• 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?

  • No. Let them serve as long as both they choose and as long as they can win re-election.

    Votes: 11 40.7%

  • Yes. 1 term limit per office, lifetime. (2 yrs for Congress, 6 yrs for Senate).

    Votes: 2 7.4%

  • Yes. 1 consecutive term limit per office (1 term at a time, even if completing an unexpired term)

    Votes: 2 7.4%

  • Yes. But I believe this is how many terms should be the limit. (Please specify)

    Votes: 12 44.4%
  • Total voters
    27
I haven't looked into the matter as much as I should. My current position is that there should be term limits. If policy makers are making policy based on what will get them re-elected, rather than what is good for the country, then obviously that stinks.
 
Nope. If the people want them then they should be there.
 
Amadeus said:
I haven't looked into the matter as much as I should. My current position is that there should be term limits. If policy makers are making policy based on what will get them re-elected, rather than what is good for the country, then obviously that stinks.
Click to expand...

this is one reason why the 17th needs to be repealed

because the house is the interest of the people, and the senate the interest of the states....each has its own interest to protect.

so for any legislation to pass congress both the interest of the people and the interest of the states must come together, for what is good for the union as a whole.
 
ernst barkmann said:
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.
Click to expand...

The only thing repealing the 17th would do is make it slightly inconvenient to lobbyists.Companies have deep pockets.

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.
Click to expand...
You seem to be under the impression that people appoint those who re ideologically the opposite of them. Left winger will appoint left wingers and right wingers will appoint right wingers.One only has to look at presidential appointments to see that is true. So I am fine with politicians being answerable to citizens instead of other politicians.
 
jamesrage said:
The only thing repealing the 17th would do is make it slightly inconvenient to lobbyists.Companies have deep pockets.


You seem to be under the impression that people appoint those who re ideologically the opposite of them. Left winger will appoint left wingers and right wingers will appoint right wingers.One only has to look at presidential appointments to see that is true. So I am fine with politicians being answerable to citizens instead of other politicians.
Click to expand...

the house elected by the people is by its very nature is a collective body.

the senate elected by the state legislature is NOT a collective body.

the senate was constructed to BLOCK the collective captivity of the people. to prevent socialism, for 1, and 2 to prevent tranny of the majority, and 3 to prevent factious combinations from controlling our government .

because the interest of the senate is different then the house, the senate does not care about what legislation the houses passes, it is only concerns about maintaining its states powers from government usurpation....because of the 17th, this has allowed government to usurp states powers, because state power in the senate has been taken away.

by repealing the 17th you, return government to balance,.....you put back into our government a CHECK on the federal government.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the house elected by the people is by its very nature is a collective body.

the senate elected by the state legislature is NOT a collective body.

the senate was constructed to BLOCK the collective captivity of the people. to prevent socialism, for 1, and 2 to prevent tranny of the majority, and 3 to prevent factious combinations from controlling our government .

because the interest of the senate is different then the house, the senate does not care about what legislation the houses passes, it is only concerns about maintaining its states powers from government usurpation....because of the 17th, this has allowed government to usurp states powers, because state power in the senate has been taken away.

by repealing the 17th you, return government to balance,.....you put back into our government a CHECK on the federal government.
Click to expand...

Most people these days are not worried about a check on the federal government. Most just want their parties agenda rammed down the throats of the people whether they want it, like it or not. To go back to where the states are once again represented might prevent all this ramming down. I agree with your post. The states have lost their representation in congress, the senate is now just a mini House of Representatives. Left unsaid in your post, I think repealing the 17th would dilute the power of the political parties also. This is probably the main reason the repeal will never happen.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the house elected by the people is by its very nature is a collective body.

the senate elected by the state legislature is NOT a collective body.
Click to expand...


because the interest of the senate is different then the house, the senate does not care about what legislation the houses passes, it is only concerns about maintaining its states powers from government usurpation....because of the 17th, this has allowed government to usurp states powers, because state power in the senate has been taken away.

by repealing the 17th you, return government to balance,.....you put back into our government a CHECK on the federal government.
Click to expand...

Again left wingers appoint left wingers and right wingers appoint right wingers. Nothing will change except for which group of left wingers picks left wing politicians and which group of right wingers pick left wing politicians. Left wingers at the state level support the same thing left wingers at the federal level support and right wingers at the state level support what right wingers at the federal level support.

the senate was constructed to BLOCK the collective captivity of the people. to prevent socialism.
Click to expand...

