Should there be term limits for U.S. Congressman?

I have heard many people specifically in the Tea Party, and some Republicans, mabe some Democrats say that they want term limits for Congressman in both the House, and the Senate. Basicly all of the Senators, and Representitives would serve oh mabe for the Senate 2 terms total, and for the house 4, and then they are done permanently they can never run again. Do you think this should happen?

 

That's won't fix much. I once thought it might, but I know now that it wouldn't.

If the system is broken and corrupted by special interest money, then it doesn't matter if bad politicians serve 2 years or 20 years.

A more productive solution would be to go after the special interest money. If you can't publically-fund elections, then I think all campaign donors and political advertisement funders should be disclosed and made transparent to the public. Especially in the political TV commercials that come from neither campaign during the election season... get all the CEO's who are funding that TV ad to appear with their name and photo, and say in their own voice "I'm ____ of ____, and I approve this message" just like every politician has to. That would tell the public who's supporting who, and where that politicians loyalties would lie if elected.

Btw, Senators serve for six years. Representatives serve for two years.

 

Terms, rather than years.

Personally, I'm torn. One one hand, I think that career politicians are a bad thing, but on the other side of things... too short means we never have people that know what they're doing.

 

Was just pointing out that this unfairly favors the Senate. They would be in there longer, and would need to face re-election only once.

I think career politicians are a bad thing too, but they're the lesser evil (and I doubt term limits would really solve it anyways). You need people who know the system, who are invested in making government function properly, who are willing to take the long-view and see how decisions will impact their careers years and years down the road. So we should have a system that's designed in a way so these values are encouraged, which is best done when these values not only don't conflict with the politicians' self-interest but even further their self-interest. I wouldn't be so cynical as to say that all politicians only care about their own self-interest, just that it's better when their self-interests are aligned with the public interest by the very nature of the political system's design.

I wouldn't mind amending it so you can only serve consecutive terms (one term for Senate, two/three terms for House, or something like that), so politicians who want to come back absolutely have to take the long-view and see the big-picture.

But term limits by themselves would probably make the vision of politicians even more short-sighted than it already is.

 

I'm against term limits.

Partially because doing so puts too much power in the hands of the legislative staffs and lobbyists, but also because the Founders had the chance and did not do so.

Indeed, as the States debated ratification, a number of reasons were laid out, one being laid out below:
"There are great and insuperable objections to a [required] rotation. It is an abridgment of the rights of the people, and it may deprive them, at critical seasons, of the services of the most important characters in the nation. It deprives a man of honorable ambition, whose highest duty is the applause of his fellow-citizens, of an efficient motive to great and patriotic exertions. The people, individually, have no method of testifying their esteem but by a re-election; and shall they be deprived of the honest satisfaction of wreathing for their friend and patriot a crown of laurel more durable than monarchy can bestow?" - Theopholius Parsons, chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. - http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_ma.htm

They had good reasons to not give Congress term limits, and there are good Senators and Reps, who I WANT to be willing to put in 20-30 years of service.

 

In fairness to the Founding Fathers: When life expectancy was around 50-60 years for the relatively well off, term limits weren't needed. People would mostly conveniently die before they served over fifty years in office.

 

I have no problem with the voluntary term limits some Congresspeople pledge to, but mandated term limits would be undemocratic. Many long-serving members of Congress are very much loved by their constituents, so it would be wrong to deny that choice to the voters.

 

A related point, I think, is that how does term limits for president play into this? I think it's worth noting that wasn't an idea the founders put into place, but now doesn't seem to be very questioned.

 

Many folks donate to politicians because politicians are passing laws with ever-greater reach. The bigger government gets, the more money will be spent by people who are seeking to protect themselves from said big government.

For instance, if there was less regulation, I bet business would feel less of a need to donate money to politicians. It has become a protection racket writ large.

 

No, it was a protection racket writ large prior to regulation.

 

It's as much a part of the Constitution as the amendments written in the 18th and 19th centuries.

 

There's a bigger threat and potential for abuse.

With legislators, they all have to act together, and the only power they have is law-making.

The President, on the other hand, embodies the power, and he/she stands alone as the head of the executive branch.

If the powers of the President were more defined in practice, especially when it comes to national security and military decisions, or if members of the Cabinet were elected and independent of the presidency (like it is in many states), then maybe term limits wouldn't be quite as necessary.

But to be fair I don't think many Presidents since FDR would have even had a chance at being elected to a third term (except maybe Ike, Reagan, and Clinton... though Ike and Reagan had health issues). People usually get sick of the guy after 8 years.

 

I actually think two terms for presidents might be too generous. I like one term of 6 years and then you're gone. But two terms is a fine compromise.

I don't like a strong executive and we're already tipped too far in that direction.

I was a big booster of term limits, even until fairly recently. But now I believe it would take too much power away from the voters and into the hands of the permanent legislative bureaucrats(staffs)and career lobbyists.

 

My motivation for adding the question was JediSmuggler saying " but also because the Founders had the chance and did not do so."

 

Along the same lines- no one has brought up the point that it wasn't until the 1900s that senators were elected directly by the people; originally, the House was elected by the people, and the Senate by state legislatures. Which might- very strongly MIGHT- have some theoretical effect on the whole money = power thing... but probably not much of one, because the people in the legislature are still representing their own interests and sources of funding, etc... but the senators themselves could potentially be lesser-known quantities with real political savvy (and principles, hopefully), as opposed to whoever can shell out the most money for campaigning.

 

I think you bring up a good point in that it would represent the possibility for someone to get appointed without money to back them up, but the flip side of that is I think it becomes more a tool for political advancement, particularly in places where state legislators face term limits, and need to find new jobs to move into. Although it does further underscore that I don't think the founders can be cited as strictly what we should do regarding senators because of how that's changed already.

 

Honestly- I think the whole obsession with "the Founders' intent" is dangerous. I think established doctrine that is regarded with the reverence found in most religions (a discussion for another board in itself, of course) is a dangerous thing in the political spectrum (and anywhere else). The world changes and we have to change with it, and the U.S. was a vastly different place 200+ years ago in regards to size, population, ethnic & religious makeup...

That isn't to say that the Constitution isn't a wonderful thing- but look at interpretations of the 2nd Amendment, look at the U.S. and its gun ownership & violent crime statistics compared to the rest of the developed world. No one will ever be able to convince me that there is any correlation between the way the 2nd Amendment was envisioned and the realities of today.

SLAVERY was legal in the original document (and for nearly 100 more years). Only landowners could vote, only MEN could vote.

But we (as a nation; not as a discussion thread) tend to forget these things at convenient times and when it suits our purposes.

*getting back on topic...*

Point is, when discussing anything in regards to the Constitution, we have to look through the lens of a changed world. Life expectancy was mentioned earlier, that's certainly a factor... media exposure, the constant news-cycle, radio, television, internet... all of these things have had remarkable influences on political realities. And of course, money, money, money...

Term limits- *shrug* I think they'd be a great thing; imagine a world where Congress wasn't CONSTANTLY running for reelection. *dreamy sigh* But it'll never happen- why?
Because it would be Congress that would have to pass the law.

 

I'm sorry, but that's not true. The Constitution never restricted voting to only men or only landowners. Instead, it left determination of who was eligible to vote up to each individual state. That's how you had places like Utah and Wyoming that allowed women to vote as early as 1870 (shortly after those territories were formed).

The Constitution didn't restrict who could vote. What it did was fail to prevent the states from restricting who could vote.

Kimball Kinnison

 

This is why I'm not allowed to be on the internet at 2 and 3 in the morning...

Point being, the original document didn't make provisions for certain equalities, something we are quite fond of today (in principle, anyway).