Term Limits in Congress (1 Viewer)

< Previous | Next >

reubenray

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
157
Reaction score
64
Location
Alabama
Offline
I have not seen anything concerning this, but I think (IMHO) there should be term limits to get some of these aging politicians out of office. Of course Congress would not vote on removing themselves from office.
 

JimEverett

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
1,740
Reaction score
1,334
Location
Nashville
Offline
There is at least one major group trying to get an Amendment passed.
I am opposed to it, just like I don't think we should have passed the 22nd Amendment.
 

Nebaghead

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
504
Reaction score
676
Age
48
Location
Omaha, NE
Offline
I am behind term limits. Problem is the group that would be limited would need to approve the amendment. I don't see that happening. The 22nd was easier since it didn't impact congress.
I would think 20 Years for a senator and 11 years for a Represenative. The extra time gives them the ability to serve out special elections and give them the full number of election cycles. (3 for senator and 5 for the House)
 

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,110
Reaction score
1,341
Age
42
Location
Earth
Offline
I don't really think term limits are a solution to our problem.

If the voters are repeatedly sending people to congress that aren't acting in their interest, we have a problem with the electorate. Changing the rules about who they can pick from isn't going to make them any better at picking.

Term limits aren't going to prevent lobbyists from "buying" politicians. In fact, it might make it easier. A congressman who is inclined to be bought, is going to be more likely to make that type of deal if they know their political career is going to be over in a few years regardless. It might even make it more common since the congressmen will have less to lose, and the timeline will be shorter making it less likely they face consequences for their corruption. Often, by the time we catch corrupt politicians they have been acting corruptly for years. Also, a congressman who has been in office for 20 years has more to lose, so they would probably be more expensive to buy than someone who just got there and will be gone in less than 10 years.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #6
OP

reubenray

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
157
Reaction score
64
Location
Alabama
Offline
I think the longer a politician is in office the more crooked they become. They are loving their lifestyles and they do not want to change. They have been getting the kickbacks, etc from the big donors to keep their districts going.
 

insidejob

Takes one to know one...
Joined
May 21, 2019
Messages
1,265
Reaction score
1,410
Location
Back in 70124
Offline
I'd say that instead of putting term limits on them, put requirements on them for things like, just for example, holding a town hall event at least once a year in your home district so your constituents have the opportunity to actually interact with you and you have to listen to them no matter how stupid you think they are. Scalise hasn't held a town hall since his first term in Congress. Do the same thing for Senators, but since their terms are 6 years, make it so they have to visit a different area of the state each year so they can't just go find an area that they're like 95% approved in and keep going back there to meet constituents.
 

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,110
Reaction score
1,341
Age
42
Location
Earth
Offline
I'd say that instead of putting term limits on them, put requirements on them for things like, just for example, holding a town hall event at least once a year in your home district so your constituents have the opportunity to actually interact with you and you have to listen to them no matter how stupid you think they are. Scalise hasn't held a town hall since his first term in Congress. Do the same thing for Senators, but since their terms are 6 years, make it so they have to visit a different area of the state each year so they can't just go find an area that they're like 95% approved in and keep going back there to meet constituents.
How about requiring a public town hall for at least every fundraiser that is held by their campaign.
 

Maxp

Well-known member
Joined
May 17, 2019
Messages
200
Reaction score
278
Offline
There is at least one major group trying to get an Amendment passed.
I am opposed to it, just like I don't think we should have passed the 22nd Amendment.
I agree with you. I have never really studied the 22nd amendment's passage, but it looked to me to be a check on the power of the electorate by the wealth elite of the time.
 

Lapaz

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
528
Reaction score
427
Age
58
Location
Alabama
Offline
Public financing and much more engagement by the officials would be far better than term limits. Term limits only means the congressmen will become lame ducks at some point with no accountability. Public financing would give them much more time to serve, rather fund raising, which is what makes them much more corruptible.

On the other hand judges, particularly Supreme court justices, should be term limited, because they really are not accountable to voters. I would set their limit to about 20 years. This would also discourage selecting ever younger judges to assure you get more time. Justices can go back to the appellate courts or get re-nominated, but only once.
 

JimEverett

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
1,740
Reaction score
1,334
Location
Nashville
Offline
Public financing and much more engagement by the officials would be far better than term limits. Term limits only means the congressmen will become lame ducks at some point with no accountability. Public financing would give them much more time to serve, rather fund raising, which is what makes them much more corruptible.

On the other hand judges, particularly Supreme court justices, should be term limited, because they really are not accountable to voters. I would set their limit to about 20 years. This would also discourage selecting ever younger judges to assure you get more time. Justices can go back to the appellate courts or get re-nominated, but only once.
You want to use taxpayer money to fund someone like david duke's campaign?
 

Archies Ghost

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
601
Reaction score
477
Age
53
Location
Houston
Offline
I would favor raising the age minimums for federal elective office to 60 just to make sure they accomplished something other than running for Congress in their lives.
 

samiam5211

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
1,110
Reaction score
1,341
Age
42
Location
Earth
Offline
I would favor raising the age minimums for federal elective office to 60 just to make sure they accomplished something other than running for Congress in their lives.
Funny, I would want 60 to be the upper limit.
 

Lapaz

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
528
Reaction score
427
Age
58
Location
Alabama
Offline
You want to use taxpayer money to fund someone like david duke's campaign?
Yes, I would support taxpayer funding hateful candidates, if they meet some accepted threshold. We all pay hidden taxes via black money and politicians spending time begging for money, which also costs us with bad legislation. The threshold would have to have some allowance for the minor parties, such as the Libertarian, Green, and even an independent candidate. We already do something similar for presidents, but lately they haven't been taking it, since it puts limits on them. This would have to be a living standard as times change.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

< Previous | Next >

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Fact Checkers News Feed

General News Feed

Top Bottom