Term limits for Senators & Congressmen? [Archive]

View Full Version : Term limits for Senators & Congressmen?

WRESTLINGFAN

10-15-2006, 03:15 PM

Both parties have members that have overstayed their time on Capitol Hill. Would you be in favor of an ammendment that limits Senators to only 2 terms (6 years each term) and Mmbers of the house to 6 terms (2 yrs each). I think it would be good. This way new faces can be voted in and those dinosaurs like Kennedy and Byrd can be sent packing

SatCam

10-15-2006, 03:59 PM

those dinosaurs like Kennedy and Byrd can be sent packing

Already packing:

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2006/10/03/PH2006100301608.jpg[img]

Already packing:

[img]http://www.nndb.com/people/506/000039389/kolbe.jpg

Already packing:

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2005/09/28/1127928211_5467.jpg

Already packing:

http://www.illinoisfamily.org/content/img/f28744/SZ200_Sen%20Rick%20Santorum.jpg

Already packing:

http://joemonahansnewmexico.blogspot.com/hilary_clinton.jpg

Already packing:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/15/Barack_Obama_portrait_2005.jpg/160px-Barack_Obama_portrait_2005.jpg

sr71blackbird

10-15-2006, 04:09 PM

If there are term limits, how come Ted Kennedys been senator for like 40 years?

TheMojoPin

10-15-2006, 04:11 PM

Personally, I think all of them, including the president, should be limited to only 1 term each.  Anything more is just a mini-regime and makes the last available term nothing but a lame duck period that leads to too much bullshit.

epo

10-15-2006, 06:37 PM

I would be in favor of the following:<ul><li>Senators - 3 terms.  By then they've learned the system and have hit a groove.  The good ones can get some great work done in committees.</li><li>House of Reps - 10 terms.  Honestly some really great Reps sit in that House for awhile, but if they haven't made a difference in 20 years, they aren't gonna make a difference.</li><li>President - I would be in favor of 1 six year term.  No relection strategy, just shut your mouth and work in a bi-partisan (most of the time) to get your job done. </li></ul>

furie

10-15-2006, 06:41 PM

from what i remember of the federalist papers, it was the intension for senators to be career politician/civil servants, which is why they have the 6 year terms. where as the congressmen were supposed to come from the general politician. it was every educated man's responiciblity to drop what they were doing (leave the farm, private practice, whatever) and serve their country for two years.

so in keeping with that, I think the house should be limited to two terms, and the senate limited to 3 possibly four.

This message was edited by furie on 10-15-06 @ 10:42 PM

Gvac

10-15-2006, 06:42 PM

There should be term limits for every political office on every level.  The mayor of my town has held the position for close to 35 years.  People vote for him every election just out of a sense of tradition.  It's absurd, and politics was never meant to be a career for somebody in our country.

A.J.

10-16-2006, 02:38 AM

SatCam wrote:  <img src="http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2005/09/28/1127928211_5467.jpg" border="0" /> Already packing:  He's packing alright. To answer the question:  no, there should not be term limits.  We already have a term limit system in place.  It's called your vote.  All that's required is that you pay attention to the issues and, oh I don't know, to who your elected officials actually are.  If the majority of voters want to reelect Byrd, Kennedy, or even Mayor for Life Barry that's their right.

This message was edited by A.J. on 10-16-06 @ 6:41 AM

KennethC

10-16-2006, 08:00 AM

Term limits are unnecessary. We already to have them - it's called voting. I'm against term limits because I feel we should be able to vote for whomever we want. Term limits restrict our choices.

mikeyboy

10-16-2006, 08:01 AM

I agree with A.J. and Ken.

KennethC

10-16-2006, 08:05 AM

mikeyboy wrote: I agree with A.J. and Ken. I should have hit "refresh," preventing me from simply regurgitating a less articulate version of A.J.'s pithy post.

Yerdaddy

10-16-2006, 09:06 AM

I would like to bore-ass you all with a 5000 word post, but I agree with AJ. You bastard!

pennington

10-16-2006, 01:48 PM

WRESTLINGFAN wrote: Would you be in favor of an ammendment that limits Senators to only 2 terms (6 years each term) and Mmbers of the house to 6 terms (2 yrs each). YES! Where do I sign?I would also include all Federal Judges and Supreme Court Judges.  Twelve years is enough and there are plenty of very smart people who could take their place. The clock starts ticking from the time they're sworn in.

Gvac

10-16-2006, 04:22 PM

I appreciate all the "we already have limits, you can vote them out" sentiments, but fact is it just ain't true.  The longer a politician holds office the more power and money and backers he accumulates.  It's an unfair advantage and no one should hold office for decades upon decades.  It's a perversion.

