• 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 Congress have term limits?

Should U.S. Congress & Senate have term limits?


  • Total voters
    27
the founders created a system, of only 2 years for each person of the house, want to remove them vote him out!

the senate was a different matter, the senators were picked by the legislature of states, ..it has been ONLY after the 17th amendment you have long term serving senators.

repeal the 17th to put government back in balance

I agree, the original idea was the senate would represent the states and the house, the people. But the passage of the 17th stop the senate from representing the states as envisioned by the framers. Heck, all they do these days is represent their political party and neither the state or the people.
 
How do you feel about term limits for Senate and Congress?

I support term limits. Two terms per office and on top of that a five year waiting period between offices regardless of those offices are appoint or elected. This means if someone who served as a senator wants to run for congressman, president or what ever then he or she has to wait at least five years before running.This ensures an elected official does not carry over an influence from any previous office and that all elected officials will have equal footing.

This idea that we can simply vote out bad politicians is a ****en joke.Most voters are too busy watching American Idol or some other stupid **** to care what their elected officials do and are too easily manipulated by the scum in the media, this is why congress in general has a 10% approval rating and a high incumbent reelection rate.
 
one thing i didn't point out before, repeal the 17th...and you cripple lobbying in Washington.

1.Lobbyists would just focus their attention of those who can "appoint" senators.
2.I would rather elected officials be beholden to the people not other elected officials.
3.There were problems before the 17th amendment.
 
1.Lobbyists would just focus their attention of those who can "appoint" senators.
2.I would rather elected officials be beholden to the people not other elected officials.
3.There were problems before the 17th amendment.

1. the legislature appoints the senators, ...are lobbyist going to go to every state, and lobby over say 1000 people?..they could but very hard to do.

2 by having states elect the senator .power is again divided, retuning america to a republican form of government, ..which has much less special interest, because it is more difficult to lobby, because the senate and the house interest, are different.

3 the 17th amendment was pushed by the progressives of that era, because they favor democracy, and democracy is the road to socialism--Karl Marx
 
the main thing to do is get rid of the outrageous pensions these people get, that alone would prevent permanent office holders.
 
Yes. Just because arizona is too redneck and uneducated to get rid of mccain's worthless crusty ass doesn't mean the rest of us should suffer.

1 term - 2 year limit lifetime

Governing isn't about climbing the ladder and building celebrity status to further one's own ends but about public service. They should have plenty experience *before* reaching congress and then remain largely unknown to other states (who can't vote for them as senator but could as president) by the time they're done.

At least, i would like to try this. Give the senators as little incentive to screw the people, like they just did with college loan rates, to enrich their campaign contributors (they won't have any!) or to appease certain voter demographics (they won't have any!)
 
Last edited:
Term LImits are the lazy person's reaction to current situation.

The solution to the problems is better redistricting by geography and population.
Get people out to vote.
All money given to candidates MUST come from inside the area they represent and from people who live there.

There is no reason that people living in Florida and New York should have any say who the people of the Indiana first want to hire as their representative.
 
OTJ training every two years makes so much sense.
A 3-year term makes more sense--since nothing happens in the first or last year of the 2-year term .

Nothing happens in 15 two years terms or more either.
 
I support term limits. I truly think too long in office makes one complacent, unmotivated, possibly corrupt, and no longer "fresh".

5 terms for Congress
2 terms for US Senator
 
I support term limits. I truly think too long in office makes one complacent, unmotivated, possibly corrupt, and no longer "fresh".

5 terms for Congress
2 terms for US Senator

I agree that it does for most people. Still, if that's who the public wants to elect I don't think we should limit them. The problem isn't with unlimited terms its with the public that allows it to happen. Put term limits up they're still going to elect the same types of people repeatedly.
 
Two terms for each office....just like the POTUS has now. Both the House and the Senate would have 4 year terms...also just like the POTUS.
 
I'm torn on this topic. I understand the rationale but I also feel that people should be able to elect who they want.

Are for then the removal of term limits on the president?
 
Are for then the removal of term limits on the president?

I am, I think the 22nd amendment was a mistake and a rash reaction to FDR being elected 4 time. So which presidents could have won a third term? Eisenhower could have, but his health was bad having suffered 4 heart attacks and would not have sought another term. JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter never had the chance. Reagan was the next president who could have sought a third term without the 22nd amendment. If he ran I am sure he could have won. But once again health would have become an issue, altzheimers. I doubt if Reagan would have run for a third term. Next comes Clinton, If he could have run, he could have become the first president since FDR to serve more than two terms. He was healthy, popular, and I am guessing he would have tried and probably been re-elected. Bush the second, no way could he have won re-election to a third term even if he wanted it. The people were just plain tired of him and I would add the GOP.

