Term Limits

[CG6468]

You would simply exchange long-term incumbents with machine politics and party dynasties, with a new face every 5 years.

Is that an improvement?

How would their replacements be better? Is there something about a term limit that increases the quality of candidates?

That would depend on the voters. If there's no benefits to electing an individual, maybe we'd see higher quality people running for off.

Nonetheless, I simply cannot fathom why someone would open up his or her entire life to scrutiny about what he or she did or opined in the past. The further back in the past the less sense it makes.

[Hathcock]

One great thing about term limits is that because they won't be spending their life in Washington and they won't get a lifetime gravy train they have to return to their home states and deal with the consequences of their actions.

[CG6468]

One great thing about term limits is that because they won't be spending their life in Washington and they won't get a lifetime gravy train they have to return to their home states and deal with the consequences of their actions.

EXACTLY!!!!

[Hathcock]

I would set both house and senate to four year terms on the off years from the presidential term. Give each two terms, but with a provision that if someone wants to serve both house and senate then it's four years of each. The absolute max someone could serve would be 24 years and that would be a very rare occurrence. that would be two terms in either the house or senate (8 years) two terms as vice president (8 years) and two terms as president. There would be no pension plan, there would be a 401k plan set up like any other employer offered plan. They would have the same health care plan the rest of us do.

[CG6468]

I would set both house and senate to four year terms on the off years from the presidential term. Give each two terms, but with a provision that if someone wants to serve both house and senate then it's four years of each. The absolute max someone could serve would be 24 years and that would be a very rare occurrence. that would be two terms in either the house or senate (8 years) two terms as vice president (8 years) and two terms as president. There would be no pension plan, there would be a 401k plan set up like any other employer offered plan. They would have the same health care plan the rest of us do.

I don't think anyone should be able to jump from House to Senate, nor from either of those to VP or Pres. New blood is the phrase we must never forget.

[Hathcock]

Occasionally we do get very strong leaders, Reagan, Rand Paul, etc I would allow for that to develop some... but like I said that would be rare

[Big Dog]

I don't think anyone should be able to jump from House to Senate, nor from either of those to VP or Pres. New blood is the phrase we must never forget.

James Madison served 16 years as President, 8 years as US Representative, and 8 years as Secretary of State.

Thomas Jefferson served as President for 8 years, Vice President for 4 years, Secretary of State for 3 years, and Ambassador to France for 4 years.

John Adams was President for 4 years, VP for 8 years, and an ambassador for 6 years.

John Quincy Adams served 4 years as President, 5 years as US Senator, 17 years as US Representative, 8 years as Secretary of State, and 17 years as an ambassador.

Was the United States better, or worse, for their service?

[Big Dog]

Well term limits wont increase the quality of the candidate...just limit the damage done by one bozo. I don't know if we can increase the quality because people that would make a difference wont run...only the idiots it seems. But then again the idiots seem to be reproducing at a gawd awful rate as well...but that a different discussion altogether.

Meet the new bozo, same as the old bozo.... with one difference.

The bozos will have their hands out from the moment they are elected, to maximize the amount of gravy they can suck from the train.

[Hathcock]

difference is it will be very visible and they will only last one term.

[Big Dog]

difference is it will be very visible and they will only last one term.

Which only limits the amount of time an individual can benefit from the graft. The other side of the coin is that the bribers would probably bribe more people with more money to gain the blocs of votes for their interests.

[Hathcock]

I think the one really great thing about term limits is that both sides could unite behind it. Lifetime politicians no matter what flavor sway like grasses in the wind, their only concern is for re-election. I think one of the moles should throw the idea out at the DU see what the response is. That may be one of the few things we could agree on.

[Hathcock]

Which only limits the amount of time an individual can benefit from the graft. The other side of the coin is that the bribers would probably bribe more people with more money to gain the blocs of votes for their interests.

But with fresh blood we'd stand a better chance of having special interests legislated out of Washington. As it stands there isn't a hope in hell of limiting special interests.

[Big Dog]

But with fresh blood we'd stand a better chance of having special interests legislated out of Washington. As it stands there isn't a hope in hell of limiting special interests.

More legislation? Is that the solution?

What about the First Amendment rights of the people who make up the "special interests"? As an NRA and GOA member, I am a special interest. I am opposed to anything that outlaws my exercise of free speech, free association, and petitioning the government for redress of grievances on matters related to the Second Amendment.

