Levin: Congressional Term Limits

[g5000]

One of right wing pundit Mark Levin's ten proposed amendments to the Constitution is term limits for Congress. Two six year terms for Senators, six two year terms for Representatives.

This, of course, is not a new idea. Term limits were discussed at the very founding of our nation.

After the Gingrich revolution of 1994, an amendment identical to what Levin is proposing was introduced by Representative Bill McCollum of Florida: Bill Text - 104th Congress (1995-1996) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

This amendment failed because the Right felt six terms was still too long for House term limits. They wanted three terms, not six, to be the limit for a Representative.

A glimpse into the internecine battle: Congressional testimony of Senator Edward Crane-

As an example of this somewhat insidious process, let me relate an incident that occurred at the first organized term limit meeting I ever attended. It was back in 1990 and Americans to Limit Congressional Terms had brought together about 40 term limit activists from around the country. We had just voted on the length of terms we thought the House should be limited to. It turned out that we favored three terms, with two term running a very close second. I believe six terms received only one vote. At about that time Rep. Bill McCollum, who is now the lead sponsor of the six term bill before Congress, swept into the meeting with his entourage, and sat down apparently expecting to be lavished with praise for his long and futile effort to get 12 year limits passed in the House. Instead, he was informed that the group did not consider 12 year limits to be effective term limits and that we supported three-term limits. Rep. McCollum was taken aback and suggested that we would “discredit the term limit movement” by advocating three terms. Subsequently, of course, 15 of the of the 22 states that have passed term limits have three-term limits for the House. Only one state (North Dakota) has voted by initiative for six-term limits.

It seems the concept of term limits is approved by many across the political spectrum, and yet it never happens. Why?

I think, in part, it is because the sitting members of Congress almost never go along with a plan that would result in many, or most, of them losing their seats.

Another factor is the idea that the people should decide when they have had enough of their Senator or Representative.

I would like to address that second point.

Every time a poll is taken of the public's attitude toward their government, Congress always scores very badly. For years now, the approval rating has been down in the single digits.

But a funny thing happens when you ask people about their own specific Represenative or Senators. Then it turns out they like their guys. They keep re-electing them, over and over. It's those OTHER bastards they hate.

Their Senator brings home the bacon. Their Senator has a lot of seniority which provides him with choice committee seats which ensure he will keep bringing home the bacon as long as he draws a breath.

I think this is the biggest factor which prevents term limits from getting off the ground; the how-does-this-affect-me factor.

Get rid of the other asshole, but don't touch my guy.

Some states have attempted to impose term limits on their Congressman and Senators, but they quickly realize what a tremendous disadvantage that would put their state if no one else did it.


So there you go. For or against term limits?

Have at it.

ETA: [MENTION=21905]FA_Q2[/MENTION]

 

[g5000]

If you are an incumbent in the House of Representatives, here are your chances of re-election should you choose to run again:

If you are an incumbent in the Senate, here are your chances of re-election should you choose to run again:

Reelection Rates Over the Years | OpenSecrets


It should be noted that the umpteen campaign finance reforms passed by Congress, and the seven (I think) Supreme Court decisions affecting campaign finance, in those 50 years have done virtually NOTHING to change the re-election chances of an incumbent who chooses to run.


Perhaps this explains why a Congressman no longer feels any pressure to resign when caught in a scandal.

 

[Avatar4321]

The problem I have with term limits is that it then puts politicians in office who have absolutely no reason to fear about being reelected. And that's the only thing that restrains some of them to actually listen to their constituents.

Perhaps we could keep things the same for House members and put term limits on Senators, who weren't supposed to represent the people in the first place.

 

[Avatar4321]

If you are an incumbent in the House of Representatives, here are your chances of re-election should you choose to run again:

If you are an incumbent in the Senate, here are your chances of re-election should you choose to run again:

Reelection Rates Over the Years | OpenSecrets


It should be noted that the umpteen campaign finance reforms passed by Congress, and the seven (I think) Supreme Court decisions affecting campaign finance, in those 50 years have done virtually NOTHING to change the re-election chances of an incumbent who chooses to run.


Perhaps this explains why a Congressman no longer feels any pressure to resign when caught in a scandal.

That would be because campaign finance laws were designed to keep incumbants in office. You could rename McCain Fiengold the Incumbant protection act, and it would accurately represent what they tried to do. What do you expect when you pass a law that prohibits people from criticizing a sitting politician 60 days before an election?

It's ridiculous, but that's a totally different topic

 

[g5000]

The problem I have with term limits is that it then puts politicians in office who have absolutely no reason to fear about being reelected.

Like a second term President?

 

[g5000]

That would be because campaign finance laws were designed to keep incumbants in office. You could rename McCain Fiengold the Incumbant protection act, and it would accurately represent what they tried to do. What do you expect when you pass a law that prohibits people from criticizing a sitting politician 60 days before an election?

It's ridiculous, but that's a totally different topic

I agree. I have often talked about McCain-Feingold and how Congress ensured it would not affect their chances of re-election. One of the very first things struck from the original draft was a provision banning the use of their franking priveleges in an election year.

I could just hear them, "Oh HELL NO!!!"

 

[Avatar4321]

The problem I have with term limits is that it then puts politicians in office who have absolutely no reason to fear about being reelected.

Like a second term President?

Yes. Exactly.

 

[g5000]

The problem I have with term limits is that it then puts politicians in office who have absolutely no reason to fear about being reelected.

Like a second term President?

Yes. Exactly.

Do you feel Obama is any less responsive to the voters than he was before? I don't.

I think Congress is incredibly unresponsive to the electorate right now. They have no fear about being re-elected because they WILL be re-elected. The odds are 98 percent for a Representative.

We have an American Politboro.

 

[Avatar4321]

Like a second term President?

Yes. Exactly.

Do you feel Obama is any less responsive to the voters than he was before? I don't.

I think Congress is incredibly unresponsive to the electorate right now. They have no fear about being re-elected because they WILL be re-elected. The odds are 98 percent for a Representative.

We have an American Politboro.

I dont think Obama was ever responsive to the voters. If he was, he would have vetoed Obamacare.

We need to get the fear of God or at least fear of the people back in these politicians

 

[g5000]

I dont think Obama was ever responsive to the voters. If he was, he would have vetoed Obamacare.

We need to get the fear of God or at least fear of the people back in these politicians

The only way to do that is to level the electoral playing field.

When you have a 98 percent chance of re-election for an incumbent, that is a playing field tilted like a TV Batman fight scene.

Pehaps that is too obscure a reference...but you get the point.

Frankly, I don't think 12 year term limits are a leveling of the field. I think term limits are treating the symptoms and not the disease, which is why I speak so frequently about banning tax expenditures and eliminating regulatory capture. Those are the things which are giving the incumbents a grossly unfair advantage over challengers.

 

[Avatar4321]

I dont think Obama was ever responsive to the voters. If he was, he would have vetoed Obamacare.

We need to get the fear of God or at least fear of the people back in these politicians

The only way to do that is to level the electoral playing field.

When you have a 98 percent chance of re-election for an incumbent, that is a playing field tilted like a TV Batman fight scene.

Pehaps that is too obscure a reference...but you get the point.

Frankly, I don't think 12 year term limits are a leveling of the field. I think term limits are treating the symptoms and not the disease, which is why I speak so frequently about banning tax expenditures and eliminating regulatory capture. Those are the things which are giving the incumbents a grossly unfair advantage over challengers.

I tend to agree. These is a band aid for the real problem: The corruption of the people. We need to fix the people first. If we can do that, then we can fix the system where it's broken.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Doing away with gerrymandered districts would help, but that would only apply to the House.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The problem I have with term limits is that it then puts politicians in office who have absolutely no reason to fear about being reelected. And that's the only thing that restrains some of them to actually listen to their constituents.

You deal with the same thing when one decides to retire, so really what's the difference?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

One of right wing pundit Mark Levin's ten proposed amendments to the Constitution is term limits for Congress. Two six year terms for Senators, six two year terms for Representatives.

This, of course, is not a new idea. Term limits were discussed at the very founding of our nation.

After the Gingrich revolution of 1994, an amendment identical to what Levin is proposing was introduced by Representative Bill McCollum of Florida: Bill Text - 104th Congress (1995-1996) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

This amendment failed because the Right felt six terms was still too long for House term limits. They wanted three terms, not six, to be the limit for a Representative.

A glimpse into the internecine battle: Congressional testimony of Senator Edward Crane-

As an example of this somewhat insidious process, let me relate an incident that occurred at the first organized term limit meeting I ever attended. It was back in 1990 and Americans to Limit Congressional Terms had brought together about 40 term limit activists from around the country. We had just voted on the length of terms we thought the House should be limited to. It turned out that we favored three terms, with two term running a very close second. I believe six terms received only one vote. At about that time Rep. Bill McCollum, who is now the lead sponsor of the six term bill before Congress, swept into the meeting with his entourage, and sat down apparently expecting to be lavished with praise for his long and futile effort to get 12 year limits passed in the House. Instead, he was informed that the group did not consider 12 year limits to be effective term limits and that we supported three-term limits. Rep. McCollum was taken aback and suggested that we would “discredit the term limit movement” by advocating three terms. Subsequently, of course, 15 of the of the 22 states that have passed term limits have three-term limits for the House. Only one state (North Dakota) has voted by initiative for six-term limits.

It seems the concept of term limits is approved by many across the political spectrum, and yet it never happens. Why?

I think, in part, it is because the sitting members of Congress almost never go along with a plan that would result in many, or most, of them losing their seats.

Another factor is the idea that the people should decide when they have had enough of their Senator or Representative.

I would like to address that second point.

Every time a poll is taken of the public's attitude toward their government, Congress always scores very badly. For years now, the approval rating has been down in the single digits.

But a funny thing happens when you ask people about their own specific Represenative or Senators. Then it turns out they like their guys. They keep re-electing them, over and over. It's those OTHER bastards they hate.

Their Senator brings home the bacon. Their Senator has a lot of seniority which provides him with choice committee seats which ensure he will keep bringing home the bacon as long as he draws a breath.

I think this is the biggest factor which prevents term limits from getting off the ground; the how-does-this-affect-me factor.

Get rid of the other asshole, but don't touch my guy.

Some states have attempted to impose term limits on their Congressman and Senators, but they quickly realize what a tremendous disadvantage that would put their state if no one else did it.


So there you go. For or against term limits?

Have at it.

ETA: [MENTION=21905]FA_Q2[/MENTION]

Not to mention the fact it’s un-Constitutional for states to attempt to do so:

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

 

[FA_Q2]

I dont think Obama was ever responsive to the voters. If he was, he would have vetoed Obamacare.

We need to get the fear of God or at least fear of the people back in these politicians

The only way to do that is to level the electoral playing field.

When you have a 98 percent chance of re-election for an incumbent, that is a playing field tilted like a TV Batman fight scene.

Pehaps that is too obscure a reference...but you get the point.

Frankly, I don't think 12 year term limits are a leveling of the field. I think term limits are treating the symptoms and not the disease, which is why I speak so frequently about banning tax expenditures and eliminating regulatory capture. Those are the things which are giving the incumbents a grossly unfair advantage over challengers.

This, this and more this.

The problem I have with term limits is that all we are going to get is another bought representative that does the same bullshit that the last one did. Term limits MIGHT be a good thing to impose after we fix the fundamentals but until those are fixed we are not going to make any ground. The underlying problem is that the hose has enabled the vast majority of the seats to be lock-ins where the party picks the next (or current) occupant rather than the actual people. Further, until we get an electorate that bother to pay attention to these people we are going to get the same crap.

Personally I think that the real solution lies in reforming the PARTY system rather than reforming the tem length. Trash parties and you trash the main power block that selects our candidates. Right now, it is simply a matter of the number of partisans each district has in order to get elected. Without parties, such would no longer be the issue. Instead, people might actually have to know an issue or 2 before casting a vote.

Then, as you mentioned, we need to eliminate the moneyed interests through illegalizing tax expenditures and regulatory capture. That issue those is greater than simply selecting the right reps and goes more along the lines of fixing the corruption that is rampant within the entire system.

I think there is more to why people like their current senator when they dislike congress in general. To be honest, I think that is mostly because most people have no idea about their senator/rep at all. There are very few people capable of even naming their rep or even what party they are in. In that light, I think that simply voting the incumbent/partisan is the way that most vote so they can avoid actually having to think. Sad but likely true. The hard part is figuring out HOW to engage the voting populous to care enough to pay attention. I am out of solutions in that area though. The tendency for man to become complacent during the good times is just to overpowering and I don’t know how to compensate for that.

One solution that I brought up awhile ago was that you would actually need to write in your candidate – no names on the ballot whatsoever. That might curb the vast number of people that simply check the box of the preferred party or the name that they somewhat recognize while not barring the right to vote in any way shape or form.


On a brighter note – I know how to use tags now

 

[FA_Q2]

One of right wing pundit Mark Levin's ten proposed amendments to the Constitution is term limits for Congress. Two six year terms for Senators, six two year terms for Representatives.

This, of course, is not a new idea. Term limits were discussed at the very founding of our nation.

After the Gingrich revolution of 1994, an amendment identical to what Levin is proposing was introduced by Representative Bill McCollum of Florida: Bill Text - 104th Congress (1995-1996) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

This amendment failed because the Right felt six terms was still too long for House term limits. They wanted three terms, not six, to be the limit for a Representative.

A glimpse into the internecine battle: Congressional testimony of Senator Edward Crane-

As an example of this somewhat insidious process, let me relate an incident that occurred at the first organized term limit meeting I ever attended. It was back in 1990 and Americans to Limit Congressional Terms had brought together about 40 term limit activists from around the country. We had just voted on the length of terms we thought the House should be limited to. It turned out that we favored three terms, with two term running a very close second. I believe six terms received only one vote. At about that time Rep. Bill McCollum, who is now the lead sponsor of the six term bill before Congress, swept into the meeting with his entourage, and sat down apparently expecting to be lavished with praise for his long and futile effort to get 12 year limits passed in the House. Instead, he was informed that the group did not consider 12 year limits to be effective term limits and that we supported three-term limits. Rep. McCollum was taken aback and suggested that we would “discredit the term limit movement” by advocating three terms. Subsequently, of course, 15 of the of the 22 states that have passed term limits have three-term limits for the House. Only one state (North Dakota) has voted by initiative for six-term limits.

It seems the concept of term limits is approved by many across the political spectrum, and yet it never happens. Why?

I think, in part, it is because the sitting members of Congress almost never go along with a plan that would result in many, or most, of them losing their seats.

Another factor is the idea that the people should decide when they have had enough of their Senator or Representative.

I would like to address that second point.

Every time a poll is taken of the public's attitude toward their government, Congress always scores very badly. For years now, the approval rating has been down in the single digits.

But a funny thing happens when you ask people about their own specific Represenative or Senators. Then it turns out they like their guys. They keep re-electing them, over and over. It's those OTHER bastards they hate.

Their Senator brings home the bacon. Their Senator has a lot of seniority which provides him with choice committee seats which ensure he will keep bringing home the bacon as long as he draws a breath.

I think this is the biggest factor which prevents term limits from getting off the ground; the how-does-this-affect-me factor.

Get rid of the other asshole, but don't touch my guy.

Some states have attempted to impose term limits on their Congressman and Senators, but they quickly realize what a tremendous disadvantage that would put their state if no one else did it.


So there you go. For or against term limits?

Have at it.

ETA: [MENTION=21905]FA_Q2[/MENTION]

Not to mention the fact it’s un-Constitutional for states to attempt to do so:

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).

Interesting read. At first I thought they were off as the states do and should have control over their electoral process but as I read more, I have to agree with the judges. If they want a change, it is time for an amendment.

 

[tinydancer]

One of right wing pundit Mark Levin's ten proposed amendments to the Constitution is term limits for Congress. Two six year terms for Senators, six two year terms for Representatives.

This, of course, is not a new idea. Term limits were discussed at the very founding of our nation.

After the Gingrich revolution of 1994, an amendment identical to what Levin is proposing was introduced by Representative Bill McCollum of Florida: Bill Text - 104th Congress (1995-1996) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

This amendment failed because the Right felt six terms was still too long for House term limits. They wanted three terms, not six, to be the limit for a Representative.

A glimpse into the internecine battle: Congressional testimony of Senator Edward Crane-

As an example of this somewhat insidious process, let me relate an incident that occurred at the first organized term limit meeting I ever attended. It was back in 1990 and Americans to Limit Congressional Terms had brought together about 40 term limit activists from around the country. We had just voted on the length of terms we thought the House should be limited to. It turned out that we favored three terms, with two term running a very close second. I believe six terms received only one vote. At about that time Rep. Bill McCollum, who is now the lead sponsor of the six term bill before Congress, swept into the meeting with his entourage, and sat down apparently expecting to be lavished with praise for his long and futile effort to get 12 year limits passed in the House. Instead, he was informed that the group did not consider 12 year limits to be effective term limits and that we supported three-term limits. Rep. McCollum was taken aback and suggested that we would “discredit the term limit movement” by advocating three terms. Subsequently, of course, 15 of the of the 22 states that have passed term limits have three-term limits for the House. Only one state (North Dakota) has voted by initiative for six-term limits.

It seems the concept of term limits is approved by many across the political spectrum, and yet it never happens. Why?

I think, in part, it is because the sitting members of Congress almost never go along with a plan that would result in many, or most, of them losing their seats.

Another factor is the idea that the people should decide when they have had enough of their Senator or Representative.

I would like to address that second point.

Every time a poll is taken of the public's attitude toward their government, Congress always scores very badly. For years now, the approval rating has been down in the single digits.

But a funny thing happens when you ask people about their own specific Represenative or Senators. Then it turns out they like their guys. They keep re-electing them, over and over. It's those OTHER bastards they hate.

Their Senator brings home the bacon. Their Senator has a lot of seniority which provides him with choice committee seats which ensure he will keep bringing home the bacon as long as he draws a breath.

I think this is the biggest factor which prevents term limits from getting off the ground; the how-does-this-affect-me factor.

Get rid of the other asshole, but don't touch my guy.

Some states have attempted to impose term limits on their Congressman and Senators, but they quickly realize what a tremendous disadvantage that would put their state if no one else did it.


So there you go. For or against term limits?

Have at it.

ETA: [MENTION=21905]FA_Q2[/MENTION]

Term limits to be sure.

Oh and because I like thinking outside the box, I love love love the Swiss model.

It rocks. Government works for you not the other way around.

 

[Snouter]

One of right wing pundit Mark Levin's

Levin is technically controlled opposite, like Micheal Savage Lite. He seems reluctant to discuss the zionist lobby groups that control the politicians. The lobby groups is who they report to, not individual American so term limits really don't matter.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

One of right wing pundit Mark Levin's

Levin is technically controlled opposite, like Micheal Savage Lite. He seems reluctant to discuss the zionist lobby groups that control the politicians. The lobby groups is who they report to, not individual American so term limits really don't matter.

So not only do you hate black people you also hate Jews. Good to know.

 

[FA_Q2]

One of right wing pundit Mark Levin's

Levin is technically controlled opposite, like Micheal Savage Lite. He seems reluctant to discuss the zionist lobby groups that control the politicians. The lobby groups is who they report to, not individual American so term limits really don't matter.

Savage is a raving idiot. Most pundits are but almost all of them I can at least listen to. Savage on the other hand, I can’t stomach his raving.

I have to say though, my wife HATE Levin’s voice. It grates on her ears. Not a good thing for a radio host – lol.