Comment by rearl
November 11, 2009 @ 11:00 am

Ok, decent concept, but why can't the voters eject (via the next election) the incumbent who isn't doing the right thing for the people? Perhaps it's the process of getting on the ballot or the primary process to force the incumbent to win the vote again.

But the parties, but R & D, always seem to put the incumbent back as the party's choice.

With term limits, would politicians have a "grab all I can get now" attitude? Perhaps the reelection idea restrains some against this thought?

Comment by Tucker Scofield
November 11, 2009 @ 11:19 am

The career politicians know they have us painted into a corner. Of course they'll never amend the Constitution to limit their terms. So the only option is a voter-enforced term limit. This requires us to vote out the incumbent regardless of his/her party affiliation. In so doing, we install the opponent who represents the opposite party. That's great if the opponent is Republican, but what choices do the people of Maine or Arizona have if they choose to vote out the RINOs? And if the incumbent is a RINO running against a Democrat opponent and a Republican challenger, the Dem wins hands-down because the Republican vote will be split.

So these career politicians, for as much as I DESPISE them, have the electorate exactly where they want them...over a barrel with no viable option.

Comment by kayedoe
November 11, 2009 @ 11:21 am

The last I checked there was a movement ion the house to eliminate term limit for the president. H.J Res. 5: Introduced.
Constitutional Amendment - Repeals the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution (thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President).

While alot of energy and attention is being diverted for this movement surely something BIG is going to slip through the cracks right under our noses.

Comment by onewildman
November 11, 2009 @ 11:35 am

Isn't there a way to limit terms on a state by state initiative. I mean cant we vote in a state election where we can limit their terms in office. This seems the best place to start. i think people in most states would vote for this. There is no way the Congress or the Senate will do it them self's. I don't believe our for fathers ever imagined someone being politician twenty or thirty years. That was almost all your adult life. Any more than twelve years is too long. The other choice is to become a real democracy by abolishing congress and senate. The general public would then have to vote on all measures, True control BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE

Comment by onewildman
November 11, 2009 @ 11:36 am

Isn't there a way to limit terms on a state by state initiative. I mean cant we vote in a state election where we can limit their terms in office. This seems the best place to start. I think people in most states would vote for this. There is no way the Congress or the Senate will do it them self's. I don't believe our for fathers ever imagined someone being a politician twenty or thirty years. That was almost all your adult life. Any more than twelve years is too long. The other choice is to become a real democracy by abolishing congress and senate. The general public would then have to vote on all measures, True control BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE

Comment by tgtbob
November 11, 2009 @ 11:38 am

If 40% of the public doesn't pay taxes then they only see the benefits and not the downside of these government gift. So when trying to vote out the incombent you are giving then a 40% voter head start. That is why they keep trying to get more on the government payroll and more benefits

Comment by kelly
November 11, 2009 @ 11:51 am

Good point wildman.
Within the parties might be a good place to start also.

To run a campaign against and incumbant is nearly impossible. You are outspent before your name hits the papers. Lobbiests pay good money to keep their man in office. Money is the mother's milk of politics.
The incumbant has name recognition and he is willing to spend his resources to assure that.
In a perfect world voters would vote out an incumbant. But voters have a tough time doing that when the incumbant throws a few bones out while reminding the illiterate voter how he has their back.
Voter education is necessary.
Paper ballots are necessary, just to assure ouselves that there aren't any electronic 'foul-ups.'
Term limits are the last resource, but a viable one at that.

Comment by harleyaggie
November 11, 2009 @ 12:08 pm

Easiest way to have a citizen legislature is to cut the perks and salary. Make it where they have to go home to make a living.

Comment by irish80808
November 11, 2009 @ 12:29 pm

Term Limits is exactly what GOOOH is all about, go check out their website:

http://www.GOOOH.com

GOOOH stands for "Get Out Of Our House"

Comment by tzor
November 11, 2009 @ 12:30 pm

I think that it is a good idea (I am not sure about the absolute nature of this resolution, why can’t a person who served his terms in his 30’s decide some twenty years later that he or she has a new vision in his 50’s and wants to serve again) but it does miss a minor problem that is something our founding fathers never envisioned. The founding fathers envisioned laws to be written by members in congress and the senate. Today they are not; these members rubber stamp those things written by congressional staffers (also a for life position) or various lobbyist groups (again, a “for life” position not selected either directly or indirectly by the people). Simply changing the congressman is not enough when the congressional staff under him just moves on to the next congressman elected.

It is not just the career politicians that are the problem, but their staff and the lobbyists that perpetually have all the power in the process that results in the perpetual condition of the same old failed actions over and over again.

Comment by flash287
November 11, 2009 @ 12:47 pm

You have to break the Lobby bond between politicians & industry groups. The best way is to limit Terms.

If that was done, look how easy it would be to fix jobs and the economy. Here is an example.

There should not be a COL payments added to SS each year. It only further erodes the dollar and causes inflation all by itself. It was started by the unions, then passed onto gov employees etc. Now even the private sector does it in lieu of real wage increase. It's a phony lie. They give you 3% and then everything you buy goes up 3%.
In fact, SS was a PONZI scheme all along. Hard to undo now. But should never have been born. Instead tax incentives for people to buy annuities from the private sector would have been a better idea than more unmanageable government.

There will be no fix to our economy until the EPA is reigned in (Bush tried it and was vilified by the press) and the oil companies would have a chance for some huge profits (they won't do it without $ incentive) by drilling and selling the oil to WORLD markets. We have massive oil deposits all over the place and congress now makes it too impossible to explore and recover it.

You must have something to sell to the world to bring money back here! Russia and Venezuela can do it. Why can't we? The Green crap is just to little and too late. It will happen naturally when real oil reserves deplete. I say REAL because the argument we are out of oil is a political lie.

If we can't sell our overpriced manufactured goods to world markets, then lets sell our abundant natural resources!

Oil companies would happily pay royalties to citizens and States coffers that support offshore drilling. Also oil recovered on Federal land could pay royalties to those states. By expanding the infrastructure that is already in place will create millions of jobs too! That can only happen with a clear thinking political mindset.

Which you can't have without Term limits with politicians.

Comment by Ken
November 11, 2009 @ 12:47 pm

I used to be an optimist. Not anymore. Man, I hate to be a pessimist, but have become one anyway. Ugh!

I met a fellow a couple weeks ago who had filed to run for the U.S. Senate in the state of Texas. When some governing authority assembled a "meet the candidates" forum, his name wasn't on it. It seems he failed to raise at least $100,000 to qualify.

It is virtually impossible for unknown citizens to run for office if they are arbitrarily locked out because they can't raise some specified amount of money. It's a genuine catch-22. You need money to become known and you need to be known to raise money. Good grief!

I favor citizen legislators. That won't even buy me the proverbial cup of coffee.

Comment by DobermanFan
November 11, 2009 @ 12:52 pm

The Amendment is a good start & I hope it passes. I received an e-mail which takes it further. I believe the following would be great for Conservatives to run on in 2010 & if others do not sign on, then boot them out first chance provided. Talk about a contract with America.

1. Term Limits: 12 years only, one of the possible options below.

A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

1. No Tenure / No Pension:
   A congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security:
   All funds in the Congressional retirement fund moves to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, Congress participates with the American people.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan just as all Americans..

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide in all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present congressmen are void effective 1/1/10.

   The American people did not make this contract with congressmen, congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

   Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, serve your term(s), then go home and back to work.

Comment by ltx
November 11, 2009 @ 12:53 pm

The states have the power to propose and ratify term limits as an amendment, without prior action by congress. At least this process removes the vested interest (but of course would still require considerable public support). Once ratified by 3/4 of the states, congress must either accept the amendment or call a constitutional convention. Given the alternatives, ratification would be the likely result.

Comment by JRude
November 11, 2009 @ 12:53 pm

Repeal the 17th Amendment - all term and career politics would fall into place. The Volstead Act was repealed, why not this one? Study History - Look it up.

This would be as easy if not easier to pass that a term limit amendment, and the benefits would be much further reaching. McCain's campaign finance reform "symptoms" would go away, because the Senators will once again no-longer-be National Election concerns. Local elections then rise in importance.

Let's declare William Jennings Bryan's 100 year experiement with directly elected Senators as an abject failure.

When one of the beloved Senators decides to run for president, his state can immediately appoint his replacement, or he/she can resign his seat. How many Senators hit the campaign trail in 2008 and ignored their first responsibilities to their States? All of them!

We as residents of a state have two Senators, but isn't it appalling that the ilk of Vermont, New Hampshire, etc. hamstring the rest of us? My county has more residents than those two states combined, but one Senator from those states literally dictates Judicial Appointments with impunity. The hardest thing to do in American elections next to winning the Presidency is the removal of a sitting Senator. The Founders had some idea of this, so the democratized body in the Legislative branch was the House which turned over every two years. After the 17th Amendment, we now have democratization in both the House and Senate now with 6 year egos and 4 extra years to build a re-election war chest.

Just think what the Senate could do if they didn’t have to campaign for re-election, or could be recalled at the whim of a local state election, which could render their 6 year appointments to a nominal status? Dare I say that “log-jams” in the Senate would disappear? Just think of the Presidential Candidate Pool that the Senate could become; a return to representation and a departure from democratization.

Again, repealing the 17th Amendment is the root cure for term limits.

Comment by MrT
November 11, 2009 @ 1:27 pm

Congressman Weiner from NY said he doesn't work for "us"...can you believe the conceit? He truly lives up to his name! Who voted for this self-centered moron........What a jerk-vote the bum out!

Comment by Mighty Righty
November 11, 2009 @ 1:30 pm

There should be no such things as career politians yet that is what we have. The power of the incumbancy precludes "citizen lawmakers", or does it?

It would be exceedingly naive to think that the current crop of Washington insiders would do anything to end or even seriously alter the existing system if left to their own devices. Even those politicians who run on a reform platform and state that they will only serve a predetermined number of terms then go back on their word and continue to run for re-election, and worse, succeed.

Since it appears improbable that we will be able to force congress to either impose term limits unilaterally or agree to individual self limits, I propose a easy cure:
Vote the bastards out!

The way to accomplish this goal is simple.
1) Analyze each and every member of congress
2) Detemine which members support our core values
3) Find , nurture and financially support candidates to run against those who don't.
4) Win elections and start to take back our country before it becomes an impossible task!

Imagine congress without Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Frank, and a host of other characters bent on destroying the American way of life? I can!

Comment by OldNavyVet
November 11, 2009 @ 1:41 pm

DobermanFan has a great plan. What is needed is to take this entire concept of limiting the 'professional' politician to the local level, i.e. make it the next tea party. Let's take back our country by kicking the corrupt career politicians out. Such a movement could also be extended to the corrupt career staff members and bureaucrats.

Comment by bobjamieson
November 11, 2009 @ 2:30 pm

I think, even though the amendment is a great idea, it is too late, the corruption is already full of cancer. Time for major surgery, cut out all the garbage, Dems & Reps alike.

I rarely vote for an incumbent unless I know that he/she is doing the right job.

Boxer, Pelosi, Reid, Walters, etc. have long forgot the rule of law. They sit on their elitist stools dishing out bread crumbs to those who worship them.

Maybe we should bring the military back and let them get rid of our own terrorists.

I feel sorry for my grandchildren.

And I am ashamed of my fellow Americans who think only of themselves and what they can get from the government and their supposed "entitlements."

We are so un-educated that we don't understand the meaning of the Constitution. It is a document that outlines the process of a nation, and it gives the government the power and DUTY to protect its citizen (not illegals) against enemies foreign and domestic! It does not give the government the right to provide public education, health care, company take-overs, welfare, etc. Those rights are given to the individual states!

Time to hear JFK's words again "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." The democrat party would shudder and squirm to hear those words today.

Time for another revolution.

Comment by ItsJo
November 11, 2009 @ 2:53 pm

Doberman: What an EXCELLENT post. I hope you will pass this idea onto other sites, and keep posting it wherever you can. If these 'career politicos' who fleece the public had to actually adhere to this set of rules I wonder how many would actually WANT TO SERVE THE PEOPLE, RATHER THAN 'THEMSELVES'?

