Posted on 10/06/2009 11:39:49 AM PDT by mukraker
Is it time for Congressional term limits? Here's my proposal:
Proposed Amendment to the United States Constitution
~ Congressional Term Limits
Section 1. No person shall serve as a Representative in the United States House of Representatives for more than three terms. No person serving any portion of a term in the United States House of Representatives shall serve more than two subsequent terms in the United States House of Representatives.
Section 2. No person shall serve as a Senator in the United States Senate for more than two terms. No person serving any portion of a term in the United States Senate shall serve more than one subsequent terms in the United States Senate.
Section 3. Any person serving as a Representative in the United States House of Representatives or as a Senator in the United States Senate at the time this article becomes operative shall be permitted to serve in such capacity during the remainder of such term.
Term Limits? NO - then you get unelected, behind-the-scenes staff, who are permanent, who get to wield power.
Instead, we should devise ways to do away with the ridiculous gerry-mandering which means extreme politicians get to stay the longest because they choose their voters then pander to them.
I seem to recall that there was big talk about term limits in 1994, but for some reason that talk ceased in sometime in early 1995 and did not return until the last couple of years.
Yes, it is time and long overdue.
Congressional term limits as outlined above would be a huge step in reforming the federal government. But congress will never reform itself.
BUT, HOUSTON, WE STILL HAVE A PROBLEM!
What is to be done about the HILL RATS? These are the allegedly “professional” staffers who are so named because after the election their current boss loses, they scurry like rats to a new member – ANY MEMBER (his politics frequently don’t matter) – just to remain close to the power. Most are flaming liberals and, after the “experienced” staffer shows the new guy where the john is, because they have been up there for decades, far too many of these new members rely on them for how to vote and get along in the thoroughly corrupt system of “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” that has caused the mess in which we now find ourselves.
IT GETS WORSE!
Let’s say the new guy needs an “expert” on tax policy. Well, son-of-a-gun, the professional staffer JUST HAPPENS to have a college chum who works at the IRS! Need an “expert” on education policy. Darned if that secretary he just hired doesn’t just have an old teacher friend who works over at the Department of Education!
NOW YOU KNOW WHY THE MORE THINGS CHANGE, THE MORE THEY STAY THE SAME – ESPECIALLY IN MALFUNCTION JUNCTION.
Looks like we will also need TENURE LIMITS on the Hill Rats with stiff penalties for breaking the rules!
I recently heard Gingrich tell Hannity that—horrors — the alleged Health Care Bill was almost certainly written at 3 am by 25 year-old liberal staffers, groggy on beer and pizza. Not sure why that was so shocking. HELL, that’s how nearly ALL the so-called legislation has been done up there for decades. It’s why there are two things one should never watch being made: SAUSAGE AND LAWS.
One of the KEY THINGS we all need to do BEFORE we get behind a new candidate to replace the 8 term retread who has sold us out nearly every term up there is to INSIST THAT HE DRAW HIS KEY STAFFERS FROM LOCAL FOLKS WHO MAY STILL HAVE A GRASP ON REALITY OUT HERE IN FLYOVER COUNTRY — THEN HOLD HIS FEET TO THE FIRE ON THAT PLEDGE — OR REPLACE HIM NEXT TIME!
Sadly, it’s the ONLY WAY THINGS WILL CHANGE UP THERE!!
Give em all two terms. One in office and one in jail.
Further, these selectees should be housed in Congressional dormatories so they don't incur excess cost associate with their ONE friggin term. NO lobbying, NO fundraising, and no meeting with lobbyists unless they are registered with each respective state and have submitted their books and accounts to the affected legilature components.
At the successful completion of their terms, a collective vote by the affected voters from each district, etc., a bonus shall be paid to compensate them to be determined by an excise tax from the affected district/state.
In my opinion public service is PUBLIC service, implying some sort of sacrifice of time, effort, money, etc. NO elected representative should get rich from public service.
Long past time, but will never happen.
“Give em all two terms. One in office and one in jail.”
LOL! I’ll drink to that!
“I’ve got a better idea: repeal the horrible 17th Amendment, and give STATES their place back at the table. The Senate was NOT intended to be popularly elected, but chosen from honorable men who served in the States’ Legislature, so they would have STATES’ interests at heart. Because of the 17th Amendment, we have States treated as nothing more than administrative regions. The Founders would beg to differ.”
AGREE!! The Senate was originally meant to represent the STATES and the House was to directly represent the people.
We could take that further and set it up where the House selects the President. I think far more attention would be paid to one’s vote for U.S. Representative. In addition, the president so elected would have ONE six year term.
