OPINION: There needs to be stricter term limits for Representatives and Senators

[SaburoDaimando]

This is something I wanna get off my chest. But as I was reading our own constitution, I noticed a glaring flaw in both the terms of being a member of the House of Representatives and of the Senate. Term Limits. Lemme show you what I'm talking about

From Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 1
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

From Article 1, Section 3, Paragraph 1
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, (chosen by the Legislature thereof,) (The preceding words in parentheses superseded by 17th Amendment, section 1.) for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

From Amendment 17
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Notice something missing? That's right. There's no mention of how many terms one Representative or Senator is allowed to serve. A glaring loophole that enables Career Politicans. With the Executive Branch, there were no limits on how many terms one President can have till Franklin Roosevelt, who served 3 terms, plus a partial term before he died. That's when Amendment 22 kicked in

1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President, when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term.

So if we have a limit on how many terms a person can hold as President, why not apply that same math to the House of Representatives or to the Senate? Here's my idea on fixing term limits. It will require a constitutional amendment. And it goes as follows

Congressional Term Limits

1. The length of a term of a Representative of the House cannot be more than two years. Furthermore, no person shall be elected to the House of Representatives more than two consecutive terms, and no person who has held as a Representative of the House for more than a year of a term to which some other person was elected to take over the Representative's seat shall be elected to the House of Representatives more than once.

2. The length of a term of a Senator cannot be more than four years. Furthermore, no person shall be elected to the Senate more than one term and no person who has held as a Senate for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected to take over the Senator's seat shall be elected to the Senate more than once.

3. Any existing Representatives and Senators may serve the rest of their term prior to the ratifying of this amendment. If a Representative is reaching the end of a term and has served the House of Representatives for more than 4 years, they must step down and allow some other person to take the place of that Representative


I'm obviously gonna get flak for this. But it's just an idea I had in order to discourage Career Politicians.

[alturic]

Ahh, term limits. A subject anyone who isn't currently serving a term talks about frequently, and those who are currently serving a term rarely, if ever, talk about.

I personally think there needs to be limits to every damn "elected" position in government. I also believe we need to majorly slash all salaries in every form of government. Sure some small cities pay a tad more than minimum wage, but that's out of lack of funds, if they had the money trust me they would be paying a lot higher.

I understand the president has a lot on his plate so to speak, but seriously: The president earns a $400,000 annual salary, along with a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account and $19,000 for entertainment.

$400,000/year? On-top of that, he doesn't even have to use all of his money for expenses? He get's an expense account of $50,000/year? On-top of that, he gets money for travel? $100,000? Of which he doesn't have to pay for airfare, security, etc and the best one... $19,000/year for ENTERTAINMENT? What the fuck do these people think he's doing? To put it into perspective he can go out, every night of the week for a year, spend $50 (yea I know, we all spend more than $50 for a night out sometimes) each day and STILL be under $19,000.

I'd even possibly be willing to let the president slide due to his "duties", but congress? senate? They sit in a god damn room, argue back and forth and then still don't get done what they were originally supposed to.

[Kalyyn]

I find term limits to be undemocratic. We elected these people, remember? If somebody shouldn't be in office anymore, stop voting for them. This isn't the playground slide where every kid needs a turn, it's American politics. If the majority isn't happy with their senator, they can get a new one. If he's an awesome guy who everyone loves, then he can fall over dead in his office in the middle of his 37th term and we'll all be very sad that his reign of awesomeness has ended.

[agathangalos]

Ahh, term limits. A subject anyone who isn't currently serving a term talks about frequently, and those who are currently serving a term rarely, if ever, talk about.

I personally think there needs to be limits to every damn "elected" position in government. I also believe we need to majorly slash all salaries in every form of government. Sure some small cities pay a tad more than minimum wage, but that's out of lack of funds, if they had the money trust me they would be paying a lot higher.

I understand the president has a lot on his plate so to speak, but seriously: The president earns a $400,000 annual salary, along with a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account and $19,000 for entertainment.

$400,000/year? On-top of that, he doesn't even have to use all of his money for expenses? He get's an expense account of $50,000/year? On-top of that, he gets money for travel? $100,000? Of which he doesn't have to pay for airfare, security, etc and the best one... $19,000/year for ENTERTAINMENT? What the fuck do these people think he's doing? To put it into perspective he can go out, every night of the week for a year, spend $50 (yea I know, we all spend more than $50 for a night out sometimes) each day and STILL be under $19,000.

I'd even possibly be willing to let the president slide due to his "duties", but congress? senate? They sit in a god damn room, argue back and forth and then still don't get done what they were originally supposed to.

