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.
"Thursday South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint introduced an amendment to the Constitution that would apply term limits to members of Congress. Ten Republican Senators joined DeMint in his call to limit U.S. Representatives to three terms and U.S. Senators to two terms in office. 'If we’re ever going to permanently change Washington, we must change the process that encourages career politicians to amass personal power instead of making the hard decisions for the nation,' said Senator DeMint. 'We need true citizen legislators who spend their time defending the constitution, not currying favor with lobbyists.'"
I think government limits are better than term limits.
Ron Paul would be ineligible to run under the latter and that would make Congress an even scarier place.
Term limits are a great way to reduce government corruption brought about by career politicians. It has been said that people decide term limits when they vote, but, that's not entirely true --- Actually, the current system encourages even more 'pork barrel, vote buying' by career politicians!
Consider this: When you think about voting out corrupt politicians, which ones are you thinking about? Generally, people think about "the other" politicians who never did anything for them ... not their own politician, who brings 'useless' stuff home to his own constituants ... at everyone else's expense. The real problem you see is that the ONLY politicians voters can vote for are their own representatives.
With term limits, politicians could actually start to think about what they are elected for: the good of America (not only their own re-election)
Term limits are a coward's way out of making a decision.
We vote the clowns into office (more so in 2010 than in any other year I can remember) - we can vote the clowns out.
The Constitution (remember that?) says that we the people get to choose. If we choose wisely, and are pleased with our choices, and our elected officials do a good job, we should have the right to continue to vote for them.
If it turns out we didn't choose wisely, then with the next election we can go with someone else.
I think government limits are better than term limits.
Ron Paul would be ineligible to run under the latter and that would make Congress an even scarier place.
Term limits are a coward's way out of making a decision.
We vote the clowns into office (more so in 2010 than in any other year I can remember) - we can vote the clowns out.
The Constitution (remember that?) says that we the people get to choose. If we choose wisely, and are pleased with our choices, and our elected officials do a good job, we should have the right to continue to vote for them.
If it turns out we didn't choose wisely, then with the next election we can go with someone else.
So, I suppose limiting a President to two terms is "cowardly" as well? By the way the Constitution says a President is limited to two terms, maybe you should try reading it some time.
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.
