• 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!

Congressional term limits

Would you support this amendment to the US Constitution?


  • Total voters
    35
That's not the voter's judgement, it's the government's. And it results in an increase in the power and rights of the people, not a decrease.

So? Who are you to say that an increase in the power/rights of the people is inherently a good thing, if they want to elect someone who promises the exact opposite? Is it written down in a document somewhere? Perhaps the same one I'm seeking to amend with my term limits proposal? ;)

misterman said:
Fine, I won't call it anti-democratic. I'll call it taking away part of the rights of voters.

Potato, po-tah-to. Telling a democratically-elected president he can't censor the press is taking away part of the rights of voters as well.

misterman said:
As someone noted above, everyone loves their congressman and hates everyone else's. Incumbency rate is determined by voters in each district; while approval rate is about the whole Congress.

That's one of the problems, and is why we need to shake up Congress more often. If there was some new blood in Congress every now and then, perhaps the institution would not be so perennially unpopular.
 
Last edited:
My brother uses the main argument I've been using, but puts it in an economic context.

Sophistpundit: The Case for Congressional Term Limits

Some Economic Analysis

When I complain about senators that have been in office for longer than I have been alive, a typical response is that if people did not like that senator, they wouldn't vote for him.

Of course the problem with this is that even though I may not like a particular senator or congressman, it does not mean that I will happen to be one of his constituents. Congress is composed by people who make national decisions but are only held accountable locally. What is in the interest of the people in his district may not be in the interest of the people in my district. In the jargon of economics, any influence that another state or district imposes on the nation is an externality that is imposed on the rest of the nation.

Now, I think it shouldn't be too controversial to say that those who have been in congress longer have more influence than those who have not. They have made more connections, have more experience playing the game on the Hill, and so on. If this is so, then every state and congressional district has an incentive to keep the same people in (all other things being equal) year after year, since they risk their representative losing sway if they replace him.

To the extent that this is true, competition between states for influence in national policy likely reduces the competition that representatives actually face for their position in their locality, once they are through the door.

I think we would all be better off if we put a cap on the national-level competition. Any cap would be better than none at all; a three or four term limit cap in the senate would still involve less time in office than many senators have enjoyed. Since everyone would be unable to spend more than a certain amount of time in office, there would be more local level competition for representation once a particular member of congress was on their last allowed term.


An Ethical Afterthought

I think there is something inherently immoral about the professional politician. From the standpoint of tradition, it is certainly not what the founding fathers wanted. George Washington stepped down after two terms voluntarily; with his popularity he could have remained and become much more powerful than he chose to be. When Thomas Jefferson did the same, they set the political expectations in a way that made it very difficult for anyone to break the pattern. They were great men; few after have shown similar restraint.

People should have their careers, their passions, and their families. If they choose to serve public office, then it should be only as a small interruption in the course of their lives--they should earn it based on the accomplishments and acclaim they have gained elsewhere.

If this strikes the reader as too idealistic, I will understand. Morality should always be dealt with in ideals; it doesn't mean that those who fall short of perfection are to be deplored. Even Washington and Jefferson had their faults and their ambitions, but they serve as great moral examples that all of the ambitious should aspire to.

It may be that the men who are in office are those who have been selected by the incentives and pressures inherent in the system; that those who would step down as Washington would do and are quickly replaced by those who won't. If so, then it seems reason enough to consider term limits, in the hopes of drawing in higher caliber characters, or at least limiting the time that lesser characters are able to make consequential decisions.
 
Of course the problem with this is that even though I may not like a particular senator or congressman, it does not mean that I will happen to be one of his constituents.

Yes, it is a problem when you want to pick someone else's representative!

The arrogance surrounding this issue is amazing sometimes.
 
So? Who are you to say that an increase in the power/rights of the people is inherently a good thing, if they want to elect someone who promises the exact opposite? Is it written down in a document somewhere?

Yes - the Declaration of Independence. Look up "inalienable rights."

Potato, po-tah-to. Telling a democratically-elected president he can't censor the press is taking away part of the rights of voters as well.

Well, no, it's not.

That's one of the problems, and is why we need to shake up Congress more often. If there was some new blood in Congress every now and then, perhaps the institution would not be so perennially unpopular.

Perhaps. Now all you have to do is go convince the voters of that. (Using your inalienable right to freedom of speech by the way).
 
As I understand it, there is supposed to be a 3-way balance of power between the Presidency, Congress, and the Court system.

Don't believe all that, if I remember correctly there is nothing in The Constitution about the three branches being balanced.

Congress naturally has the most power, there are just three branches with differential powers.
 
Back
Top Bottom