Term limits on the House and the Senate?

DiAnna said:

The president of the United States has term limits. Voters don't get to keep the same president just because they like the job he's doing, and there is a reason for that. The founding fathers wanted to limit presidential power, thereby limiting potential for corruption and long-term influence. Those are the same reasons we should limit congressional and senate terms.

Click to expand...

I know that the thread has gone on for quite a while since this post, so I don't know if this has been addressed, but I would like to point out the differences between term limits for executive positions and term limits for legislative positions.

Yes, you absolutely have a point that the Presidency and state governorships have term limits. But there's a reason for that: executive authority is more powerful than legislative authority.

For example, Congress writes broad laws. The President can then narrowly define those laws during his administration through the use of executive orders. In some cases, the President can even use executive orders to declare the President's position that portions of laws are unconstitutional, and therefore will be ignored by his administration. So depending on how much Congress flexes it's muscles, the Presidency gives one person an incredible amount of power.

This is why there are term limits for the Presidency - while the position holds a great amount of power, a person is limited by how much time they can serve in that position.

Legislative authority is different, however. Legislative authority gives a person the power to write laws. However, unlike the Presidency who holds ultimate absolute authority, legislative authority is diluted among 435 Representatives and 100 Senators. All of them take part in the writing of laws, and then bills are passed if only a majority in each chamber votes for it.

So a single Representative and a single Senator does not wield nearly as much power as a single President does. Therefore the argument that they wield just as much power isn't quite true.

So that's the difference between why executive positions have term limits but legislative positions usually don't.

Catawba said:

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.

Click to expand...

Actually, it's more likely that freshman Congressmen and Senators, especially those who have never held another public office before, will inadvertently get involved in corruption and corporate influence because of their naievete and inexperience in dealing with lobbyists.

Experienced legislators, however, know which things they can accept and which things they aren't allowed to accept in order to stave off corruption. Which is an argument against term limits.

CaptainCourtesy said:

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?

Click to expand...

I honestly don't think it can be managed without term limits. Lobbyists and corporate bribes (aka campaign contributions) are the driving force in the halls of congress nowadays. Our congressional/senatorial representatives are more concerned with their campaign warchests than they are about passing legislation that is in the best interests of the country as a whole. Our congress/senate is controlled not by the people they represent but by the corporate/lobby interests that can give them the cash they need to win the next election... and the next, and the next, and the next. They don't care about the jobs illegal immigrants are taking and the employers who employ illegals with impunity. . They care about the hispanic vote. They don't care about the jobs flowing overseas or the fact that unions have outpriced the global market, and NAFTA has turned our blue collar workers into unemployed welfare recipients. They care about corporate campaign contributions.

Americans are no longer the priority of congress/senate. Keeping themselves in office by whatever means is necessary has become the priority. Term limits would at least eliminate this clearly self-indulgent motive of ignoring constituents/populace needs in order to solidify one's personal monetary base to forge a life-long career in government, leading to retirement in a private lobbyist group. We are electing, re-electing and creating a flow chart of representatives who serve only themselves, not the constituents who have elected and re-elected them.

CaptainCourtesy said:

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.

Click to expand...

I agree but I think the average Joe would go for either or both. The hurdle would be getting Congress to pass the new rules you suggested. Don't get me wrong, I am for the kind of reform you have suggested. It just seems as much out of reach as term limits.

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.

Click to expand...

It seems the same with members of Congress. Enjoyed the discussion but I must retire. Good night sir!

samsmart said:

Actually, it's more likely that freshman Congressmen and Senators, especially those who have never held another public office before, will inadvertently get involved in corruption and corporate influence because of their naievete and inexperience in dealing with lobbyists.

Experienced legislators, however, know which things they can accept and which things they aren't allowed to accept in order to stave off corruption. Which is an argument against term limits.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but that didn't seem to do much to keep Ted Stevens and Charlie Rangel in line, just the two most recent examples I can think of, which is an argument for term limits.

DiAnna said:

I honestly don't think it can be managed without term limits. Lobbyists and corporate bribes (aka campaign contributions) are the driving force in the halls of congress nowadays. Our congressional/senatorial representatives are more concerned with their campaign warchests than they are about passing legislation that is in the best interests of the country as a whole. Our congress/senate is controlled not by the people they represent but by the corporate/lobby interests that can give them the cash they need to win the next election... and the next, and the next, and the next. They don't care about the jobs illegal immigrants are taking and the employers who employ illegals with impunity. . They care about the hispanic vote. They don't care about the jobs flowing overseas or the fact that unions have outpriced the global market, and NAFTA has turned our blue collar workers into unemployed welfare recipients. They care about corporate campaign contributions.

