Do You Believe We Should Have Term Limits For Congressmen And Senators ?

Question

On the surface it sounds good . But after looking deeper I wonder . I wonder what'll happen when your state finds a great Senator , but then must say good-bye prematurely because of a law . Or when you get a great Congressman that really does do his or her job only to say bye-bye after whatever limit is imposed .

And just how long would you have searched for a great Senator or Congressman ?.. . .. . .And how long would you have to search for another , but in the meantime suffering for years searching and knowing it was a law that you supported that got rid of a good one ?!?!
I'm very interested in reading your answers and SOLUTIONS !!
Thank you .

Answer 1

I feel ya.' Zach Wamp actually campaigned on this issue of term limits. He feels very strongly about it and believes it is right.

But he ran again. Got elected again. Because no one who stepped up to the plate was better.

Term limits is a knife that cuts both ways.

Answer 2

I've thought about this a lot and you're right, I know that. However, we have now reached the point that our own representatives are no longer voting to fulfill the will of the very people that they profess to support. And anyone who says that they're not bought and paid for is wrong. Look at the length of time that some of these people have been in power and 'served' their constituents. Many have been there since the beginning of time.

Maybe the thing to do is to support term limits but make them a bit longer? If government could get back on track by being forthright and honest with the people that they supposedly represent, I'll bet that we would have a larger choice of better candidates.

Another problem of not having term limits (as I see it), is the fact that the new representatives don't stand a chance against the old-timers once they're elected into office. I've seen many new faces get slam dunked by older ones because they lack the seniority and therefore end up being virtually powerless.

So what do we do? Stop the lobbyists? I don't really see that as much as an alternative either.

Answer 3

Yes, it is hard to find a really great Senator or Congressman. They are truly a rare and precious find. I am very mixed about terms limits because you can loose someone that is great. But on the other hand, no one new in a 'party' is going to go up against a long-term incumbent. Especially if they are someone who is known for other reasons such as beloved generals, astronauts, etc. It may be time for them to step down but they don't.

The other 'party' will decide how much it wants the representation of that state and whether it is going to put money into their 'parties' candidate's campaign against the incumbent. That is if they have even groomed someone for the position.

No 'party' really grooms anyone to lead anymore and take a stand. They are trying to be all things to all people. Only the rich can play that game which keeps other locals out of the running.

It is like a ping-pong game - term limits - good / bad / good / bad.

Answer 4

No, I don't think we should have term limits. I will tell you why.

Congressmen and women need to work on committees, meaning they have to work together to get stuff hashed out. I think that becomes easier when you know the people you are working with. If everyone is always a newbie, the well-forged working relationships simply won't work. Right now, there are committees where Republicans and Democrats are working together to solve problems--they are managing to work across party lines. Constantly changing things just makes it hard for everyone involved, I think.

I do believe that there needs to be some reform. As an example, I don't like the idea of Congress voting on their own salaries--that's a little too much like letting the inmates run the asylum for my comfort. But I don't think term limits are the answer to reforming.

I do have to say that my opinion is also colored by the fact that the senior Senator from my state has a bit of influence in the Senate, having been there for a while. He has forged a lot of good relationships, and the one reason why I respect him is because he always does what's in the best interest of our state. There are areas where my ideas and opinions and his diverge, as he is a Republican and I am a Democrat, but when I lived in his voting district, I always voted for him, because he does, really, try to take care of our state and our people.

I also feel, very strongly, that the solution for getting rid of bad representatives is education and impressing upon people their need to educate themselves, form an opinion, and get their butts out and vote. If you don't like what one of your Senators is doing, vote against him! Get the word out, join the competition's campaign, get hands on with the democratic process. Spend some time explaining to other voters why you don't like what he or she is doing. The main thing is, don't just sit home on your bum and complain. (I actually have a rule--I will discuss politics with anyone with any point of view as long as it stays civil and respectful, and as long as they actually vote. As far as I am concerned, if you don't vote, you don't get to b**** about what you don't like, and I am not afraid to tell people that.)

The only place I think term limits are good is with the President. The Executive Branch serves a different purpose than the Legislative, and one person controlling the office for too long leads to problems, in my opinion. There have been Presidents who could have probably served another term or two, and gotten some more good work in, but one of the things I like about the two-term limit is that they have to hit the ground running and really work their butts off if they want to get something done. If they can't get their stuff done in eight years, I am not sure they can accomplish anything in another term or two. The other reason why I like the term limits is because it has a lot of influence on the makeup of the Supreme Court. "Stacking" the Court does a disservice to the country, and messes up the system of checks and balances. If a President served 16 years, he could conceivably "stack" the Supreme Court in such a manner that the Constitution might as well be thrown out. So, term limits on that particular office are good, in my opinion.

Now, can we talk about the Electoral College? I think it's an institution whose time has come and gone...

Answer 5

No, there should not. As long as a Senator or Congressman is serving their state or district well, then they should be allowed to serve without term restrictions.

Ted Kennedy has served in the Senate for almost 50 years, and he continues to strongly represent Massachusetts and the Democratic Party.

If you put term restrictions on the Congress, then you will have a batch of rookies every few years and very little will be accomplished. By having legislators that know the ropes, the Congress and the United States as a whole will be stronger.

Answer 6

I have thought about this subject a lot and I still would choose to have a 12 year term limit on all members of the house.
My reason is real simple. Absolute power, corrupts absolutely.
I don't care how good a man or woman may be in the beginning of their term, after a while all people get drunk with power and get real good at playing the game of politics. When this happens they begin to serve their own interest and no longer serve ours. In fact, It has been my experience in observing that most long term members of the house ask the people they represent less and less our opinions the longer they remain in office.
The only way we can preserve the concept of a Government "for the people and by the people" is to recycle who is allowed to be in office from time to time. While it may be true that on a great ocasion we may loose a good member of the house to this term limit policy, overall I believe the benefits outweigh the down side.
Long term members of either house become life-time bureaucrats and no longer serve only the needs of the people they are suppose to be representing.
Frankly, I'd like to see the entire membership of both Senators and Congresmen get thrown out on their presious behinds and start over.
One classic example: Make both house members be required to go back to retirement through Social Security just like the rest of us without any other benefits from the government. Then lets see how long it takes them to fix Social Security for us all.

Answer 7

I truly believe that a person become ineffectual after too many years in office.

I don't think term limits will ever become law, the Congress will not likely vote themselves out of a job.

In order to make our country the best, and have representation that is Actually representative of us, we MUST stop having an attitude of apathy. Voting is a business we should take seriously, and one we should spend time learning about.

I don't like that most people vote based on commercials . . .

The solution is to teach our children the importance of voting, and impress upon them the duties involved. They must understand that their future is shaped by the voting public, and that they must educate themselves, and others if needed.

Answer 8

The good would outweigh the bad. Look at Kennedy!!! I think it should go beyond term limits.

I think two terms and then, unless you run for a State job or President, you cannot hold a Congressional seat ever again. Too many of these people are lawyers, the 10% that give lawyers a bad name. They get in their, and ask, " what is in this for me or us", and forget about the taxpayer, the person who put them there and vote and go nothing but party lines and not what is b est for America.

Limit the terms and elect non lawyers to the job. They cant do any worse than what we have there now.

Answer 9

Hmm, I alway thought term limits were the way to go--the longer they are there--the more susceptible they are to corruption it seems. But yeah--I had a great congressman who didn't run for reelection last time round....I would've kept him forever.

I think any criminal in public service (on the state and local levels as well) should automatically be booted--and lose their pension no matter how long they've served. Might just be easier to decline that bribe when your entire future is at stake.

I was going to add making it easier to recall them for 'inappropriate' conduct in office....but then look at what the libs have repeatedly done...Barry, Nagin etc......they potentially could be voted back in.

Answer 10

The real problem is awarding committee chair positions based on senority. Those people who are elected repeatedly from safe districts increase there chances of reelection by channeling pork to their state and district - like the guy who moved CIA analysis offices to West Virginia under threat of holding up the whole budget.
Tom Delay is an example from the other side of the aisle.