The people reelect incumbents because they like the job they have done
Term limits is in opposition to the will of the voters
Those "voters" are completely dumbed-down and wouldn't know a Congressman from a Senator if you dangled a million dollars in front of them. Either that or they're voting for someone who's promising the most goodies.
- Four 3-year terms for Congressmen
- One 12-year term for Senators (Stagger them so 1/4 of the Senate is up for re-election every 3 years)
- Two 6-year terms for the President (Yes, 2 six-year terms. Presidents can't get nothing done in a measly four years)
Same argument could be made with the presidency yet we passed an amendment for it as well. Some times amendments like this are good for voters who are dumb to realize permanent life in DC is bad for everyone, and your “guy” is part of the problem.
So, in theory, is a term limit for the Chief Executive--including Presidents I like. But we have that, and I'm okay with it, as are most voters. It's because I can understand how limits help keep the swamp of corruption dry. The offices authorized by the Constitution weren't designed for lifers. They were for self-sacrificing men who had a life--elsewhere.
“Term limits is in opposition to the will of the voters”
We have one for the president.
People will get over it, and maybe start paying attention.
<>Term limits is in opposition to the will of the voters<>
Term limits help promote free government.
B$. The approval of congress is about the same a cockroaches, but the re-electon rate is about 95%. The people re-elect their congressperson because they vote straight ticket.
A Senator represents millions of voters and a Representative represents on average 700,000 voters.
There is no way possible for voters to be informed about who represents them except by mass media paid for by special interests and this leads to abuse.
So ‘opposition to the will of the voters’ is a non-sequitur.
But ....
To make your point, there is a means by Constitutional Amendment to make service in Congress more like voluntary military service but compelling a deterrent to a ‘career in ppolitics’ by denying pensions to representatives except for a one-time lump sum fixed amount after X years in Congress that is never augmented for any reason thereafter; AND for a felony in taking any income or consideration other than Congressional pay, housing, and necessary travel; AND a block grant to the state for X dollars for campaigning to be DIVIDED EVENLY amongst all nominees for the seat with all other contributions banned by law with felony consequences for all parties found in violation.
Take a stab at drafting such an amendment. A law won’t cut it because that alows the fox inside the coop, i.e. Congress will change the law but it will be much harder for them to force states to ratify a constitutional amendment.