Do you have any evidence of this? Where there any socialist countries around at the time the constitution was written? I remember in history class the revolutionary war being about overthrowing a inbred dictator who lived across the ocean not stopping socialism.
 
jamesrage said:
Again left wingers appoint left wingers and right wingers appoint right wingers. Nothing will change except for which group of left wingers picks left wing politicians and which group of right wingers pick left wing politicians. Left wingers at the state level support the same thing left wingers at the federal level support and right wingers at the state level support what right wingers at the federal level support.



Do you have any evidence of this? Where there any socialist countries around at the time the constitution was written? I remember in history class the revolutionary war being about overthrowing a inbred dictator who lived across the ocean not stopping socialism.
Click to expand...



do you not believe that if the states had power back in the senate, they would stop all legislation which is created, which usurps their state powers, dedicates/mandates they do things.

do you not believe if the states had power in the senate, presidents could not violate the law, use EO'S to create laws, without the senate made up of states coming down on that persons head with hearings and maybe impeachment.
 
ernst barkmann said:
do you not believe that if the states had power back in the senate, they would stop all legislation which is created, which usurps their state powers, dedicates/mandates they do things.

do you not believe if the states had power in the senate, presidents could not violate the law, use EO'S to create laws, without the senate made up of states coming down on that persons head with hearings and maybe impeachment.
Click to expand...

no, because history has shown that even when the states had that power at their disposal, there was still corruption in government. ever hear of Tammney hall, the ultimate representation of how corrupt party bosses ran the states like their own personal fiefdoms?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
no, because history has shown that even when the states had that power at their disposal, there was still corruption in government. ever hear of Tammney hall, the ultimate representation of how corrupt party bosses ran the states like their own personal fiefdoms?
Click to expand...


as it has been stated to you before...corruption ALWAYS EXIST.

it is never going away, corruption on the state and local level closer to the people is less, and more apt to correct, compared to a nationalized government.....with many arms and legs.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
no, because history has shown that even when the states had that power at their disposal, there was still corruption in government. ever hear of Tammney hall, the ultimate representation of how corrupt party bosses ran the states like their own personal fiefdoms?
Click to expand...

Term limits certainly provide no defense against corruption, however it limits the amount of time they have to act upon that corruption. In so doing, corrupt politicians may make more mistakes or may be deterred from following a corrupt path and going to jail. All supposition surely, but then again, if a very clever corrupt politician uses the system and is so clever as to not get caught they can only be corrupt at the people's expense for a limited period of time. Right now, as long as the voting geography is gerrymandered for both parties, a clever corrupt politician could bilk the system and the American people for 50 years or even longer.
 
Ockham said:
Term limits certainly provide no defense against corruption, however it limits the amount of time they have to act upon that corruption. In so doing, corrupt politicians may make more mistakes or may be deterred from following a corrupt path and going to jail. All supposition surely, but then again, if a very clever corrupt politician uses the system and is so clever as to not get caught they can only be corrupt at the people's expense for a limited period of time. Right now, as long as the voting geography is gerrymandered for both parties, a clever corrupt politician could bilk the system and the American people for 50 years or even longer.
Click to expand...

or maybe our politicians should be made to answer the publics questions in a forum not of the politicians choosing : a open forum of debate where citizens get to ask the questions and the politican has to answer under oath.
 
2 terms like the president
 
ernst barkmann said:
do you not believe that if the states had power back in the senate, they would stop all legislation which is created, which usurps their state powers, dedicates/mandates they do things.

do you not believe if the states had power in the senate, presidents could not violate the law, use EO'S to create laws, without the senate made up of states coming down on that persons head with hearings and maybe impeachment.
Click to expand...


I believe that people will appoint or elect those who share similar beliefs to public office. Obama-care supporting voters will elect Obama-care supporting politicians, Obama-care supporting politicians will appoint Obama-care politicians and so on.So all repealing the 17th amendment will do nothing except for maybe make it a slight hassle for companies with deep pockets to send lobbyists.Heck it would probably make things easier for them considering that is less people they have to bribe and kiss up to.
 
Tothian said:
How do you feel about term limits for Senate and Congress?
Click to expand...

i'd prefer that we redraw all districts nationwide in a non-partisan way. basically, we would input population density data from the census into a computer, and it would use only that to draw the districts. districts would be redrawn with each new census, and only then.

i think this would solve a LOT of problems.
 
plutonium said:
2 terms like the president
Click to expand...

my suggestion: make elections every six years instead of the lopsided system we have now.

