Reasonable position re: representatives. The main goal is breaking the entrenchment of incumbents at shorter time intervals then are normally discussed.
WW
1 Like
Good luck with passing any amendment without at a minimum invoking term limitations within the Congressional chambers despite all being duly elected like the Executive.
My evolving thoughts are now to include making every National elected official ideally be limited to 12 years in serving time. That being said, still also open for the Executive to stay at 8 years (status quo).
And upon further reflection add a universal age limit where no one can be older than 80 in all three branches by the time each new Congress session forms or in the cases of Executives and Federal Judges on Jan 20th to start anew following each General Election.
And please clarify your last reply. I may of misconstrued your statement ? I took it somewhat implying by you not even mentioning how Congress leadership spends much of their own time on campaigning endeavors, including often spearheading efforts to propose future legislation that would only stack the deck in favor of incumbents.
I also can not imagine any further amendments like the 22nd Amendment focused again solely on the Executive passing through enough states.
Agree or disagree? And if you disagree, please expand on your rationale.
There’s already a minimum age though. lol
I have no problem with the ideas you presented….thank you.
I ve often wondered about the way Virginia handles it’s governor’s situation…
What you wrote above is one of the major reasons I support the idea if term limits. It certainly appears that our representatives show up, spend a few weeks governing, and then the campaign begins.
As you said…absent a massive groundswell of public pressure or 2/3rds of the states ratifying a Constitutional amendment I’m not sure how any of these balls get rolled forward…
I appreciate your input.
I tried to point that out to the lib who tried to pick the fight with me last night….but I guess I’m just immoral.
There are multiple layers of candidate selection…a minimum age limit is just one.
I like the Ben Franklin quote included here…
It was Benjamin Franklin who summed up the best case for term limits more than two centuries ago: “In free governments, the rulers are the servants, and the people they’re superiors . . . . For the former to return among the latter does not degrade, but promote them.”…”In other words, when politicians know they must return to ordinary society and live under the laws passed while they were in government, at least some of them will think more carefully about the long-term effects of the programs they support. Their end-all will not be re-election, because that option will not be available. https://fee.org/articles/why-term-limits/
Later in the same piece…”Opponents charge that limits are inherently antidemocratic, that people should be free to elect to office whomever they want and that voters inherently have the power to limit terms simply by voting incumbents out. But judging by the huge support that term limits have usually won at the ballot box—and still enjoy in most local polls—large numbers of citizens feel that a political system without limits is a stacked deck. Any system that allows incumbents to amass so much power and attention in office that challengers can rarely win is surely in need of a corrective.”
I agree with this sentiment. Term limits at least in the House and Senate are a good idea…so is an upper age limit across the board.
1 Like
Term limits have been needed for decades because making a career in Congress results in absolute corruption.
I would support two 6 year terms for the Senate and six 2 year terns in the HOR making a max total of 12 years for each chamber of Congress.
I would bar members of congress from having anything to do with fundraising and campaigning. That would include being involved with external PACs.
We elect them to go to Washington to do a job, we don’t elect them to raise money or to campaign…
There is not a snowballs chance in hell such an amendment would pass the Congress. So as I said, ain’t gonna happen. I’m smart enough to realize that what “should” happen and what “will” happen are two different things.
WW
Your welcome, and since I’m outlier, thought I’d throw something else into the mix that isn’t “term limits” but more “reelection limits” (although there should be an upper age limit also).
WW
So 24 years total?
WW
None of us are outlier’s…we all starting with me could probably learn to be nicer to each other. Thank you for your input.
I started the thread to have the conversation…for exactly the reasons you pointed out.
Sadly I don’t see how we the people get this beyond the talk about on social media or in the local coffee shop phase…
But I will always believe restrictions on the length of politicians service would benefit us all
There shouldn’t be though. If I want to vote for a 34-year-old for president, why should the government prevent that? lol
So what is the reason that people keep reelecting these people over and over again?
I imagine that answer is slightly different for each individual, but essentially: of the available choices, that’s the candidate they prefered.
Do you believe that everyone you’ve ever voted for is a truely amazing special person?
1 Like
I would be willing to give a bit more leeway to Congress than the Executive, simply because Congressmen don’t have the responsibility of the nuclear arsenal or whether to involve the armed forced of the United States or other critical and immediate decisions.
President and Vice President would be age limited at 70 years, prior to the last day of the term of the office for which sought. I would extend that limitation to appointees under the Executive Schedule and all other non-career (political) appointees. They would be required to leave office on their 70th birthday.
I would grant more leeway to Congress. They would be age limited so that they could not run for office if they would turn 80 prior to the last day of the term sought. I would age limit the Speaker, President Pro Tempore, Majority and Minority Leaders of both Houses and Majority and Minority Whips of both Houses, as well as all Committee Chairman to 70 years, after which they would be required to surrender those posts. I would also age limit the Officers of the Senate and House to 70 years of age.
As for the Judiciary, my proposal would automatically shift judges to senior status when they obtain eligibility under the Rule of 80. For the vast majority of Judges, that occurs between 65 and 70. I would NOT arbitrarily age limit them from service, as the informal norm of Judges badgering failing Judges into leaving the bench actually works pretty well.
And if it comes right down to it, a Chief Judge of a court can pull a failing Judge’s caseload completely, if he refuses to retire, which occasionally occurs.
The vast majority of Judges know when it is time to leave and do so.
That’s a reliance on norms, and I would prefer an actual rule.
I would not agree to any arbitrary age limit for the judiciary.
However, I have bandied about the possibility of establishing a procedure using scire facias under the good behavior clause. Good behavior covers mental disability and the removal of a Judge for mental disability or incompetence could be sought using the writ of scire facias.
Link to my previous thread on this subject.
So what is the secret judgeship sauce that exempts them from arbitrary term limits?
I am not a fan of any branch of government self policing itself, and with the recent pecadillos on the Supreme Court, I am no longer inclined to rely on norms.
I want rules.
1 Like
My scire facias proposal would be a rules based proposal.
The cost of democracy is democracy. Once you decide who cannot participate - for any reason but not attaining to or possessing adult citizenship - you have decided against democracy, and the republican forms of government they tend to produce.
2 Likes
