The President is limited to two terms. Why not the same for Congress? Are they doing that good of a job?

Answer 1

that is a very good question, I wish I had thought of it, thanks for asking, every one knows our congress and senate is usually bought and paid for before they even take possession of their given office, and once they are owned they will always be owned , we have to many controlling factors such as lobbyist Aipac, the news media all privately owned by one group, who also control our political party's so even if a good man gains office he is obligated to follow party lines, meaning his decisions are already made for him,by, limiting their terms to 2 terms we would have a better chance of getting a more honest politician ,yet there are no guarantees,it would also help to elect independent men , don't you remember our forefathers warned us about poetical party's and the dangers associated with them?

Answer 2

The President is limited to two terms because the Republicans were ticked off that Franklin Roosevelt won four terms. I live in a state with legislative term limits. It has not improved the quality of legislation any. In many cases, it has made it worse as legislators do not know the reason why a statute has certain provisions as there is no institutional memory any more. It has also increased the power of the bureaucracy. Finally, if Representatives were limited to four years (two terms), they would just be leaving at the time that they were finally getting an idea of what was happening.

Answer 3

The predicament of two words for a president is traditionally new. FDR had 4 words He replaced into the final eligible for extra advantageous than 2 words, yet he did win 4 circumstances - credit the place it somewhat is due. 8 years is reasonable. For a certainty, it somewhat is surprisingly obtrusive that if a awful prez have been to earnings adequate votes back and back, it would be an unmitigated disaster. despite if it would desire to never have handed off even devoid of term limits, Bush 40 3's 8 years replaced into 8 years too many IMHO. I have not got any doubt that many hundreds of thousands of human beings would trust that assumption. Congress - properly the typical public determines 'term limits'. in the event that they do unlike a senator's artwork, he/she is long previous after 6 years. in the event that they do unlike a representative's artwork he/she is long previous in 2 years. Watch the Tea Partyers pass down in 2012 - my prediction - not extra no much less.

Answer 4

I think the president should be limited to one term. This way our president would be spending time running the country, instead of giving so much time and money to re-election for the 2nd term. Maybe some of the campaign promises would be kept. The whole system is set up and supported by money. If you have enough, you could be elected. How about instead of the rich holding these positions, we attract people who really care, and want to do a good job for everybody, wouldn't that be something....

Answer 5

It's a trade off, and I think we are currently using the better option. The option of using a two term limit for Congress virtually garantees that most of what our federal government does, is done by people with little or no experience. We'd all like to think that a newly elected representative can just jump in and start getting things done, but that's not really how it works. There is an extremely large learning curve involved, and generally, a rookie Congress-person will best serve his/her constituency by shutting up and paying attention to how business is done.....learning the ropes. It wouldn't do us much good if we were to kick the Congress-person out of office shortly after they have learned how to do anything, and replace them with another rookie.
At least with our current system, we always have the option of voting them out if we feel that their performance is substandard or detrimental.

Answer 6

We have voted term limitations on several occasions .. but the judical is very tight with the legislature.. thusly we can vote for term limits every year and every year they get around it in the court systems.
So these old timers in their 70s and 80s are still milling around Congress, 'owning' the place and half of them are falling asleep during sessions.
As far as the presidential term, after 4 wins by FDR congress was determined that would never happen again.. it wasn't hitting their pocket book to limit the presidential term so of course that passed!

Answer 7

I wouldn't mind term limits in Congress, though perhaps longer than 8 years! The argument against term limits is that the longer someone's in Congress, the better he is at doing his job.

Answer 8

The trouble with 2 or even 4 year term limits is the politicians won't be doing anything but campaigning. Nothing would ever get done in government and it would be a heavy burden on taxpayers. It might be better to go with 6 or 8 years.

Answer 9

Can you imagine if there were term limits in Congress how many more people would be on the lucrative congressional retirement plan (they opted out of social security years ago in favor or a better retirement package for themselves)? We would never be able to foot that bill! Serve 4-8 years and poof, golfing or yacheting for the rest of their days.

On the other hand, I sure would like to see some of those blowhards that have been there for years and years and years get blown right out on their duffs.

Answer 10

Each state is responsible for determining how many terms their representatives can serve in congress. Some states do have term limits.