Bulldogcakes

10-16-2006, 04:31 PM

TheMojoPin wrote: Personally, I think all of them, including the president, should be limited to only 1 term each. Anything more is just a mini-regime and makes the last available term nothing but a lame duck period that leads to too much bullshit. Which for all you Constitutional scholars out there was the original plan of the founders. One 6 year term.  <blockquote />

Bulldogcakes

10-16-2006, 04:44 PM

Theorhetically AJ, Mikey and Ken are right. In practice however, incumbency gives candidates so many advantages (I wont bore you with) that they get re-elected at a <a href="http://tenurecorrupts.com/arguments.html" target="_self" title="99% rate.">99% rate.</a> Nobody can argue that 99% of these clowns are doing a good job. I think the old Soviet Politburo died at a faster rate than that.

jetdog

10-16-2006, 05:06 PM

weak link in the AJ argument: A majority of Americans don't vote and
don't care (no I don't have the stats on this, but look it up and I'm
sure it's indesputible) leaving politicians capable of focusing there
pandering,and that's what it is now- it's not public service- on a
small group of rabid patrons.  This government was set up with the
idea of protecting the minority, however stupid and reprehensible they
are, from the tyranny of the majority, however stupid and reprehensible
and politically active they are.

A.J.

10-17-2006, 04:07 AM

I understand GVAC's, BDC's and jetdog's valid points.  Voter apathy and influence peddling are certainly factors in continued incumbancy.  Another factor is redistricting which almost certainly guarantees a party's control of a particular Congressional district -- which is why next month will almost certainly not see a major Democratic pickup in House seats.But consider the value that a lengthy tenure offers: experience and credibility.  John Warner is an authority on military issues.  Joe Biden on foreign policy/diplomacy.  And yes, even Ted Kennedy is an authority on health care/social issues.  If you have a set term limit, how are elected officials going to gain such experience/authority on the important issues?  Like it nor not, with experience and authority comes the ability to do a better job of "bringing home the bacon".  Where do you think those new roads and bridges come from?And, like them or not, Senators like Byrd, Kennedy, Inoyue, and Stevens have been around for 40 years and represent the "institutional memory" of government for the nearly 10 Presidents they served under.  Does it benefit us to have a "revolving door Congress" simply because people are too lazy and stupid to pay attention and/or participate in the Democratic process?  And again, they ARE elected by a majority of voters -- if the majority believes they are doing a good job and should be rewarded with continued service, isn't that their right?

TheMojoPin

10-17-2006, 04:11 AM

I look at limiting term limits as a very mild form of Jefferson's idea of feeding the tree of liberty, which is why I prefer it.

spoon

11-08-2006, 03:31 PM

A.J. wrote: "I understand GVAC's, BDC's and jetdog's valid points.  Voter apathy and influence peddling are certainly factors in continued incumbancy.  Another factor is redistricting which almost certainly guarantees a party's control of a particular Congressional district -- which is why next month will almost certainly not see a major Democratic pickup in House seats........"Sorry buddy but even that didn't save the repubs.  And they did take this to a new fucking level in 04 and 06.

Gvac

11-09-2006, 02:28 AM

I've decided that 6 is the magic number of years any one politician should be allowed to serve.  President - one 6 year termSenator - one 6 year term Rep - three 2 year terms (but I'd listen to debate for two 3 year terms)

A.J.

11-09-2006, 04:06 AM

spoon wrote: A.J. wrote: "I understand GVAC's, BDC's and jetdog's valid points.  Voter apathy and influence peddling are certainly factors in continued incumbancy.  Another factor is redistricting which almost certainly guarantees a party's control of a particular Congressional district -- which is why next month will almost certainly not see a major Democratic pickup in House seats........"Sorry buddy but even that didn't save the repubs.  And they did take this to a new fucking level in 04 and 06.Yeah I conceded <a href="http://www.ronfez.net/messageboard/viewmessages.cfm/CurrentPage/3/forum/87/Topic/53044/RequestTimeout/500" target="_self">here</a>.  I guess I blew my chance to be a talking head on the political roundtables.

HeyGuy

11-09-2006, 10:17 AM

A.J. wrote: SatCam wrote:  <img src="http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Photo/2005/09/28/1127928211_5467.jpg" border="0" /> Already packing:  He's packing alright. To answer the question:  no, there should not be term limits.  We already have a term limit system in place.  It's called your vote.  All that's required is that you pay attention to the issues and, oh I don't know, to who your elected officials actually are.  If the majority of voters want to reelect Byrd, Kennedy, or even Mayor for Life Barry that's their right.This message was edited by A.J. on 10-16-06 @ 6:41 AM Wow AJ we usually dont agree on much, but we are 100% on this one. I also believe that when you have terms, usually nothing gets done the last couple years of that term or politicians will go overboard and do whatever they want because they know that voters cant do anything because they are done anyway.The problem is, like AJ stated people need to know who their elected officials are and judge them on performance and then vote based on that. If you vote, just ot vote and dont know who or what your voting for then please dont vote.