Well, human leaders have been lavishing themselves with the fruits of the labor of the masses for thousands of years and a couple centuries of 'democracy' isn't going to buck that trend. No matter how pretty you try to dress it up, the President is still essentially a king with a lot of checks to his power and a strict limit on his reign, and his position is not hereditary. And quite frankly, I don't see how it could work any other way. The man at the top is ALWAYS going to have more than the rest of us no matter what you do, its just how society has always and will always function. I mean unless you want to try and tear the whole thing down and start from scratch like the French did a couple hundred years back, but we all know how that worked out for them and their hapless neighbors.

[Ciano]

Representatives are reelected every two years, so as to be more in touch with the people. Senators are elected every six years so they don't have to let public opinion sway their vote as much. Supreme Court Justices are appointed to life so that public opinion will have no sway on their decisions. The system is very well laid out.

Making term limits for Congress would be counter-productive. Why wouldn't we want a good Representative, who fights for his people, representing us in the House for 30+ years? If people didn't like him, they should stop voting for him. Same thing with Senators. Don't like one? Don't vote for them. They aren't elected by the electoral college, they're elected directly by the people. Putting such a strict term limit on them would make room for more of the terrible politicians and less room for the good ones.

[agathangalos]

Representatives are reelected every two years, so as to be more in touch with the people. Senators are elected every six years so they don't have to let public opinion sway their vote as much. Supreme Court Justices are appointed to life so that public opinion will have no sway on their decisions. The system is very well laid out.

Making term limits for Congress would be counter-productive. Why wouldn't we want a good Representative, who fights for his people, representing us in the House for 30+ years? If people didn't like him, they should stop voting for him. Same thing with Senators. Don't like one? Don't vote for them. They aren't elected by the electoral college, they're elected directly by the people. Putting such a strict term limit on them would make room for more of the terrible politicians and less room for the good ones.

It sounds good on paper, but the problem is those elected officials will generally say and do anything to please their voters and get reelected. They don't confront the issues that would upset their voters because they would lose their reelection bid, so they play it cool and pander to the ignorant masses in order to hold onto their office. That's not to say there aren't plenty of good one's who earn their office and DO perform their duties admirably, but politics is politics. Good one's, really truly good one's, are a minority at best.

[Stanton Biston]

I always find it fascinating that people will find some actions to be over repressive and yet be okay with repressing others when it comes to the government.

Kind of a nanny-state proposition, if you ask me. To suppose that the crafters of the resolution know better than the democracy they claim to be acting in favor of.

[SaburoDaimando]

It sounds good on paper, but the problem is those elected officials will generally say and do anything to please their voters and get reelected. They don't confront the issues that would upset their voters because they would lose their reelection bid, so they play it cool and pander to the ignorant masses in order to hold onto their office. That's not to say there aren't plenty of good one's who earn their office and DO perform their duties admirably, but politics is politics. Good one's, really truly good one's, are a minority at best.

Indeed. It's a small price to pay as lately, there have been alot of bad weeds going on in Congress from both the House and Senate and from both sides of the political aisle.

[Boogieknight]

I also believe we need to majorly slash all salaries in every form of government.

Believe it or not in the grand scheme of things that's a bad idea. Reductions or eliminations in payment for some public offices actually removes the option of holding public office for anyone who isn't independently wealthy or doesn't already have an income from a spouse that can support them and their family. Smaller positions such as city officials I'm fine with minimal payment, but larger positions in Washington should be compensated fully as it's full-time employment. Term limits and/or killing off outside payments from "donors" is the best option.

[Kalyyn]

Personally, I think we need to pay politicians more. The less we pay them, the more vulnerable they are to being bought or bribed.

[bobthenailer]

I agree we need to get rid of these vermin known as career politicians. The founders intended us to elect representatives and senators and for them to serve a few terms then go back and run the business they were running such as a law firm, or farming, or whatever they did before.

To those posts above, you obviously failed American History. The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic...with the rule of law. It is not a democacy or the rule of the majority.... democracies always fail and devolve into something else...such as dictatorships, Communism, Nazism, Kings, Theocracies or something else.

The USA seems to be slowly devolving into a democracy then from there to a dictatorship ruled by the politburo. Rome comes to mind.

It can be stopped by adding term limits to our constitution via amendment

[Wells]

I don't see what we want to do with politicians that term limits accomplish. They won't make politicians listen to the people. All they do is restrict who we can vote for.

[Kalyyn]

I don't see what we want to do with politicians that term limits accomplish. They won't make politicians listen to the people. All they do is restrict who we can vote for.

Crap, I agreed with Wells on something! I'm not comfortable with this subject anymore.

