Do you support or oppose setting term limits on elected offices?

Question

If you oppose term limits, please explain why.

If you support term limits, please explain why and state what limitations you'd select for local, state and federal offices.

Term limits have been discussed for decades, and passed in some states. I'd like to know how many people support or oppose them, just to satisfy my own curiosity.

Thanks!

Answer 1

There are term limits on the Executive Branch of the US government. That would be one good reason to have that on the legislative branch. It has been shown that career politicians waste money, grow government and do very little except get re-elected.

The founding fathers envisioned a government of patriotic citizens, not corrupt criminals. Ben Franklin said of congress, "They are of the People, and return again to mix with the People, having no more durable preeminence than the different Grains of Sand in an Hourglass. Such an Assembly cannot easily become dangerous to Liberty. They are the Servants of the People, sent together to do the People's Business, and promote the public Welfare; their Powers must be sufficient, or their Duties cannot be performed. They have no profitable Appointments, but a mere Payment of daily Wages, such as are scarcely equivalent to their Expences; so that, having no Chance for great Places, and enormous Salaries or Pensions, as in some Countries, there is no triguing or bribing for Elections"

We are currently so far away from that it is scary. We do not have representation in congress today, we have resentment, they resent us. Until this changes AMerica will continue a slow moral decline much like the fall of the Roman Empire, this is of course aided and abetted by a minority group, the socialists in congress, who seek the destruction of capitalism and the fall of AMerica as a Free country. This completely about power and control.

The positive far out way the negatives in term limits. The naysayers say that the election process is our term limits yet the voters have failed. "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money." which has been accomplished.
"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude." My thanks to Tocqueville for those insightful thoughts .

The document below will show both sides of the argument and prove why term limits must happen soon.

Answer 2

I do believe in term limits at the federal level. The reason for this is because we need change in government. I believe that most people run for high office with high aspirations for effecting positive change, but along the way they are corrupted by the system. This corruption is systemic and grows exponentially based on the length of service. Eventually it just becomes about holding and expanding their power base rather than the will of the people. Faced with limited time frames with which to work they would be more interested in addressing agendas and securing their legacy. This in my opinion would benefit the people as a whole.

As for term limits at the local and state level I am not against them, but I also do not campaign for them. I believe the electoral process works better at these levels because in my experience most people are more familiar with what their local officials are doing and vote accordingly based on neighborhood issues.

Answer 3

Support it big time! That way we can get rid of some of the dead wood running this country. There should be limits right down to the city levels and it should be law.

Answer 4

There are term limits. You have to vote them back in at the end of their term. Educate people and they will not simply vote for the name they know. Every local newspaper and news program should carry the daily votes and statements of their congressmen and senators state and federal.

Answer 5

I oppose term limits. Experience is not something to throw away. And the voters obviously do know how to vote out the incumbents. Thirteen years ago the voters of one district even threw out the Speaker of the House! When I lived in Missouri years ago, the voters of my district threw out an incumbent who had been in office for 20 years. There have been other examples of voters throwing out incumbents who have been in office 30 years or more.

Get rid of the 22nd Amendment and allow the voters to re-elect incumbent Presidents to their hearts content. Again, experience is not something to be thrown away.

Answer 6

I'm in favor of term limits because they prevent one man or group from having too much power.

Answer 7

I support them and I would Also Make it Illegal for Spouses to run. Imagine if Hillary wins 2 terms and then Gay marraige is made legal and then Big Bill Marries the Next President! a Person Like that could be in power )of sorts for many administrations..........

Answer 8

I doubt it makes a lot of difference either way.

It's one of those stupid tweaks politicians come up with when the other party's in power, like the line item veto (well they push that one when they're IN power, but same deal).

If their own party gets in they'll oppose the very same measure.

Answer 9

We have term limits. THey're called "elections"

Answer 10

>> whilst taxes have been at ninety one% returned in 1961, organisation proprietors did not take abode enormous salaries because of fact they didn't wish to get taxed at ninety one%, so they invested it of their organisation, i grew to become into properly conscious of each little thing else in this question, yet i presumed this grew to become into an magnificent perception. i might never concept-approximately this earlier. I in simple terms found out something new. shifting directly to respond to your question, the certainty is because of fact conservatives are in simple terms blinded via ideology. Conservatism is in each way designed to charm to the main in simple terms manipulated human beings you want basically pay attention to Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh and all their warm air to work out precisely how actual that's. It is composed specially of emotional arguments and worry mongering - like calling any liberal coverage "socialism". Or calling a clump of one thousand cells with out ideas a "toddler" and exhibiting a deceptive image of a completely stepped forward toddler. lots of the human beings who have confidence in conservative ideology additionally reject evolutionary biology, climate technology believed in via ninety 8% of climatologists, and infinite different info. virtually 0.5 of conservatives have confidence the Earth to be 6000 years previous. there's a stable correlation between loss of training and conservative ideology. So why do conservatives care plenty approximately reducing taxes for the prosperous? even nonetheless the magnificent a million% of the inhabitants now take abode 25% of all money "earned" ? And ever mutually as particularly some the fewer fortunate everybody is incredibly dieing for loss of scientific coverage? And why do they have confidence that Republicans produce greater activity strengthen in spite of overwhelming historic evidence to the alternative? Ask them and the respond you will get is "because of fact severe taxes for the wealthy is SOCIALISM!!!" Conservatism is a scam operated and controlled via the wealthy - including billionaire Rupert Murdoch who owns pretend information. And his cronies the Koch brothers who the puppet masters in the back of the tea party circulate so they might have decrease taxes for themselves, and much less c02 regulations and environmental regulations for their petroleum and chemical industry conglomerate Koch Industries (2) and of direction undereducated human beings and people who're incredibly manipulated are people who purchase into the conservatism scam operated via the Koch brothers, Rupert Murdoch, and their different cronies.