No more media coronation of someone just because they are for “hope” and “change” or any similar vacuous nonsense.
I think this is a must. Wasn’t term limits originally in the constitution?
I support more than just term limits to return powers to the States and the people, powers that the Congress has usurped.
I urge everyone to check out the Bill of Federalism. It contains ten proposed amendments to reduce abuses by the federal Congress, including term limits, as well as clarifying the interstate commerce clause (saying it only applies to actual goods and services that actually cross state lines), and several other important points.
Another good version of term limits that I have seen is this:
No person shall serve more than two consecutive full terms in the House of Representatives, and no person shall serve in their lifetime more than a total four full terms in the House of Representatives. No person shall serve more than nine years total in the United States Senate.
I also am in favor of an amendment declaring members of the United States. House of Representatives and United States Senate to be employees of the state they represent. Again, this would be by constitutional amendment. The amendment I propose is along these lines:
Article of Amendment.
Section 1.
Representatives and Senators shall be employees of the State which they represent. Their compensation, salaries and benefits shall be set by the legislature of the state which they represent. Representatives and Senators are elected officials of the states they represent, and are subject to all laws and state constitutional provisions of their state affecting elected officials.
Section 2.
Congress shall make no law establishing compensation or benefits for Representatives or Senators. Any such law in effect at the time this amendment is ratified shall be null and void on the 31st day of December of the year of ratification.
This makes Representatives and Senators employees of their states, gives their state legislatures control of their pay and benefits, and subjects them to any state recall procedures that might be available through the state's laws and constitution.
backwoods-engineer wrote:
I've got a better idea: repeal the horrible 17th Amendment, and give STATES their place back at the table. The Senate was NOT intended to be popularly elected, but chosen from honorable men who served in the States' Legislature, so they would have STATES' interests at heart. Because of the 17th Amendment, we have States treated as nothing more than administrative regions. The Founders would beg to differ.
While I agree with you, and I personally support repealing the 17th amendment, I think that a term limits amendment has a much greater likelihood of actually being implemented.
GOP_Party_Animal wrote:
Congressional term limits as outlined above would be a huge step in reforming the federal government. But congress will never reform itself.
The states could force the issue by calling for a convention for proposing this particular constitutional amendment. Article 5 allows for that. Generally, when enough states actually petition for a convention to get a specific amendment going, the Congress has acted, proposing the amendments themselves rather than losing control of the process through a convention.
Dick Bachert wrote:
What is to be done about the HILL RATS? These are the allegedly “professional” staffers who are so named because after the election their current boss loses, they scurry like rats to a new member – ANY MEMBER (his politics frequently don’t matter) – just to remain close to the power.
Hill Rats, as you call them, should be a big issue in any Congressional election. Get your candidates to take a stand. Ask them to staff their offices, even their DC offices with people from the district they represent. If they won’t commit to that, vote like it really means something to you. That might not completely disqualify a candidate, but if it matters, it should open your eyes and start you looking for better options.
Gaffer wrote:
My position on Congressmen and Senators from a particular state is that they should be selected by the elected representatives of the state legislature for state-wide offices and by the legislators from the affected districts for the Representatives.
Wow, I consider myself a true right wing extremist, and I don’t think I could go that far. We the people have always had directly elected representation in the House. Under the original Constitution, this was our only direct representation. I’m sure I would want to keep some representation elected directly by the people, and the House is where that representation should be.
nikos1121 wrote:
I think this is a must. Wasn’t term limits originally in the constitution?
Nope, the founders believed the voters would have good enough judgment that limits wouldn’t need to be written into the Constitution. Their belief was that ordinary citizens would go to Congress for a term or two, then return home.
Of course, in the early part of our history, Congress was paid relatively poorly. So there were financial incentives to get out. You could make more money back home. Today, we have such high salaries and benefits that nobody wants to give them up. That's part of why we need the amendment that I proposed above changing the system to where state legislatures set the compensation for their state's Congressional Representatives and Senators.
| From the desk of cc2k: |
Start with replacing taxpayer-funded retirement plans with 401Ks. As long as they insulate themselves from the consequences of laws they enact, what do they care? From what I can see, the lush COLA-adjusted pensions are THE drive behind the desire to get re-elected.
Term limits will give a large number of lame ducks no reason to listen to voters.
Term limits also assume voters are to stupid or lazy to look a congresscritter and vote out the bad ones. If we assume voters are too stupid to vote then no voting law will help get rid of bad congressmen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.