• 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!

Term limits on the House and the Senate?

Terms Limits.

  • Limits on the House

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Limits on the Senate

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    28
If it is "the people's chamber" it is up to the people to decide that. If "the people" want the same representative for 40 years, that is "the people's" decision.

Defeating an encumbent is difficult. He is often better funded and has much greater name recognition than an unknown challenger.
 
Defeating an encumbent is difficult. He is often better funded and has much greater name recognition than an unknown challenger.

OK. I'm not sure how that counters what I said, but that's probably correct.
 
Our system already has "term limits" they are called "elections". If they people think the representative should go...they can vote them out.
 
We already have 'term limits'...2 and 6 years. Limiting the number of terms isnt really practical and certainly not on a state by state basis. I know people disagree but the move to impose a limit on the number of terms is a lazy mans way of governing. If people dont like the candidates they have, vote them out...elect someone else. If their candidate is worthy of re-election, send them as many times as you want.

However if we were to restore the balance prescribed by the constitution, the role of the fed would be significantly reduced and their would be far more cache to being a state politician than a federal politician. As it is there is obviously something drastically wrong when candidates pay hundreds of millions on campaigns for a job that pays under 200k. Thats a pretty good indicator that the fed exists to feed party and special interest groups.
I appreciate your theory, but we need them now. Besides they were able to pass term limits on the president with an amendment.
 
I vote yes for both and think you will generally find bipartisan support among the people for term limits in Congress. Unfortunately, I think you will also find bipartisan opposition to it by our representatives of both parties.
 
Whenever this issue comes up, I always say the same thing. I reject term limits... in fact I fully support repealing the 22nd Amendment. If someone good actually gets into office, I think it is ridiculous to have it mandatory that they leave. Also, I prefer to put these kinds of decisions in the hands of the voters. Don't like someone? Vote them out. I understand the issue about apathy, but, to me, if you are supporting term limits because of apathy, you are suggesting government controls of apathy.

I always look at jobs in Congress and the Senate as JOBS. You don't "fire" someone because they've been there long enough.

I agree that what you said makes a lot of sense but here is where I see a fault with the current practice. The longer a congressman stays in office, the more likely they are to be corrupted by money and power. Many times the voters are unaware of this corruption unless they are caught so they are not removed in an election, term after term.
 
I agree that what you said makes a lot of sense but here is where I see a fault with the current practice. The longer a congressman stays in office, the more likely they are to be corrupted by money and power. Many times the voters are unaware of this corruption unless they are caught so they are not removed in an election, term after term.

Just because it is more likely, doesn't mean it happens. Some congressmen do good work no matter how long they stay in office. You're stating that term limits should be enacted IN CASE those in congress become corrupt. Why condemn folks without evidence?
 
Other Presidents followed suit more out of respect for Washington than anything else. If Washington had stayed 3 terms, my guess is, out of respect for him, others would have used that as their limit.

But he didn't, and they didn't, and two terms has been the norm from the inception of the country until the constitution was codified to make it not only the norm, but the law.
 
I vote yes for both and think you will generally find bipartisan support among the people for term limits in Congress. Unfortunately, I think you will also find bipartisan opposition to it by our representatives of both parties.

Therein lies the rub. Dispite the fact that I believe the country as a whole probably favors term limits in close to the same percentages as our poll indicates, congressfolk and senators will never, ever vote themselves out of power. How can we, the powerless voters, ever hope to rectify the current situation of lifetime politicians bought and paid for by lobbyists and corporate bribes? I seriously don't have an answer to that question. I simply know that somehow, some way, we must find the answer if we are to clean up the corruption and incompetence of our government.
 
But he didn't, and they didn't, and two terms has been the norm from the inception of the country until the constitution was codified to make it not only the norm, but the law.

OK. Not sure how that addresses my point. Rememeber. Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy. Just because it was always done one way doesn't prove that it SHOULD be done that way.
 
Just because it is more likely, doesn't mean it happens. Some congressmen do good work no matter how long they stay in office. You're stating that term limits should be enacted IN CASE those in congress become corrupt. Why condemn folks without evidence?

It has happened often enough that I feel it would be a good idea to limit the number of terms a representative can run. I don't look at term limits as condemning someone without evidence, I think of it as another check and balance to a system prone to corruption by the corporate powers that be.
 
It has happened often enough that I feel it would be a good idea to limit the number of terms a representative can run. I don't look at term limits as condemning someone without evidence, I think of it as another check and balance to a system prone to corruption by the corporate powers that be.

Well, I disagree. I don't want to take the power of who respresents the people away from the people.
 
Therein lies the rub. Dispite the fact that I believe the country as a whole probably favors term limits in close to the same percentages as our poll indicates, congressfolk and senators will never, ever vote themselves out of power. How can we, the powerless voters, ever hope to rectify the current situation of lifetime politicians bought and paid for by lobbyists and corporate bribes? I seriously don't have an answer to that question. I simply know that somehow, some way, we must find the answer if we are to clean up the corruption and incompetence of our government.

Afraid I don't have any magic answer. Perhaps if everyone demanded a pledge by candidates for term limits? While I think it would be a good thing, I don't really see it happening. Wish I could be more optimistic!
 
OK. Not sure how that addresses my point. Rememeber. Appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy. Just because it was always done one way doesn't prove that it SHOULD be done that way.

That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that presidents chose to do it that way until the early 20th century, when the constitution was amended to say that it should be done that way... by law. I see no logical fallacy in that.
 
Afraid I don't have any magic answer. Perhaps if everyone demanded a pledge by candidates for term limits? While I think it would be a good thing, I don't really see it happening. Wish I could be more optimistic!

Yeah, me too. Until we have a "national referendum" similar to what California has, we are completely at the mercy of lawmakes to make the laws they want rather than the laws that we need.
 
That is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that presidents chose to do it that way until the early 20th century, when the constitution was amended to say that it should be done that way... by law. I see no logical fallacy in that.

Here' the comment that seems like a logical fallacy to me: "and two terms has been the norm from the inception of the country". If you are saying that this has any bearing on why it "should" be that way, it is a fallacy.
 
Well, I disagree. I don't want to take the power of who respresents the people away from the people.

The people would still get to vote in their candidate of choice, there would just be less influence by corporate interest as I see it. However, I respect your opinion and think it is pretty much a moot point anyway as there does not appear a way to bring this about.

I am curious though if you have the same line of thinking regarding the presidential term limits. Are we limiting the choice of the people by allowing only two presidential terms?
 
The people would still get to vote in their candidate of choice, there would just be less influence by corporate interest as I see it. However, I respect your opinion and think it is pretty much a moot point anyway as there does not appear a way to bring this about.

There are other ways to limit corporate interest. A new candidate is just as succeptable as an incumbant to lobbyists and special interests. Maybe even more because of naivate.

I am curious though if you have the same line of thinking regarding the presidential term limits. Are we limiting the choice of the people by allowing only two presidential terms?

Nope, I'm consistent. I want the 22nd Amendment repealed.
 
Here' the comment that seems like a logical fallacy to me: "and two terms has been the norm from the inception of the country". If you are saying that this has any bearing on why it "should" be that way, it is a fallacy.

I don't see it that way, but it's hardly worth arguing over. We disagree. It happens. :mrgreen:
 
I don't see it that way, but it's hardly worth arguing over. We disagree. It happens. :mrgreen:

That's OK. Here's a question for you and Catawba, since we're the ones talking here, currently. Since the two of you seem to be for term limits in order to limit the power of special interests and corporate interests, what are some ways that the two of you think that these two issues can be managed both with and without term limits?
 
There are other ways to limit corporate interest.

Please, sign me up!

A new candidate is just as succeptable as an incumbant to lobbyists and special interests. Maybe even more because of naivate.

Perhaps you're right but it seems to me the longer they are in Congress, the more power they have and I always sort of thought there was a grain of truth to the old saying that power corrupts.


Nope, I'm consistent. I want the 22nd Amendment repealed.

Its good you are consistent I guess, but the thought of unlimited presidential terms scares the bejeezus out of me!
 
That's OK. Here's a question for you and Catawba, since we're the ones talking here, currently. Since the two of you seem to be for term limits in order to limit the power of special interests and corporate interests, what are some ways that the two of you think that these two issues can be managed both with and without term limits?

Wish list time? OK, I would like to see a law that makes it illegal for any form of renumeration by corporation or lobbyist be given to politician or campaign. I would like to see a 5 year minimum waiting period before lobbyist or politicians could crossover in employment. And I would like to see the book thrown at those who violate the public trust.
 
Please, sign me up!

You just answered with some of my suggestions, below. Richard Pryor starred in a movie called Brewster's Millions. For those of you who don't know, the premise was that he had 30 days to spend 30 million dollars and have NOTHING to show for it at the end of the month... in order to get his REAL inheritance of 300 million. One way he figured out to spend lots of money without having anything of value at the end was to run for public office... sort of. There was a great quote in that movie. Pryor said, "why would someone spend a couple of million dollars for a job that pays $80,000 a year if they weren't planning on stealing a whole lot more than that?" One thing I would do is limit all single donations to a maximum of $1000... be it an individual, a company, or a special interest group. No exceptions. I would also cap the amount of money that one could spend on a campaign. Lastly, I would outlaw the use of riders in legislation.



Perhaps you're right but it seems to me the longer they are in Congress, the more power they have and I always sort of thought there was a grain of truth to the old saying that power corrupts.

I am of the opinion that this old parable is not always true.




Its good you are consistent I guess, but the thought of unlimited presidential terms scares the bejeezus out of me!

Not me... for the same reason that I am not fearful of term limits of Congress... in fact I'm less concerned about term limits of the President. The President is so high profile, that if he/she becomes corrupt or abuses their power, the people will recognize it and vote them out of office. The ulitmate "term limit".
 
You just answered with some of my suggestions, below. Richard Pryor starred in a movie called Brewster's Millions. For those of you who don't know, the premise was that he had 30 days to spend 30 million dollars and have NOTHING to show for it at the end of the month... in order to get his REAL inheritance of 300 million. One way he figured out to spend lots of money without having anything of value at the end was to run for public office... sort of. There was a great quote in that movie. Pryor said, "why would someone spend a couple of million dollars for a job that pays $80,000 a year if they weren't planning on stealing a whole lot more than that?" One thing I would do is limit all single donations to a maximum of $1000... be it an individual, a company, or a special interest group. No exceptions. I would also cap the amount of money that one could spend on a campaign. Lastly, I would outlaw the use of riders in legislation.

I remember that movie, and I think your suggestions are good. There is not a one I would disagree with. But, do they stand any better chance than term limits of getting passed?



I am of the opinion that this old parable is not always true.

There are exceptions to every rule certainly.


Not me... for the same reason that I am not fearful of term limits of Congress... in fact I'm less concerned about term limits of the President. The President is so high profile, that if he/she becomes corrupt or abuses their power, the people will recognize it and vote them out of office. The ulitmate "term limit".

Didn't happen with W.
 
I remember that movie, and I think your suggestions are good. There is not a one I would disagree with. But, do they stand any better chance than term limits of getting passed?

I think the "average Joe" would see the direct connection between the things that I mentioned and corruption FAR more than the connection between term limits and corruption. So, yes. I think though both would have a very slight chance, the suggestions that I made... and you, too, would have a better chance of passing than term limits.

There are exceptions to every rule certainly.

Yes.


Didn't happen with W.

I think it did, but I also think the rules have changed since the Clinton years... and probably since Reagan. The partisan rhetoric has become so intense from both sides that you never know what is real, what is a witch-hunt, and what is false covering of one's President's ass.
 
Back
Top Bottom