Too often, they get in, and LOVE the perks(that should be removed per your list)and abuse the system totally, and do what they can to promote their "family, friends & lobbyists
who feed their hunger for money, perks". I am sick of all the B.S. as I'm sure many in the country are, and your list
would rid us of "career politicos, thugs in office and money/power mongers". Your list is Exactly WHY the present Obama Adm. WANTS TO DO AWAY W/OUR CONSTITUTION & DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE....HE THINKS HE'S KING.

I'D ALSO LIKE TO KNOW MORE ABOUT THE POSTER COMMENTS ABOUT
EXTENDING THE POTUS TERM LIMITS....OBAMA WOULD LOVE THAT, AS HE TRIES TO DO TO AMERICA, WHAT FDR DID. ALMOST FOR LIFE TERMS. FORGET IT, THESE PEOPLE "ALL NEED LIMITS"

SIGN ME UP! AGAIN, DOBERMAN-GREAT POST.

Comment by njmeanone
November 11, 2009 @ 2:56 pm

Here in New Jersey, a local radio station has for years been pushing a concept they call GRIP which stands for Get Rid of Incumbent Politicians. It has met with limited success because of voter apathy for one and secondly because of the idea that all politicians, except for my guy, are crooked or corrupt. The truth is a politician, any politician, is either part of the problem or part of the solution. If they are ineffective as part of the solution, they are by default part of the problem and they have got to go. Maybe the principle of GRIP should become a rallying point and go nationwide.

Comment by Chuck Carr
November 11, 2009 @ 3:10 pm

Well Bobby, it seems we're on the same thought wave. I wrote a blog on Wed. September 24, 2008 on term limits. If any one is interested they can check it out by going to my website, just click: http://www.federationofconsumers.com/index.html and go to the archives Dated Sept.24,2008. My last blog may also be of some interest.

Comment by Tucker Scofield
November 11, 2009 @ 3:16 pm

JRude: Regarding the 17th Amendment, there were problems with state legislature’s electing senators, too. Often-times senators weren’t sent to Washington due to partisanship and the lack of a majority vote. In the short time span of 14 years (1891 – 1905) there were 45 deadlocks, resulting in long delays seating Senators (think of the cluster that was Minnesota, and then multiply that times 45…that hurts me to even THINK about that). It also opened up the opportunity for corruption at the state level. Between 1866 and 1905 there were nine bribery cases brought before the Senate. Voters at that time were equally unsatisfied with how the system had been perverted and were looking to reform just as we are looking for reform today.

Mighty Righty: I’d LOVE to vote the bastards out of office but Nancy “You Scared Me” Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, John “Murdering Marines” Murtha, Henry “Despereaux” Waxman, Barney “Pimp-Daddy” Frank, and others aren’t within my voting reach. While I can support candidates out of state FINANCIALLY, it is ultimately incumbent upon the local electorate to put that candidate in office. And why would I have ANY faith that someone in San Francisco is going to vote Pelosi out of office when stereotypically residents of that area are FOR everything that I am AGAINST?? I don’t see this working.

Again, while I see a lot of discussion on this post about how great it would be to invoke term limits, the question remains “HOW”?? Particularly now, with the federal government finding new and improved ways of funneling money to ACORN and its affiliates, I have very little faith that the electoral process can maintain any sense of integrity. In fact, I truly and honestly believe that we’ve seen the last “fair” election, and that took place in 2004.

BobJamison: I'm with you...time for another revolution.

Comment by ONTIME
November 11, 2009 @ 4:45 pm

There is to much frustration and anger being generated by the elitism and the arrogance displayed by those in the congress, the public has grown tired of this and now real anger has finally began to make it's way into the system.

It's not just term limits that is needed, it's moritoriums between holding office or appointments, it's very public audits of those holding office and it's prosecution of those breaking laws and blatantly violating ethics puting themselves above the law. This has been brought on by those who show disregard for the freedoms we ask them to represent and protect.

Comment by SteveInKS
November 11, 2009 @ 4:52 pm

With all due respect, DobermanFan, didn't we try this same route in 1994? Didn't the Republicans sign on to the Contract with America, which included a specific pledge to pass term limits, as well as most of the other provisions that you cite?

How quickly were all of those lofty pledges forgotten once all of those "principled" freshmen were elected to Congress and immersed in that amoral cesspool called Washington, DC?

