Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: Term Limits for Congress?

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia, , USA
    Posts
    311

    Post imported post

    Term limits for members on Congress...

    No more career politicians?


    Good or bad idea?

  2. #2
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Dispatcher wrote:
    Good or bad idea?
    Yes.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia, , USA
    Posts
    311

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    Dispatcher wrote:
    Good or bad idea?
    Yes.
    Yes good or Yes bad?

    We need turnover, not the same club for 20 years at a time.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Madison, Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    214

    Post imported post

    A resounding HELL YES! Now to find a politician willing to commit career suicide to get the job done.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Richmond, VA, ,
    Posts
    74

    Post imported post

    Term limits and salary caps! As far as getting the job done, Ron Paul has proposed legislation constantly to limit the number of terms a politician may serve. But, guess what happened to the proposal each time....

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Taco-Ma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    309

    Post imported post

    We have needed term limits for a long time, problem is; the senate and house get to keep their salaries for life. Sooooo, what needs to be done, in order to not violate the 27th Amdt. is to reduce the salary of a new congressman, limit his tenure to two terms in office, with a change in the "retirement package" they now get. With all new arrivals to congress, they must retire on Social Security, like everyone else has to. No more golden parachute retirement. This would force them to fix Social Security and would give them a little surprise; namely, if they hadn't worked a regular job long enough before they went into congress, they wouldn't be qualified to recieve anything, just like the "subjects" have to. They'd be forced to get real jobs and live with the decisions they made when in office.
    The 27th Amdt made a mockery of "our" retirement, now it's our turn. Since we can't reduce the salary of a standing congressman, we'll just have to cange the rules for the new ones, and after the old guard has been eliminated by term limits, we'll have THEM by the balls for a change.
    When the **** hits the fan, ask yourself: What Would Bugly Do?

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , , Zimbabwe
    Posts
    114

    Post imported post

    terms 6 years, 2 years not turned out by dumb masses

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Delaware County, New York, USA
    Posts
    276

    Post imported post

    The problem with career politicians is threefold:

    1. The politicians that will have their careers truncated by term limits are the very same that will be required to vote in favor of term limits. Who in their right mind will sacrifice the future of their own careers in order to establish term limits? These guys are all friends with each other; they know they will be harming themselves and each other. Why do it?

    2. As a politician gains seniority, he/she gains status within committees. These are very powerful positions. What voters back home will defeat a congressperson who has achieved seniority/power in Washington in order to replace him/her with a rookie with little power?

    3. If a term limit law does take effect, the same politicians that voted for it will eventually vote to have it removed. See Bloomberg, Mayor, New York City

    It will never happen under the present structure. The only way to establish term limits is for voters to always vote against the incumbent unless he or she has provided exemplary leadership that benefits all citizens of the US, not just those in the home district.

    Yeah, right.

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    WheelGun wrote:
    The problem with career politicians is threefold:

    1. The politicians that will have their careers truncated by term limits are the very same that will be required to vote in favor of term limits. Who in their right mind will sacrifice the future of their own careers in order to establish term limits? These guys are all friends with each other; they know they will be harming themselves and each other. Why do it?

    2. As a politician gains seniority, he/she gains status within committees. These are very powerful positions. What voters back home will defeat a congressperson who has achieved seniority/power in Washington in order to replace him/her with a rookie with little power?

    3. If a term limit law does take effect, the same politicians that voted for it will eventually vote to have it removed. See Bloomberg, Mayor, New York City

    It will never happen under the present structure. The only way to establish term limits is for voters to always vote against the incumbent unless he or she has provided exemplary leadership that benefits all citizens of the US, not just those in the home district.

    Yeah, right.
    I share your pessimism, but defy it with foolish hope.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    The problem isn't really career politicians, it's big money and unconstitutional federal government. The people should push for an amendment to the constitution changing the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause. When the feds have a lot less power then they can keep their seats for as long as they want.

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    N00blet45 wrote:
    The problem isn't really career politicians, it's big money and unconstitutional federal government. The people should push for an amendment to the constitution changing the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause. When the feds have a lot less power then they can keep their seats for as long as they want.
    This is an interesting point, I like it. If they were confined to the limits the Constitution places against them already, then their term duration would not matter.

    Seeing as how the Founders were not unfamiliar with the notion of term limits, the intent becomes clear here.

    How easily the wool is pulled over our eyes...

    Entrenched abuse of power is not eliminated by unseating it, but by stripping it of the power it unjustly usurped. I should know that. Thanks.

    But it brings to light another possibility: why not do BOTH.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Dispatcher wrote:
    Term limits for members on Congress...

    No more career politicians?


    Good or bad idea?
    That's like asking the wolf to only storm the chicken coup on Wednesdays.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    Statesman wrote:
    Dispatcher wrote:
    Term limits for members on Congress...

    No more career politicians?


    Good or bad idea?
    That's like asking the wolf to only storm the chicken coup on Wednesdays.
    Well, a Career Politician is defined by the fact that money is to be made in it. That's what a Career is, something you get paid for...

    Stop paying them.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member Brass Magnet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    2,818

    Post imported post

    ixtow wrote:
    N00blet45 wrote:
    The problem isn't really career politicians, it's big money and unconstitutional federal government. The people should push for an amendment to the constitution changing the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause. When the feds have a lot less power then they can keep their seats for as long as they want.
    But it brings to light another possibility: why not do BOTH.
    Yup, and we should be able to do it against the will of congress.

    Instead of using the typical amendment proposalprocess of a two-thirds vote in the house and senate, two-thirds of the state legislatures canask Congress to call a national convention to propose theamendments. Then the states just need to ratify it. That pretty much leaves congress out of the loop. I don't think they can deny the state legislators if they vote for a convention.
    R[ƎVO˩]UTION

    ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ

    Lex malla, lex nulla

  15. #15
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    ixtow wrote:
    Statesman wrote:
    Dispatcher wrote:
    Term limits for members on Congress...

    No more career politicians?


    Good or bad idea?
    That's like asking the wolf to only storm the chicken coup on Wednesdays.
    Well, a Career Politician is defined by the fact that money is to be made in it. That's what a Career is, something you get paid for...

    Stop paying them.
    How do we stop paying them? How do we convince someone making $200+k a year, to only work part time and make $20k? Who is going to vote for that, besides Ron Paul of Texas?

    Let me put it another way. Do chickens stop feeding themselves to the wolves? Of course not! The wolves just laugh at their resistance and eat them anyway.

    With our current Congress, it's no different. We are food for them, and we seem to have little control over their spending habits.

  16. #16
    Regular Member Statesman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Lexington, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    949

    Post imported post

    Brass Magnet wrote:
    ixtow wrote:
    N00blet45 wrote:
    The problem isn't really career politicians, it's big money and unconstitutional federal government. The people should push for an amendment to the constitution changing the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause. When the feds have a lot less power then they can keep their seats for as long as they want.
    But it brings to light another possibility: why not do BOTH.
    Yup, and we should be able to do it against the will of congress.

    Instead of using the typical amendment proposalprocess of a two-thirds vote in the house and senate, two-thirds of the state legislatures canask Congress to call a national convention to propose theamendments. Then the states just need to ratify it. That pretty much leaves congress out of the loop. I don't think they can deny the state legislators if they vote for a convention.
    This is the answer then! I forgot about this process, since we don't use it anymore. The only problem I have is your use of "ask Congress", which would imply voluntary compliance with state demands. I would hope a 2/3rds majority forces Congress into a national convention.

  17. #17
    Regular Member paramedic70002's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Franklin, VA, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,448

    Post imported post

    Many people fear a Constitutional Convention, thinking it would be opening the floodwaters for new Amendments. I say give freedom a chance.

    As far as term limits: A few years ago there was some grumbling to change the way Virginia handled it's Governor. He cannot be re-elected. Must sit out a term before running again. I think all elected offices could benefit from this 'no reelection' system.
    "Each worker carried his sword strapped to his side." Nehemiah 4:18

    Guns Save Lives. Paramedics Save Lives. But...
    Paramedics With Guns Scare People!

  18. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    303

    Post imported post

    Freedom may very well be annihilated should a Constitutional Convention convene.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , California, USA
    Posts
    560

    Post imported post

    paramedic70002 wrote:
    Many people fear a Constitutional Convention
    I'm one of them. The chance of a "United States of California" seems pretty high, and that scares the heck out of me. The way the masses seem to be these days is more like a bunch of nosy busybodies who want to run everyone else's lives (with California laws being a great example-what happened to personal freedom, and why do we need a law for absolutely everything?). A Constitutional Convention is a very scary thing indeed.

    Anyhow, to the original topic of the thread, is it possible to have it enacted on a state by state basis, with state laws prohibiting reelection of their senators/congressmen? Might be able topush that onto a poll in quite a few states.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    NightOwl wrote:
    paramedic70002 wrote:
    Many people fear a Constitutional Convention
    I'm one of them. The chance of a "United States of California" seems pretty high, and that scares the heck out of me. The way the masses seem to be these days is more like a bunch of nosy busybodies who want to run everyone else's lives (with California laws being a great example-what happened to personal freedom, and why do we need a law for absolutely everything?). A Constitutional Convention is a very scary thing indeed.

    Anyhow, to the original topic of the thread, is it possible to have it enacted on a state by state basis, with state laws prohibiting reelection of their senators/congressmen? Might be able topush that onto a poll in quite a few states.
    It would likely only pass in those states who least need it...

    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    Il_Duce wrote:
    Freedom may very well be annihilated should a Constitutional Convention convene.
    As if it's blossoming now.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Without a total reform of our legislative system espcecially the committee assignments term limits wouldbe the worst thing ever for the small states. CA, NY, MI, IL& NJwill control the country, is that what you really want? Does WV really want Robert Byrd to be powerless?

  23. #23
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    trailblazer2003 wrote:
    A resounding HELL YES! Now to find a politician willing to commit career suicide to get the job done.
    Start electing non-politicians. Its the only way to get the job done.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •