Skip to comments.
Term Limits for Congress
Posted on 06/28/2007 11:55:31 AM PDT by nels96
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 next last
Congress' basic problem is lust for reelection
Therefore should be term limited with short terms, such as one term of 6 years in the Senate, and three terms of 2 years in the House.
But first we have a major problem, see www.foavc.org and www.article5.org
For overall background see www.tenurecorrupts.com
1
posted on
06/28/2007 11:55:32 AM PDT
by
nels96
To: nels96
That’s too short, two 6 year terms for the Senate, and six 2 year terms for the House.
2
posted on
06/28/2007 11:56:49 AM PDT
by
MassachusettsGOP
(May the West and Republicans Always Win...)
To: nels96
If only Newt got this done.
3
posted on
06/28/2007 11:57:56 AM PDT
by
Dan Nunn
To: nels96
We already have term limits, they’re called elections.
4
posted on
06/28/2007 11:58:13 AM PDT
by
HEY4QDEMS
(Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.)
To: nels96
Normally I would be against term limits as the stay in office of the congressman should be a decision that is left to the voters. But given how carefully carved up each district is to practically favor the incumbent, maybe it is time.
As an alternative, I'd rather see ballots that list only the candidates name and the office sought. Mention of party affiliation would be prohibited. There could still be a button to push to vote 'straight ticket' but the only thing it would do is fire a taser or release the hounds.
5
posted on
06/28/2007 11:58:34 AM PDT
by
P-40
(Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
To: nels96
I agree on term limits, however I disagree with your proposal.
Only one 6 year term for Senate is way too short. I’d agree on two 6 year terms for Senate and four two year terms for House.
Too short and too few terms are almost as bad as long indefinite terms. Representatives also need some time to get into the stuff.
6
posted on
06/28/2007 11:59:58 AM PDT
by
SolidWood
(UN delenda est.)
To: nels96
The Founders were very smart and already gave us a legitimate form of term limits. We call it, elections.
The will of the people shall prevail.
This is not something we should consider amending the Constitution for. If you don’t like a candidate, vote him/her out of office.
7
posted on
06/28/2007 12:00:22 PM PDT
by
Reagan Man
(FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)
To: MassachusettsGOP
As long as we’re upping term limits to 12 years then the POTUS should be upped to three 4 year terms. Not that I would want GWB in for another 4 years but there may be someone along the way that I would want to give a third term to.
To: nels96
It sounds nice, but we’re trying it here in CA and it’s not really working out so well.
9
posted on
06/28/2007 12:00:59 PM PDT
by
The Blitherer
(What would a Free Man do?)
To: nels96
There are arguments on both sides. I would note a couple things:
First, election laws are crafted to protect incumbents, to tilt the playing field in their favor (that was the real reason McCain/Feingold passed Congress, because it made it tougher on challengers).
Second, while we can get rid of our own local Congress member or our two Senators, we can do nothing about un-electing the rest of ‘em. That doesn’t justify term limits, but unless you live in Henry Waxman’s district, it’s not the local guy who’s the problem.
To: nels96
Also, reduce the size of the Senate to 50, the size of the House to 200, and tell both houses that they can only meet 50 days out of the year, and they are getting a 40% pay cut.
To: nels96
The main problem such a proposal is that congress will by nature oppose any kind of change that reduces their power or income. Term Limits was proposed a number of years ago, but because it had to pass congressional muster, it failed. They will not vote for it, nor will they allow any kind of I&R approach to Constitutional Amendments.
Our only control is the vote, and the general electorate's dereliction of duty in that regard represents a serious challenge to those of us that care. It's such a challenge to us that the dimlibs and Bush were obviously counting on it to get the scamnesty bill passed, and frankly I'm euphorically surprised that enough grass roots people got off their duffs and made sure their senators got the message. If we could muster that kind of passion and activity every election cycle, we could achieve almost the same results as term limits.
12
posted on
06/28/2007 12:09:13 PM PDT
by
Marauder
(Allah & Lucifer: One and the same)
To: nels96
Now’s a good time for this, when the public is furious with the politicians in Washington and ready to kick them all out.
13
posted on
06/28/2007 12:10:48 PM PDT
by
Savage Beast
(If you think like the Roman Empire you'll act like the Roman Empire--and fall like the Roman Empire!)
To: nels96
One term for both Senate and House, then back to the auto dealership with ‘em.
14
posted on
06/28/2007 12:18:15 PM PDT
by
SpaceBar
To: Dan Nunn
Newt did not try to get term limits.
To: The Blitherer
Really...we are doing it here in OK...and it's working fine so far.
Give me some examples of why you think it's not working....
Thanks-
16
posted on
06/28/2007 12:38:14 PM PDT
by
Osage Orange
(The old/liberal/socialist media is the most ruthless and destructive enemy of this country.)
To: nels96
I'm convinced that 99% of the problems in this country would be quickly solved by implementing the three Ts:
- Tort Reform
- Tax Reform
- Term Limits
17
posted on
06/28/2007 12:39:17 PM PDT
by
Egon
("If all your friends were named Cliff, would you jump off them??" - Hugh Neutron)
To: HEY4QDEMS
We already have term limits, theyre called elections. I'll assume, based on your tagline, that you're not serious.
18
posted on
06/28/2007 12:40:18 PM PDT
by
Egon
("If all your friends were named Cliff, would you jump off them??" - Hugh Neutron)
To: nels96
Today’s victory on amnesty argues against term limits.
It was the threat of the loss of their jobs that turned key Senators.
If they knew they were term limited out, they very well might not care...and be even more susceptible to the persuasions of those who were going to feather their nest after they were out of office.
It’s worth considering.
19
posted on
06/28/2007 12:42:59 PM PDT
by
EternalVigilance
(Democrats are the Evil Party, Republicans are the Stupid Party - So, "Bipartisan"=Stupid AND Evil!!)
To: Egon
Sorry, you’ll be assuming wrong.
20
posted on
06/28/2007 12:43:46 PM PDT
by
HEY4QDEMS
(Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-59 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson