Give Me The Case Against Term Limits

ErikLaurence wrote:Ted Kennedy is the fault of the citizens on the commonwealth. They get to elect who they want to elect. That is called democracy.

I think the problem you run into (trying to unseat a long-time elected official) is that of power gained over the years, name recognition/voter inertia etc makes it almost impossible to unseat them. Term limits have become accepted with Presidents...Why not with Congressmen, governors & mayors?

I say elimanate the lobbyists. Think of all the office space that will free up, the reps won`t be so tired from lobbyist sponsered dinners & parties that they could actually read what they are voting on. And do away with tacking on nosense onto a good bill that they know will pass. Make them do what we`re paying them for.

Richard S. wrote:I don't think that's practical.... in any event you could simply limit contributions from individuals of say like $10 to one candidate. Assuming 125 million voters in the last presidential election that's more than a billion for them to run their elections. This way poorer people will have chance to actually make contribution that are meaningful and large contributors will be eliminated.

While campaign contributions is a bit off topic I would be in favor of making illegal ANY bribes (err....campaign contributions ) to any elected official. Make all elections be totally funded by taxes. I think any money given to an elected official to influence his vote is a BRIBE....Plain & simple!

Devil505 wrote:

ErikLaurence wrote:Ted Kennedy is the fault of the citizens on the commonwealth. They get to elect who they want to elect. That is called democracy.

I think the problem you run into (trying to unseat a long-time elected official) is that of power gained over the years, name recognition/voter inertia etc makes it almost impossible to unseat them. Term limits have become accepted with Presidents...Why not with Congressmen, governors & mayors?

They get re-elected because they bring home pork. They gain more power to do that over time because of seniority and committee assignments.

Randomize committee assignments and they're starting over every two years.

And you don't need a constitutional amendment (which will NEVER happen).

samhill wrote:I say elimanate the lobbyists. Think of all the office space that will free up, the reps won`t be so tired from lobbyist sponsered dinners & parties that they could actually read what they are voting on. And do away with tacking on nosense onto a good bill that they know will pass. Make them do what we`re paying them for.

There are 1st amendment issues with eliminating lobbyists.

There is no reason for congress to change the way they do committee assignments of their own volition. It simply isn't an issue that grabs the attention of enough people to form a strong grassroots effort around it. Term limits, on the other hand, is easily understood, there is a clear example of it with the Presidency, and the pitfalls of a permanent political elite in congress are regularly made obvious.

Seniority and kissing the majority and minority leadership's ass is the way it is done and that is the way those who are or aspire to be career politicians like it. So an amendment would be needed in either case. Term limits obviously would, but without an amendment there is no way to change the way congress does committee appointments and make it stick. You can not expect politicians corrupted by power and interested in perpetuating that power structure to change that structure so fundamentally. And you certainly can't trust them to leave it in place (and not enact new rules and policies to side step the power deficit), assuming they can be coaxed into making the change in the first place.

Given the choice between an amendment implementing term limits on senators and representatives or an amendment dealing with internal procedures and rules of congressional chambers, I'd advocate the term limits. Much cleaner, more effective, and there is already precedent for that kind of amendment with regard to the Presidency. Trying to tweak the inner dealings of a branch of government in such a way seems like a bad precedent to set.

What do you consider the right to petition ? I don`t believe the founding fathers ever invisioned lobbyists having the power that they have today. I really think the meaning of the word has been misinterpreted.

I don't think you can get rid of lobbyists, but you certainly can make the lobbying process far more transparent and we can push to get the money and gifting from lobbyists to congress critters eliminated.

Examples? All elected officials should have to disclose meetings with registered lobbying groups and their reps shortly after any meeting. Make senators pay their own way on junkets. Disallow accepting any gifts or inkind benefits (such as getting car services paid for or loaning use of a private jet), no more mere disclosure of such gifts or reimbursing for the supposed cost of the gift. Only exception would be hard money donations to an election campaign, which already have full disclosure applied to them and are watch dogged by various groups and media organizations.

Partisan attacks aside, it appears that most American voters would welcome term limits of some type.

OK........How do we get our reps to vote for something which goes against their interests? Is it possible?

A few ideas: (add yours)
1. How about we each write our Congressmen/Senators & request they introduce a term limits bill & make it absolutely clear to them that a vote AGAINST such a bill would automatically lose them your vote?
2. Write to your local newspaper

pvolcko wrote:There is no reason for congress to change the way they do committee assignments of their own volition. It simply isn't an issue that grabs the attention of enough people to form a strong grassroots effort around it. Term limits, on the other hand, is easily understood, there is a clear example of it with the Presidency, and the pitfalls of a permanent political elite in congress are regularly made obvious.

The people cannot impose term limits at the federal level. It would require amending article 1 section 3 of the Constitution. To amend the Constitution requires the votes of 2/3rds of both the house and the senate (in addition of passage by 3/4ers of the states).

ErikLaurence wrote:The people cannot impose term limits at the federal level. It would require amending article 1 section 3 of the Constitution. To amend the Constitution requires the votes of 2/3rds of both the house and the senate (in addition of passage by 3/4ers of the states).

Funny...The people managed in 1947....Why not now?




Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
United States of America
Great Seal of the United States


Amendment XXII in the National Archives

The Twenty-second Amendment (Amendment XXII) of the United States Constitution sets a term limit for the President of the United States. The United States Congress passed the amendment on March 21, 1947.[1] It was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 27, 1951.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, who served from 1933 to 1945, is the only president elected to more than two terms. Under the 22nd amendment it would be possible for a president to serve two full four-year terms after having assumed the Presidency by means other than election for a duration of up to two years. However, no president besides Roosevelt has ever served more than eight years.

Devil505 wrote:

ErikLaurence wrote:The people cannot impose term limits at the federal level. It would require amending article 1 section 3 of the Constitution. To amend the Constitution requires the votes of 2/3rds of both the house and the senate (in addition of passage by 3/4ers of the states).

Funny...The people managed in 1947....Why not now?




Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
United States of America
Great Seal of the United States


Amendment XXII in the National Archives

The Twenty-second Amendment (Amendment XXII) of the United States Constitution sets a term limit for the President of the United States. The United States Congress passed the amendment on March 21, 1947.[1] It was ratified by the requisite number of states on February 27, 1951.

Franklin D. Roosevelt, who served from 1933 to 1945, is the only president elected to more than two terms. Under the 22nd amendment it would be possible for a president to serve two full four-year terms after having assumed the Presidency by means other than election for a duration of up to two years. However, no president besides Roosevelt has ever served more than eight years.

The people did not in 1947. The Congress did.

The people do not have the power under the US constitution to amend the US constitution. Congress has that power. There is no legal mechanism.

One thing in article 5 that has never been tried is to propose an amendment from the state legislatures. But I think that is in all practicality impossible to manage.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can't always trust what you get from there.

ErikLaurence wrote:The people did not in 1947. The Congress did.

Isn't the entire concept of our forming a government in the first place,.......... that the People's Will would be effectuated by their Representatives in the Congress? (if not I wasted all that time as a Political Science major in college....for nothing!)

Article V is interesting

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. "

If you can get the legislatures of two thirds of the states to call for a convention then a body other than the US Congress can propose amendments. This has never been done in US history.