• 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
jamesrage said:
But you do not mind messing with it when it is something you support?
Click to expand...

No, I generally oppose any constitutional amendments. I can't think of one I would support. Currently that is, the ones in place, I don't think we should mess with.
 
Kandahar said:
Would you support this amendment to the US Constitution?

Section 1.
No person shall be elected to the office of Senator for a full term more than twice, and no person who has held the office of Senator for more than two years shall be elected to the office of Senator more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of Senator when this Article was ratified by the States, for as long as that person continuously holds the office of Senator.

Section 2.
No person shall be elected to the office of Representative more than four times. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of Representative when this Article was ratified by the States, for as long as that person continuously holds the office of Representative.
Click to expand...

I do not support any additional amendments, 1 I can't trust congress to leave the amending process to this single item and 2 because the person in their last year will act much the same as a president and not worry about being re-elected,to which they will vote for any garbage that benefits them.
 
Why is that any law that suggests limiting politicians is automatically frowned upon by the right?

Is the right not aware that politicians are like diapers? They need to be changed often and for the same reason!

:2wave:
 
I agree with Dav... this is about the 5th or 6th thread I've seen on this topic in my time at DP. Good topic, though. And my position on this has not changed. Absolutely not. All term limits should be abolished. If you do not like one who is serving, or want them out, VOTE him/her out. If someone is doing a good job, no reason to get rid of them.
 
Vader said:
Why is that any law that suggests limiting politicians is automatically frowned upon by the right?

Is the right not aware that politicians are like diapers? They need to be changed often and for the same reason!

:2wave:
Click to expand...

Ummm... Vader, I don't think that this is a partisan issue. If you look at this thread, you have folks from both sides of the political spectrum on each side of the issue.
 
repeter said:
One of the big problems in our country are career politicians. I don't really see this amendment getting passed, because that would require the politicians on The Hill to think about whats best for their constituents, and not whats best for them.
Click to expand...

I doubt this will happen. All it will do is turn former law makers into highly paid lobbiests or "consultants" in large companies that much faster. I can see a scenario where it might actually increase the influence of special interests.
 
Redress said:
No, I generally oppose any constitutional amendments. I can't think of one I would support. Currently that is, the ones in place, I don't think we should mess with.
Click to expand...

But you do support the past ones(minus the 18th)?
 
Vader said:
Why is that any law that suggests limiting politicians is automatically frowned upon by the right?

Is the right not aware that politicians are like diapers? They need to be changed often and for the same reason!

:2wave:
Click to expand...

You should probably read a thread first or at least look at the poll results before making comments like that.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I do not support any additional amendments, 1 I can't trust congress to leave the amending process to this single item
Click to expand...

Amendments have to be ratified by the states. If you look at the successful amendments to the US Constitution, nearly ALL of them are very short and simple. There's no way they could pass if they added a bunch of other crap to it.

Harry Guerrilla said:
and 2 because the person in their last year will act much the same as a president and not worry about being re-elected,to which they will vote for any garbage that benefits them.
Click to expand...

Well, that's the idea...to increase the number of people willing to make unpopular but necessary decisions, without constantly worrying about reelection.
 
Last edited:
Anyone who thinks that term limits will instantly get us a good government needs to look to California to see that it's just not true.
 
Those are fine, although I'd take it one step further and say that you can only serve a certain number of terms consecutively, perhaps 2-3, then you must spend a minimum of one term working in the private sector (not in the government in any way, shape or form) before you are eligible to run for *ANY* other political office whatsoever, local, state or federal. These people are entirely out of touch with reality, Washington D.C. is a fantasy land where politicians live in ivory towers and occasionally deign to deal with the people who put them there.
 
phattonez said:
Anyone who thinks that term limits will instantly get us a good government needs to look to California to see that it's just not true.
Click to expand...

Term limits *AND* redistricting would do California a world of good. The problem is, the districts are drawn in such a way that no party ever has to worry about being tossed out on their ear, they're completely safe unless they get absurdly abusive, thus one political hack is largely identical to the one that just left office.
 
Cephus said:
Term limits *AND* redistricting would do California a world of good. The problem is, the districts are drawn in such a way that no party ever has to worry about being tossed out on their ear, they're completely safe unless they get absurdly abusive, thus one political hack is largely identical to the one that just left office.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with redistricting being left to an independent party.
 
I suppose term limits could work if the ex politician is unable to associate with any other politician for two or three years after. The problem with that is the first amendment though. So I don't think this sill solve anything.
 
phattonez said:
I have no problem with redistricting being left to an independent party.
Click to expand...

I'd rather have it left to a computer and require that all districts ought to be roughly the same population and must be contiguous. Right now, politicians are picking and choosing by the neighborhood what goes into their district, even if it's just unconnected bits and pieces here and there.
 
phattonez said:
Anyone who thinks that term limits will instantly get us a good government needs to look to California to see that it's just not true.
Click to expand...

California has other problems that don't apply to the federal government. Specifically, California has voter initiatives that result in all sorts of irresponsible crap being passed, and an imbalance between the votes needed for spending increases (simple majority) and tax increases (supermajority).

And no one suggested that term limits will instantly get us a good government. But it will certainly help.
 
Cephus said:
I'd rather have it left to a computer and require that all districts ought to be roughly the same population and must be contiguous. Right now, politicians are picking and choosing by the neighborhood what goes into their district, even if it's just unconnected bits and pieces here and there.
Click to expand...

And if possible leave all gray areas in the calculations to a random number generator.
 
megaprogman said:
And if possible leave all gray areas in the calculations to a random number generator.
Click to expand...

Certainly. I just want a computer to draw lines, keeping general populations equivalent, without any regard for the political bent of the particular area. District lines need to be re-drawn at least once a decade to keep political hacks from getting too comfortable. That way, they actually have to represent their districts instead of representing their personal political interests.
 
Kandahar said:
And no one suggested that term limits will instantly get us a good government. But it will certainly help.
Click to expand...

If it would help, then we would have seen some effect in California, but it's worse here than ever before.
 
jamesrage said:
But you do support the past ones(minus the 18th)?
Click to expand...

Mostly. I am not a big fan of the 22nd. I am not against amendments, even going forward, but I think there needs to be overwhelming reason to amend the constitution, and I don't see this as being such a reason. This is the same reason I don't advocate repealing the 22nd, because I don't think there is overwhelming reason to do so, even though I don't really care for it.
 
repeter said:
One of the big problems in our country are career politicians. I don't really see this amendment getting passed, because that would require the politicians on The Hill to think about whats best for their constituents, and not whats best for them.Most, if not all Congressmen do care about their constituants, but some care too much about themselves (power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely)
Click to expand...

That is a problem, one the Constitutional framers did not think of. The states could do this thru an amendent??
I'd favor 2 six year Senate terms and 2 four years House terms. And one thing that is absolutely wrong is the ancient two year term for the representatives....this should have been changed during the previous century.
 
I am all for them. It would get rid of some of the dictators in congress.
 
phattonez said:
If it would help, then we would have seen some effect in California, but it's worse here than ever before.
Click to expand...

And as I said, California has some quirks that the federal government does not have, which makes its government particularly dysfunctional: Voter initiatives, and a disparity in the process between spending increases and tax increases. These things have nothing to do with term limits. By citing California, you are effectively saying that because California has term limits and a dysfunctional government, the former must have caused the latter (or at least not improved the later). This logic doesn't make sense since there are 49 other states and 191 other countries, many of which have term limits and functional governments.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom