Posted on 05/06/2015 9:28:01 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Twenty years ago this month, the Supreme Court placed a huge roadblock in the way of a grass-roots, bipartisan movement that had been gaining strength, namely the term limits movement. In many states, voters had approved limits the number of terms that state officials may serve. Back in the early 90s, there was similar pressure to limit the number of terms members of the U.S. House and Senate could serve.
And then, the Supreme Court said such limits were unconstitutional in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton. By a 5-4 vote, the justices held that putting term limits on members of Congress (as Arkansas had voted to do) amounted to an additional “qualification” for holding office, which no state could impose because the Constitution’s stated qualifications are exhaustive.
In my view, Justice Clarence Thomas grasped the crucial point, writing “Nothing in the Constitution deprives the people of each State of the power to prescribe eligibility requirements for the candidates who seek to represent them in Congress. The Constitution is simply silent on this question. And where the Constitution is silent, it raises no bar to action by the State or the people.”
That, however, was in dissent. Justice Stevens’ convoluted, pro-status quo opinion carried the day, much like his convoluted, pro-status quo opinion in the eminent domain case Kelo v. New London would ten years later.
Nevertheless, the Court has spoken and the only certain means of dismantling its roadblock against federal term limits is to amend the Constitution.
According to polling, a remarkably large majority of the American public would like to see term limits. A 2013 Gallup poll found that 75 percent of voters were in favor of having term limits for members of Congress, with only 21 percent opposed and 5 percent registering no opinion.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
We put term.limits on the presidency with the 22nd amendment. Is there political will to amend the constitution to put term limits on members of Congress? It sounds like there is broad support among the people but will a movement begin to make this happen?
We need to put term limits on the judges. They do worse damage than the legislators.
Aside from the president, I do not see term limits as a good idea. Limiting a member of congress to x number of terms simply emboldens life-time congressional staff to become behind-the-scenes power brokers. No, it’s up to the voters to vote them out. Besides, if limited to a couple of terms, people would let them stay the limit and focus on campaigning at the term limit changeover.
We need to try to amend the 22nd amendment to make it apply to Congress
Better yet, term limited congress critters would not get a pension for serving only 2 terms. When do you and I get a pension for staying at a job for 8 to 12 years?
Here is my idea of term limits. If I, NCC-1701, were to run and win elective office, I would be allowed up to, say, 16 years on the Hill. I could have eight house terms, two senate terms, or two senate terms and two house terms. that’s it. No more. One person can have any mixture of those terms then leave. I couldn’t run through the 16 years, lay off a cycle, then come back for another 16 year shot. My tenure on the Hill would be over. My 16 years would be up.
> “Is there political will to amend the constitution to put term limits on members of Congress?”
Oh yes, indeed there is political will.
First, spend 34 minutes to watch and study the following Mark Levin video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tdZuV8JnvvA
Second, register here and find a way to participate:
http://www.conventionofstates.com
ConCon...........
Yeah sure, if you want the Democrats to be able to fire all judges and replace them with the worst of the worst.
This works both ways if it’s changed.
“We need to put term limits on the judges. They do worse damage than the legislators.”
And the other problem is that most of the time they sit in their offices and play with themselves, because decades go by without any resolutions to many serious problems in the country ( can you say Second Amendment). Rather than “decide” an important issue, the just pick at it like a scab.
We should remove the whole SCOTUS and start over.
Yes, the next court will fix the damage of any previous court. At least they won’t be able to hide behind the myth that they are neutral interpreters of the law.
> “Is there political will to amend the constitution to put term limits on members of Congress?”<
Sure, just don’t look for it in congress.
That’s a great video of Levin at ALEC last December. It is indeed the DUTY of our state legislators to relieve us from tyranny.
Article V before we can’t.
That’s a good observation and my prediction for what they’ll do with both ObamaCare and Homosexual Marriage.
With ObamaCare it’s too easy to say that the law says “state exchanges” and that’s what it means. What they should find is that the law was a federal coercive scheme against the states and the whole law is therefore unconstitutional. It will be hard to say that “state” means “fed”, but they could come down there, too, leaving the nation with a thoroughly screwed up law in which the words don’t mean what they mean (tax/mandate, state/fed) but they should be read with a special decoder lens.
Juducial appointments are going to be very crucial in the next president’s term in office. Roberts et al need to be over-ruled.
Until impeachment and removal of judges becomes common, no changes will be made to the legislative power of the courts.
We will not get that kind of judge from Bush, Paul, Fiorini, Huckabee, Christi, Rubio, or Perry.
We definitely will from Cruz and could from Walker.
I think if we just took away all post-office benes it would do the same thing. NO PENSION, NO HEALTH INS, NO NOTHING not even if you are there for 50 years, etc.
I think most people who are smart and ambitious enough to get elected to congress would leave after a term or two, or not serve until later in their careers.
I would still let them have a 401(k) and it might not affect those who are already wealthy, but it would be a start.
I am not for Term Limits. I love my Congresscritter, a strong conservative and a good man. I have no problem with him being my voice in Congress and should he change, he will lose my vote. Term Limits is not the solution.
Instead, we MUST do away with the seniority system that encourages keeping a pol in office not for his or her expertise but for the goodies that come from keeping a powerful person in office. I say it is a Constitutional issue. Yes, the Constitution grants both Houses of Congress the power to make their own rules. But those rules cannot violate other Constitutional provisions.
If the good voters of Massachusetts wanted to keep a Ted Kennedy in office for life, that was their choice. Term limits is and should remain in the hands of the electorate. But The Swimmer should have no more power than my new Senator if I and my fellow citizens decided we needed better representation.
It is an Equal Protection issue. On Day One of a new Congress, all members must be equal. I don’t see how Senate or House rules can violate the Equal Protection Clause as it has grown in Reynolds v Sims (1964) “one man, one vote” and Bush v Gore (2000).
It would seem to me that a better case can be made for using Equal Protection to blunt the dangers that Term Limits seeks to quell.
Good point.
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.