFTER we citizens get control of Congress.

Congress will never allow you to term limit them. Your only choice is to NEVER REELECT them.

Remember too, it makes no difference who you vote for, as long as it is NEVER for any incumbent!

oh no... stop me before i vote again.

you don't want to re-elect someone, vote against them and leave everyone else to THEIR vote.

and if you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that congress people don't even get to know their constituents well during the first term and have no ability to get anything done til they've been their a while and know the ropes.

It wasn't very clear, but I think the OP says to do just that. Basically, term limit them by voting all of the Congress critters out. Then start fresh.

I did my upper division writing requirement on the Constitutionality of Term Limitations. Basically, the settled law is that states set their voting laws. State voting laws include election for US House and Senate. It is unsettled whether states may impose actual limits on the terms of its house or senate members. However, it is settled law that states may impose limits on who can be on the ballot.

So, states may impose de facto term limitations by limiting the ability of candidates (incumbents) from getting on the ballot. If that is the only thing you do, I'm not in favor of it. All that would do is increase the power of Congressional staffs.

If it were a part of a more sweeping reform, I might support it. I would include going back to the original representation based on a static number of people rather than a set district. So, each Representative would represent 250,000 people instead of 640,000. This would more than double the number of Congressmen. Then I would reduce the number of allowed staff. Reduce the number of committee assignments held by representatives. This would decrease the power of staff. Decrease the influence of money (cuz you would need less, smaller districts etc). And force Congress people to do more of their own work which they could now that they have fewer committee assignments.

When I did my paper, in 1993, there was a Congressman still serving that was elected the month before Pearl Harbor was attacked. I think that's just too long. I think with the reforms I mentioned, I would limit congressional terms to somewhere between 12 and 24 years. I don't think the institution would suffer from such a modest limitation.

 

[nels96]

Jillian
When you leave everybody to their own vote, you get 95% reelection rates, which give you an arrogant Congress which is only interested in reelection forever instead of good governance.

Do you really believe that 95% of Congress deserves continual reelection?

Tech_Esq
Congress will never, repeat never, allow us to term limit them. I suggest that we never reelect them repeatedly, until we have an essentially "one-term" Congress which is ready to pass a bill for a reasonable term limits amendment (2 or 3 terms).

 

[Navy1960]

I am all for term limiting Congress , I do think it would lend itself to a better more efficient Govt. less prone to be beholding to any particular lobby group or special interest. It would also allow for representation that is more reflective of the national mood rather than one that continually crys out about chance when they have been there for 20 years. I find it amusing that some in Congress call for change and a new day when the same people have been in Congress for decades . To my knowledge and I have not had the chance to look it up yet, I don't know of a state that imposes term limits on its representatives. However, it would seem to me that it would be a simple matter of amending a State constitution to do so. I do agree that Congress would scream to high heaven on this one if it were ever to happen. If term limits are good enough for the president then they are good enough for Congress. If this tells you anything about Congres and term limits you might want to see how they feel about the 22nd Amendment..

Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

In addition, several congressmen, including Rep. Barney Frank and Sen. Harry Reid[4], have introduced legislation to repeal the Twenty-second Amendment, but each resolution died before making it out of its respective committee.
Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Navy1960]

u. S. TERM LIMITS, INC., ET AL. v. THORNTON ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 93-1456. Argued November 29, 1994-Decided May 22,1995*

Respondent Hill filed this suit in Arkansas state court challenging the constitutionality of § 3 of Amendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution, which prohibits the name of an otherwise-eligible candidate for Congress from appearing on the general election ballot if that candidate has already served three terms in the House of Representatives or two terms in the Senate. The trial court held that § 3 violated Article I of the Federal Constitution, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed. A plurality of the latter court concluded that the States have no authority "to change, add to, or diminish" the age, citizenship, and residency requirements for congressional service enumerated in the Qualifications Clauses, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and Art. I, § 3, cl. 3, and rejected the argument that Amendment 73 is constitutional because it is formulated as a ballot access restriction rather than an outright disqualification of congressional incumbents.

Held: Section 3 of Amendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution violates the Federal Constitution. Pp. 787-838
u. S. TERM LIMITS, INC., ET AL. v. THORNTON ET AL. -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Just thought this might give people some idea of how cases are seen on this matter. Which as far as this decision goes is complete nonsense. It reminds me of the Texas v. White decision that based it's entire decision on the Articles of Confederation, Whats next fuzzy feelings and tea leaves?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Very tight Term Limits on Congress would go a long way to reduce corruption.

There is only one infallible way to make term limits happen: The American voter must IMPOSE term limits on Congress, by NEVER REELECTING anyone in Congress. !

Term limits is the stupidest fucking thing to come down the pike in ages. Go ahead---impose term limits on your congressmen and congresswomen and watch who gets federal aid because of knowledge of the system and seniority.

Go back to kindergarten you fucking tool.

 

[JBeukema]

4) No person may serve more than twelve years in any office or offices of Congress, be they in the House, the Senate, or any combination thereof

IMHO, the reason our Constitution never set term limits was that they never invisioned professional politicians in lieu of citizens doing their patrotic duty to serve for a short time and thought that term limits would be determined thru the election process.

I agree

After 18 or 24 years in office, people have too many ties to big business and the media to allow for truly free campaigns and elections. Term limits help limit such corruption and prevent such entrenchment, which is why they were put in place regarding the presidency

[Entrenchment + corruption] = No true republic

.

 

[Navy1960]

Very tight Term Limits on Congress would go a long way to reduce corruption.

There is only one infallible way to make term limits happen: The American voter must IMPOSE term limits on Congress, by NEVER REELECTING anyone in Congress. !

Term limits is the stupidest fucking thing to come down the pike in ages. Go ahead---impose term limits on your congressmen and congresswomen and watch who gets federal aid because of knowledge of the system and seniority.

Go back to kindergarten you fucking tool.

What part of my last post did you not understand when you neg rep'd me? The part where is said Supreme court rejected term limits? or did they not teach you to read where you come from? I know for a fact they didn't teach you anything about self respect, or respecting others? You supplied no data at all to back up your claims other than the rantings of a little boy in a play ground trying to be heard. So let me school you a little bit boy.

In May of 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against term limits in Congress in the case of U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton. By a 5-4 vote, the justices found that states could not impose term limits in Congress. Since Congress had been unable to muster the required two-thirds majority needed for a constitutional amendment to pass, the matter did not come up in Congress again.

Term limits have a long history. Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, two early civilizations which had elected offices, both imposed limits on some positions. In ancient Athenian democracy, no citizen could serve on the council of 500, or boule, for two consecutive annual terms, nor for more than two terms in his lifetime, nor be head of the boule more than once. In the Roman Republic, a law was passed imposing a limit of a single term on the office of censor. The annual magistrates—tribune of the plebs, aedile, quaestor, praetor, and consul—were forbidden reelection until a number of years had passed.[1] (see cursus honorum, Constitution of the Roman Republic).

Term limit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Next time you open that hole under your nose and apply it to a thread in which you obviously know nothing about and then neg rep me because your having a little temper tantrum, I suggest you read first, act like and adult second, and respect yourself and others third. Otherwise, I have no use for children that have nothing to offer.

 

[oreo]

This would be a great Republican platform. BUT--let's face it--until the American public riot in the streets like Iranians are--we won't get these cemented for life politicians out of our congress. The opt is right--& I would like to add--what is wrong with our government is that congress's always number 1 primary concern is getting re-elected next term & what's good for this country is always put down in the bottom drawer.

 

[Navy1960]

This would be a great Republican platform. BUT--let's face it--until the American public riot in the streets like Iranians are--we won't get these cemented for life politicians out of our congress. The opt is right--& I would like to add--what is wrong with our government is that congress's always number 1 primary concern is getting re-elected next term & what's good for this country is always put down in the bottom drawer.

While I know you understand the whole point of this thread oreo was to show that several states and even the president has term limits. In fact term limits have been around for centuries, however it died when then Supreme Court shot it down and I do believe your right about the several things when it comes to congress. Imagine all those poor lobby groups who would be out of a job if term limits were imposed, that would be a disaster wouldn't it. I suppose it depends on what side of the issue you come down, on and if you believe that a person should make a career out of being in Congress.

 

[Tech_Esq]

u. S. TERM LIMITS, INC., ET AL. v. THORNTON ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 93-1456. Argued November 29, 1994-Decided May 22,1995*

Respondent Hill filed this suit in Arkansas state court challenging the constitutionality of § 3 of Amendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution, which prohibits the name of an otherwise-eligible candidate for Congress from appearing on the general election ballot if that candidate has already served three terms in the House of Representatives or two terms in the Senate. The trial court held that § 3 violated Article I of the Federal Constitution, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed. A plurality of the latter court concluded that the States have no authority "to change, add to, or diminish" the age, citizenship, and residency requirements for congressional service enumerated in the Qualifications Clauses, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and Art. I, § 3, cl. 3, and rejected the argument that Amendment 73 is constitutional because it is formulated as a ballot access restriction rather than an outright disqualification of congressional incumbents.

Held: Section 3 of Amendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution violates the Federal Constitution. Pp. 787-838
u. S. TERM LIMITS, INC., ET AL. v. THORNTON ET AL. -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Just thought this might give people some idea of how cases are seen on this matter. Which as far as this decision goes is complete nonsense. It reminds me of the Texas v. White decision that based it's entire decision on the Articles of Confederation, Whats next fuzzy feelings and tea leaves?

Thanks for posting this. This decision came out a couple of years after my research for my paper on term limits. I guess the Supremes didn't read my paper....

I think the case was wrongly decided and runs contrary to previous case law which I could cite should anyone be interested. I'd post my 50 page paper on line but I don't have it in electronic format. Anyone that interested can get it from Congress as it was filed with the Committee on the Re-Organization of Congress in 1993.

Anyway, ballot access issues, which is what the Arkansas amendment was, have almost always been decided in favor of the state.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Very tight Term Limits on Congress would go a long way to reduce corruption.

There is only one infallible way to make term limits happen: The American voter must IMPOSE term limits on Congress, by NEVER REELECTING anyone in Congress. !

Term limits is the stupidest fucking thing to come down the pike in ages. Go ahead---impose term limits on your congressmen and congresswomen and watch who gets federal aid because of knowledge of the system and seniority.

Go back to kindergarten you fucking tool.

Dumb ass. Nice to know there is only one person out of 640,000 people where you live that can possibly do an adequate job of representing you. You all must be a bunch of dumb fucks where you are.

I hope you have guards and nannies around your representative so nothing can happen to him or apparently you'll be unrepresented.

We seem to come up with someone to be president every time but YOU think we can't find good representatives every once in a while. YEAH, YOU'RE SMART. Knucklehead.

 

[Navy1960]

u. S. TERM LIMITS, INC., ET AL. v. THORNTON ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 93-1456. Argued November 29, 1994-Decided May 22,1995*

Respondent Hill filed this suit in Arkansas state court challenging the constitutionality of § 3 of Amendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution, which prohibits the name of an otherwise-eligible candidate for Congress from appearing on the general election ballot if that candidate has already served three terms in the House of Representatives or two terms in the Senate. The trial court held that § 3 violated Article I of the Federal Constitution, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed. A plurality of the latter court concluded that the States have no authority "to change, add to, or diminish" the age, citizenship, and residency requirements for congressional service enumerated in the Qualifications Clauses, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and Art. I, § 3, cl. 3, and rejected the argument that Amendment 73 is constitutional because it is formulated as a ballot access restriction rather than an outright disqualification of congressional incumbents.

Held: Section 3 of Amendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution violates the Federal Constitution. Pp. 787-838
u. S. TERM LIMITS, INC., ET AL. v. THORNTON ET AL. -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Just thought this might give people some idea of how cases are seen on this matter. Which as far as this decision goes is complete nonsense. It reminds me of the Texas v. White decision that based it's entire decision on the Articles of Confederation, Whats next fuzzy feelings and tea leaves?

Thanks for posting this. This decision came out a couple of years after my research for my paper on term limits. I guess the Supremes didn't read my paper....

I think the case was wrongly decided and runs contrary to previous case law which I could cite should anyone be interested. I'd post my 50 page paper on line but I don't have it in electronic format. Anyone that interested can get it from Congress as it was filed with the Committee on the Re-Organization of Congress in 1993.

Anyway, ballot access issues, which is what the Arkansas amendment was, have almost always been decided in favor of the state.

I have to admit Tech the reasoning on this decision sort of throws logic out the window. It appears not only didn't they read your paper, it looks like they didn't pay much attention to other ballot access cases as well. It does appear that the SCOTUS was more or less going the route of if it's not spelled out in the contitution then the states have no rights. Funny, I always thought thats what the 10th Amendment was for.

 

[Tech_Esq]

u. S. TERM LIMITS, INC., ET AL. v. THORNTON ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 93-1456. Argued November 29, 1994-Decided May 22,1995*

Respondent Hill filed this suit in Arkansas state court challenging the constitutionality of § 3 of Amendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution, which prohibits the name of an otherwise-eligible candidate for Congress from appearing on the general election ballot if that candidate has already served three terms in the House of Representatives or two terms in the Senate. The trial court held that § 3 violated Article I of the Federal Constitution, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed. A plurality of the latter court concluded that the States have no authority "to change, add to, or diminish" the age, citizenship, and residency requirements for congressional service enumerated in the Qualifications Clauses, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and Art. I, § 3, cl. 3, and rejected the argument that Amendment 73 is constitutional because it is formulated as a ballot access restriction rather than an outright disqualification of congressional incumbents.

Held: Section 3 of Amendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution violates the Federal Constitution. Pp. 787-838
u. S. TERM LIMITS, INC., ET AL. v. THORNTON ET AL. -- US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez

Just thought this might give people some idea of how cases are seen on this matter. Which as far as this decision goes is complete nonsense. It reminds me of the Texas v. White decision that based it's entire decision on the Articles of Confederation, Whats next fuzzy feelings and tea leaves?

Thanks for posting this. This decision came out a couple of years after my research for my paper on term limits. I guess the Supremes didn't read my paper....

I think the case was wrongly decided and runs contrary to previous case law which I could cite should anyone be interested. I'd post my 50 page paper on line but I don't have it in electronic format. Anyone that interested can get it from Congress as it was filed with the Committee on the Re-Organization of Congress in 1993.

Anyway, ballot access issues, which is what the Arkansas amendment was, have almost always been decided in favor of the state.

I have to admit Tech the reasoning on this decision sort of throws logic out the window. It appears not only didn't they read your paper, it looks like they didn't pay much attention to other ballot access cases as well. It does appear that the SCOTUS was more or less going the route of if it's not spelled out in the contitution then the states have no rights. Funny, I always thought thats what the 10th Amendment was for.

Hence, my on-going rant about United States v. Darby Lumber Co. after this case, the 10th Amendment meant nothing at all. Until the SCOTUS overturns Wickard v. Filburn and US v. Darby there is no real hope for reversing the collision course with statism (be that in the form of socialism or fascism (does it really matter which?)) that we are on now.

 

[Navy1960]

Thanks for posting this. This decision came out a couple of years after my research for my paper on term limits. I guess the Supremes didn't read my paper....

I think the case was wrongly decided and runs contrary to previous case law which I could cite should anyone be interested. I'd post my 50 page paper on line but I don't have it in electronic format. Anyone that interested can get it from Congress as it was filed with the Committee on the Re-Organization of Congress in 1993.

Anyway, ballot access issues, which is what the Arkansas amendment was, have almost always been decided in favor of the state.

I have to admit Tech the reasoning on this decision sort of throws logic out the window. It appears not only didn't they read your paper, it looks like they didn't pay much attention to other ballot access cases as well. It does appear that the SCOTUS was more or less going the route of if it's not spelled out in the contitution then the states have no rights. Funny, I always thought thats what the 10th Amendment was for.

Hence, my on-going rant about United States v. Darby Lumber Co. after this case, the 10th Amendment meant nothing at all. Until the SCOTUS overturns Wickard v. Filburn and US v. Darby there is no real hope for reversing the collision course with statism (be that in the form of socialism or fascism (does it really matter which?)) that we are on now.

I have something then that might interest you, because I have a feeling this one might just end up being a states right case. As you know, with the healthcare bill looming there has been a lot of debate over it recently, well the Arizona house passed a bill just recently to assert it's rights on healthcare and passed it on to the Senate. Should this measure, go into law, I' pretty sure knowing all the forces at play here, that it will end up in the hands of the Supremes at one point or the other. Just a heads up , something to follow in case you or anyones interested...

PHOENIX, Arizona (June 22, 2009) — The Arizona Legislature today passed a bill that refers the Health Care Freedom Act (H.C.R. 2014) to the November 2010 ballot.

