Posted on 06/26/2007 4:33:03 PM PDT by neverdem
IMHO, we need a Constitutional amendment limiting the total service in each House to twelve years. A person may serve twelve years in each House. (Let it take effect after an appropriate delay to make it more appealing to incumbents.)
The cloture vote on the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill is the latest example of how our unresponsive and arrogant the members of Congress have become with respect to the wishes of the people.
It's not the end of the matter. There's supposed to be another cloture vote on Thursday. The vote for final Senate bill is yet to come. What the House of Representatives does, if anything, is anyone's guess, but it's unlikely to mirror the Senate's bill. If the House votes for anything different, then it goes to a conference committee for reconciliation. Any bill emerging from the conference committee must pass each House again.
According to this source, one might expect to live for only 37 years when the U.S. Constitution was written. I doubt that the Founding Fathers expected that the professional legislators of today would be spending the expected lifespans of their day in Congress today, yet so many are. They had no reason to expect professional politicians as they were just starting this experiment in a representative republic.
Initially, Senators were chosen by the legislatures in each state. We lost that bit of wisdom when our ancestors foolishly decided to adopt the 17th Amendment which called for the popular election of Senators in 1913.
I believe 12 years is just about right for a few reasons. It took 12 years to corrupt a mostly Republican Congress, with the exception of Jumpin' Jim Jeffords defection.
Congress allocated a record $71.77 billion in 2006 to 15,832 special projects, more than double the $29.11 billion spent on 4,155 pork-barrel projects in 1994, when Democrats last controlled Congress, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.
Power corrupts. The longer that they serve, the more power that they accumulate from seniority. Sheets Byrd is legendary for his skill with the Senate's Rules as well as getting pork for West Virginia. Senator Ted Stevens was appointed to the U.S. Senate in 1968. "He has since been re-elected six times." Who can forget his "hissy fit" over the bridge to nowhere? "Consider House Majority Leader Tom Delay’s stunning assertion the day before Bush spoke from New Orleans that 11 years of GOP control of Congress has 'pared [government] down pretty good.'" Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) has been in Congress since 1955. He and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) apparently used the suspension calendar to get H.R. 2640 bill passed by a voice vote. H.R. 2640 is a massive expansion of the Brady Gun Control law, according to the GOA. I don't want lunatics with firearms as much as the next person, but turning over a fundamental right and personal information to error prone computer systems deserves debate and a recorded vote, IMHO. (Anything that makes Chuck Schumer enthusiastic, should make anyone who loves liberty suspicious. The provisions in the final bill need close examination.)
The vast majority of Congressional Districts are drawn in such a way that either party has a lock on it. IIRC, little more than 10 percent of the seats in the House are considered to be competitive, i.e. in swing Districts where either party could take the seat.
In the Senate, there are Senators that are so entrenched that either party can't get viable challengers to the incumbent, such as in West Virginia with Sheets Byrd in 2006, or in Massachusetts with Ted Kennedy and Virginia with John Warner where the Republicans and the Democrats, respectively, couldn't recruit a challenger for their last elections.
There's something to be said for experience, and 12 years gives plenty of time to acquire it. The longer politicians stay in office, the more the public gets screwed.
Getting a Constitutional Amendment passed is a big deal. It will have to be sustained over years of effort. When and where the voters have been given the opportunity for state and local term limits, many, if not most, take it. It may not be that popular with the members of Congress, but it appears to enjoy bipartisan support across the country.
Do you believe in term limits for Congress? IMHO, I believe that is the first question that any candidate for the House or Senate should be asked starting with the next primary season.
At this point I think a term limit of 12 hours is about right.
I do but the first election cycle could be rough until the dinosaurs are gone. Freshmen senators don’t do a whole lot but that would change if they weren’t facing a guy with 50 years under his belt.
¡Sí!
After todays debacle I do believe in term limits.Its time the old bums are thrown out of office. They have been in power too long.
I’d be MUCH more satisfied if they repealed the seventeenth amendment.
I think 1 term of 4 or 6 years is enough to do all the damage that can be done.
I don't want them doing anything that's not required by the Constitution.
-PJ
Amen, maybe a max of 8 years at most.
Term limits, althought a good idea, would have at least one serious drawback. Think about an elected official in their last term with essentially no accountability and no fear of not being re-elected. If you were to throw in perhaps a recall option you might be on to something.
See my tag line.
Anybody who votes to reelect a Representative back to Washington is either ignorant or stupid.
That is my opinion, and I am sticking to it.
I do now, especially for senators who think they’ve become ROYALS.
I am sick of these guys that think they are kings instead of citizen legislators as envisioned by the framers
How about a limit on consecutive years in office, but without a lifetime limit? Someone who served his term would be eligible to run for reelection after 2 years (sometimes four years in the case of a Senate seat) but could not be in office while running.
Yes, it seems very reasonable, but there might be angle I couldn’t consider, not being an expert or even a scholar on the constitution.
The reason can be summed up in just two words... TED KENNEDY.
As for the length of the term, we must be careful not to cut things too short. Here in MI, we have term limits in place for our state legislators. Senators cannot serve more that 2 four year terms and Representatives cannot serve more than 3 two year terms. This has created some serious problems in Lansing. There is not enough experience and continuity in the state legislature to keep our government running smoothly (as much as possible). In talking with our elected officials, you will discover that it is the lobbyists and the bureaucrats who have the most knowledge and power in Lansing. We cannot afford that here in MI and we certainly cannot afford it in Washington.
Here in Michigan, we should double the term limits for our state legislators. The legislators in Washington should be limited to 20 years combined service on the hill. Sunsetting the careers of our elected officials will significantly diminish the political corruption in Washington. While we are at it, we need to do away with lifetime appointments for judges and justices. Only Kings and Queens get to keep their political title for life, not leaders in a Republic.
How about this. No term limits, but any incumbent who runs for the office again and gets defeated, gets executed. Think of the incentive to vote them out!
Yes. Right now, I’m in favor of term limits of 60 days, applied retroactively.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.