Simple answer to the problem:
(1) Constitutional Amendment to say you can only serve one term which would be 6 years long. No reelections. This would be for all Reps, Senators, and the President. Elections would be rotated in 2 year cycles; reps on 2006, Senators in 2008, President in 2010 ... then repeat.
(2) ANY conviction of political corruption (money, influence, etc..) no matter how slight would be a Capital offense to be punished by public hanging on the Capital Steps.
1) Constitutional Amendment to say you can only serve one term which would be 6 years long. No reelections. This would be for all Reps, Senators, and the President. Elections would be rotated in 2 year cycles; reps on 2006, Senators in 2008, President in 2010 ... then repeat.
Ridiculous. The reason the Founders put the two year term for the members of the US House of Representative was so that body WOULD be responsive to the will of the People who directly elected them. The House of Representatives was the only body in which the People directly elected a Federal Officer in the Constitution, until the ratification of the 17th Amendment. Your laughable proposal would turn the House of Representatives into another Senate, where members represent themselves, not their constituents.
The US Senate, with six year terms for its members was supposed to have the longer view than the House AND represent the interests of their respective States. Upon the ratification of the 17th Amendment the Senators have become a smaller version of the House representing themselves or their select special interests. Since the State Legislatures no longer choose the State's US Senators they have taken leave of service to their States in the US Senate.
The four year Presidential term (with a potential one term renewal) is key in giving a Chief Executive time to influence Federal government direction and policy, while still making him accountable to the States. This every four years term also makes sure that the Legislative Branch just does not try to 'run out' the clock on Presidential policies.
If you wish reform, Amend the US Constitution to limit both Representatives and Senators to 12 consecutive years - that is six consecutive terms for a Representative and two consecutive terms for a Senator. That would enforce member change in a district or State every twelve years but would get around the old saw about all the experience that would be lost to 'the people' if this hyper-skilled legislator was lost to 'public service'. The super-valuable Legislator could 're-up' if the voters so desired after sitting on the bench for a quarter. After all, wouldn't their experience still be valid?
The real reason the Representatives and Senator would object is that seniority would not count as much and leadership posts would change more often. The 12 consecutive year limits would allow a Representative to run for Senate (or vice-versa) without an intervening out-of-office period and would encourage an 'up-or-out' survival of the fittest...
dvwjr
I think congress should just not allow consecutive terms. If the politician was that good, then after a one-term layoff they should win an election. But, if they run for the same office a second time and lose, then they should forfeit their lifetime pension. Then go get job as a lobbyist. And that when serving as an elected official, they may not attend any event that raises money for political purposes, as that would cause a "conflict of interest".
Once any politician has won an election, it is their job to represent and/or look out for ALL their 'constituency', which means that a democrat takes that hat off upon entering office and does not favor democratic organizations or functions, but instead looks out for the entire group of people they are beholding to. Vice-versa for the republicans.