Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Consecutive Term Limits for Congress

The children in congress are getting really wacky and out-of-touch these days. Our "representatives" are not representing we the people anymore. They are representing their own greedy hunger for power, glory and wealth. They are a good-ole-boy network diseased by too many years of too much power with too little accountability.

It's time to reign in our elected representatives. It's time for term limits. Here's a proposal: After two consecutive elected terms, a senator or congressman must sit out one term. After sitting out one term, he is eligible to run again for election and so on.

Under this proposal, the senator or congressman can continue to be an elected representative for his entire life with occasional spells of unemployment and if he is good, he can continue providing value to our country for many years. And in each of his second consecutive elected terms, since he will not be eligible for immediate reelection, he can concentrate on doing the right things instead of focusing on raising money for reelection.
 

10 Comments:

At 5/23/2005 07:41:00 AM, Blogger Delta said...

That's not a bad idea. That, paired with campaign finance reform (so that the candidates could not tell where their donations were coming from) would really make our government more responsive to the citizen's will and less to the power of religous groups and large corporations.

 
At 5/29/2005 09:24:00 AM, Blogger josh narins said...

I'm looking at this from a different perspective. If we got one good congressperson in there, they'd be forced out before long.

You want reform? Condorcet _is_ the way. It's a mathemtical certainty. Of course, it has to be a variant of Condorcet, and then it will take a serious effort to present the results in a way that our (relatively) mathematically-ignorant Congress could understand. IRV is stupid. (Greens and Libertarians have fallen for it).

ElectionMethods.org
Condorcet.org

 
At 6/15/2005 02:06:00 PM, Anonymous Cheeto said...

An interesting idea, but the concept of term limits has caused problems in California. They are in such a rush to pass their ideas as law that compromise is all but gone. Term limits has led to more extremist positions.

 
At 6/15/2005 09:59:00 PM, Blogger David said...

Term limits seems to work quite well for the presidency.

 
At 7/13/2005 01:22:00 PM, Blogger Loyd_DIgby said...

I would like to see Kennedy go. I think too many years of tiping the bottle has fried his brain

 
At 12/04/2005 08:36:00 PM, Anonymous Randy Bruce said...

Your absoluty correct! Senators spend too much time being re-elected and not enough worrying about their constituents. But, there should be no sit out period. Once you are done, you are done. Fresh blood is the key. Political offices are usually held by the wealthy and that is the point they do not need a job like you and me. Their want should only be to serve and to give back to the county that has given them so much. 2 terms that's it. As for CA well, they are not the rest of us and do not think the same way. That's their gift to all of us wheather we like it or not. They are not the country and we (me) are not them.

 
At 12/06/2005 11:05:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The voting public complains about partisanship and gridlock but is unwilling to uniformly take corrective action. Individuals with a propensity toward political activism can effect change through their voting and have successfully expressed their disdain for partisan politicians by excusing them from office. The voting majority though are more apathetic tending to stay the course voting to return the same individuals to Washington year after year. The problem seems to be that to one voter a particular politician is a panacea for all that ails our country while to another, that same politician is nothing more than a self-serving political hack. If the politician has sufficient power he or she can effectively alter the rules in manner that thwarts the freedom of speech, compromises the election process and preserves their incumbency. This seems wrong.

Being a congressman, man or woman has evolved into a career despised and disdained by many while held in the highest esteem by the self-aggrandizing and self-righteous politicians themselves. Over the years it has become almost a matter of course that seasoned politicians warrant reelection due to their constituents’ assignment of value and worthiness based on perceptions of knowledge and power. This is truly an insidious problem in that power is being concentrated in an ever shrinking number of people who are anointing themselves as the definers of our societal well-being and moral fortitude.

Today we are faced with a US Supreme Court comprised of nine people who through their rulings are vicariously usurping unconstitutional powers while small clutches of senior Republican and Democrat congressmen meet behind closed doors with special interest groups and strategize ways to obviate the constitutional legislative process. As a direct result our freedoms are being eroded away right before our eyes.

Why have we chosen to limit the terms of our President while we defer to an election process to manage the terms of politicians and require no accountability for Supreme Court Justices? If a President is doing an exceptional job as judged by a majority of the voters and if the he or she is in the second term we have no choice but to find a replacement. Opponents of congressional term limits use a similar argument spun a little differently to justify their opposition to term limits. They say if a congressman is doing a good job it would violate voter’s rights if they were forced to replace that individual. What is the difference? Is it that Congressmen are elected by voters at the state level while Presidential elections are perceived as being National despite being state focus by the electoral process? Is it that to change the rules Congressmen would have to exhibit a form of altruism never seen before and essentially vote themselves out of their jobs?

What is the source of voter apathy and disagreement regarding term limits for federal politicians? I find it mendacious to believe that the people currently serving in congress are the best we can find. So what if a particular person is doing a superior job on behalf of his or her constituents? It seems incredibly presumptuous to believe that there are no other equally worthy Americans to pick up the ball and run. It is also very patronizing on the part of our Federal politicians to think that they know what is best for the people of our country. I say let the people vote on term limits and let the majority rule. If the majority says no-way then so be it; if on the other hand the majority votes affirmatively for limiting the terms of federal politicians, then they should be given a suitable period of time to prepare a vote to amend our constitution.

 
At 8/28/2007 08:47:00 AM, Anonymous Jack Taylor said...

If Term Limits are BEST for the President of the United States, then Term Limits are good enough for Congressional Representatives and Senators.

22nd Amendment
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am22

 
At 6/20/2008 06:37:00 AM, Blogger Ted said...

I think senators nad congresman are about the only elected officials without term limits. It works for the president and in most states, we desparate need this term limit for the lowest rated congress ever

Ted

 
At 5/24/2010 02:57:00 PM, Blogger Linda E. said...

Senators should not be allowed to serve more than 2 terms and then there should be a limit on age. You can't tell me that a 90 year old can even think, much less in a constructive way. 2 terms for everyone, that's it - what a wonderful idea!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home