I'm afraid that the only way we will see a term limits amendment passed in our lifetime is if the states take the lead, and the grassroots make it so untenable for their "representatives" that they will have no choice but to support it.

And, even that may not be enough.

Comment by accompanistghs
November 11, 2009 @ 4:59 pm

I totally agree, no career politicians. If being a Congressman was a part-time job (which is actually is the way the present congress works, but is paid for full time) and all legislation had to be taken care of within a given amount of time, 1 month a quarter, or whatever, maybe we would have some good candidates who care about the country instead of the stupidity I see now.

Comment by ckbro
November 11, 2009 @ 5:42 pm

While it is true the Congress will never go for term limits there is another avenue. The Constitution provides for the States to call for a constitutional convention. 3/4ths I belive. There is one hitch however, there is no set agenda for the convention and ALL parts of the Constitution would be fair game for change. The place to start is at the state level regardless of the direction.

Comment by ileanconservative
November 11, 2009 @ 5:56 pm

Regarding GOOOH kicking out resident congresspersons... they are well intentioned but I believe their plan is flawed. They require folks to run as GOOOH independents.

As much as we may hate the two parties, the GOOOH approach is 90% (rounding) likely to just split the conservative vote resulting in HUGE and massive defeats. Even if GOOOH gets more votes than the GOP candidates, they likely won't win due to the votes stripped off by the GOP.

If GOOOH wants to do the right thing, they need to take on the Republicans in the primaries to get true conservatives on the Republican ticket and take it over from within.

It's time to hang an "under new management!" sign on the GOP!

Comment by Chris in Texas
November 11, 2009 @ 7:06 pm

Why let U.S. representatives serve a maximum of three terms in office (6 years) and senators two terms (12 years) - 4 years for both ought to be plenty (to be elected in a non-Presidential election). Of course, no pensions or other "retirement" benefits either - if you really want to serve, serve and be done with it.

Comment by bassman
November 11, 2009 @ 8:45 pm

tgtbob: The 40 who don't pay taxes are the people on Social Security for the most part. The myth that low income earners don't pay taxes is just that, a myth. I am not sure what it is now, but at one time it was if you only made $3500.00 per year that got you out of paying anything. That was decades ago though, and I know it must be more now. Now I believe it is around $6000.00 per year or so. If you make $17,000 per year you will pay something, though it may be very little. I know. I made small amounts per year in my lifetime. I hear people say, even Glenn Beck who I am a huge fan of, say that you must make a lot of money before you must pay taxes and the way he said it one day, he seems to be under the impression that if you get a refund, you don't pay taxes. The refund, as most of us know, is merely the amount over paid. That's all. Just about everybody with a job that isn't paid "under the table" pays something! I used to always get refunds. But I still paid taxes. The government just held some of my money for me that I over paid till I filed my return.

I am disabled now(legitimately) and no, I don't pay taxes on my $12,000.00 per year I receive after paying into the system for 30 years. It was taxed then and I'm not in the 3rd bracket that would have me paying taxes on my SS. Yes, some people make enough on SS(about $1350.00 per month) that it forces them to pay taxes, however little. Social Security is insurance, not welfare or a handout. I started paying into Social Security "INSURANCE" (and glad to do it!) when I was 15.

Now, to term limits:
I am a believer in voting out those people who don't properly represent the people and always was up in the air about term limits, as I had faith in the people to vote out anybody, even, or especially the incumbant, but I now agree that there should be term limits since the people are too stupid to vote out the ones doing a pi$$ poor job!

And even though I receive my "entitlements" which is a word I hate because it makes my "insurance" sound like a handout, I am still a conservative and I hate this health care bill, if that's what you want to call it. I don't. It's merely a takeover. We all know that on this board.

I think I'm done ranting, with Social Security being a good idea because I'd be on the street without it, but hear me now when I say this is as far as we go towards socialism!

OOPS! I'm too late...........it's happened already with the stimulus,bailouts, etc.

Comment by bassman
November 11, 2009 @ 8:49 pm

Excuse me....that first line IN MY POST ABOVE should say: The 40% that don't pay taxes, not just "the 40."

That percentage of people who don't pay taxes, that is, if it is actually that high. I find it hard to believe it's quite that high, as I said, because most people who work DO pay SOMETHING. Minimum wagers pay their share.