[PACOX]

No. The reason the Presidency is limited is because the President isn't directly elected by the people.

---------- Post added 2012-06-02 at 02:46 AM ----------

I don't see what we want to do with politicians that term limits accomplish. They won't make politicians listen to the people. All they do is restrict who we can vote for.

I.E. Being forced to vote for crappier, less experienced candidates.

[Wells]

I mean if the problem is politicians are being bought (and it is) then how does getting rid of senior politicians do anything? It doesn't prevent the news ones from being bought.

---------- Post added 2012-06-02 at 06:47 AM ----------

I.E. Being forced to vote for crappier, less experienced candidates.

Exactly. Governance is a skill set like any other. I want politicians who know what they're doing.

No. The reason the Presidency is limited is because the President isn't directly elected by the people.

That and he has more individual power than anyone else on earth.

[semaphore]

I also believe we need to majorly slash all salaries in every form of government...

That's a terrible idea. It serves no conceivable purpose whatsoever, and would probably just drive away talent (and anyone who isn't independently wealthy to begin with) while enoucraging corruption.

I understand the president has a lot on his plate so to speak, but seriously: The president earns a $400,000 annual salary, along with a $50,000 annual expense account, a $100,000 nontaxable travel account and $19,000 for entertainment.

That's not a lot of money at all for a position as important and demanding as the Presidency of the United States. Sounds to me like you simply have no idea how much every senior manegerial position in real life pays. For reference, the Federal Government employs some 2.6 million people.

What the fuck do these people think he's doing? To put it into perspective he can go out, every night of the week for a year, spend $50 (yea I know, we all spend more than $50 for a night out sometimes) each day and STILL be under $19,000.

Yeah because a Head of State holding state functions or entertaining foreign dignitaries is totally comparable to your night out (it really isn't).

[Wells]

Something like 9% of sitting presidents have been assassinated and the office visibly ages those who hold it. 400,000 seems very fair.

[Stanton Biston]

Something like 9% of sitting presidents have been assassinated and the office visibly ages those who hold it. 400,000 seems very fair.

The before and after picture of Obama are frightening.

[Scratches]

Career politicians aren't inherently bad. Sure there's some slime in there, but there are also a lot of people in the system that genuinely want to and are trying every day to do good for their constituents. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, as the idiom goes.
I agree that a little more turnover would be a good thing for the system, but that's the wrong way (or, at the very least, not the best way) to go about it. Cutting salaries, also, seems to be the wrong approach as well. These jobs, when done right, can be quite stressful and demanding...the lawful compensation seems just, for those who deserve it.

The bigger problem to solve is how to keep outside, corruptive monetary influences out of the system. You know..."campaign donations." The reason that many of the leeches are able to stay in office for so long is because they're simply able to throw more money at their reelection than the other guy. And not that I want to derail the thread, but now with Citizen's United...we're going to undoubtedly see a whole new wave of congressional campaigns, and it's not going to be for the better, I'd imagine.

Anyway, it has to be made unlawful to accept money, in any form, from anyone while occupying a congressional seat; no ifs ands or buts about it.
And since so many congressman cite election/reelection campaign costs as to why they accept so many "donations," here's what we do: Between election seasons, the populace would be able to make donations towards one big giant commie re/election pot (like that option at the end of your tax returns, which asks if you want to donate $3 to just such a fund), which will then get split evenly between all candidates across the country. The only money each candidate will be allowed to spend is that which they receive from that fund. If each candidate only receives 32 cents, well, tough shit...they should take solace in knowing that their opponent has exactly the same amount.
Bam. No more need for "donations" or "fund raisers." But, just in case, they're also illegal if you're a sitting congressman. Just in case.
"Lobbying" as it exists right now would essentially be rendered unlawful as well as a result. People would still be able to petition their governmental representatives, of course...there would just be no money changing hands.

It's a rough, very simplified idea, but I think that's what it would take to clean up politics in this country. Once people realize that they won't be able to monopolize their seat once they're sitting in it, turnover will increase.

Additionally, it's a hell of a lot easier to achieve that than it would be to append another amendment to the Constitution. The country is so far divided right now, I'm sure it couldn't even decide whether to watch American Idol or Dancing with the Stars without breaking into another civil war, let alone come together for long enough to pass an amendment (which both politicians and corporations would heavily lobby against, undoubtedly)...

*shrug* My 2 cents.

[Kalyyn]

Something like 9% of sitting presidents have been assassinated and the office visibly ages those who hold it. 400,000 seems very fair.

9%? Holy piss... that's almost a 1 in 10 chance O.O

I suddenly have a bit more respect for the president.