Congress and Senate both should serve but one term for four years and go back home and get a job. And they can't stay and lobby. And federal judges get one 6 year appointment.
2007-09-05 10:59:09 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
ok - no paid lobbyist.
Vote them out??? come on, the incumbent has a ridiculous advantage that is overwhelming unless he gets caught in a toilet stall.
Teddy drove off a bridge and killed a woman and is still there,
I am amazed anyone could say Teddy Kennedy works for the good of our country.
And now the guy in South Dakota looks like he is retarded. I'm sorry for him but he can't do his job in his condition.
And you certainly would not have all new congress and senate at the same time. You still stagger them for a learing curve.
2007-09-05 12:43:18 · update #1
There should never be career politicians. Teddy should have retired decades ago!
They should live under the laws they passed!
2007-09-05 11:19:26 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Two problems with your plan.
First, there is a very real learning curve involved with being a representative and I believe there is a very limited number of people willing to go through that learning process and especially to only use the knowledge for one term.
A good representative, knowledgeable in the operation of the government, is invaluable to his/her constituants and the country as a whole. Imagine the stuff the IRS or FDA or Justice department could pull if congress people were being replaced just about the time they figured what the heck was going on.
Second, when you say term limits you are saying that you and I and the rest of the country aren't smart enough to elect quality people or get rid of people who have lost sight of their job. As citizens of the U.S. we have a right to vote for who ever we want and if a given area keeps electing some idiot over and over again, well that's their right. And if you feel someone has been in office too long that's fine but apparently a majority of your neighbors don't agree. Democracy in action.
The President, on the other hand, represents the nation as a whole. The risk of having a dictator is very real if there were no term limits.
I'm a retired, disabled vet with no criminal record and I have voted in every election available to me. Never stood jury duty though. That's my resume for a "good citizen."
No lobbyist?!?!?!? Then that would mean you and I couldn't call our Congressman and complain about the IRS or to ask for a new ballfield in our town or demand that vets get medical treatment. When you call your congressman and ask for something or give your opinion on something then you are LOBBYING your representative.
2007-09-05 11:19:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
We actually have term limits. In the House it is 2 years they are up for reelection, In the Senate it is every 6 years. If ever you are dissatisfied with their perfomance join the campaign of their opponent and/or vote against them. It isn't hard, really. Just think a Congress full of rookies. Also the capitol merry-go-round. Let's see this time I am a Senator, next time I am Secretary of Labor then I get the position of Fed Chariman. Next time something else. Maybe even Supreme Court Justice. That is for life...Hurray!
2007-09-05 11:05:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I've been in favor for them for years.
Maybe not just one-term limit, but no more than two terms per each position elected.
Politicians are supposed to "Serve the People" not serve themselves after boredom and a lack of ingenuity begins to dampen their efficiency and productivity.
Sooner or later their 'fresh ideas' become so trite nothing is gained.
2007-09-05 11:11:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
That sounds great, but what about the Judges on the Supreme Court that are appointed to those positions for LIFE? They ought to consider limiting the amount of time they can serve on the bench, shouldn't they?
Thank you,
2007-09-05 11:04:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
we ought to continually have term limits then reelection does no longer be all of their precise precedence. in the event that they opt to proceed to serve the authorities in yet another potential could be super. yet in effortless terms 2 words I say! and that they ought to flow on social risk-free practices, then that would get fastened and that i propose quickly. they are too far flung from the middle type and slowly yet easily going to do away with it in the event that they do no longer look to be careful. we choose authorities reform.
2016-12-16 12:23:59 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the limit should be two terms only--out law all lobbyist,and agree with you on federal judges
2007-09-05 11:17:45 · answer #7 · answered by Dragons Slayer 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The "professional politicians will never allow this to happen !
This "BILL" was on the floor's of both the House and Senate a few years ago, and it died !!!!!!!!!!
IF professional politicians were any good at anything, they would be working, as you and I do, in the private sector !!!! They keep their jobs by lying / cheating / pointing fingers / and taking bribes (a.k.a. lobbyist campaign contributions) !!!!
"BUT WE HAVE THE BEST POLITICIANS MONEY CAN BUY" !!!!!!!!!!!
Uncle Wil
2007-09-05 11:08:44 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Good luck with that. Another option is passing campaign finance reform. The last person who tried that was John McCain back in 2000, and the GOP quickly jettisoned him from political contention during that primary. Both parties are whores to corporate interests
2007-09-05 11:03:01 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
its good, because its not a dictarship, and limits prevents that from happening, and in this "democracy", any citizen should be able to run in any type of office, but limited so others can join
2007-09-05 11:03:28 · answer #10 · answered by pretentiousknowitall 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