The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Congressional Term Limits
Dalboz
Resident Puppy EaterRight behind you...Registered User regular
Resident Puppy EaterRight behind you...Registered User regular
Up until FDR, the office of president could be occupied by the same person for as many times as they chose to run and get elected. After FDR was elected four times (during World War II, which was considered a bad idea to change leadership during a war), the twenty-second amendment was passed and ratified, limiting the office of the president of the US to only two terms.
Over the years, there have been several discussions over whether term limits should be universally applied. The most recent was during the early '90s. After the Republicans took over Congress in 1994, several of new senators and congressmen announced that they would impose term limits on themselves and not run again after twelve years in office (two terms for a US senator) as well as bring a constitutional amendment to impose term limits as part of the Contract with America. In 2006, those Republicans recanted, stating that they were unaware at the time of the true operations of Congress and how important seniority was, making running for office again vital to their agendas.
Twenty-three states passed ballot measures in the early to impose term limits. The term limits were often intend to bar US Senators and Representatives from being able to run after they had reached the limit. However, the Supreme Court decided in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) that imposing term limits on Senators and Representative to the federal Congress was unconstitutional. Three versions of a constitutional amendment to impose term limits were brought to the floor of the House, but were defeated.
In California, term limits have been imposed on state and local offices since 1990. This was passed by ballot measure as much of the State was dissatisfied with certain members of the legislature such as Willie Brown have seniority control and imposing measures that the a majority of the people did not support, essentially giving single districts control over the State.
The issue of term limits has been starting to come up again. Members of the California legislature attempted to get a "reform" ballot measure passed recently that would provide a loophole for them to run again and avoid the existing term limits. Voters reject the measure in February 2008. There's also starting to be some rumblings again now that there may be an influx of new legislators in to the US Congress.
Should term limits be impose? While seniority is important at the moment, if term limits are imposed it would no longer be a factor across the board. Of course, some argue that if they are satisfied with their representatives, why should they be forced to change. On the other hand, it can result in certain states imposing their will on other states due simply to seniority.
Discuss!
Over the years, there have been several discussions over whether term limits should be universally applied. The most recent was during the early '90s. After the Republicans took over Congress in 1994, several of new senators and congressmen announced that they would impose term limits on themselves and not run again after twelve years in office (two terms for a US senator) as well as bring a constitutional amendment to impose term limits as part of the Contract with America. In 2006, those Republicans recanted, stating that they were unaware at the time of the true operations of Congress and how important seniority was, making running for office again vital to their agendas.
Twenty-three states passed ballot measures in the early to impose term limits. The term limits were often intend to bar US Senators and Representatives from being able to run after they had reached the limit. However, the Supreme Court decided in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) that imposing term limits on Senators and Representative to the federal Congress was unconstitutional. Three versions of a constitutional amendment to impose term limits were brought to the floor of the House, but were defeated.
In California, term limits have been imposed on state and local offices since 1990. This was passed by ballot measure as much of the State was dissatisfied with certain members of the legislature such as Willie Brown have seniority control and imposing measures that the a majority of the people did not support, essentially giving single districts control over the State.
The issue of term limits has been starting to come up again. Members of the California legislature attempted to get a "reform" ballot measure passed recently that would provide a loophole for them to run again and avoid the existing term limits. Voters reject the measure in February 2008. There's also starting to be some rumblings again now that there may be an influx of new legislators in to the US Congress.
Should term limits be impose? While seniority is important at the moment, if term limits are imposed it would no longer be a factor across the board. Of course, some argue that if they are satisfied with their representatives, why should they be forced to change. On the other hand, it can result in certain states imposing their will on other states due simply to seniority.
Discuss!
Dalboz on
0
Posts
I'm curious as to how this works, as well.
Seems to me that new blood is good for balancing out extremists.
Basically, seniority gives more power to senators and senior senators from the president's party control federal patronage appointments to their states. Mostly, senior members of Congress are given preferential treatment for committee appointments, including chair positions.
If the issue is incumbents accruing disproportionate power in a legislature then that is a problem to be fixed in the internal structure of the legislature.
They make little sense to me in executive positions at all.
They make sense to me given the silly paychecks the Swedish parliament get and the general attitude of complete detachment from the people and a lot of politicians being in it for the career (and paycheck) rather than to Change The World.
Get a real job, you parasites!
Basically, his argument is that term limits should be applied to politicians to get their ideology out of office. But we should also make sure that people who share in their ideology don't replace them. And that people with Ron Paul's ideology get to stay.
So really, he isn't arguing for term limits at all. He's just being a fascist.
[paultard] but our views are being repressed! flat tax! flat tax! States rights! [/paultard]
One need only look at the CA state legislature to see what happens with them. First off, because the lobbyists don't have term limits, they end up becoming more experienced than the legislators, which in turn has resulted in greater lobbyist influence. Second, because legislators know when they're termed out, this has caused some to basically go nuts at the end of their last terms, proposing all sorts of crazy. Finally, the loss of institutional memory has caused the whole legislature to become incredibly amateurish.
Term limits are a solution in search of a problem.
Yeah you don't want your institutional memory to be in the form of the bribers.
And term limit promises are almost always BS. Look at Collins - she promised to only serve two terms (12 years) and they just said, meh nevermind. And she's still going to be reelected because people don't care that much. Worst case, you can say you changed your mind in the intervening years/decades.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Man, get over him.
Term limits for legislators won't actually accomplish anything, though.
Experienced members are especially necessary when you have mechanisms such as congressional oversight of foreign relations and the intelligence services - you want people who have been there a while a know a little about what they're doing; people such as Joe Biden for example.
I suddenly got a vision of Congress turning into Logan's Run.
Renew! Renew! Renew!
Because I need more game show in my politics.
I'd support a national term limit, under the first condition that incumbents must run for re-election when eligible, and the second condition that any politician's final term ends in death.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.