• 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 Term Limits be implemented for Congress?

Should Term Limits be implemented for Congress?

  • Yes

    Votes: 42 57.5%
  • No

    Votes: 25 34.2%
  • Other

    Votes: 6 8.2%

  • Total voters
    73
the house is elected every two years, this is because the founders wanted the "people's house" to be close to the people, and easy to vote people out of office frequently.

the senate every 6 years was appointed by the states before the 17th amendment, and was meant to be farther from the people, since it was for representation of the state themselves and not the people.

the senate in a sense had it own terms limits because no state would have ever sent the same senator back to the senate for 51 years...IE Robert Byrd.
 
the house is elected every two years, this is because the founders wanted the "people's house" to be close to the people, and easy to vote people out of office frequently.

the senate every 6 years was appointed by the states before the 17th amendment, and was meant to be farther from the people, since it was for representation of the state themselves and not the people.

the senate in a sense had it own terms limits because no state would have ever sent the same senator back to the senate for 51 years...IE Robert Byrd.

Were states able to reappoint, if they so chose?

Point of curiosity on my part. Nothing else.
 
Were states able to reappoint, if they so chose?

Point of curiosity on my part. Nothing else.


before the 17th amendment state legislatures appointed the senators, this gave states a direct voice in the federal government.

the house is for the people, the senate is for the states, this is referred to as mixed government, which the founders created, federalist #40.

this why no one can have all the power to be tyrannical.

by repealing the 17th we return to republican government, gives states power, to stop federal mandates, and the federal government withholding tax money to states if they do not like federal policies.
 
Were states able to reappoint, if they so chose?

Point of curiosity on my part. Nothing else.
before the 17th amendment state legislatures appointed the senators, this gave states a direct voice in the federal government.

the house is for the people, the senate is for the states, this is referred to as mixed government, which the founders created, federalist #40.

this why no one can have all the power to be tyrannical.

by repealing the 17th we return to republican government, gives states power, to stop federal mandates, and the federal government withholding tax money to states if they do not like federal policies.
Thanks, but that wasn't my question. Let me rephrase...

Prior to the 17th Amendment, were there any artificial limits to how many times a Senator could be appointed/reappointed? Could a Senator serve 30 years, if they got re-appointed that often?
 
Thanks, but that wasn't my question. Let me rephrase...

Prior to the 17th Amendment, were there any artificial limits to how many times a Senator could be appointed/reappointed? Could a Senator serve 30 years, if they got re-appointed that often?


it was possible to serve 30 or more years, however state legislatures did not seem to keep reappointing the same person over and over.

I have gone back before the 17th and looked some, and senators did not serve long decades, you start seeing long term senators after the 17th
 
it was possible to serve 30 or more years, however state legislatures did not seem to keep reappointing the same person over and over.

I have gone back before the 17th and looked some, and senators did not serve long decades, you start seeing long term senators after the 17th

That's what I suspected. Thanks.
 
I absolutely think we should have term limits, and term limits of just one term for all elected politicians, President included. The reason, it severely undercuts the power of special interests to manipulate the politician's corruption in desiring to retain power, it allows the politician to concentrate his time and energy to solving the nation's problems instead of constant re-election mode the day he steps in office, and it would save a ton of money in politicians running around stumping for re-election. Term limits of one term would just have a dramatic effect in the way a politician sees things. The politician's staffs can be made up of very experienced people. There are creative ways where you can change the structure to keep some of the talented politicians under this one term limit government. For example I'd like to see one of the two senators from each state be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the state legislatures, with no term limits on them as appointed officials. A state government may recognize a gifted senator and re-appoint him term after term. I'd also like to see 10% of the House of Representative seats be set aside outside of any districts where the Senate votes on the best members of the House of Representatives in their eyes and these Representative serve another term, and can be voted to as many terms as they get voted in by the Senate. These 43 or so members of the HoR will provide a continuity of leadership and experience. President's term could be raised to 6 yrs with a vote of confidence by Congress needed after 3 yrs where 3/4 negative vote would cause a new general Presidential election. Why would there be great opposition to such a system? Because most politicians do not want to give up power and those special interests that feed off the gravy train of tax payer's money know this will undermine the power they have over politicians.
 
I absolutely think we should have term limits, and term limits of just one term for all elected politicians, President included. The reason, it severely undercuts the power of special interests to manipulate the politician's corruption in desiring to retain power, it allows the politician to concentrate his time and energy to solving the nation's problems instead of constant re-election mode the day he steps in office, and it would save a ton of money in politicians running around stumping for re-election. Term limits of one term would just have a dramatic effect in the way a politician sees things. The politician's staffs can be made up of very experienced people. There are creative ways where you can change the structure to keep some of the talented politicians under this one term limit government. For example I'd like to see one of the two senators from each state be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the state legislatures, with no term limits on them as appointed officials. A state government may recognize a gifted senator and re-appoint him term after term. I'd also like to see 10% of the House of Representative seats be set aside outside of any districts where the Senate votes on the best members of the House of Representatives in their eyes and these Representative serve another term, and can be voted to as many terms as they get voted in by the Senate. These 43 or so members of the HoR will provide a continuity of leadership and experience. President's term could be raised to 6 yrs with a vote of confidence by Congress needed after 3 yrs where 3/4 negative vote would cause a new general Presidential election. Why would there be great opposition to such a system? Because most politicians do not want to give up power and those special interests that feed off the gravy train of tax payer's money know this will undermine the power they have over politicians.
It would do the exact opposite. Special interests wouldn't throw up their hands and say, "Well you got us. We'll go away now.". No, new candidates each election would then be chosen and groomed by said special interests, and we wouldn't even know who they are as we don't know their history. We'd just be exchanging one problem for another.

There are only two things that need to happen to fix things, and neither is likely anytime soon...
  1. Voters need to start caring enough to actually educate themselves on the issues and the people in office, and...
  2. Voters need to stop voting purely self-interest and understand that there is an overall picture that needs factoring in as well.
 
It would do the exact opposite. Special interests wouldn't throw up their hands and say, "Well you got us. We'll go away now.". No, new candidates each election would then be chosen and groomed by said special interests, and we wouldn't even know who they are as we don't know their history. We'd just be exchanging one problem for another.

There are only two things that need to happen to fix things, and neither is likely anytime soon...
  1. Voters need to start caring enough to actually educate themselves on the issues and the people in office, and...
  2. Voters need to stop voting purely self-interest and understand that there is an overall picture that needs factoring in as well.

I disagree. Let's say your scenario is correct and in a district every special interest runs a candidate now from teacher's union to fireman to police to lawyers to military to small business to big business to agriculture etc etc. Only one gets elected. So maybe the one has a bias but the other special interests have no power over them. But someone running for re-election all of them have a degree of power. Does the teacher union biased elected official want hero firemen going door to door against them in next election or does he or she rather give the union extremely high pensions and lower retirement age by 10 yrs. Do they want the local farmers going door to door and running TV ads that they are killing the American farmer because they want to eliminate outrageous subsidies, etc. So term limits of one term drastically lowers pressure on a politician when it comes to special interests. You also did not mention my other two points for term limits. That politicians can concentrate on solving problems and not be in re-election mode basically from day 1 in office, and the savings in costs from not being in constant re-election mode.
 
We have the option every election to decide whether or not to extend a person's tenure in office. Instead of mandating it via law for every person, why can't the people decide at every election. If somebody honestly deserves 15 terms then why not give it to them? Also repeal the 22nd amendment. If your not happy, do something, don't just vote the same idiots back into office.
 
No; nor for any elected position. If they're what the voters want, why deny the voter's ability to re-elect them? It makes zero sense, from a democratic standpoint.
 
I guess the Founding Fathers should have created a pure democracy instead of the structures they put in the constitution to avoid pure democracy.
 
I guess the Founding Fathers should have created a pure democracy instead of the structures they put in the constitution to avoid pure democracy.

Too late. They created a Democratic (sort of) Republic, which by granting voting rights to more persons, since, it is now an in-fact Democratic Republic.
 
See the mindset being portrayed by you guys is exactly opposite of the Founders. They did not live in a dream world that the population would one day be all wise and pure and vote to protect freedom. They implemented an indirect democracy for the population in its current imperfect state not how it should become. They studied pure democracies like the ancient Greek states and saw it was a disaster in protecting freedom. With a non naive and clear vision that men were not angels, they set up an indirect democracy full of checks and balances, structure, and virtue mechanisms that tried to protect freedom. Term limits are the type of structure that I am confident they would support given our current circumstances. But I am sure there is nothing I can say that will change you guys minds. If the Founders had your mindset we would have been France.
 
I absolutely think we should have term limits, and term limits of just one term for all elected politicians, President included. The reason, it severely undercuts the power of special interests to manipulate the politician's corruption in desiring to retain power, it allows the politician to concentrate his time and energy to solving the nation's problems instead of constant re-election mode the day he steps in office, and it would save a ton of money in politicians running around stumping for re-election. Term limits of one term would just have a dramatic effect in the way a politician sees things. The politician's staffs can be made up of very experienced people. There are creative ways where you can change the structure to keep some of the talented politicians under this one term limit government. For example I'd like to see one of the two senators from each state be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the state legislatures, with no term limits on them as appointed officials. A state government may recognize a gifted senator and re-appoint him term after term. I'd also like to see 10% of the House of Representative seats be set aside outside of any districts where the Senate votes on the best members of the House of Representatives in their eyes and these Representative serve another term, and can be voted to as many terms as they get voted in by the Senate. These 43 or so members of the HoR will provide a continuity of leadership and experience. President's term could be raised to 6 yrs with a vote of confidence by Congress needed after 3 yrs where 3/4 negative vote would cause a new general Presidential election. Why would there be great opposition to such a system? Because most politicians do not want to give up power and those special interests that feed off the gravy train of tax payer's money know this will undermine the power they have over politicians.

actually republican government does this.

which is why the 17th amendment needs to be repealed, return power to the states, as to limit special interest.

your never going to stop special interest, but the founders sought it limitation by creating republican government, not democratic government.

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations [special interest ] less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. -- Madison federalist 10
 
actually republican government does this.

which is why the 17th amendment needs to be repealed, return power to the states, as to limit special interest.

your never going to stop special interest, but the founders sought it limitation by creating republican government, not democratic government.

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations [special interest ] less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. -- Madison federalist 10

Yes, I realize all of this. That is what I have been posting, favoring republican form of government instead of the path we have been on in more democratizing it. I would be happy with half a Senate, which I suggested as a compromise, or whole Senate indirectly chosen. No biggie for me. I also agree with Madison on the point that size of a republic is not a threat to the nation as far as special interests that it actually makes it harder for them to dominate. But as we can see now, being a large Republic, has not solved the problem. While it may be far worse if the Republic was smaller, it is still a major problem. And the fundamental source of the problem is politicians desiring to stay in power at basically all costs and an electric easily manipulated by dishonest spin. This environment has given special interests great power. The reason why the Founders gave us an amendment process is to further tweak the Constitution as we pursue a more perfect union. Term limits of one term is just such structural things they would have hoped we would have used the amendment process for, as it keeps in their spirit of strengthening the republican form of government by utilizing structure to further tame special interests.
 
Yes, I realize all of this. That is what I have been posting, favoring republican form of government instead of the path we have been on in more democratizing it. I would be happy with half a Senate, which I suggested as a compromise, or whole Senate indirectly chosen. No biggie for me. I also agree with Madison on the point that size of a republic is not a threat to the nation as far as special interests that it actually makes it harder for them to dominate. But as we can see now, being a large Republic, has not solved the problem. While it may be far worse if the Republic was smaller, it is still a major problem. And the fundamental source of the problem is politicians desiring to stay in power at basically all costs and an electric easily manipulated by dishonest spin. This environment has given special interests great power. The reason why the Founders gave us an amendment process is to further tweak the Constitution as we pursue a more perfect union. Term limits of one term is just such structural things they would have hoped we would have used the amendment process for, as it keeps in their spirit of strengthening the republican form of government by utilizing structure to further tame special interests.

a reason we need the return of republican government...or mixed government says madsion, with power divided between the people and the states, so that special interest is limited, and cannot easily control our government.

democracy is destroying America.
 
The only disadvantage that I could see is that the politicians who really are great wouldn't be able to stay there. But we would supposedly continue to elect more really great politicians.

The benefits are numerous. What are your thoughts?


And my plug: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/create-term-limits-congress/bm01vV2m sign the petition if you agree. Let's get Obama to submit an amendment. Or if he won't, let him explain why not. It's time to take the lobbyists out of Washington.

If this petition gets 150 signatures, it will go public. It needs 100,000 by 4/14/13. I'm an introvert. I don't know 150 people and I don't have facebook. If you believe in this cause, please sign it and share it.

If you don't believe in it, why not? Am I missing something?

I'd rather see limits on lobbying and influence peddling. I'd rather see the road from public office to a lobby position at many times their former salary ended. This allows lobbies to offer positions and future salaries in exchange for influence.

Also, lobbying should be done in full public view only. Let the lobbyists stand before committees or congress, on c-span and make their appeals, then let there be a public debate over it. This seems a common sense measure, check and balance against a lopsided representation.
 
Too late. They created a Democratic (sort of) Republic, which by granting voting rights to more persons, since, it is now an in-fact Democratic Republic.

please will you show me where they state American government of the founders is democratic....federalist papers, letter of the founders, founding documents will do.

but I will tell you....good luck in finding such a thing.....its not voting, but the 17th amendment which has moved America closer to that evil democracy.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom