Term Limits.. it's time has come?

[bripat9643]

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

Do the results of the last 50 years indicate the voters are capable of choosing people to govern them?

 

[code1211]

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...

Not a big change. Vote to see who heads up committes instead of allowing the Majority Leader to appoint the most experienced thief.

 

[tonystewart1]

The people of my state relect their reps over and over again. Robert C Byrd got way more terms in the senate than he should have. We elected him over and over because he pandered to us with small benefits for pork barrel legislation. He was not good for our state and he was not good for the country. He was able to concentrate power that ensured his re-election year after year.

We need term limits if only to shake things up every now and then. Joe Manchin took Byrds seat and everyone know that it is a life long appointment. Give him 2 terms if 12 years is not long enough to get done what he wants done then he is not very effective.

 

[code1211]

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.

This is not a big issue. It's not Constitutional and it's not defined in law. It's a party device and is in place because the two parties want to freeze out any third party that might arise.

Term limits would dismantle the current structure and that's a good thing. Two terms in the Senate and six terms in the House is plenty.

I am so sick of seeing people who have no clue what the real world is about making laws out of shadows for the elite and the favored I'm ready to join the rebellion.

As soon as I hear the phrase " the _____ of the Senate" whether he be the Dean or the Lion or the verical corpse, I want to wretch. Retire these jag offs so they can condemn a differnt oraganization to the pits of failure and let the country advance on the wings of those who care about the country and not the next election.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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

It's a good old boy network operated on quid pro quo. That's not going to change without making congress a rubber stamp for a dictator - I find that thought even less appealing than the current corruption - because it operates on a 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' basis, power must be limited or the ability to consolidate it over time must be limited, as an answer to corruption.

That being said, I still believe that a simple and fair tax code will go a long way toward making the Campaign Financing Offices lining K Street irrelevant, putting a huge dent in the American corruption problem.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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..

I have to admit, I kind of like it - after all, in a true democracy we'd all 'represent' ourselves and vote on proposed legislation over the internet. Spreading power among greater numbers of people is also a good method of limiting power.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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.

Seniority would still be a major factor in electing legislators into leadership positions, term limits would simply limit the availability of entrenched party bosses for leadership jobs and allow the members to vote their conscience regarding leadership instead of simply voting for the party leader whose turn it is.

 

[Greenbeard]

I always interpret calls for term limits as an acknowledgement that elections are an ineffective method for affecting change. It's important to zero in on why that is and and ask if term limits address or fix those deficiencies. I suspect the answer, in general, is no.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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

Damn. Early congrats, Kiddo!

 

[AVG-JOE]

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

I don't trust the two and only two entrenched good ol' boy parties to present a suitable choice. That goes for state offices and president, too.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Do you all reckon term limits might affect things like gerrymandering of districts? The idea of expanding greatly the number of votes in congress that editec had probably would.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

Would you employ a doctor or lawyer, dentist or auto mechanic without experience? Term limits for the legislature make little sense; what makes the most sense is to restrict the money which influences them unduly. A member of the House owes a duty to the United States Constitution and its people, and to his or her district; A senator has the same duty.

Today, because of the enormous amount of cash needed to run for election or reelection those obligations are secondary to the influence of those who offer 'donations' - unions, corporations, entire industries and individuals of great wealth.

The elephant in the room is bribery, but never is the word spoken in the halls of congress or by the media which itself benefits from the process.

 

[AVG-JOE]

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

Do the results of the last 50 years indicate the voters are capable of choosing people to govern them?

I think a better question is: Do the results of the last 50 years indicate voters were presented with adequate choices in candidates by the two party corruption machine?

 

[bripat9643]

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

Do the results of the last 50 years indicate the voters are capable of choosing people to govern them?

I think a better question is: Do the results of the last 50 years indicate voters were presented with adequate choices in candidates by the two party corruption machine?

Regardless of the choices they were presented with, they could have made better choices.

FDR, Truman, LBJ, Carter, Bush Sr., Bush Jr, Obama.

They all suck.

 

[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

Would you employ a doctor or lawyer, dentist or auto mechanic without experience? Term limits for the legislature make little sense; what makes the most sense is to restrict the money which influences them unduly. A member of the House owes a duty to the United States Constitution and its people, and to his or her district; A senator has the same duty.

Today, because of the enormous amount of cash needed to run for election or reelection those obligations are secondary to the influence of those who offer 'donations' - unions, corporations, entire industries and individuals of great wealth.

The elephant in the room is bribery, but never is the word spoken in the halls of congress or by the media which itself benefits from the process.

Corruption is as corruption does.

 

[uscitizen]

Term limits are actually voter stupidity control laws.

To prevent voters from keeping reelecting the same bunch of corporate controlled drones.

 

[bripat9643]

I always interpret calls for term limits as an acknowledgement that elections are an ineffective method for affecting change. It's important to zero in on why that is and and ask if term limits address or fix those deficiencies. I suspect the answer, in general, is no.

Effecting change is far too easy under our system. That has been its downfall. Almost all the changes have been for the worst.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Do the results of the last 50 years indicate the voters are capable of choosing people to govern them?

I think a better question is: Do the results of the last 50 years indicate voters were presented with adequate choices in candidates by the two party corruption machine?

Regardless of the choices they were presented with, they could have made better choices.

FDR, Truman, LBJ, Carter, Bush Sr., Bush Jr, Obama.

They all suck.

Proving that effective party leadership does not translate into having the best intentions for the American People.

 

[idb]

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

Do the results of the last 50 years indicate the voters are capable of choosing people to govern them?

You've done pretty well doncha think?

 

[bripat9643]

Do the results of the last 50 years indicate the voters are capable of choosing people to govern them?

You've done pretty well doncha think?

I've done "pretty well" at what? If you man financially, the answer is I could have done a lot better. I was unemployed for 8 months because of the tech bubble created by that imbecile Clinton.