Comment by armny
November 12, 2009 @ 9:37 am

A better constitutional amendment, as suggested by one of the commentators on Fox, would be to eliminate the taxing authority. If you have a noxious weed in your garden, don't you pull it out by the roots?

Comment by Tucker Scofield
November 12, 2009 @ 10:06 am

Bassman: I went through my notes and found something I'd written down about nine months ago. It was Rush Limbaugh citing recently released figures regarding the tax burden and it broke down as follows:

• The top 1% of wage earners bear 39% of the tax burden
• The tope 20% of wage earners bear 86% of the tax burden
• The top 40% of wage earners bear 99.4% of the tax burden

I've since heard that the top 60% of wage earners bear 100% of the tax burden, meaning the lower 40% do not carry a tax burden. This does NOT mean that they don't pay into the system during the year, it simply means their refund offsets those payments. Obviously, circumstances and deductions vary and what your experience may differ. But I know that I spent many years making between $30K and $40K and my experience bore out the figures cited above, more or less.

Now, I am among the "rich" the Obama administration is targeting but don't get too excited...I DON'T make $250K or anything close. Yet they continue to come for more and more of MY money for things that I despise supporting! And should they push healthcare and cap-and-trade through it will break me and break the company I work for, along with thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands like me.

BTW, I certainly don't blame you for collecting Social Security...you paid into it and you should be able to pull it back out. SS is broke because many people lived far beyond expectations, yes, but it's also because politicians have been allowed to dip into that fund. They're leeches, man. They are blood-sucking scum that just can't help but to want more, more, more. Bush had a great idea when he promoted personal retirement funds instead of SS and that would've kept the parasites out of our pockets, but no one listened.

Comment by JRude
November 12, 2009 @ 10:47 am

Tucker: (45? I thought there were 50 states – Obama thinks there are 57) Repeal the 17th Amendment precisely because 100 years have passed. Take into account that 1964 made Jim Crows no longer a problem as they were 100 years prior, and that the 19th Amendment roughly doubled the voter base in all states including Minnesota. Do not diminish the concepts of representation versus democratization. Now more that ever we need the filter that a Republic provides over the wildly changing opinions of a democracy. The man-on-the-street can’t even tell you correctly the form of government we have in the US. Term limits won’t fix this.

The founders and writers of the Constitution knew that democracy was bad news, yes I’ll say it again, democracy is a bad form of government. That’s why the Constitution provided for state governments to filter the elections and appoint Senators. When any given state and local government changed, that or both respective Senator(s) were immediately subject to recall.

Given today technology, communication, and speed of reporting, election results are generally available over-night except in the cases where ACORN stuffs that absentee ballot box as they did in Minnesota 2008. And even Senators from Minnesota can be in DC is only a few hours, whereas these things use to take days and weeks a 100 years ago.

The Senate can easily use reconciliation to provide that a majority of sitting Senators to vote on legislation in Congress. If a state lolly-gags in their appointment of their respective Senator, it’s a problem with that state’s local elections. Fix the problem or face their lack of representation as a consequence. Party bosses aside, the state and local election are the places to fix the politics – not to subject the rest of us to their inadequacies.

An appointed Senator was the original intent, precisely because it elevates the importance of the local elections. An appointed Senator can go to Washington and be a statesman and hopefully leave the electoral politics at home. Again, his appointment is nominal 6 years and much easily subject to recall. Just think Romney could have ousted Kennedy years ago.

Term-limits are a band-aid to a poorly educated electorate. I rather see poll tests for the “man-on-the-street” than a full blown Constitutional Amendment making up for the ignorant lack of Civics 101. We need fewer laws on the National level. Don’t add amendments when repealing one would fix a whole host of problems including career politicians.

Then we can work to repeal the 16th.

Comment by Tucker Scofield
November 12, 2009 @ 11:01 am

JRude: Good points, particularly about democracy and the blowing wind of public opinion.

And the "45" referenced the number of deadlocks in that 14 years, not the number of states. Geez, even I know there are 57 states....

