Jump to content

The argument for term limits.


Recommended Posts

There is certainly wide support for reform of term limits on Congress.. In a 2023 Pew research poll, 87 percent of Americans expressed support for congressional term limits.

Constitution center.org :  "The argument againstfor term limits supporters argue, term limits could reduce corruption and increase independence from special interests and partisanship. By rotating leadership, lobbyists and advocacy groups would not be able to “invest” in campaigns and curry favor over time. Plus, “power tends to corrupt,” so if power is limited, the thinking goes, so is corruption.

On the other hand, defenders of unlimited terms point to the experience and independence gained from long service. With such a large and complicated federal bureaucracy, members are most effective—and most resistant to special interests—when they are most knowledgeable. Defenders also claim the idea is undemocratic—why shouldn't a constituency be able to reward and punish its representatives as it sees fit? (An incumbency rate well over 90 percent and the increasing levels of money in politics suggest elections may not be as effective a check on congressional failure as this argument contends.)"        90 Percent rivals  the lifetime position of the supreme court.   

There have also been calls for the Court to go from a lifetime term to 18 years with a one term President able to Nominate 2 justices and a two term president can nominate 4 justices.   Which sounds reasonable.

The argument 

Recently, Rep. Ralph Norman and Sen. Ted Cruz proposed a congressional term limits amendment in Congress. The proposal limited the terms to six years served in the House and 12 years in the Senate. In September 2023, the House Judiciary committee voted down the resolution in a 19-17 vote.   

 Will term limits ever be passed when congress themselves have a say in it?    Power corrupts.  

When we continually elect the same representatives we are giving them the green light to steal and enrich themselves.   The last report I saw Pelosi is worth nearly 250 Million, McConnell 180 Million, Gold Bar Melendez and countless others are getting loaded off the backs of Americans. 

When we elect a person for the first time we are essentially give them a golden ticket.    See AOC and the squad of morons that are enriching themselves and we get nothing in return but to pick up the tab. 

 

 

 

 

  • Bob 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, ionel said:

"the argument" I beg to differ, there are many good arguments.  

The fact that 87 percent of Americans support term limits should be enough.  The reasons are obvious, Cronyism, special interests, insider and trading to name a few.    

  • Bob 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Threadkilla said:

The fact that 87 percent of Americans support term limits should be enough.  The reasons are obvious, Cronyism, special interests, insider and trading to name a few.    

That's 3 or 4 good arguments.  ;

Yes its stupid we can't have nice things when 87% want nice things.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s long overdue. Only way to drain the swamp and keep it drained. No reason these people should become multi millionaires for representing their country. That being said 72% of all Americans believe you need a valid ID to vote no matter what state you’re in and that’s not happening either. 

  • Bob 1
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, JimmyBT said:

So what.  The Electoral College could soon go away.  This can too. 

Electoral college will not go away without amendment.   Same with term limits for Congress.

mspart

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2024 at 6:40 PM, mspart said:

I believe SCOTUS has answered this question:

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-term-limits-for-congress-face-a-challenging-constitutional-path

Based on this it would take a Constitutional Amendment akin to Amendment 22. 

mspart

It hasn't been reviewed by SCOTUS for 30 years.   With 87 percent of the public wanting term limits, it is ripe for review. 

The pros and cons from the Federalist Papers:

The Federalist Papers also offered several pros and cons about term limits and tenure. Federalist No. 62 claimed that experience was essential to public service: “A good government implies two things; first, fidelity to the object of government, which is the happiness of the people; secondly, a knowledge of the means by which that object can be best attained.”

Experience is essential?. not so much.  These days it has turned into a winning lottery ticket with the lifetimers enriching themselves.  I have more faith in many of the young reps than I do in  McConnal, Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler, Graham etc. who have served themselves for over 30 years.

However, Federalist No. 53 warned that tenured representatives could thoroughly become the “masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages.” But an inexperienced legislative body would be “more apt will they be to fall into the snares that may be laid for them.” (Note: The National Archives attributes authorship of Federalist Nos. 53 and 62 to James Madison.)

That is obviously not the case anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While congressional offices were probably not intended to be career positions, the power to limit their tenure is still in the vote.  We need to change much more about how our government has devolved than just which greedy face occupies the office.  Lobbyists, congressional staffers, and unelected bureaucrats throughout the executive agencies are unaccountable to the electorate and seemingly immune from prosecution.  The Swamp, that blackmails, coerces, bribes, and sabotages the efforts of good governance is a larger problem and would be unaffected by, and possibly even benefit from, term limits. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People having the power obviously isn’t working.  If it was there wouldn’t be multi multi millionaire lifers in congress making the swamp deeper and deeper.  Only way to drain it and keep it drained is term limits.  

  • Bob 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Ok, I have been fairly strong on here saying term limits would take an amendment to the Constitution.   But my opinion on the subject is that I agree with term limits for Senators and Reps.   I don't know what that would be, but I think for them to be in there as a career is wrong.  

mspart

  • Bob 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...