Term limits? lousy idea

Term limits! The solution to all our problems, right? Vote them all out and then it's smooth sailing to good government, right? Since many believe that all politicians are evil vermin, then the solution is to punish them for being evil vermin. Let's go to congress and rap their knuckles with a ruler! OK, let's say we vote all the vermin out and then we have a fresh batch of vermin. Is that what you want? If so, then you are a lobbyist's dream come true. Lobbyists are salivating at the idea of term limits. There is already a revolving door between Congress and K Street. We don't want to make it an express lane! Consider this: What if dentists, auto mechanics, jewelers, preachers, teachers, and cosmetologists (for example) were chosen the same way as politicians?
The vermin population would explode! I can see it now: “Don't vote for Rolanda as your beautician; she will make your hair fall out!” This of course is ridiculous. If you want good politicians you have to work for it! Out with the vermin, but cultivate and nurture the promising
candidate. Who ever said that being a good citizen is easy?

a reply to: Diderot

I agree on the term limits, I think its pointless the way to get change is to change the peoples minds without that there will be just other obamas, feinstiens,mccains so on and so on....

I think the fact there would come to be a regular rotation of 500+ people every few years would lower the value of a spare Congressman or Senator considerably. If they are merely short termers passing through by law and not near Emperors in place like some of the 40+ year anachronisms.

The House was meant to be the MORE temporary with 2 year terms, but wouldn't ya know? That's where the oldest farts still sit and stink the place up. I wouldn't be quite so...colorful, if it weren't quite so...extreme. However, the most senior members of the house started there in 1955 and 1965. The Senate is a LITTLE better with it's 'brain trust' going back to a more recent 1975....but that is the lack of term limits. Congress as a life long career...and we get the Government that brings.

House Seniority List

Senate Seniority List

IF term limits are good enough for presidents they are good enough for congressman.

Especially CONGRESSMAN who have made it a lifetime commitment of screwing us over.

Presidents come and go.

But the era of never ending congressman NEED TO CHANGE.

That is the CHANGE I can Believe in.

a reply to: Wrabbit2000

Dear Wrabbit2000,

Here's a dream for you to contemplate. If we work really fast, maybe we can remove term limits for the presidency. Look at all the campaign material that Obama wouldn't have to reprint.

Besides, recycling helps the world and our economy.

Pleasant dreams.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: Wrabbit2000
Dear Wrabbit. Excellent point. The fetid stench that fouls our congress can only be cleansed by the power of influence. What the heck does that mean, right? It means a major effort on our part to scream bloody murder. At least we can make it distressful for the oligarchy.

a reply to: Diderot

I don't know but term limits would be a way to keep out entrenched politicians. Even though I'm in my 60s, I think the biggest problem with congress is too many are OLD!. They are not in touch with the modern world. And it's that whole thing about that's the way it has always been done mentality. The Tradition and Decorum BS that the congress is special. We need younger folks in congress that don't care about corporate profits and handouts.

a reply to: Diderot

What if dentists, auto mechanics, jewelers, preachers, teachers, and cosmetologists (for example) were chosen the same way as politicians?

When you get right down to it, they are. Politicians sell you on the idea they can do a better job than the competition, same as any other business.

a reply to: Bramble Iceshimmer
Dear BI, Interesting point. Do you perhaps believe that you are past the chronological point of relevance? I hope not.
If an 85 year old congressman is up for reelection, then of course his age is factor. He needs to convince you and me that he is sharp witted enough to be up to the job. I doubt that you would claim that any given 85 year old is too old. Right? It is our job to determine whether a political is up to the task, young or old.

I want term limits at every level of Gov. and the lifetime appointments to the SCOTUS aren't cool with me either.

Doesn't hurt to hear your reasoning against them though OP.

a reply to: howmuch4another

and the lifetime appointments to the SCOTUS aren't cool with me either.

Yeah that's some more change I can believe in to.

Term limits for ALL.

Term limits are important, and I wish they were made for congress. Term limits change the type of person who serves. A career politician is interested in power for the sake of power. If one has a life to tend to after 4-6 years, the type of person to sign up would be the person with his or her communal best interests at the heart of the vote.

I doubt a lobbyist would enjoy having to wine and dine a new set of politicians every few terms. Too many idealists would end up in the mix. I might add though mass society/the voting population is submissive in eating what gets thrown at them. To break that you would need a localized media infrastructure. That proposition however is very unlikely.

a reply to: DAVID64
You don't see the clear difference between a political campaign and a non-political advertisement? How often does a lasik specialist, or a real estate attorney, or podiatrist, or an airline pilot compete for a solitary position subject to the whim of the voters, or clients, or customers, if you will. Let me ask you, are politicians vermin and the rest of us are noble?

a reply to: howmuch4another
Dear HMFA, I'm gonna take what you gave me and run with it. Thank you by the way. To me, term limits is throwing out the baby with the bath water. If you (the general you) support term limits then that means trashing any politician that you might agree with. Do you not agree that term limits equals more power to lobbyists? I can't believe that you would support empowering lobbyists. Right?

a reply to: Diderot

Not anymore than they have now. IMHO the longer someone is in power the more like a fluorescent light to a bug at night they are. I want all lobbyists out of politics completely, term limits for all and (I don't mean to derail) Voter ID.

ETA: just noticed nobody flagged this bad boy and it deserves debate. May i offer you your first..lol

a reply to: howmuch4another

Interpreting the law requires a lot of expertise in the nuances of it. Making laws should not be a career, but I would rather a group of people very intrenched in their legal understanding.

Justices will change their sides on issues.

Writing for the four dissenters, Justice Antonin Scalia accused the court majority of making it "a federal crime for one lawful gun owner to buy a gun for another lawful gun owner." Joining his dissent were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. Particularly interesting in Monday's ruling was the vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who in 2008 sided with the court's conservatives in declaring for the first time that individuals have a constitutional right to gun ownership. That decision, written by Scalia, also had language pointedly allowing gun regulations — language that many experts believe was added at Kennedy's insistence. Monday found Kennedy lining up instead against court conservatives to support the ban on straw purchases.

www.npr.org...

And the law evolves. The justices look at current cultural trends. The second amendment has been loosened and tightened depending on current events of Americans brief history.

INSKEEP: Is that in some ways a creepy way to think about the Constitution, though? Because it suggests that a public opinion poll can change the law without the law actually changing. WALDMAN: You know, I'm a big fan of something Abraham Lincoln said. He said, with public sentiment, everything is possible. Without public sentiment, nothing is possible. Molding public sentiment, in some ways, is more powerful than being a judge or legislator because you create the context for what judges and legislators can do.

www.wbur.org...

The above is an interview discussing the evolution of the second amendment as reinterpreted over time.

Honestly I would be thankful the SCOTUS have lifetime appointments. I mean they are old.

a reply to: Sillyosaurus

I take your point and that is the argument against giving them term limits. I just don't like the wheel of destiny dependent on who is in office when one of our Justices croaks. I would rather see a mechanism that keeps the courts balanced in ideology and removal/appointment happen more frequently. Good post.

a reply to: howmuch4another
Dear HMFA, Thanks. But I would ask you how does term limits not empower lobbyists. Do you not agree that term limits weakens politicians? That means that it empowers lobbyists. Is this not clear? Which is worse, politicians or lobbyists?

Having read the what the op has written and the postings that followed, the following can be stated:

The op is stating that term limits are wrong, as it could result in lobbyists and others taking on more of the government and ultimately could result in bad government. However there is a down side to that and here is why I believe that this to be.

Term limits are needed, because any more politicians tend to stay in office, the more that they start to govern unwisely. They get used to being in charge, to the point where the conceit that they show towards the very people that they are sworn to govern becomes very apparent. They no longer give it their all or their industry, and when the chips are down, they seem to always vote in favor of themselves, instead of looking at the good for the country. They fail at times to uphold on even the most basic of decency and take the time to think about what they are doing when it comes to the very country that they are sworn to govern wisely.
The saddest part of it all, is that at one time serving in congress or the federal government, was considered to be not only a great honor, but also one with regret and heavy heart. There was no benefits to the job, beyond a simple paycheck and once they leave office, no more money or benefits coming to them.
Now if someone gets elected just for one or 2 terms they are paid for the rest of their life. If the country is down on its luck, they vote themselves a pay raise, and the very people who are there to govern, often will turn on part of the people in their own districts. They lie, cheat and break the laws, yet receive no punishment what so ever. It is time to remove this idea of a job for life, time to make it where they are there for no more than 2 terms, and then they are out of office. Unless they run for another office, of a higher level, till they hit the ceiling and no benefits to follow once they are out of office, making them deal with all of the laws and issues that they created. That means if they voted for say a law which forces the population to do something, they should be forced to follow the same laws.

a reply to: howmuch4another
Yes and the potus nominee can be overturned by the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate as a whole. See here we are again with term limits in congress.