Obama, he would win a third term, not with his numbers today. But yes, I am for repeal of the 22nd amendment. The main reason is not who would try for a third term, it is as soon as any president is elected to his second term he immediately becomes a lame duck president.
 
No, but there should not be rewards for seniority. Seniority rules require that the voters keep re-electing the incumbent or they lose their power and privilege. The level of services a district receives should be based on how many times they have re-elected their representative.
 
Another way to look at term limits is removing peoples right to elect who they want to elect. Why should the people be forbidden from re-electing their Representative or Senator? Because you know better? Food for thought.
 
1. the legislature appoints the senators, ...are lobbyist going to go to every state, and lobby over say 1000 people?..they could but very hard to do.
2 by having states elect the senator .power is again divided, retuning america to a republican form of government, ..which has much less special interest, because it is more difficult to lobby, because the senate and the house interest, are different.

1.Companies have deep pockets. Assuming that all these senators come up for appointment at the same time the lobbyists would most certainly have the money to do so.
2.Left wingers are going to appoint other left wingers and right wingers are going to appoint other right wingers.Power is not going to be divided.

3 the 17th amendment was pushed by the progressives of that era, because they favor democracy, and democracy is the road to socialism--Karl Marx
I could care less who pushed it.A broken clock can right twice a day.
 
1.Companies have deep pockets. Assuming that all these senators come up for appointment at the same time the lobbyists would most certainly have the money to do so.
2.Left wingers are going to appoint other left wingers and right wingers are going to appoint other right wingers.Power is not going to be divided.


I could care less who pushed it.A broken clock can right twice a day.

senators are staggered, class 1,2,3 every two years elected

senators work for the state legislators, they are concerned how states powers.
 
How do you feel about term limits for Senate and Congress?

I see no reason why you should limit who I want as my representative. If my representative is doing a good job for me, why should I not be able to vote for him?
 
I voted yes and the term limits I'd be comfortable with are:

2 terms in total for a Senator (12 years total)
6 terms in total for a House member (12 years total)

After that, they can run for State government all they want, or they can run for President but never again for Congress.
 
senators are staggered, class 1,2,3 every two years elected


So that means lobbyists do not have to coerce all the senators.

senators work for the state legislators, they are concerned how states powers.

Only when their term is almost up.
 
The idea that term limits will end or reduce corruption in congress is a myth. Corporations and the wealthy can still control elections with term limits in place; they just need to someone else to serve their interests after the limit is up. The best way to reduce corruption in our political system is to ban corporate donations and place limits on individual donations. Term limits are also undemocratic in that if a state or district's population chooses to reelect their representative, the federal government telling the populous they cannot reelect their representative is a violation of their voting rights as a whole.

Where we do need term limits is the Supreme Court. Politicization of the court needs to end so that the court is a genuinely fair interpreter of the constitution, independent of lobbying or popular opinion. This differs from congressional term limits in that the people already have little to no say as to who is appointed to the court.

I realize this opinion is somewhat unpopular, but the presidential term limit is just as undemocratic as potential congressional term limits. Assuming we have an electoral system with less corporate influence, the president exceeding two terms, even without term limits, is highly unlikely. Over a period of over 100 years, F.D.R. was the only president to exceed two terms when we didn't have term limits.
 
senators are staggered, class 1,2,3 every two years elected

senators work for the state legislators, they are concerned how states powers.

to the bolded... that's how it was intended to be, but it's not how it is.

Senators work for whatever party they belong to, no one else....and the state legislators are officially irrelevant to Senators( a lovely byproduct of the 17th amendment)
 
How do you feel about term limits for Senate and Congress?
In recent history, at least back to Noot Gingrich in 1990 and 1994,
term limits have been the mantra of GOPs/TEAs/etc, since they were not in power.

2010 was another great example--and now the GOP drum beats loud again during mid-terms for an office they don't hold .
 
So that means lobbyists do not have to coerce all the senators.



Only when their term is almost up.

what it means is lobbyist would have to visit every state, and lobby the whole state legislature.

today all a lobbyist has to do is go to 1 centralized location and lobby 1 person... the senator,,,,,,,,making lobbying far much easier.

a senator does the bidding of the state legislature,,he is not free to make his own decision, if he choses try to do that action, the state can ask for his resignation, and he will of coarse never be reelected by them, if he does not vote according to the state.

example: under the ACA 26 states sued the federal government over it, if the 17th had not been in place those states legislatures would have directed their senators to vote ...no....it would have never passed.
 
to the bolded... that's how it was intended to be, but it's not how it is.

Senators work for whatever party they belong to, no one else....and the state legislators are officially irrelevant to Senators( a lovely byproduct of the 17th amendment)

the most simple way of making people understand why the 17th should be repeal is reading the federalist 62 and 63....it explains how socialism, tyranny, faction are kept in check.
 
Back
Top Bottom