HeyGuy

11-09-2006, 10:20 AM

A.J. wrote: I understand GVAC's, BDC's and jetdog's valid points.  Voter apathy and influence peddling are certainly factors in continued incumbancy.  Another factor is redistricting which almost certainly guarantees a party's control of a particular Congressional district -- which is why next month will almost certainly not see a major Democratic pickup in House seats.But consider the value that a lengthy tenure offers: experience and credibility.  John Warner is an authority on military issues.  Joe Biden on foreign policy/diplomacy.  And yes, even Ted Kennedy is an authority on health care/social issues.  If you have a set term limit, how are elected officials going to gain such experience/authority on the important issues?  Like it nor not, with experience and authority comes the ability to do a better job of "bringing home the bacon".  Where do you think those new roads and bridges come from?And, like them or not, Senators like Byrd, Kennedy, Inoyue, and Stevens have been around for 40 years and represent the "institutional memory" of government for the nearly 10 Presidents they served under.  Does it benefit us to have a "revolving door Congress" simply because people are too lazy and stupid to pay attention and/or participate in the Democratic process?  And again, they ARE elected by a majority of voters -- if the majority believes they are doing a good job and should be rewarded with continued service, isn't that their right?thats twice you have written something we agree on. One of us is changing sides and I cant tell who it is!!!

HeyGuy

11-09-2006, 10:22 AM

Gvac wrote: I've decided that 6 is the magic number of years any one politician should be allowed to serve.  President - one 6 year termSenator - one 6 year term Rep - three 2 year terms (but I'd listen to debate for two 3 year terms) That couldnt never work or happen. If that did happen we would be lied to during capaigns more then we are now. Once the winner was announced the new president would and could do whatever he wanted knowing that we couldnt vote him out. Re-election keeps most grounded.

TheMojoPin

11-09-2006, 10:32 AM

CampoNJ wrote: Gvac wrote: I've decided that 6 is the magic number of years any one politician should be allowed to serve.  President - one 6 year termSenator - one 6 year term Rep - three 2 year terms (but I'd listen to debate for two 3 year terms) That couldnt never work or happen. If that did happen we would be lied to during capaigns more then we are now. Once the winner was announced the new president would and could do whatever he wanted knowing that we couldnt vote him out. Re-election keeps most grounded.The flip side of that is that too much time of a president's first term is spent trying to potentially get re-elected for a 2nd term, and that influences their decisions too much.

A.J.

11-10-2006, 10:05 AM

CampoNJ wrote: A.J. wrote: I understand GVAC's, BDC's and jetdog's valid points.  Voter apathy and influence peddling are certainly factors in continued incumbancy.  Another factor is redistricting which almost certainly guarantees a party's control of a particular Congressional district -- which is why next month will almost certainly not see a major Democratic pickup in House seats.But consider the value that a lengthy tenure offers: experience and credibility.  John Warner is an authority on military issues.  Joe Biden on foreign policy/diplomacy.  And yes, even Ted Kennedy is an authority on health care/social issues.  If you have a set term limit, how are elected officials going to gain such experience/authority on the important issues?  Like it nor not, with experience and authority comes the ability to do a better job of "bringing home the bacon".  Where do you think those new roads and bridges come from?And, like them or not, Senators like Byrd, Kennedy, Inoyue, and Stevens have been around for 40 years and represent the "institutional memory" of government for the nearly 10 Presidents they served under.  Does it benefit us to have a "revolving door Congress" simply because people are too lazy and stupid to pay attention and/or participate in the Democratic process?  And again, they ARE elected by a majority of voters -- if the majority believes they are doing a good job and should be rewarded with continued service, isn't that their right?thats twice you have written something we agree on. One of us is changing sides and I cant tell who it is!!!"During the fight, I've seen a lot of changing, in the way I feel about you, and the way you feel about me. I guess what I'm trying to say is that if I can change, and you can change, everyone can change."<img height="238" src="http://62.233.40.83/0/23/90/06/rocky_iv__1985.jpg" width="300" border="0" />

AKA

11-10-2006, 11:25 AM

I've been screaming about the one term/six years for a President for years. It drives me up the fucking wall that a such a significant part of their elected job is spent trying to get re-elected.

A.J.

11-11-2006, 08:35 AM

AKA wrote: I've been screaming about the one term/six years for a President for years. It drives me up the fucking wall that a such a significant part of their elected job is spent trying to get re-elected. That's also a significant part of the elected job of Senators, Congresspersons, Governors, State Legislators, Mayors, Aldermen....