The Health Care Freedom Act will ensure Arizona residents may pay directly for any legal health services and choose not to participate in a government or privately run health care system.
Arizona Legislature Passes Important Bill To Protect | Arizona Healthcare Freedom Act

 

[jillian]

Jillian
When you leave everybody to their own vote, you get 95% reelection rates, which give you an arrogant Congress which is only interested in reelection forever instead of good governance.

Or perhaps you get a 95% re-election rate (if that's the number) because people are generally happy with their own local politicians. Personally, I wouldn't want to see my representatives replaced.

Do you really believe that 95% of Congress deserves continual reelection?

Ah... but there's the conundrum... most people would say "no"... until you ask about their own personal rep... with whom they have a personal affiliation... or who's done good things for their district.

Does that answer your question?

 

[Tech_Esq]

I have to admit Tech the reasoning on this decision sort of throws logic out the window. It appears not only didn't they read your paper, it looks like they didn't pay much attention to other ballot access cases as well. It does appear that the SCOTUS was more or less going the route of if it's not spelled out in the contitution then the states have no rights. Funny, I always thought thats what the 10th Amendment was for.

Hence, my on-going rant about United States v. Darby Lumber Co. after this case, the 10th Amendment meant nothing at all. Until the SCOTUS overturns Wickard v. Filburn and US v. Darby there is no real hope for reversing the collision course with statism (be that in the form of socialism or fascism (does it really matter which?)) that we are on now.

I have something then that might interest you, because I have a feeling this one might just end up being a states right case. As you know, with the healthcare bill looming there has been a lot of debate over it recently, well the Arizona house passed a bill just recently to assert it's rights on healthcare and passed it on to the Senate. Should this measure, go into law, I' pretty sure knowing all the forces at play here, that it will end up in the hands of the Supremes at one point or the other. Just a heads up , something to follow in case you or anyones interested...

PHOENIX, Arizona (June 22, 2009) — The Arizona Legislature today passed a bill that refers the Health Care Freedom Act (H.C.R. 2014) to the November 2010 ballot.

The Health Care Freedom Act will ensure Arizona residents may pay directly for any legal health services and choose not to participate in a government or privately run health care system.
Arizona Legislature Passes Important Bill To Protect | Arizona Healthcare Freedom Act

Yep, I've been watching those cases in several states where the states are asserting their rights under the 10th Amendment essentially, to not participate. I think this is the best chance for the Supremes to revisit Darby that there has been in a long time. I agree though, it will end up there.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Jillian
When you leave everybody to their own vote, you get 95% reelection rates, which give you an arrogant Congress which is only interested in reelection forever instead of good governance.

Or perhaps you get a 95% re-election rate (if that's the number) because people are generally happy with their own local politicians. Personally, I wouldn't want to see my representatives replaced.

Do you really believe that 95% of Congress deserves continual reelection?

Ah... but there's the conundrum... most people would say "no"... until you ask about their own personal rep... with whom they have a personal affiliation... or who's done good things for their district.

Does that answer your question?

However, when you look at funding rates for incumbents versus challengers, then add in Congressional perks like franking and town hall meetings, you really have to question whether it's because people really LIKE the incumbent over the challenger or the incumbent can put on a better marketing campaign to get re-elected.

At the time I did my research, 25% of all incumbents ran unopposed in the House. (Not the same ones every year of course). A majority either were unopposed or had weak competition (underfunded for running a serious race). The upshot was that there was a fairly small minority of races that were competitive based on tangibles money, recognition etc.

The really amazing thing is that challengers ever beat incumbents.

 

[jillian]

However, when you look at funding rates for incumbents versus challengers, then add in Congressional perks like franking and town hall meetings, you really have to question whether it's because people really LIKE the incumbent over the challenger or the incumbent can put on a better marketing campaign to get re-elected.

At the time I did my research, 25% of all incumbents ran unopposed in the House. (Not the same ones every year of course). A majority either were unopposed or had weak competition (underfunded for running a serious race). The upshot was that there was a fairly small minority of races that were competitive based on tangibles money, recognition etc.

The really amazing thing is that challengers ever beat incumbents.

I think it's mostly about positions... most politicians are pretty careful to represent their district's positions. They lose their seats when either they don't listen or they do something that ticks off their constituency.

And Tip O'Neill knew what he was talking about when he said "all politics are local".

Either way, I don't want anyone else artificially controlling my vote.