Can anyone give me one good argument against term limits for Congress?

Question

I only ask this because it seems like such a no-brainer, yet they have yet to be created. Funny how Congress gets scared over a four term President, yet sees no problem with their bretheren serving 30+ years.

Wow! I'm surprised at the answers, even the ones I don't necessarily agree with are pretty reasoned.

See, this is how "debate" should work...any exchange of ideas without all the BS.

Answer 1

Finding consistency in Congress is uhhh, challenging.
The best argument against term limits is that an excellent civil servant should not be required to be limited in his/her influence. Why should we have to replace someone who is the best at what they do?
The best argument for term limits is that anyone serving their first term is only trying to accomplish one thing- reelection.

In my opinion, it is not the job of our elected leaders to do what the majority wants them to do. The job of our elected leaders is to do what is right. If reelection is the goal, then only public opinion matters.
Sometimes, the unpopular choice is the right one. That is why we have a Representative Democracy.
When ancient Greeks invented the true Democracy, they found that there were undeniable shortcomings.
Aristotle said, "Democracy [is] when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers." This statement shows both sides of the argument.

To add, Ben Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

Answer 2

Some arguments in favor of term limits: Ted Kennedy Strom Thurmond Robert K. Byrd Arlen Specter Jesse Helms Harry Reid Ron Paul

Answer 3

Because, congress creates our laws. We re-elect those in congress every 2 or 6 years (hours or senate) this is how they are held accountable to us.

I understand that there are always senators and congressman in their last terms but each cycle it is usually only a handful, but if say in the senate we set the limit to 2 terms, there will almost always be 45-50 senators in their last term with no reason to be accounable to their constituants. These senators could vote to re-instate the draft, or cut taxes too much, or raise taxes, or send us to war ect ect. If they were to do these things now they would have to answer for it when the come up for re-election if they were a lame duck they wouldn't.

It comes down to accountability to their constituancy, which re-election is the only way, without the fear of losing an election a person will be more likely to act on their personal beliefs than what will get them re-elected (the views of their consituants)

Answer 4

Yes. Term limits are not necessary for congress. Here's why: the reason there needs be no term limits is because the power of one Congressman (House Representative) is a whole lot less than the power of one President. One Congressman can't do much harm to the country even if he is the least competent. But one President can do a great deal of harm to a country if he is incompetent, or a madman.

Case in point: the current Admininstration.

Answer 5

Term limits would mean you would spend more time training them how politics work then they would spend getting anything done.


Hey, you asked for an argument.. you didn't say if we had to agree with it or not. But in all honesty.. I don't really care if they are term limited or not... either way just leads to people finding different ways to exploit the system... if you don't believe that just look at states that do term limit their state reps and state senators.... same crap in a different way.

Answer 6

Congress does have term limits; they're called elections.


There's a difference in the position of President and the position of Representative and Senator. The position of the President is one of the most powerful positions in the world. Being Senator, your power is shared equally with a whole group. You alone can't make something happen by yourself, unlike if you were President.



Do I think some members of Congress need out, yes. But do I agree with term limits, no. If you don't like someone, don't vote for them. Plain and simple.

Answer 7

First they Senators were not intended to be elected. They were to be appointed by the state governments to represent the states interest in Congress.
With a limited term they would not be as likely to pander to the special interests and money that keep them there year after year after stinken year because after X number of years they are gone.

Answer 8

You only have to look at those in office right now. Perhaps if they knew at the outset they could only serve 4 or 8 years, they would try to make a good name for themselves rather than spend most of their time figuring out how to get reelected.

Answer 9

Term limits sounds great, not sure what would be good 3 or 4 term limit but it should be higher than the presidents for good reason.

Answer 10

Americans don't want it.

Look at Massachusetts. They keep reelecting Kennedy with probably 70% of the vote. It happens everywhere.

I bet Byrd, Pelosi, and Hillary all win by big margins.