Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Term limits are one way to limit the long-term, corruption that exists in long-term, "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" politics ... whether it benefits the people or not.
The same term limits that exist for the Presidency should be equally applicable for the Congress, Senate ... and perhaps even the Supreme Court. The founding fathers never intended to create a class of career politicians, who were essentially, above the law.
In the defense of the SCOTUS, the majority of Justices are not Kavanugh aged when they got put on the bench. Today either side does that to stack the bench for as long as possible. I mean look at conservatives on the board creaming their jeans over Ginsberg having cancer yet again hoping they can pack the high court before the new Congress is sworn in January.
How have term limits improved the quality or productivity of state government legislatures where they are in place? I haven't seen it. I see a lot of inexperienced one-trick-ponies getting elected, pushed by single-interest supporters. The problem is the voters and their apathy and non-involvement in local or state civic issues. Term limits won't help anything.
Congress is against Congressional term limits since that limits their power.
I mean I haven't heard business interests be for or against Congressional term limits...
Almost everyone on the inside likes things just about the way they are.
Changing who is on the inside is only half the issue; maybe less.
And that's true regardless of how a shake-up is made to happen.
How have term limits improved the quality or productivity of state government legislatures where they are in place? I haven't seen it. I see a lot of inexperienced one-trick-ponies getting elected, pushed by single-interest supporters. The problem is the voters and their apathy and non-involvement in local or state civic issues. Term limits won't help anything.
I’ve seen both sides. I am from Florida and the term limits there are very short. People there get elected and immediately start planning ways to benefit themselves when they are termed out of office.
Meanwhile, in Illinois where I am now, there are some people who have been in for decades and there is no way to get them out. I think the issue we have in Illinois is more that someone can hold leadership roles for eons, not necessarily that a person can be elected over and over. I think term limits for specific leadership positions makes more sense than term limiting people being elected into office. The issue we have in Illinois is that nothing anyone does really helps anything when only one small district has the power to elect the House Speaker out.
-- they take away my right to vote for whoever I want
-- they take away the incumbent's right to run for reelection
Term limits are anti-freedom. It was a mistake to pass the 22nd amendment and it should be repealed.
What if we get an excellent president who is an effective leader with high poll ratings? Why deprive us of a 3rd term if that's what we as voters want?
I am sure if you had a debate about Congressional term limits, this argumentative line has come up, "But we already have term limits, it's called voting." Personally I think it is a horse hockey weasel phrase for people favor incumbents. What do you think?
The phrase term limits clearly refers to a legal limitation on either the number of terms an individual can hold an office or the number of consecutive terms an individual can hold an office.
It is true that every election affords the electorate the opportunity to limit the time in office of the incumbent. But it is also true that in practice, term limits are an absolute barrier to an incumbent, whereas the vast majority of reelection bids succeed in part due to the inherent advantages of incumbency.
While I'm not particularly opposed to term limits, I don't think they really accomplish much. With states being the laboratories of democracy, we can compare how states that limit their governors and state representatives to a finite number of overall and/or consecutive terms operate, and there's no demonstration that term-limiting states are benefiting in any substantive way. While 'fresh blood' has its merits, so too does expertise - government is complex, and those who are elected invariably spend time getting up to speed, with a learning curve that ultimately can take many years.
Mostly, term limits are a feel-good panacea that frustrated people assure themselves will be highly beneficial, but the real world shows that they don't change much and (as noted above) the changes are a mixed bag of good and bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jghorton
Term limits are one way to limit the long-term, corruption that exists in long-term, "scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" politics ... whether it benefits the people or not.
The same term limits that exist for the Presidency should be equally applicable for the Congress, Senate ... and perhaps even the Supreme Court. The founding fathers never intended to create a class of career politicians, who were essentially, above the law.
No.
But they very specifically decided to discard the term limits present in the Articles of Confederation when they drafted the Constitution. Term limits were debated. Madison, for one, opposed them - in Federalist 53.
Also, the Founders intended a whole slew of things that pretty much everyone today thinks are hopelessly outdated ideas that have happily been rejected in the intervening 200+ years. Just because George and John and Tom and Jim and Al and Ben thought something was a good idea then, it does not follow that it is a good idea today.
The phrase term limits clearly refers to a legal limitation on either the number of terms an individual can hold an office or the number of consecutive terms an individual can hold an office.
It is true that every election affords the electorate the opportunity to limit the time in office of the incumbent. But it is also true that in practice, term limits are an absolute barrier to an incumbent, whereas the vast majority of reelection bids succeed in part due to the inherent advantages of incumbency.
While I'm not particularly opposed to term limits, I don't think they really accomplish much. With states being the laboratories of democracy, we can compare how states that limit their governors and state representatives to a finite number of overall and/or consecutive terms operate, and there's no demonstration that term-limiting states are benefiting in any substantive way. While 'fresh blood' has its merits, so too does expertise - government is complex, and those who are elected invariably spend time getting up to speed, with a learning curve that ultimately can take many years.
