• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Term Limits be implemented for Congress?

Should Term Limits be implemented for Congress?

  • Yes

    Votes: 42 57.5%

  • No

    Votes: 25 34.2%

  • Other

    Votes: 6 8.2%
  • Total voters
    73
samsmart said:
Term limits should not be implemented.

Age limits should.

We do not need politicians making policy on developments that they are too old to understand, especially at the rate in which developments now occur.

We don't need decrepit politicians voting however their staff tells them to.

Age limits are a good alternative, as it allows professional politicians to develop the skills, experience, and knowledge necessary to form policy in a modern society without kicking them out just because they wanted to serve the people their life.
Click to expand...

I like this!

Make them retire at 67 or 68,whatever SS retirement starts:twocents:
 
0bserver92 said:
There should be no term limits. We have never had term limits though we have to and were perfectly fine. The voters decide if they don't like your government they will just vote you and your members out like they did with Mulroney.
Click to expand...

No, the voters don't.

What decides is how state legislatures gerrymander House districts in their states.

We also need to get rid of the single-member district system for the House seats and instead implement a party proportional system. That will also help get 3rd party candidates elected to Congress.
 
fredmertzz said:
The only disadvantage that I could see is that the politicians who really are great wouldn't be able to stay there. But we would supposedly continue to elect more really great politicians.

The benefits are numerous. What are your thoughts?


And my plug: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/create-term-limits-congress/bm01vV2m sign the petition if you agree. Let's get Obama to submit an amendment. Or if he won't, let him explain why not. It's time to take the lobbyists out of Washington.

If this petition gets 150 signatures, it will go public. It needs 100,000 by 4/14/13. I'm an introvert. I don't know 150 people and I don't have facebook. If you believe in this cause, please sign it and share it.

If you don't believe in it, why not? Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

I agree! 1-2yrs tops for all positions.
 
samsmart said:
No, the voters don't.

What decides is how state legislatures gerrymander House districts in their states.

We also need to get rid of the single-member district system for the House seats and instead implement a party proportional system. That will also help get 3rd party candidates elected to Congress.
Click to expand...

Do you not a federal office that determines districts by population?
 
Goshin said:
Sure. Let's limit them to zero terms.


That's about what they're worth.



Or better yet, let's make their salary contingent on NOT doing anything. Then things might finally get better.


You can tell I'm in a rather negative and cynical mood just the now...
Click to expand...

These people dont work for their salaries, they work for those that line their pockets with Benjamin.
 
Well it seems like it's less and less of a big deal but long serving politicians would serve together and build relationships and rapport which was important to compromise and getting things done.
 
Dragonfly said:
I think we do need term limits.

The overwhelming majority of Americans are dissatisfied with every single person in Washington, yet "we" continue to re-elect the same dim-bulb nitwits decade after decade after decade.

There's no need for career politicians and every reason to prevent just such a thing from happening.

I'm all for term limits.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't that suggest, despite claims to the contrary, that people are actually satisfied with their elected representatives?
 
Goshin said:
Bubba, part of the problem is that Senators or reps from other states, that I do not get to vote for or against, can stay in office for decades and accumulate seniority power, giving them a disproportionate amount of power over things that directly affect me and my life, and I can't do anything about them.

Term limits would mitigate that to some degree.
Click to expand...
If we were to have term limits, then they should be applied across the board, for this reason. I still oppose them, though.
 
Goshin said:
I must have missed this. Link?
Click to expand...

Here ya go

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that states cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of the U.S. Congress stricter than those specified in the Constitution. The decision invalidated the Congressional term limit provisions of 23 states. The parties to the case were U.S. Term Limits, a non-profit advocacy group, and the politician Ray Thornton, among others.
Click to expand...
 
clownboy said:
Here ya go
Click to expand...

1) This decision is specific to states imposing the qualifications (of term limits). I'm discussing the federal government imposing their own term limits

2) It would need to be done with an amendment, yes, which would make it constitutional by definition (this is explained in the link of the original post)
 
fredmertzz said:
1) This decision is specific to states imposing the qualifications (of term limits). I'm discussing the federal government imposing their own term limits

2) It would need to be done with an amendment, yes, which would make it constitutional by definition (this is explained in the link of the original post)
Click to expand...

Gotcha. To be real though, amending the Constitution as we know is something modern America has difficulty living up to. Heck, the last time it was tried was the ERA in 72. It passed both houses in Congress but stalled in the final ratification by the states and expired in 82 never having made the bar.
 
Perotista said:
The power to replace them lies with you.
Click to expand...

Not really. When every single person that has any shot at election on the ballot is part of the big-budget Washington political machine, all you can do is trade one political crook for another. Same crap, different moron.
 