Comment by ConservativeInCA
November 12, 2009 @ 12:48 pm

While I agree in concept with term limits, we have discovered in California that this great experiment doesn't work as well as we thought it would and has created some unwanted consequences as a result. The true legislative power now lies in the hands of unelected parties that guide elected officials along the paths of special interest. As is evidenced by the financial train wreck that all Californians are now riding on this simply won't work.
A better solution is to make all elected officials be non-paid servants. That means no income from any source other than what the candidate brought to the table the day they decided to run. Certainly the campaign funding could pay for the actual expenses it cost to run for election and the government could pay for the government owned housing that elected officials could live in while attending to the government's business, but no other income could be accepted while serving in Congress or as President.
This action would bring about candidates that are truly there for one purpose only, to serve their country with self sacrificing dedication for the betterment of all citizens. No personal gain other than the satisfaction of doing a job well done. I believe this was the way it was in the beginning and has been bastardized over the years.
What a shame.

Comment by DragonLadyToo
November 13, 2009 @ 11:50 am

I like the idea of term limits, except for one thing - the multiple terms. They seem to spend most of their time now running for office - if we are going to change it, let's do it right. One six year term for Representatives; one seven year term for Senator (or go back to the each state appoints Senator)

Comment by Amerongen
November 13, 2009 @ 12:13 pm

This is WAY OVERDUE !!!!

Comment by TLaVerdier
November 13, 2009 @ 1:28 pm

Term limits are good but to really fix the problem we need a nomination process that can nominate the candidates we actually want. Most Republicans would have preferred Romney to McCain. McCain won because the Conservative vote was split among Romney, Giuliani and Paul.

The 1 vote per person method almost guarantees a Fringe Candidate Win.

I propose switching to FOAM (The For-Or-Against-Method) which practically guarantees a Party Centrist Candidate win.

Comment by founderswereright
November 13, 2009 @ 7:38 pm

I strongly disagree with any attempt at placing term limits on members of Congress.

As appealing as an automatic, "throw-the-bums-out" mechanism might be, it must be acknowledged that all it does is to take some measure of electoral power away from the people. Taking all aspects of the idea into consideration, it can only make things worse. Consider all the congressmen and senators who are on their last allowable term. What will motivate them to do anything whatsoever that their constituents desire, or stand against anything their constituents oppose, when they have no possibility of even running again for their seat?

I might even go for removing the presidential term limit, but that's a bit of a different animal, as the presidency is singular, and thus more subject to chicanery, than one of a body of 435, or even of 100 members. As far as repealing the limit on the current president, I believe the precendent set by the 22nd Amendment would be followed, excluding the sitting president at the time it became operative. But as I said, I'm not sure I would support repeal in any case.

The temptation of imposing term limits on the Congress is, I believe, a reflection of the powerlessness of the voter who feels that he/she can't do anything effective with his/her vote, because too many others will vote carelessly. The sole remedy for bad representation, save for expulsion, is already where it belongs, at the ballot box.

The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our electoral system, but in ourselves, as the electorate. Basically, I see term limits as an attempt to shift blame, and cannot see my way clear to support that.

Comment by chevy59tom
November 18, 2009 @ 7:10 pm

Fellow Americans, In 1992, I campaigned very hard for a very conservative member of the GOP on the promise that he would introduce a bill limiting the number of terms a Congressman and Senator could serve to 8 years for Congress and 12 years for Senators.
Did it happen ? NOT.
Case in point. In North Alabama, a Congressman named Ronnie Flippo went through Congress collecting the best PAC money anyone could gather. In those days of the 70s and 80s Congressmen were padding their warchests and other things to stay in office, swing deals, hide cash, etc.
It became so abusive. But bring in the Contract with America GOP members and NOTHING HAPPENED ! No term limits.
I say it is time to throw out all of them and start over. This is not a tea bag mentality, it is an American mentality raised by our forefathers, not us. They would be furious if they knew how long and how rich these Congressmen were staying and getting paid !
This next election we could see the largest overturn of any Congress in our lifetime. It needs to happen, so badly. Sure, there are some good ones there, but even they need to come home and exemplify the rules set forth centuries ago. The lobbyists, the PACs, the non-American sources of influence, the Unions, etc. have all destroyed this great country.
Make sure you vote and do not vote for an Incumbant. Those are the ones with the little (I) by their name on the ballot.
Tom from Alabama