What's new

Term Limits

dntsdad

Central California
Joined
May 19, 2020
Member Number
47
Messages
1,267
Loc
Central California
How can the people organize and demand or enact term limits in both houses?

The would not be a lot of support in Congress for it I know but something has to change. The arguements against it are dumb and lazy as well.

How could the people stand up and make this happen.

I am not saying I am looking to start a movement but just for discussion.
 
How can the people organize and demand or enact term limits in both houses?

The would not be a lot of support in Congress for it I know but something has to change. The arguements against it are dumb and lazy as well.

How could the people stand up and make this happen.

I am not saying I am looking to start a movement but just for discussion.

There is term limits already,
 
There is term limits already,

Again, like I said, the arguments against are dumb and lazy.

I assume that you are implying that the "people" are the term limits?

That has not worked. Like the Presidency, there need to be hard limits and I like what Mikel said.....no pensions. Also, everyone who runs must put assets in blind trusts.
 
It's probably going to take a constitutional amendment to get congressional term limits. SCOTUS overturned state laws that limited term for the federal congress.

U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that states cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of the U.S. Congress stricter than those specified in the Constitution. The decision invalidated the Congressional term limit provisions of 23 states. The parties to the case were U.S. Term Limits, a non-profit advocacy group, and Arkansas politician Ray Thornton, among others.

Either congress has to vote for an amendment or there has to be a constitutional convention to get that amendment.
 
I don't know, I'm not sure if forced turn-over is a good business model. It doesn't create a very skilled workforce, and I'd like to think if you are good at your job it doesn't end in being fired like the ones who aren't any good at it.

If all you want is change, and think any change must be good (Obama's campaign slogan), then term limits will at least offer that.


The flip side is basically 'House of Cards', slimy lifer politicians who's main focus is working the system to gain and maintain power instead of doing their real actual job. But you also get to decide whether to re-hire them or not every time they're up for re-election.
 
Last edited:
I have very mixed emotions about term limits.

What you’re essentially doing is seeing exactly when your last term is and you then realize it’s your time to steal everything you possibly can, and pander to all the big money you can, because you need a job and favors, and you know you’re not gonna be able to run for another term.

I don’t think it’s gonna work out as well as it does in your mind.
 
Imagine if the ones in power, were freshened like the public stupidity that changes all the time? Yes there’s old bats in there, but they want and need to stay, so they act very tame compared to some short timer that wants to party and doesn’t give a shit about a long term career.
 
within 6 months in to their first term, they are all acclimated to the system and you get the same results. They isolate themselves in DC and talk into echo chambers.

In this day and age there is no reason for congressmen and senators to work out of DC.

You want change?

You limit a congressman's time inside the beltway to a MAXIMUM of 36 days a year (3 days a month), They can have no staff working in DC, and you require them to live in their district (not have a home in his district, but actually live there) , and use technology for any required conference and votes.

Also, you have to go back to zero based budgeting.

Oh, and agencies have run amuck. An agencies number one goal s self preservation. They have to create as much legislation as possible to justify their existence. The fact that agencies have the ability to create regulations with the force of law and little over site is another huge issue.


It's a fantasy that this would ever happen, but that's what it would take to get change.
 
Last edited:
Swapping out politicians doesn't do much if the same staffers stay in place year after year. The new green-horn politicians just rely on the experienced staffers.... net change zero.
 
A constitutional amendment is required. Congress can send an amendment to the states for ratification by 2/3 vote of both the House and Senate. Alternatively, 2/3 of the states can call for a constitutional convention. A convention of the States scares the shit out of me. No telling what crazy would emerge.
 
Top Back Refresh