Mostly, term limits are a feel-good panacea that frustrated people assure themselves will be highly beneficial, but the real world shows that they don't change much and (as noted above) the changes are a mixed bag of good and bad.
No.
But they very specifically decided to discard the term limits present in the Articles of Confederation when they drafted the Constitution. Term limits were debated. Madison, for one, opposed them - in Federalist 53.
Also, the Founders intended a whole slew of things that pretty much everyone today thinks are hopelessly outdated ideas that have happily been rejected in the intervening 200+ years. Just because George and John and Tom and Jim and Al and Ben thought something was a good idea then, it does not follow that it is a good idea today.
I think the one good thing with term limits is they prevent people in office longer than some of the population have been alive that are adults. The late and depending who you ask great Sen. McCain is perfect example. At the time he died two years ago, he was in office longer than I was alive. That was the only reason I opposed his last term. Not politics because McCain was principledand didn't sell out besides maybe the Keeting Five situation, but I voted Kirkpatrick against him. I voted McCain in the primary over Chemtrails Kelli who is now the Republican Party chair in AZ. You can also say Patrick Lehey and Chuck Grassley who both have been first sworn in before myself or my brother were born. I just use McCain since McCain was a Senator i supported politically, voted for but didn't keep.
I don't think anyone even those that complain "oh but it infringes on me voting for who I want" would honestly want a Senator or Representative last 20, 30 years in office.
I’ve seen both sides. I am from Florida and the term limits there are very short. People there get elected and immediately start planning ways to benefit themselves when they are termed out of office.
You see that prepping for higher office all up and down the line. My career was in criminal justice and you could see the sheriffs and prosecutors and judges being more interested in their next office than they were in the job they were elected to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RamenAddict
Meanwhile, in Illinois where I am now, there are some people who have been in for decades and there is no way to get them out. I think the issue we have in Illinois is more that someone can hold leadership roles for eons, not necessarily that a person can be elected over and over. I think term limits for specific leadership positions makes more sense than term limiting people being elected into office. The issue we have in Illinois is that nothing anyone does really helps anything when only one small district has the power to elect the House Speaker out.
"there are some people who have been in for decades and there is no way to get them out." Well, whose fault is that, actually. If they keep winning elections either most voters want them to stay, most voters stay home, or nobody worth a damn is running in opposition. Chances are, it is the money. If we control the donation and cost side we might see some new faces.
I like your idea on limiting power positions. I would like to see that more than term limits. The seniority system is what has a lot of people riled up in favor of term limits. If that was reformed we would be in a better place. I dislike the idea of inexperienced and single-issue people occupying seats in Congress with no idea how to govern or compromise.
In the defense of the SCOTUS, the majority of Justices are not Kavanugh aged when they got put on the bench. Today either side does that to stack the bench for as long as possible. I mean look at conservatives on the board creaming their jeans over Ginsberg having cancer yet again hoping they can pack the high court before the new Congress is sworn in January.
I somewhat agree, since the lifetime tenure of the SCOTUS. Also, the high bar level and intense vetting that goes into placing one on the Supreme Court ... works more to prevent their corruption, than promote it.
OTOH, the Congress and Senate have no such high qualifications or vetting. Also, the 'back scratching' necessary to get anything accomplished in Washington, .... plus the political side of 24/7 re-election campaigns - each requiring a new promises and more special interest money .... almost ensures corruption and cronyism.
Ironically, to get congress/senate term limits, would require a majority mandate by .... guess who? --- congress and the senate! Since most acquire wealth, influence and connections through their political positions, most are unlikely to vote for term limits on themselves. --- THUS, term limits will remain an obvious, but, unlikely solution!
How have term limits improved the quality or productivity of state government legislatures where they are in place? I haven't seen it. I see a lot of inexperienced one-trick-ponies getting elected, pushed by single-interest supporters. The problem is the voters and their apathy and non-involvement in local or state civic issues. Term limits won't help anything.
This is what happens a lot at the local level. It's especially pernicious for school board elections.
I've seen it where someone runs to "fix" things when all that needs to be "fixed" is to get their property rezoned so they can sell it and move away on the proceeds.
I also saw a school board candidate (who dropped out of school) run and win, multiple times, on the platform "It's Time for Some Payback". He made the lives of teachers he had problems with while in school a living Hell. He was a dick when before he dropped out and carried it forward into adulthood (full disclosure, most people didn't use my name but addressed me as You Prick when I was in school, so I know the pattern).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I somewhat agree, since the lifetime tenure of the SCOTUS. Also, the high bar level and intense vetting that goes into placing one on the Supreme Court ... works more to prevent their corruption, than promote it.
