Results 1 to 10 of 19
-
11-12-2009, 11:11 AM #1
GOP senators push for term limits...again
GOP senators push for term limits
A handful of Republican senators have proposed a constitutional amendment to limit how long a person may serve in Congress.
Currently, there are no term limits for federal lawmakers, but Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, and several of his colleagues are advocating that service in the Senate be limited to 12 years, while lawmakers would only be allowed to serve six years in the House.
"Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians," DeMint said in a statement released by his office. "As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward spending taxpayer dollars to buyoff special interests, covering over corruption in the bureaucracy, fundraising, relationship building among lobbyists, and trading favors for pork -- in short, amassing their own power."
Two-thirds of the House and Senate would need to approve the amendment -- a stumbling block that short-circuited the idea 14 years ago. The new proposal echoes the Citizen Legislature Act, part of the original Contract with America proposed by Republicans before they won control of Congress in 1994.
Now here is some "change" I can get behind...any hope of it passing?
-
-
11-12-2009, 12:32 PM #2
And ironically because this is still not a law the same guys who voted against it in 1994 will get to vote against it again
-
11-12-2009, 12:37 PM #3
I'm all for it, definitely.
-
-
11-12-2009, 12:43 PM #4
Seriously...but a Congresswoman from Texas is supporting it even though she's in the middle of her third term (under the proposed amendment, should wouldn't be allowed to serve any longer). But the point is definitely true. I find it similar to Congress voting on whether they receive a pay raise...duh! The people should get to vote on that too.
-
11-12-2009, 01:02 PM #5
Yeah, it is a definite conflict of interest to be sure, hard for me to see this getting enough support
-
-
11-12-2009, 01:18 PM #6
That would be horrible.
Where would John Kerry find an actual job?
How would my favorite Ku Klux Klan member, Sen Robery Byrd, make ends meet?
-
11-12-2009, 02:00 PM #7
I have always thought that that is one of the most ignorant things in government. They actually get to decide what they get paid. Sure do wish I had that option.
Politician's Motto: "I want less to do, more time to do it and more pay for not getting it done"
He is a puppet politician. I honestly believe that he is being controlled by his staff. I worked security at a function 1.5 years ago and saw him arrive. He needed two canes to walk, mumbled when he talked, he could barely look up to see who he was shaking hands with and was literally led around by his aides who seemed to be choreographing and controlling his every move. He was the definition of a feeble old man and reminded me of my grandpa in his final years before he passed.
-
-
11-12-2009, 02:11 PM #8
I agree, but I think all members of the executive and legislative branches should be limited to a single term. And while we're at it, outlaw private funding for people running for public office. Too many public officials just sit around doing nothing, or at least not as much as they should, for fear of alienating the moderates from the other side who voted for them and/or the private interests who bought and sold them, and thus not being re-elected. They're too afraid of jeopardizing their own power to actually do anything. But if they're automatically limited to a single term, that goes right out the window. And for the ones who still spend that time doing nothing, they should be subject to a review board that can fine them for wasting public money. There needs to be oversight.
And while we're at it, Supreme Court justices need term limits too. Maybe 10-year terms, I don't know.
-
11-12-2009, 02:27 PM #9
I think limiting it to one term might be a bit too short...they may not be in long enough to get done what they want to get done. I'm fine with two, maybe even three. It really only becomes a problem when people are trying to get elected just to stay in the job...if they know they can only do that once or twice, what's the point?
And I understand why Supreme Court justices were set up to serve life terms, but I think it has become counterproductive. Now, whichever party is in power at appointment time tries to get the most liberal or conservative justice they can in just to help ensure their agendas for as long as possible. There's no trying to find the most qualified justice any more, as shown perfectly by Sotomayor's appointment. Something definitely needs to be changed there.
-
11-12-2009, 02:32 PM #10
Well, maybe we could extend the length of the term in conjunction. But you should know that these people spend way too much time, sometimes more than a year, campaigning for re-election. And if you're a representative who serves only a 2-year term, you're going to be doing that every 2 years, and you're going to spend literally half your appointment doing nothing but campaigning for re-appointment. What an unforgivable waste. What a poorly designed system that allows this.
And I understand why Supreme Court justices were set up to serve life terms, but I think it has become counterproductive. Now, whichever party is in power at appointment time tries to get the most liberal or conservative justice they can in just to help ensure their agendas for as long as possible. There's no trying to find the most qualified justice any more, as shown perfectly by Sotomayor's appointment. Something definitely needs to be changed there.
And on the other end of the spectrum, you have your Wild Bill Rehnquists spending years and years rotting to pieces right there on the bench, whose minds probably turned to clam chowder a decade ago, still sitting there because they know the law allows them to do so until they die, just so their party can maintain that much more power for a few more precious weeks.
Have you ever thought about how much it must suck to be an aging Supreme Court justice while the other party is in power in both the executive and judicial branches? The story of the Bush administration was pretty much 5-4, 5-4, 5-4 over and over, except on the occasions when they were able to swing Kennedy and make it 6-3. I'd go out of my mind and feel like stepping down, because it would all seem so pointless...except for the fact that I would know that if I did, the president would just replace me with somebody else from his side of the aisle and give himself an even bigger majority on the bench. It must be maddening.
-
Originally Posted by shortking98 