Cephus said:
Not really. When every single person that has any shot at election on the ballot is part of the big-budget Washington political machine, all you can do is trade one political crook for another. Same crap, different moron.
Click to expand...

Run for office.
 
captainawesome said:
Run for office.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't get elected because I won't become corrupted. In the United States, to hold high political office, you have to be a crook. If you won't do that, you won't make connections, you won't make dishonest friends and you won't be part of the Washington elite. So no thanks.
 
Cephus said:
I wouldn't get elected because I won't become corrupted. In the United States, to hold high political office, you have to be a crook. If you won't do that, you won't make connections, you won't make dishonest friends and you won't be part of the Washington elite. So no thanks.
Click to expand...

Not true.
 
Cephus said:
Not really. When every single person that has any shot at election on the ballot is part of the big-budget Washington political machine, all you can do is trade one political crook for another. Same crap, different moron.
Click to expand...

You have a very valid point there. Both parties candidates have been bought and paid for and owe their elections to special interest, lobbyists, corporations, wall street, big money donors, super pacs etc. Yes, you have a very valid point.
 
Perotista said:
You have a very valid point there. Both parties candidates have been bought and paid for and owe their elections to special interest, lobbyists, corporations, wall street, big money donors, super pacs etc. Yes, you have a very valid point.
Click to expand...

Even if we have term limits and throw the crooks out, there are more crooks standing behind them waiting to get in. We have to end the big money influence first, then talk about term limits, which if we could just elect worthwhile, honest candidates that are working to represent the American people instead of their own personal and political interests, we wouldn't need term limits.
 
Cephus said:
Like who? Name a couple in major political parties that are clean as a whistle.
Click to expand...

Impossible to know.

What isn't impossible is that an honest citizen could win.

While he wasn't up to the task. Carter won.
 
captainawesome said:
Impossible to know.

What isn't impossible is that an honest citizen could win.

While he wasn't up to the task. Carter won.
Click to expand...

Sure, almost 40 years ago before it got horribly corrupt. Try for a modern-day politician.
 
captainawesome said:
Impossible to know.

What isn't impossible is that an honest citizen could win.

While he wasn't up to the task. Carter won.
Click to expand...


I think the entrenched crooks beat Carter. Definitely term limits. It's takes a few years to establish channels of graft and corruption. Finding the big kickbacks. Finding the big donors. Finding your new owners. Two year limits. That drives the cost up for the buyers, kickbackers, bribers and corruptors. Make it so damn expensive to buy a legislator that it becomes bad business.
 
Cephus said:
Even if we have term limits and throw the crooks out, there are more crooks standing behind them waiting to get in. We have to end the big money influence first, then talk about term limits, which if we could just elect worthwhile, honest candidates that are working to represent the American people instead of their own personal and political interests, we wouldn't need term limits.
Click to expand...

Very true. But it would take a constitutional amendment to do so, especially after the SCOTUS ruled that money equals speech. What I would like to see is a constitutional amendment that limits donations to living breathing citizens of the United States. This would do away with corporate, Wall Street and institutional giving. Then add that if you can not vote for that candidate or office, you can't give. A while back one of the candidates for the Georgia senate seat received 90% of his campaign cash from California. The people in California should have no say in whom we, the people of Georgia pick or choose to represent us. It should be an internal matter.
 
Perotista said:
Very true. But it would take a constitutional amendment to do so, especially after the SCOTUS ruled that money equals speech. What I would like to see is a constitutional amendment that limits donations to living breathing citizens of the United States. This would do away with corporate, Wall Street and institutional giving. Then add that if you can not vote for that candidate or office, you can't give. A while back one of the candidates for the Georgia senate seat received 90% of his campaign cash from California. The people in California should have no say in whom we, the people of Georgia pick or choose to represent us. It should be an internal matter.
Click to expand...

I agree, but amending the Constitution today is virtually impossible, the nation has become completely ideologically deadlocked. I think the Supreme Court, for the most part, is completely and totally useless and the chances of fixing this, when the courts can just override the will of the people, are somewhere between slim and none.
 
Perotista said:
Very true. But it would take a constitutional amendment to do so, especially after the SCOTUS ruled that money equals speech. What I would like to see is a constitutional amendment that limits donations to living breathing citizens of the United States. This would do away with corporate, Wall Street and institutional giving. Then add that if you can not vote for that candidate or office, you can't give. A while back one of the candidates for the Georgia senate seat received 90% of his campaign cash from California. The people in California should have no say in whom we, the people of Georgia pick or choose to represent us. It should be an internal matter.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure inanimate objects have learned how to donate yet. There are living, breathing humans behind those contributions. Good afternoon pero...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom