Would you support a law that prohibits members of Congress from serving more than two consecutive terms?

Question

In a way, I am asking "Do you think the people of the US would be better served with a guarranteed set of new people from time to time, or making service in Congress a de facto career?

Answer 1

It's a good question, but unfortunately there are more factors involved with each of our representatives than are outlined in the duties and responsibilities which theoretically make up the office which they hold. First I should note that two terms is a blink of the eye in the House. In the Senate a two term limit might reasonably be argued for, as 12 years is a far more significant amount of time than the 4 years which two terms would provide a Member of the House.

Members of the House in particular have a very difficult time accomplishing a great deal in their first term in Congress. A significant amount of time is necessary for a Member to gain the political capital, make connections, become familiar with the customs and precedence of the body, and become an effective legislator. If every legislator served one, or even two terms in the House, Congress would be an incredibly inefficient body (even more so than it is now).

Secondly, due to the short term of office, Members are effectively perpetually running for office, especially in competitive districts. The amount of time which is spent campaigning and rasing funds for reelection is enormous.

As a former aid to a U.S. Representative in Washington, my own opinion is that a term limit of just two terms on the House would be a terrible mistake. Some of the very best members seem to be the ones who have been around the longest, though certainly there are a number of Representatives who have maintained their office solely on incumbent reputation and, for the most part, have done very little to warrant the continued confidence of their constituency. While one might argue for a limit of 5 terms or more, even this I don't support. While there are always challenges to the rule, for the most part, an outside party will generally arise to challenge the incumbent when popular opinion is such that the incumbent no longer is serving as a good representative of the district. In most cases, that authority faces challenges through the election process every election cycle.

If the goal were to improve the job which Members do for their districts, the solution would actually be to adopt four-year terms, negating the seemingly constant campaigning and fund-raising which Members are forced to participate in if they hope to keep their jobs after each bi-annual election. In my experience, this constant pomp and circumstance surrounding, and the lobbying, partisanship, and political bargaining which accompanies it, is by far the single greatest threat to effective government through our elected representatives.

Answer 2

I agree that power corrupts, and with the current political situation this seems to be a good defense for the people. Term limits will prevent politicians from accumulating too much power and trampling the rights of the people in favor of a more powerful government under their control.

But my real position on term limits is that representatives should be forced to represent only, and under those conditions term limits are unnecessary and inappropriate. Representatives, like government, should be bound to do no more and no less than the expressed will of the majority of the people (representation of a sovereign people).

So long as representatives have the power to disregard the will of their consituents while advancing their own agendas, term limits are indeed the next best thing.

BTW, term limits only constitute curbs on free speech, if the representatives constitute the voice of the people, which of course they do not. At best, they are the choice of the most motivated faction of the people once every few years.

Answer 3

I dont know, the argument against it is much better than the argument for it, if you limit the Congressman to 12 years total, which is the most reasonable proposal, you would be cutting the experiance of congress and make them rely more on the Bureacracy for information, than having informed professional congressman, but on the other hand you would be getting rid of alot of bad incumbents, but alot of good one's too. So it is a double edge sword, though i do hate these congressman who think they are elected for life, like Robert C. Byrd, and Jay Rockefeller( my senators), and basically all of West Virginia Congressperson's, because once you are elected here it is basically for life.

besides it would take a constitutional amendment passed by congress( the only likely route though there are others) and that isnt likely to happen, the only congress that was likely to do it was the Contract with America Republicans in 1994, but well it was blocked, as was the balanced budget amendment.

Answer 4

I think congressional term limits are a good thing. Although there are a few house and senate members i would hate to lose. There are also more we could live without. The current situation is politicians do anything to get re-elected and not what is best for their constituents. This seems to be getting worse and worse to the point that Corporations and Lobbyist are the only voices that are getting heard. I think term-limits are one area ...the other is campaign contributuions...fix those and the political landscape would change for the better..

Answer 5

Yes i would support a law that prohibits members of Congress from serving more than two terms period.

Answer 6

I oppose any type of term limit, even the one for President.
Term limits take away my right to vote for the person I believe is best for the job.
If you believe fund raising or corruption is a problem, term limits is not the solution. It simply tells the Representative to get as much as he can and be as corrupt as possible while in office because he wont get another chance.
Otherwise you are simply saying you do not like the people that keep winning... boo hoo! STOP your crying!
This is a democracy (republic) we have a right pick our leaders (good or bad).

Answer 7

I am all for term limits as long as they are for all reps not on a state by state basis. Otherwise, the states that don't have term limits will get more power in congress that the ones that do. (seniority is power in the congress)

Answer 8

Yes. Especially if it meant people like Schumer, Byrd, Kennedy would be gone. I'd be willing to sacrafice some senior republicans to get rid of them.

Answer 9

Not two. It's too short a time. Maybe they can serve three, then take one off.

Answer 10

I don't see how this could be a bad thing.. I would support it..

@above post I'm glad I'm not the only person in WV that feels the same way as you.