2 six year terms for congressmen

2 six year terms for senate

and two six year presidential terms

that way the time between elections is increased and would make political gridlock impractical
 
jamesrage said:
I believe that people will appoint or elect those who share similar beliefs to public office. Obama-care supporting voters will elect Obama-care supporting politicians, Obama-care supporting politicians will appoint Obama-care politicians and so on.So all repealing the 17th amendment will do nothing except for maybe make it a slight hassle for companies with deep pockets to send lobbyists.Heck it would probably make things easier for them considering that is less people they have to bribe and kiss up to.
Click to expand...

so if the house were to create a bill, ,which would mandate the states institute a federal program, with the states picking up most of the cost for the program, do you think the states controlled senate, is going to pass such a bill....which forces them to do something?
 
ernst barkmann said:
so if the house were to create a bill, ,which would mandate the states institute a federal program, with the states picking up most of the cost for the program, do you think the states controlled senate, is going to pass such a bill....which forces them to do something?
Click to expand...

If they supported it they would regardless of who got stuck with the costs.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
or maybe our politicians should be made to answer the publics questions in a forum not of the politicians choosing : a open forum of debate where citizens get to ask the questions and the politican has to answer under oath.
Click to expand...

That would be beautiful.





It'll never happen.
 
jamesrage said:
I believe that people will appoint or elect those who share similar beliefs to public office. Obama-care supporting voters will elect Obama-care supporting politicians, Obama-care supporting politicians will appoint Obama-care politicians and so on.So all repealing the 17th amendment will do nothing except for maybe make it a slight hassle for companies with deep pockets to send lobbyists.Heck it would probably make things easier for them considering that is less people they have to bribe and kiss up to.
Click to expand...


I believe the public elects politicians based on whatever lie they're being told that day. Lies like no new taxes, or transparency in government, or the ever popular "I'm a working class guy just like YOU!".
 
jamesrage said:
If they supported it they would regardless of who got stuck with the costs.
Click to expand...

so your saying that state governments want to be advised by the house of representatives?

the senate is one equal par with the house, why should they let the house create things for them they must do and cost them money, they don't have, or not allotted for such things.

the senate is created to block attempts by the house to control them, so we don't not have a democracy, and the house is there to prevent and aristocracy from taking place in America.

by having a senate and a house in two different sets of hands, this divides power, and the only way legislation, can get though congress is for both the house and senate to come together, and work in the interest of both, not the interest of one.
 
Tothian said:
How do you feel about term limits for Senate and Congress?
Click to expand...

I don't like limiting the voter's choice by law, however I respect self imposed limits greatly. In addition there must be an avenue to have complete transparency in campaign finance.

Also, for those who do not like term limits, does anyone else think limiting political contribution amounts to a restriction on the voters choice of candidate?
 
ernst barkmann said:
so your saying that state governments want to be advised by the house of representatives?
Click to expand...

If it is in their interests.

the senate is one equal par with the house, why should they let the house create things for them they must do and cost them money, they don't have, or not allotted for such things.
Click to expand...

Beholden to other elected officials makes you on equal par with them?
the senate is created to block attempts by the house to control them, so we don't not have a democracy, and the house is there to prevent and aristocracy from taking place in America.

by having a senate and a house in two different sets of hands, this divides power, and the only way legislation, can get though congress is for both the house and senate to come together, and work in the interest of both, not the interest of one.
Click to expand...

They were not in two sets of hands before the 17th amendment. How could they be when you are arguing that instead of being answerable to the people they would be answerable to the state legislators?
 
NO.
This is one of those things that sounds good at first, until you put more thought into it.

The lack of Term Limits is a very important part of how our Democracy works.
It creates stability within our Government. Just as to impose term limits would occasionally create instability.

Just imagine all those crazy Tea Party types joining Congress without the more experienced, steady Republicans to help keep them under control.
The Right Wing might hold the best current example, but this can apply to either side.
To create term limits is to expose us to dramatic unstable shifts in direction based on public whim, which is often connected with rising political tides and based on lies or purchased with political spending.
 
I don't believe they should have term limits, but I also don't think they should be allowed to campaign from their job.

Would your employer allow you to take time off work, and get paid, if you took a few months to campaign for a political office?

I would like to see an incumbent not be allowed to do any of this. Congress should be in session when it's not in recess. Recess is not a vacation. It is a time that congress is suppose to be seeing their constituents. This leaves, if anything, weekends, but congress is often in session on weekends as well.

I would like top see an incumbent have to be elected by merit, where people like the job he/she is doing and not campaigning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom