• 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

cpgrad08

American
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 19, 2011
Messages
5,681
Reaction score
3,023
Location
WA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
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.
 
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.
 
I also like the Ideas of putting Limit on the House but while removing the 17th Amendment and have the State Legislator select who represent there state in the Senate.
 
I understand the notion of allowing "the people" to vote in who they want. At the same time, I think long stays occur far more due to apathy within the voter base and the large benefits of incumbancy then any true desire by a majority of "the people" to truly stay with that individual.

To be honest, I think for balance purposes perhaps put a more stringent limit on the Senate than the House. Due to the long term for Senators give them a 2 term limit, which would still allow a person more than a decade in that seat. Give the House something like 10 terms due to their fairly short term of office. This would allow them, if continually re-elected, 20 years. Since the House is supposed to be "the peoples" chamber I think its reasonable to allow them to have the most chances of re-election and the longest tenure if the people vote it so. Especially since, due to the continued nature of the House voting, there is a larger chance of voting them out then a Senator or a President.

I think that this would not only be a benefit to the way in which government runs, but in regards to the TYPE of people we have run for government. In our current society you almost have to be groomed from an early age to be able to have any shot at a national level, which is dissapointing. Its a bit less so in the House, but still rare. I think it'd be great to see where Politics becomes a bit more accessible to people. I think it would engage more people into the entire process and make it seem a bit more attainable goal.
 
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 admit, I'm torn on term limits. I understand the arguments for them and I think they're good arguments. I just can't help but think if the people want someone in there for 30 years, maybe the voters should be allowed to decide that.
 
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.

If term limits are good enough for the President of the United States, they're good enough for Congress. Encumbants enjoy waaaay too much advantage at the polls...on the campaign trail...in debates...in money-raising...on every front.
 
I do not know..
We have such a bunch of tea bagging fools in the House now...
What we really need is campaign finance and advertising reform; I'm not sure what good limits will do.
 
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.
 
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.

That doesn't offset getting someone bad, that can't be gotten rid of. Charlie Rangel comes to mind.
 
That doesn't offset getting someone bad, that can't be gotten rid of. Charlie Rangel comes to mind.

Vote them out of office. That's what elections are for.
 
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.

There shouldn't be term limits. If a politician is good at representing his constituents, especially when it comes to legislative authority rather than executive authority, I think they should be allowed to serve multiple terms. After all, it can take quite some time to develop expertise on issues and how they relate to government policies.

However, I do believe in age limits, and that we should keep out those who have gotten so old that they are out of touch with the latest developments and technology and social understading.
 
I also like the Ideas of putting Limit on the House but while removing the 17th Amendment and have the State Legislator select who represent there state in the Senate.

Revoking the 17th would be just as bad, if not worse - instead of having the same incumbent voted in time after time, nobody would get appointed because of state partisan politics.
 
If term limits are good enough for the President of the United States, they're good enough for Congress. Encumbants enjoy waaaay too much advantage at the polls...on the campaign trail...in debates...in money-raising...on every front.

I think tradition and history probably have something to do with presidential term limits. Representatives face a term limit every two years. I may not like Nancy Pelosi...but apparently the people in her district do. That should be the only standard. Just my 2 cents.
 
That doesn't offset getting someone bad, that can't be gotten rid of. Charlie Rangel comes to mind.

Charlie Rangel is reelected because he fairly represents his district, to their great shame.
 
I believe both the House and the Senate should have term limits... 2 terms for the senate, 5 terms for the house. I understand the rationale of those who say "let the people decide." The thing is that the longer a congressman or senator is in congress, the more powerful they become. The more powerful they become, the more influence they wield to get perks and entitlements to their home states, so naturally they are going to be re-elected until they die. The states of the most powerful congressmen and senators get perks, but the other states get the shaft... certainly the welfare of the nation as a whole is secondary to re-election and maintaining power.

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.

Nearly all state governors have term limits, again for the same reason that the president has term limits. It's time to declare that congress and the senate are no longer lifetime careers. Maybe we'd get some fresh, uncorrupted folks in our government if we cleaned the place out every decade (staggered ousters, of course). God knows congress couldn't be any more ineffectual and corrupt than it is right now.
 
I believe both the House and the Senate should have term limits... 2 terms for the senate, 5 terms for the house. I understand the rationale of those who say "let the people decide." The thing is that the longer a congressman or senator is in congress, the more powerful they become. The more powerful they become, the more influence they wield to get perks and entitlements to their home states, so naturally they are going to be re-elected until they die. The states of the most powerful congressmen and senators get perks, but the other states get the shaft... certainly the welfare of the nation as a whole is secondary to re-election and maintaining power.

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.

Nearly all state governors have term limits, again for the same reason that the president has term limits. It's time to declare that congress and the senate are no longer lifetime careers. Maybe we'd get some fresh, uncorrupted folks in our government if we cleaned the place out every decade (staggered ousters, of course). God knows congress couldn't be any more ineffectual and corrupt than it is right now.

The founding fathers had nothing to do with term limits of the President. That was put in place in 1947.
 
I don't think we should have term limits. Setting limits would change how committees work. I also feel for some politicians the more time spent in congress means the more experienced the are, and thus the better the congressman/senator. If people like the person that represents them, then why limit how many times they can run if the populace likes that person?
 
Last edited:
The founding fathers had nothing to do with term limits of the President. That was put in place in 1947.

I guess I should have been more historically accurate. It would be more appropriate to say that George Washington (I guess I like old George so much that I figured whatever he liked, the founding fathers liked! :mrgreen:) set the trend of 2-term limits, and nearly every other president since (with a couple of exceptions) have limited themselves to two terms. You are correct, the constitution was eventually amended to prevent presidents from being in office for more than a decade.
 
George Will's book on the subject changed my mind years ago. Limit terms. Especially if you are worried about politicians being bought by special interests. A Senator serving his final six years, in no need of campaign funding, is less likely to be seduced by lobbyists.
 
I understand the notion of allowing "the people" to vote in who they want. At the same time, I think long stays occur far more due to apathy within the voter base and the large benefits of incumbancy then any true desire by a majority of "the people" to truly stay with that individual.

To be honest, I think for balance purposes perhaps put a more stringent limit on the Senate than the House. Due to the long term for Senators give them a 2 term limit, which would still allow a person more than a decade in that seat. Give the House something like 10 terms due to their fairly short term of office. This would allow them, if continually re-elected, 20 years. Since the House is supposed to be "the peoples" chamber I think its reasonable to allow them to have the most chances of re-election and the longest tenure if the people vote it so. Especially since, due to the continued nature of the House voting, there is a larger chance of voting them out then a Senator or a President.

I think that this would not only be a benefit to the way in which government runs, but in regards to the TYPE of people we have run for government. In our current society you almost have to be groomed from an early age to be able to have any shot at a national level, which is dissapointing. Its a bit less so in the House, but still rare. I think it'd be great to see where Politics becomes a bit more accessible to people. I think it would engage more people into the entire process and make it seem a bit more attainable goal.

I was cheering you on till that part. It is precisely because the House is supposed to be the most representative, the "people's chamber" as you say, that there should be a higher turnover, not further entrenchment.
 
I guess I should have been more historically accurate. It would be more appropriate to say that George Washington (I guess I like old George so much that I figured whatever he liked, the founding fathers liked! :mrgreen:) set the trend of 2-term limits, and nearly every other president since (with a couple of exceptions) have limited themselves to two terms. You are correct, the constitution was eventually amended to prevent presidents from being in office for more than a decade.

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.
 
I was cheering you on till that part. It is precisely because the House is supposed to be the most representative, the "people's chamber" as you say, that there should be a higher turnover, not further entrenchment.

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom