Term Limits Now! (Here We Go Again - Maybe This Time It Will Stick)

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by cstfx, Nov 10, 2009.

  1. cstfx


    Jim DeMint proposes term limits for Congress

    Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) today announced his latest legislative introduction: a Congressional Joint Resolution to amend the Constitution to limit the maximum terms of service of Senators and Representatives.

    Senator DeMint has three other Senators co-sponsoring his proposed amendment: Tom Coburn (R-OK), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), and Sam Brownback (R-KS).

    Senator DeMint is making this proposal in order to remove from Washington the class of "permanent politicians" that represent their constituents only in name, and have every incentive to self-identify as permanent residents of Washington, DC, and not as permanent residents of their respective States or districts. He has a point. A Representative might possibly be forced out of office because his State lost a district in the Census, and he winds up being the one told to sacrifice his seat. That, of course, cannot happen to a Senator. Either type of member of Congress might be removed from office for misconduct. Rarely, he gets voted out--and Senator DeMint points out that 90% of all incumbents who seek re-election, win re-election.


    The effect of this amendment would be very simple. Senators would be limited to two terms or fifteen years, and Representatives would be limited to three terms or seven years. The President of the United States is, of course, limited to two terms or ten years. And just as Presidential term limits did not constrain the then-sitting President (Harry S. Truman, who declined to run anyway), this new proposed amendment would start to count every Senate or House election after it takes effect.



    With the anger toward Washington probably at an all time high for the past few administrations, do you think that maybe this will gain any traction and become more than just one man tilting at windmills?

    I wish it would.
  2. Lucrum


    With the obvious exception of the career politicians, I can't understand why anyone would oppose this.

    And yet there are many citizen/voters vehemently opposed.

    Opposition to it is not unlike sitting in a sinking life raft, and refusing to help bail out the water.
  3. cstfx


    Who would be opposed to it?

    It takes a 2/3 majority in Congress before it is even put to the public.

    Like I said, tilting at windmills.
  4. JamesL


    How much you want to bet that the idea of term limits would be more welcomed by the Repubs and rejected by the Dems?
  5. Ricter


    Agreed. If the term-limit proposed was somethng ridiculous, like a coupla weeks, it would seem like a good idea to your "repubs".
  6. The same numbskulls who favor term limits would shit if they were limited to a period of time at their own profession...

    The entire concept of a term limit is an abdication of responsibility for the voters, and runs counter to freedom.

    Why shouldn't the voters be free to vote in whomever they want, for as many terms as they like?

    Voters should have been free to vote in Reagan for another term, even though Reagan's mind was gone by then...

    The framers did not set term limits, and they were a lot smarter than those who whine about the politicians that people keep voting in...

    CON 2

    The term limits concept was considered during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, it was rejected by the delegates, who instead provided for short terms of office, two years for the House of Representatives, four years for the Presidency, and six years for the Senate. James Madison, who opposed term limits at the Constitutional Convention, recorded in his notes the words of a fellow delegate, Roger Sherman: "Frequent elections are necessary to preserve the good behavior of rulers. They also tend to give permanency to the Government, by preserving that good behavior, because it ensures their re-election."

    CON 3

    James Madison, in The Federalist, No. 53, cited the advantage of long-standing membership in a Congress elected directly by the people and explained the disadvantage of a great number of new members in Congress:

    A few of the members, as happens in all such assemblies, will possess superior talents; will, by frequent re-elections, become members of long standing; will be thoroughly masters of the public business, and perhaps not unwilling to avail themselves of those advantages. The greater the proportion of new members and the less the information of the bulk of the members, the more apt they will be to fall into the snares that may be laid for them.

    CON 4

    Alexander Hamilton: "Nothing appears more plausible at first sight, nor more ill-founded upon close inspection [than term limits].... One ill effect of the exclusion would be a diminution of the inducements to good behavior. There are few men who would not feel much less zeal in the discharge of a duty when they were conscious that the advantage of the station with which it was connected must be relinquished at a determinate period, than when they were permitted to entertain a hope of obtaining, by meriting, a continuance of them." (The Federalist, #72)

    CON 5

    John Adams: "There is no right clearer, and few of more importance, than that the people should be at liberty to choose the ablest and best men, and that men of the greatest merit should exercise the most important employments; yet, upon the present [term limits] supposition, the people voluntarily resign this right, and shackle their own choice.... [T]hey must all return to private life, and be succeeded by another set, who have less wisdom, wealth, virtue, and less of the confidence and affection of the people." (A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States of America)

    CON 6

    Gouverneur Morris: "The ineligibility proposed by the [terms limitation] clause as it stood tended to destroy the great motive to good behavior, the hope of being rewarded by a re-appointment.

    CON 8.1

    Elections are for getting rid of politicians who are not performing up to the peoples expectations. Term limits are for eliminating politicians who are performing. If you believe a politician should be removed from office, do it the American way, with facts, ideas and the voting booth.

  7. Lucrum


    That's ridiculous, who said anything about a couple of weeks?

    Is this how you spin it in your mind to justify your opposition to it?

    Why are congressional term limits so scary to you and your ilk?
    They would apply equally to everyone you know.
  8. Ricter


    No one did. Note my use of the word "if" and, lol, "ridiculous".

    Hook, line, and sinker.
  9. Once again we see that the "birthers" and the "teabaggers" and the klannish, and the right wingnuts are on the opposite side of the Framers point of view...

    Why does the right wing despise the Constitution and the Framer's wisdom?

    Do the right wingnuts hate us for our freedom to vote in whomever we wish?
  10. Lucrum


    Was there always a term limit for POTUS? Was it not amended to two terms later?
    Why would an amendment for congressional term limits be any different?

    Can you not vote for whom ever you wish for POTUS? Or are you suggesting the amendment for POTUS term limits be repealed?
    #10     Nov 11, 2009