I think so. They should be able to be fired just like any other employee.
2007-10-27 13:39:25
·
answer #1
·
answered by ? 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yes. U.S. Senators should not have 6 year terms.. that is entirely too long. They should be 4 years at most.
BTW, term limits should also be applied to ALL appointed positions within the government and the Congress. Especially in the judicial system, such as the Supreme Court. The reason is because these positions are based on political agenda.. made by someone elected. The country changes as decades go by.. so why keep ppl that are from previous administrations.
2007-10-31 12:47:22
·
answer #2
·
answered by BeachBum 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
There are NO term limits for US Senators or US Representatives. They can continue running for office.
Senators serve for 6-year terms.
Reps for 2-year terms.
The President (22nd Amendment of the Constitution) and some other agencies as well as numerous state and local politicians (their respective state and local laws) do have term limits.
The way to "fire" them is to not elect them again.
2007-10-27 13:54:26
·
answer #3
·
answered by Michelle M 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
well, in australia we don't have term limits even for our prime minister. John howard has been PM for 12 years.....we want him out, now. but he's there because people keep electing him, and as long as the voting or whatever isnt rigged, thats fine. Because its the will of the majority.
2007-10-27 14:34:28
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think term limits are a "cop-out" It is merely a way for the voters to abdicate their responsibility to vote the scoundrels out and (instead) use a calendar as the weapon of choice.
Article One of our Constitution gives us the theoretical power of overthrowing our government every two years by voting in a whole new crop of members in the House of Representatives. Yet, over 90% of them get re-elected, year in and year out. As a nation we can perform a one-third turnover in the Senate every two years. Yet, the same tired faces peer out at us on CSPAN2, year in and year out.
2007-10-27 15:42:40
·
answer #5
·
answered by desertviking_00 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Two years. Not very long. They have to spend all their time running for a new term rather than taking care of business.
Now senators, six years. That seems quite a while--even with the time needed to run for a new term.
2007-10-27 13:44:56
·
answer #6
·
answered by scottclear 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
i am a conservative but can make no sense of term limits. in no other endeavor is experience a disqualification.
i feel as though i should be able to vote for whomever i choose whether or not they have experience.
if it is assumed that anyone who gets elected will become corrupt in a few years, then why vote at all?
2007-10-27 13:50:30
·
answer #7
·
answered by karl k 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
No, but there should be term limits. 2 terms and bye bye, just like the President.
2007-10-27 13:40:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by booman17 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
i could somewhat decrease the money they get to spend! point the enjoying fields slightly. Ted Kennedy has been re elected for years!! it somewhat is one reason he receives elected! nonetheless plenty do in comparison to him, he's likely one among the main efficient, and senior people in the Senate! which ability plenty to a state somewhat than having 2 senators who could besides vote by utilising proxy!
2016-09-28 00:15:07
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
ummm... the congress has no term limits. governors and the president are the only ones who are limited by terms.
2007-10-27 13:51:31
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree with BM, if the elected rep. is doing a horrible job, the people should be able to fire them
2007-10-27 13:40:51
·
answer #11
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