Mandatory term limits

[Doc]

What do you guys think of mandatory term limits? I'm for them, but being a realist, I realize congress would never ever enact that for themselves.
Are you for or against, and do you think they would ever be enacted?

ps. I use 'guys' in a non-gender way. It's meant to imply both guys and gals ...I sure don't want to slight the few gals we have here!!!!

 

[LarryRB]

I'm all for term limits. The President is limited to two terms and I believe the same should hold true for reps and senators.. Look at Kennedy for instance,. he really hasn't done anything for his "own" constituents for many years other than the big dig. The big dig is a financial boondogle at best. He acts as if we all "owe" him to be re-voted in over and over,,.,. I am convinced that no more than two terms per person and a legitimate two party system is needed. For years Mass and CT have two democratic senators and I think this is wrong also. One each, and or one and a independent would work for me.. No more of this 30 plus years of one group only..

 

[OkeeDon]

I think term limits are an excellent way to guarantee that no elected representative ever learns enough about how things work to ever do a good job. Just about the time they finally figure out how to help their constituents, they're kicked out of office and a new crop of amateurs come in to do their on-the-job training. It's also an excellent guarantee that the staff people in those offices hold the real power, because they know how to get things done, even though they've never been elected.

We already have term limits. It's called the "vote". If anyone is doing a bad job, they can be voted out at any election. Why pass a rule that eliminates the good because people don't seem to have the intelligence to vote out the bad?

If a politician is re-elected term after term, it's because the majority of the people want him/her to be re-elected. If you are in the minority, it's against everything that America stands for to force your minority desires onto the majority. That's how Saddam stayed in power, even though he was part of the minority in Iraq.

 

[Melensdad]

I think term limits are good but I don't think they resolve the problems of the career bureaucrats that actually do most of the work. I think that there should be a term limit for 'staff' people in government too. Perhaps 12 years? I don't know how to do it but there is a huge problem with government employement and only a small fraction of the people causing trouble are elected.

 

[LarryRB]

I think term limits are an excellent way to guarantee that no elected representative ever learns enough about how things work to ever do a good job.

I am not convinced this is true.. For one,, I believe the constitution as written was talking about farmers and basic working people... Not the vast majority of congress that are lawyers as it is now.. Two, I understand your thought (about when they learn),, this is how it has been the last 40 years and that is how it is now,.. With term limits and about 8 years, they will quickly learn that within two terms things has to be done, and things will be done. As far as , one in office 30 plus years because the "people" vote them in,, pretty hard to beat when one party has been here since who knows how long... With the exception of Lieberman, who has done a few things for the northeast, and he has been in too long already, the others are spinning there wheels and bull,,., I still believe the one party system as is here, has only hurt the working man, driven off most large business and we are in a contunual spiral down. Get them all out, fresh young people, who are other independents or republicans, and other than just democrats only, and make serious changes..

 

[Melensdad]

Larry
I'll have to agree with much of what you said. Here in Indiana we have a PART-TIME legislature. From what I can tell most of the elected state officials are employed full time in the private sector and their part time job is as a state representative or senator. Their full time jobs ground them in reality and that reality is why we have far fewer problems than I see in many of the other states that surround Indiana. They actually have some level of common sense, some level of bugetary responsibility, and a real tie to their home towns as opposed to a part time relationship with the folks who elected them.

 

[XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq]

I think there was a study once that pointed out that first and second term legislators were much less likely to be influenced by "special interests" than their counterparts were in their 3+ terms.

My vote (although I can't vote in the US) is for a 2-3 term limit. After 12 years in politics you have had your opportunity to make an effect. If the system is so complex that you can't make an effect after 2 years then the system is broken.

Really, does a President have more than 2-3 years to do anything once elected? They probably spend 2 years kissing ass for re-election in their first term and then are pretty much getting back stabbed by their successors once they are in for the second term.

It's a mess but it's the best mess in the world. I wouldn't point to any other country's system as being better than the USA.

PB

 

[mtendt]

Keep in mind that the two term limit for the Presidency is relatively new - the 22nd Amendment being ratified in the early '50s. George Washington decided two terms was enough, and everyone honored that tradition until FDR.

I think the solution to much of the problems with government would be to end the two party monopoly. The hoops a third party candidate has to jump through to get on the ballot in most states pretty much ensure that they won't get on the ballot. The equal time doctrine for news coverage during elections seems to not apply. The Presidential election was a year ago. Anybody remember the name of the Libertarian candidate? The Green Party candidate? Any other third party candidate? The Republican and Democratic parties have a lock on the government election process - join up and toe the line or be buried in obscurity. Political Parties are not mentioned in the Constitution, yet the big two have a firm grip on keeping everyone else out.

-Malcolm

 

[XeVfTEUtaAqJHTqq]

I think the solution to much of the problems with government would be to end the two party monopoly.

Since I grew up in a multi-party system (Canada) I think I can say that it isn't very effective. It tends to result in a lot of minority governments that can't get any work done.

I think the US system works because of the two party system. It keeps the natural polarity that exists in the world. Libertarian and Green Parties appeal to small extreme ends of the spectrum that do not represent the MAJORITY of the people.