Congressional term limits

[Sir Mohamed]

Do you support them? And if so, how many terms should be permitted? If not, why not?

I am supportive of term limits, especially the senate is way over-aged. My suggestion would be: five House terms (10 years) and two Senate terms (12 years).

[Sestak]

As I've said many times, no. We don't need a situation where a large number of Senators are lame ducks for six years.

[MarkD]

No. As the saying goes, government ought not do for people what they can and should do for themselves. Term limits is government telling voters they can't be trusted to know whether or not their incumbent deserves to be re-elected. I believe they can figure that out; they can, and sometimes do, vote out their incumbent who has been in office for 20 or 30 years. I also do not see any evidence that term limited politicians are better than politicians who are not term limited.

[Sir Mohamed]

As I've said many times, no. We don't need a situation where a large number of Senators are lame ducks for six years.

Well, the lame duck term may apply to executives like prez or governor, but senators should be more free in their votes if they don't have to face voters again. Maybe some Republicans in congress would change their votes on parts of the Trump agenda? Or be more willing to compromise with Obama.

[dw93]

On the House and Senate as a whole? No and I don't support them on the Presidency either (most Presidents  would step down voluntarily after 8 years anyway given the stress and difficulty of the job). On Congressional Leadership? Yes. The Speaker of the House, House Majority/Minority Leaders, and Whips should only serve a maximum of 10 years and Senate Majority/Minority Leaders and whips should only serve a maximum of 12 years.

[politicallefty]

I'm strongly opposed to term limits in all instances. We have term limits already. They're called elections. Most modern industrialized first-world nations seem to do just fine without arbitrary term limits. It's my view that the 22nd Amendment should be repealed.

[Calthrina950]

Do you support them? And if so, how many terms should be permitted? If not, why not?

I am supportive of term limits, especially the senate is way over-aged. My suggestion would be: five House terms (10 years) and two Senate terms (12 years).

I agree with this post. When we have people in Congress who spend thirty, forty, fifty, or even sixty years in that body, then it becomes necessary.

[Slander and/or Libel]

I'm strongly opposed to term limits in all instances. We have term limits already. They're called elections. Most modern industrialized first-world nations seem to do just fine without arbitrary term limits. It's my view that the 22nd Amendment should be repealed.

Yup, precisely. There's not a good argument for why voters should be prohibited from exercising their choice if their choice happens to be an incumbent who's been there "too long," for some arbitrary definition of too long.

[Cold War Liberal]

As I've said many times, no. We don't need a situation where a large number of Senators are lame ducks for six years.

[RINO Tom]

I don't give a shlt about the "lame duck" thing; if Maine wants to keep electing Susan Collins and Vermont wants to keep electing Patrick Leahy, that is a lumberjack's right.

[Del Tachi]

No.  Implementation of term-limits would only strengthen party leadership and lobbyists. 

[Sir Mohamed]

No.  Implementation of term-limits would only strengthen party leadership and lobbyists.  

I think the opposite is true. Look at the IL House, where basically one corrupt dude (Madigan) is in power forever. With term limits, he would have been out a long time ago.

[mencken]

As I've said many times, no. We don't need a situation where a large number of Senators are lame ducks for six years.

Care to define what the effects of such a situation would be, policywise? Some of us might not see that as a bad thing.

I'm strongly opposed to term limits in all instances. We have term limits already. They're called elections. Most modern industrialized first-world nations seem to do just fine without arbitrary term limits. It's my view that the 22nd Amendment should be repealed.

Yup, precisely. There's not a good argument for why voters should be prohibited from exercising their choice if their choice happens to be an incumbent who's been there "too long," for some arbitrary definition of too long.

Do not make a sanctimonious stand for the "voters' choice" here. Seniority just means more time to become chummy with special interests and influential members of congress (who have also been there forever) so as to procure more pork for the district/state. It's a false choice between a challenger who opposes public graft (but is in little position to change the system by himself) and an incumbent who supports it, but at least guarantees that his district will not be entirely shafted in the process.

[MassTerp94]

Yes to term limits. Two (12 years) for the Senate, 5 (10 years) for the House. That's not to say one cannot move up to the Senate after 10 years in the House. This allows the people the ability to reelect someone if they are doing a good job and for the member to gain experience and attain leadership positions, but at some point it is time to let someone else who wants to serve have an opportunity to do so. SO MANY people who want to enter public service don't do so because the financial and political advantages that come with incumbency (after a certain number of years) become too great to overcome.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yes, but the GOP has been in power of the House 16/20 years and hasn't moved the bill forward to limit terms; instead they put term limits on committee chairs

[Del Tachi]

Yes, but the GOP has been in power of the House 16/20 years and hasn't moved the bill forward to limit terms; instead they put term limits on committee chairs

Which was really just a way to placate their younger members who didn't want to wait 30 years before having powerful committee assignments.