There is nothing in the idea of term limits which would reduce the influence of special interests. Given human nature, it is more likely that craven, venal men would choose the 5 year gravy train than stout, upright men. As it stands today, the people best equipped to govern have no desire to do so.

[Hathcock]

More legislation? Is that the solution?

What about the First Amendment rights of the people who make up the "special interests"? As an NRA and GOA member, I am a special interest. I am opposed to anything that outlaws my exercise of free speech, free association, and petitioning the government for redress of grievances on matters related to the Second Amendment.

There is nothing in the idea of term limits which would reduce the influence of special interests. Given human nature, it is more likely that craven, venal men would choose the 5 year gravy train than stout, upright men. As it stands today, the people best equipped to govern have no desire to do so.

But there may be a chance to limit the amount of money special interests can spend or the attention they receive. A representative's ultimate responsibility should be to his/her constituents. They are there to be a voice for them.

[Hathcock]

Besides if there is going to be more legislation I'd rather it limit what politicians can do than what I can do.

[DumbAss Tanker]

The answer to the OP is a pretty unequivocal "No," for reasons that anyone who was alive and paying attention to politics in the 90s would already know.  Any Amendment or even just law implementing this would have to start in Congress and pass both houses, so no on that approach; any State that does it, without 49 other States following suit (any of the 50 State laws still being subject to repeal at any time...) is just cutting its own throat on seniority and committee appointments in Congress, because they will all end up in the hands of the States that don't do it.

[Eupher]

I think, more than anything, that the dissatisfaction with Congress and with politicians in general is exacerbated by the:

• conversion of "citizen/politicians" into professional politicians
• focus on becoming reelected at the exclusion of all other issues
• focus on the political party at the exclusion of all else, save getting reelected
• practice of creating, maintaining, and defending individual fiefdoms

If the idea of term limits was so off-putting (clearly evidenced by Big Dog's and Sparky's arguments against the practice), then why and how did we **** up by adopting the 22nd Amendment?

What is fundamentally different about the office of the President versus the Robert Byrds, Strom Thurmonds, Henry Waxmans, and Charlie Rangels? (Besides the vast difference in power - though even that is relative).

The overall idea, I think, is to once again return to the idea that it's one's civic duty to serve the nation as a representative, senator, or president. Attaining these offices should not be a goal to be attained for the ultimate perversion of power.

But it's become that way.

Perhaps it's just romanticized bullshit when I remember learning that Washington declined serving a third term as president, thereby setting a precedent and a long-standing one until the Ultimate Socialist - FDR - rolled around. FDR did exactly what I talked about - he established the strongest of power bases until his stroke finally ended all that after some 13 years in power.

[Big Dog]

Besides if there is going to be more legislation I'd rather it limit what politicians can do than what I can do.

Think about this.

Do you really think the Senate would pass a Constitutional amendment limiting its own power, and 2/3 of all the state legislatures would pass an amendment destroying their own influence in the Federal government?

[Eupher]

James Madison served 16 years as President, 8 years as US Representative, and 8 years as Secretary of State.

Huh?

May want to check that statistic. whitehouse.gov says Madison was prez from 1809 to 1817.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/jamesmadison

[Hathcock]

Think about this.

Do you really think the Senate would pass a Constitutional amendment limiting its own power, and 2/3 of all the state legislatures would pass an amendment destroying their own influence in the Federal government?

If there was enough public outcry for it they would have to, but we're talking about a massive public campaign and total public support.

[Hathcock]

I think we're coming to the point where this could be possible, no one trusts the federal government anymore. it's become so corrupt wasteful and full of scandals that I think the majority of citizens would back something like this. Key would be getting the financial backing to push a campaign like this nationally.

[Big Dog]

Huh?

May want to check that statistic. whitehouse.gov says Madison was prez from 1809 to 1817.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/jamesmadison

Oops. Brain fart.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[Big Dog]

If there was enough public outcry for it they would have to, but we're talking about a massive public campaign and total public support.

None of which exist in the real world.

[Eupher]

None of which exist in the real world.

Agreed. There just isn't the public outrage sufficient to roust Bobby and Megan from their American Idol, iPhone, and Facebook drug fixes.

[Big Dog]

I think we're coming to the point where this could be possible, no one trusts the federal government anymore. it's become so corrupt wasteful and full of scandals that I think the majority of citizens would back something like this. Key would be getting the financial backing to push a campaign like this nationally.

So, a well-funded special interest with the goal of eliminating well-funded special interests.

Right?