Term limits in the house and senate good or bad? Make your arguments

09-15-2008, 08:20 PM

Guys I was thinking about how nice it *may be if we had term limits, 3 terms for the house and two for the senate. Perhaps our representatives would quit worrying about getting re-elected and instead worry about national issues like budget deficits, entitlements we can't pay for, taxes etc.

But I also thought it may make them more enslaved to the special interests that control them because they no longer have the accountability we the people are supposed to provide.

Thoughts?

C4Casey · 09-15-2008, 08:35 PM

I'm definatly in favor of term limits. It would stop politicians from running perpetual campaigns, and in my opinion it's just never a good thing for anyone to be in any position of power for too long.

Stylerod · 09-15-2008, 09:05 PM

I'm for term limits. I am thinking I would like one 6 year term for president as well. Let him/her do what needs to be done for 6 years without worrying about doing the things he needs to do to get reelected a second time. Plus, you have a president campaigning instead of running the country.

10 years max for any office. 8 would be better.

Scrum · 09-15-2008, 09:33 PM

I'm kind of torn on term limits.

I think they are a good idea because it should reduce the favor peddling that runs rampant. It's also ridiculous the amount of time these guys spend running for office.

I think they are a bad idea because it would punish an honest person who actually does their job well and has good ethics. They shouldn't be punished for everyone elses mistakes.

Angus_Aboot · 09-16-2008, 12:26 AM

Wouldn't term limits just mean that politicians can be even more corrupt - its not like they'll get voted back in anyways?

David Octavius · 09-16-2008, 12:28 AM

I used to be in a favor of term limits but a study reported by Larry Sabato in his book "A More Perfect Constitution" persuaded me otherwise. Many States already impose term limits and the results have been mixed - it does give us more diverse perspectives (a very good thing) but the lack of experienced party heads in the Legislative branch has created instability as the process need to be relearned. This means term limits in the Congress - which would make for very junior legislators - would not only slow government down even more, it may even shift power to the Executive branch; it just takes a shrewd person to pull that off. Secondly there is no evidence (as per the author) that term limits limits lobbying in any way - it may actually increase as legislatures have no real consequence for their actions, so the special interests would still have a tight grip on Washington.

All of this goes against the spirit of why we would want term limits and not solve the issue.

Finally - lest we forget - if having 4 years of expierience as Senator is not enough to be President than how can 8 (as per Sty) be any better? With term limits we are either going to go the Governer route or elect a career politician anyway (one who served in the House until he/she hit the limits, then the Senate), which again defeats the purpose of having term limits in the first place.

Stylerod · 09-16-2008, 08:15 AM

If someone is very good in their office and they want to continue "serving" the public by being in politics they could run for a different office. We might get more experienced politicians. We could have someone that has been in congress, the senate and a governor running for president. It may create more well rounded politicians.

Joe_Cool · 09-16-2008, 01:33 PM

I don't know. What if you have somebody who is faithfully representing your state and doing a good job, and you WANT them to continue at it?

On the other hand, it would have gotten rid of Ted Kennedy years ago. So I have kind of mixed feelings.

What would you guys think about a limit of 2 or 3 CONSECUTIVE terms, with the ability to run again if there's been an intervening term by another person?

Stylerod · 09-16-2008, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

I don't know. What if you have somebody who is faithfully representing your state and doing a good job, and you WANT them to continue at it?

On the other hand, it would have gotten rid of Ted Kennedy years ago. So I have kind of mixed feelings.

What would you guys think about a limit of 2 or 3 CONSECUTIVE terms, with the ability to run again if there's been an intervening term by another person?

That would be ok.

motivez · 09-17-2008, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

I don't know. What if you have somebody who is faithfully representing your state and doing a good job, and you WANT them to continue at it?

On the other hand, it would have gotten rid of Ted Kennedy years ago. So I have kind of mixed feelings.

What would you guys think about a limit of 2 or 3 CONSECUTIVE terms, with the ability to run again if there's been an intervening term by another person?

I don't like the idea of term limits because it punishes those good public servants in order to hopefully get rid of the 'bad' ones.. it's like guilt by association, and in this case is holding the same (or similar) job title.

The idea of limiting it to consecutive term limits would be a better idea, but it still has the same problem attached to it.

I think working towards a more transparent, open, accountable government would be preferred to forcing people to vote for someone new

Stylerod · 09-17-2008, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

I don't like the idea of term limits because it punishes those good public servants in order to hopefully get rid of the 'bad' ones.. it's like guilt by association, and in this case is holding the same (or similar) job title.

The idea of limiting it to consecutive term limits would be a better idea, but it still has the same problem attached to it.

I think working towards a more transparent, open, accountable government would be preferred to forcing people to vote for someone new

A good public servant is in the eye of the beholder. Hence Ted Stevens that has been in office since 1968!!!!

Swift · 09-17-2008, 04:19 PM

for the life of me I don't know why senators have a longer term then presidents but oh well.

To have term limits on Presidents and not on other offices doesn't really make sense to me. I thnk it should be all or nothing.

Donkey® · 09-17-2008, 10:23 PM

No parties....10 year term limits....

Joe_Cool · 09-17-2008, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

No parties....10 year term limits....

So a two-term senator would have to quit 2/3 of the way through his 2nd term?

Donkey® · 09-17-2008, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

So a two-term senator would have to quit 2/3 of the way through his 2nd term?

Obviously we could vote every 5 years. Didn't think it was rocket science.

Joe_Cool · 09-17-2008, 11:44 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Obviously we could vote every 5 years. Didn't think it was rocket science.

So you want to completely restructure the US?

Donkey® · 09-18-2008, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

So you want to completely restructure the US?

This is obviously a dream thread so I included a few of mine. Get over yourself.

HughRuss · 09-18-2008, 12:13 AM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

So you want to completely restructure the US?

Actually, I believe it would be the same as ... amending ... the constitution. (You know, like the did for the president's term limits. Or are you unaware of the constitutional amendments?)

Joe_Cool · 09-18-2008, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by HughRuss

Actually, I believe it would be the same as ... amending ... the constitution. (You know, like the did for the president's term limits. Or are you unaware of the constitutional amendments?)

Changing the lengths of terms and the election cycle is a little bigger change than adding "can only serve two terms". It'd be almost a complete rewrite of articles 1 and 2.

And yes, I'm unaware of constitutional amendments. Please explain this new and wonderful concept!

HughRuss · 09-18-2008, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Joe_Cool

Changing the lengths of terms and the election cycle is a little bigger change than adding "can only serve two terms". It'd be almost a complete rewrite of articles 1 and 2.

Actually, no it wouldn't. Section 3, clause 1 of article I in the constitution says directly that a senator serves a 6 year term (it also says that they are elected by state representatives, not voting; which was negated by the 17th amendment). Imposing a term limit or a change in length of term would not cause a "rewrite" of any articles or clauses... as I said, it would only take an amendment.
Article II establishes the executive branch, which I think--don't quote me on this--is completely separate from the legislative branch. No rewrite would take place there.
Speaking of the executive branch, there was no original term limit on the presidency. Then the 22nd amendment was passed, setting the term limits to 2 terms. Doesn't seem like any "rewrite" of any constitutional article took place here.