Americans are no longer the priority of congress/senate. Keeping themselves in office by whatever means is necessary has become the priority. Term limits would at least eliminate this clearly self-indulgent motive of ignoring constituents/populace needs in order to solidify one's personal monetary base to forge a life-long career in government, leading to retirement in a private lobbyist group. We are electing, re-electing and creating a flow chart of representatives who serve only themselves, not the constituents who have elected and re-elected them.

Click to expand...

Look, I have a very cynical view of politicians. In my view, pretty much every single one of them is more concerned about getting elected/re-elected than actually doing their job or doing any "public service" for their constuency. However, I do not want to see the rare good one forced out of office because of term limits, nor do I want to take the electoral process away from the people. If you are natural born citizen of the US, you should be able to run for any public office without restriction. Now, if we are going to start creating limits on this, lets make some that make sense. Instead of making it a popularity contest... which tends to be what it is, lets actually "hire" people who have qualifications to do their jobs. People with both business and political/legal backgrounds.

Catawba said:

Perhaps, but that didn't seem to do much to keep Ted Stevens and Charlie Rangel in line, just the two most recent examples I can think of, which is an argument for term limits.

Click to expand...

True - but being new to federal politics didn't stop John McCain as a freshman Representative and Senator for Arizona between 1982 and 1987 from being influenced by political contributions from Charles Keating, Jr. to interfere in a federal investigation during the Savings and Loan Scandals of the '80's.

samsmart said:

True - but being new to federal politics didn't stop John McCain as a freshman Representative and Senator for Arizona between 1982 and 1987 from being influenced by political contributions from Charles Keating, Jr. to interfere in a federal investigation during the Savings and Loan Scandals of the '80's.

Click to expand...

You are correct, but term limits would have prevented him from continuing on in Congress to this day.

CaptainCourtesy said:

OK. I'm not sure how that counters what I said, but that's probably correct.

Click to expand...

You said this in #25:

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.

Click to expand...

And I replied:

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

Click to expand...

My point is that "the people's" options may be limited by an entrenched encumbent with whom they may simply be complacent and familiar, and whose pockets may be too deep to outspend.

My larger point though is that the House should be a citizen legislature, and filling it with career politicians makes that an impossibility.

LuckyDan said:

You said this in #25:



And I replied:



My point is that "the people's" options may be limited by an entrenched encumbent with whom they may simply be complacent and familiar, and whose pockets may be too deep to outspend.

Click to expand...

That doesn't change that what I said was accurate. The "people's" options are not limited. The people can still vote out the guy with deep pockets if they want.

My larger point though is that the House should be a citizen legislature, and filling it with career politicians makes that an impossibility.

Click to expand...

That's a different issue altogether.

Catawba said:

You are correct, but term limits would have prevented him from continuing on in Congress to this day.

Click to expand...

John McCain didn't stay in Congress because he's an incumbent. Rather, McCain stayed in Congress because the voters like him. Also, I should point out that after the Keating Five scandal, McCain made campaign finance reform a major part of his personal platform precisely to avoid such a scandal from happening to inexperienced Congressmen and Senators again, and SCOTUS has struck down such attempts for reforms on donations. So he did atone for his actions, one reason why the voters of Arizona kept voting him into office.

samsmart said:

John McCain didn't stay in Congress because he's an incumbent. Rather, McCain stayed in Congress because the voters like him.

Click to expand...

The system did seem to also work well for Tom Delay, Ted Stevens, Charlie Rangel, William Jefferson, etc, etc. I also ran found these statistics that were interesting:

"After researching public records, newspaper articles, civil court transcripts, and criminal records, Capitol Hill Blue discovered that:

* 29 members of Congress have been accused of spousal abuse.

* 7 have been arrested for fraud.

* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks.

* 117 have bankrupted at least two businesses.

* 3 have been arrested for assault.

* 71 have credit reports so bad they can't qualify for a
credit card.

* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges.

* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting.

* 21 are current defendants in lawsuits.

* And in 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving, but released after they claimed Congressional immunity."

AskMe: What percent of Congress have criminal records?


"Mark Twain once said Congress may be America's only 'distinct criminal class' -- and this new study suggests he was correct,"

Term limits don't change anything, because personality isn't that important when it comes to policy-making. Only ideology.

Catawba said:

The system did seem to also work well for Tom Delay, Ted Stevens, Charlie Rangel, William Jefferson, etc, etc. I also ran found these statistics that were interesting:

"After researching public records, newspaper articles, civil court transcripts, and criminal records, Capitol Hill Blue discovered that:

* 29 members of Congress have been accused of spousal abuse.

* 7 have been arrested for fraud.

* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks.

* 117 have bankrupted at least two businesses.

* 3 have been arrested for assault.

* 71 have credit reports so bad they can't qualify for a
credit card.

* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges.

* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting.

* 21 are current defendants in lawsuits.

* And in 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving, but released after they claimed Congressional immunity."

AskMe: What percent of Congress have criminal records?


"Mark Twain once said Congress may be America's only 'distinct criminal class' -- and this new study suggests he was correct,"

Click to expand...

Term limits is not the same issue as preventing criminals from running for office.

All of the things you mentioned is, most likely, public record. Such things can, and do come out in campaigns. And then it is the choice of voters to weigh a person's record of criminal infractions against how well that person represents them in Congress.

samsmart said:

Term limits is not the same issue as preventing criminals from running for office.

All of the things you mentioned is, most likely, public record. Such things can, and do come out in campaigns. And then it is the choice of voters to weigh a person's record of criminal infractions against how well that person represents them in Congress.

Click to expand...

I see your point but I don't remember there being any public info available about the the ethics and criminal violations of Congressman like Tom Delay, Ted Stevens and others till they were near the end of their congressional stay. With no info available to the public, they would not be voted out based on those actions. Term limits would at least limit the time they could accept bribes.

Catawba said:

I see your point but I don't remember there being any public info available about the the ethics and criminal violations of Congressman like Tom Delay, Ted Stevens and others till they were near the end of their congressional stay. With no info available to the public, they would not be voted out based on those actions. Term limits would at least limit the time they could accept bribes.

Click to expand...

Or, as I stated before, it would make bribery easiser because of inexperienced Congressmen from not understanding the difference between a "bribe" and a "campaign donation." In the United States, there's a very thin line between the two.

Also, no system is perfect. There is no way to guarantee that authority figures won't commit criminal acts. So issuing term limits to prevent corruption won't really help, especially when it punishes those politicians who faithfully serve their constituents and don't take bribes.

samsmart said:

Or, as I stated before, it would make bribery easiser because of inexperienced Congressmen from not understanding the difference between a "bribe" and a "campaign donation." In the United States, there's a very thin line between the two.

Also, no system is perfect. There is no way to guarantee that authority figures won't commit criminal acts. So issuing term limits to prevent corruption won't really help, especially when it punishes those politicians who faithfully serve their constituents and don't take bribes.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I buy that freshman Congressman would be as subject to bribes as someone that has been there for decades and had time to learn their way around the ropes designed to discourage bribery. And, I'm not sure how it would punish anyone if term limits were law. They would know the terms of their employment before running. I don't feel like we are punishing presidents by limiting them to two terms. However, I will agree to disagree. It is hardly a blip on my radar screen because I don't see any realistic mechanism for bringing it about.

Whovian said:

The Founding Fatehrs envisioned 'public servants' like Congressman and Senators as temporary servants. They'd go to Congress... serve their terms, and go back to private life. They never envisioned the House or Senate positions as 'life' terms.

I think over the years we have seen why.

Click to expand...

I've sometimes found myself wondering whether Congressional "service" could/should be like jury duty. But unfortunately, I can't imagine that would actually work out well.

Whovian said:

The Founding Fatehrs envisioned 'public servants' like Congressman and Senators as temporary servants. They'd go to Congress... serve their terms, and go back to private life. They never envisioned the House or Senate positions as 'life' terms.

I think over the years we have seen why.

Click to expand...

I think we should make them all take drastic pay cuts, so they'd feel it's more of a public service and not try to make it a career... I think the more people involved in the government, the better.. and if it's not that well paying, it's a public service, and it has a term limit a lot more people will have the chance to get in office.

SheWolf said:

I think we should make them all take drastic pay cuts, so they'd feel it's more of a public service and not try to make it a career... I think the more people involved in the government, the better.. and if it's not that well paying, it's a public service, and it has a term limit a lot more people will have the chance to get in office.

Click to expand...

I think pay cuts may be a bad thing. If you cut pay for Congressmen and Senators, then only the wealthiest people can afford to run for office. That's bad whether or not term limits get implemented.

Although I'd be willing to compromise and cut pay for Congressmen and Senators who are independently wealthy enough to be able to forego their congressional salaries. Basically, someone who makes only a few thousand a year will get a full congressional salary but someone who is a multi-millionaire and can maintain it even while in office will have to forego their congressional salary.

Catawba said:

The system did seem to also work well for Tom Delay, Ted Stevens, Charlie Rangel, William Jefferson, etc, etc. I also ran found these statistics that were interesting:

"After researching public records, newspaper articles, civil court transcripts, and criminal records, Capitol Hill Blue discovered that:

* 29 members of Congress have been accused of spousal abuse.

* 7 have been arrested for fraud.

* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks.

* 117 have bankrupted at least two businesses.

* 3 have been arrested for assault.

* 71 have credit reports so bad they can't qualify for a
credit card.

* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges.

* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting.

* 21 are current defendants in lawsuits.

* And in 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving, but released after they claimed Congressional immunity."

AskMe: What percent of Congress have criminal records?


"Mark Twain once said Congress may be America's only 'distinct criminal class' -- and this new study suggests he was correct,"

Click to expand...

How many of them don't pay their taxes?

cpgrad08 said:

Should there be terms limits on the House and and the Senate?

I Believe there should be terms limits on congress so we could get some new blood in there instead of having members in that have been in there for 30 years. This could limit career politicians on both sides that don't care about America. 4 Terms for the House and two terms on the Senate.

Click to expand...

While I absolutely agree with you, it requires a constitutional amendment. Given that the constitutional amendment will require the affirmative votes of the very people who's wings you wish to clip..... well, the proverbial snowball has a much better chance.

One of my congressman (Tom Tancredo) went to Washington in 1994 as a very vocal champion of term limits. When is volunteered limit was up, he decided his work was much too important and unfinished to step aside and he hung around for another 3 terms.

samsmart said:

I think pay cuts may be a bad thing. If you cut pay for Congressmen and Senators, then only the wealthiest people can afford to run for office. That's bad whether or not term limits get implemented.

Although I'd be willing to compromise and cut pay for Congressmen and Senators who are independently wealthy enough to be able to forego their congressional salaries. Basically, someone who makes only a few thousand a year will get a full congressional salary but someone who is a multi-millionaire and can maintain it even while in office will have to forego their congressional salary.

Click to expand...

I can see your point, but when I generally hear what politicians make, I think it's too much. Why should governors make more than six figures for example? And governor's usually get to live in a governor's mansion. And before John Bohner became house speaker, he was netting a quarter million a year.

You don't want them getting too comfortable with the pay or want to stay for the pay... that's the wrong reason for them to want to stay. I think they shouldn't make more than the median income of the people they represent. I remember when Bush didn't know the price a gallon of milk, a loaf of bread, and the price of gasoline. He didn't buy his own fuel... wtf. Our leaders should know those things, and they should understand what a dollar means to the people they represent.

... so how do we make sure everybody, wealthy and not, has a fair chance to run and to win? Somebody mentioned jury duty, but I don't see that working or being in line with constitution.

CaptainCourtesy said:

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.

Click to expand...

The problem, especially with representatives, is that they are able to set up districts which make it easier to be re-elected, simply because they can group all of their fanatical supporters in one area. Further, since only one Democrat and one Republican are going to be on the ballot, if you have a liberal-heavy or conservative-heavy district, it's a no-brainer who is going to get elected. It's not necessarily popularity, but statistical manipulation that gets some of these people re-elected over and over again.

I'm entirely in favor of term limits, in fact, I'll go farther than that. I think that no person should be allowed to serve more than 3-4 terms in *ANY* capacity in public office. That means President all the way down to dog catcher. There has to be a point at which people go out into the private sector and get a grip on reality. Spend at least one term out of four entirely out of government service, then you can come back if you want. The whole point of being a representative of the people is to serve the public interest, not to enrich yourself. That's what government has become.

I also want to see all districts redrawn regularly, by a computer, so that no one can design their districts to re-elect them or their party. It will make people actually serve the people in their district, rather than just the extremists who they have to convince to vote for them. After all, with only one Democrat or one Republican candidate in a heavily-focused district, one is always going to win, so long as the extremists go along.