How do you feel about term limits for Congress?

Answer 1

I'm for it. I think that a Congressperson should be limited to 3 terms in office. Having persons who make a career of being in congress is nonsense. What person can represent those at home if they are never @ home? If they never have to live the lives of the persons they represent; how can they be effective. We need new young ideas as the nation changes. One might conclude that the voters have spoken but have they? Such a few vote anymore that it seems we keep electing the same people back time & time again. Young people need to start to exercise their right to vote; knowing that they can make a difference.

Answer 2

It's not a good idea, unless it is done as a Constitutional Amendment

The longer a congressman works in congress the more experience they gain, the better they are able to perform, and the more tenure they gain. Tenure, or time in office, is what determines a congressman's position on committees. The current congresswoman Nancy Pelosi was made Speaker of the House when the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives, not because the Democrats wanted a woman in the job, but because in the Democratic party she had the seniority. Since congressmen in the House are elected every two years it is hard to build up that seniority.

As Speaker of the House Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi is third in line for being President, when Gerald Ford held this position he became President after Richard Nixon resigned, so this is not a little thing.

The House and Senate are organized by committees, which do the work on bills. Once a bill has been proposed it goes to the proper committee so they can decide if it is worth considering or not. The Chairman of that committee decides which of these bills are brought up for consideration. They chair the discussion so they have strong influence and if they don't want the bill to pass then they can bury it in committee and it will never come up for a vote.

Another way that seniority works is to determine who gets what position on what committees. Some committees are very important; House Ways and Means (decides the rules to run the House of Representatives), The Armed Services committee (which controls what new equipment will be tested, which equipment will be bought and used and how the military funds are spent). Others are equally as powerful and some are little corners where you can dump freshmen congressmen so they have little influence.

Hillary Clinton won her position on committee because she has been active in politics since her husband first ran for Governor. As a potential candidate for President she was given a powerful position in the Senate.

The only way that term limits for Congress would work would be for each state to adopt the same limits. Some states have adopted term limits and they are deliberately handicapping themselves. However, to have a uniform term limit law would require a law passed by congress, which could be challenged in the Supreme Court unless it was made into a Constitutional Amendment.

Answer 3

I think it would be a good thing.

Good luck getting congress to kill their own careers to vote for that legislation however.

The idea of term limits is to give a politician a reason to do the best thing even if its unpopular (its a democratic republic, not a pure democracy and there is a difference)

Also to encourage a politician to work for the people rather than for their re-election campaign. House representatives serve 2 year terms - no wonder nothing gets done - half the time is spent campaigning.

Lastly, fresh ideas rather than the same old old boys network. How can that be a bad thing?

Rarely do these things happen.

However, I would argue that a better change would be to not allow riders onto legislation - that just becomes a political weapon and stops things from getting done. An example would be a great bill that everyone agrees with that is proposed by party x. Party y can't let party x be responsible for something they agree is good so they attach a horrible rider to the bill that everyone hates. Now party x can be accused of not voting for good legislation or accused of voting for bad legislation.

That causes all sorts of problems.

Answer 4

In theory, I am absolutely for them. But for it to work, it would have to be an across-the-board term limitation, not a state-by-state initiative.

If you look at the resumes of the members of Congress, the majority of them have been entrenched in some sort of government "service" for the majority of their lives, mostly elective office of some sort. (Translation: never had a real job, never had to deal with real life stuff, but still "represent" us.)

The downside of term limitations is that by the time you are "effective", with some sort of seniority, you are term-limited out. But I think that the Citizen Legislator concept is far superior to the "Career Politician" concept.

Answer 5

I'm stuck in the middle on this one. In some ways, I like limiting these people to a set period of time. Get in, accomplish what you indicated you would, then get out (Like president Polk in the 1800's).

However, life is never as simple as a plan that one lays out. To accomplish what one wants usually takes a consensus. It takes time to build that consensus. Being kicked out of Congress prior to accomplishing your goals isn't the answer, either.

I think we need to limit the influence of $$ on elections.

Answer 6

I think it is a great idea. One term and you are out. that would stop the Congress members from passing legislation that helps the people that donate to their reelection campaign.

Answer 7

I think EVERY elected office should be limited to 1 term.

Answer 8

YES! That would do more good for this country than just about any other single thing we could do. Then you wouldn't have politicians for sale to all the various PAC's, because they wouldn't be trying to build up big "war chests" to get reelected over and over.

Answer 9

I'm absolutely for it. I could agree with as many as 8 or as few
as 2. Some of these 80 yr. old congressmen are just too
out of touch.
I don't see why it should bother them, they would still have
their pensions.

Answer 10

All for it. After they complete their term they need to be held accountable also.