What do you think of a one term, term limit per federal position?

I think 2 then skip maybe.  Some folks cant get things undone in 1 term.  
And the idea that they HAVE to pass a new law is ridiculous, I heard once the idea that for every new law passed, they would have to repeal 2 old ones! :) Sounds pretty good to me! 

Unfortunately they passed the 17th Amendment to call for popular elections for Senators. The ONLY way to undo that is to pass ANOTHER Amendment repealing the 17th.

SSG Brown.... I think the intent of the Framers is that The Federal government, by design was supposed to get very little done. They weren't All supposed to agree on so many things, with the exception of fealty to the Constitution, and in keeping enough power in the States, and in the hands of the people to effectively thwart Federal power-grabs. I agree with the Framers of the Constitution when I say that the less the Federal government gets done, the better. Let them focus on acting Generally, and on Providing for the Common Defense as is written in our Constitution, the document they and we all swore oaths to uphold and defend.

I agree that term limits should be in place and be similar to the presidential office. Limit two terms. However, if an individual wants to run again, they have to "sit out" the number of terms servered (either one or two terms).

I agree that it would be tough to get things accomplished in one term, but I would hope the current process would "heal itself" and become more efficient. I am a firm believer that members of Congress needs, and must, come live under the laws they have passed. If it is good enough for "We the People", then it should be sufficient for "Those in Congress." In addition, if the law is good enough for Congress, then it should be good enough for the people.

SSgt George Brown Thanks for posting.

Thats great in theory.  The truth is that we don't have enough voter turnout to impact the turnover.  Thus the "Term Limit" issue comes up every few years.

Indeed, Maj Woods. When a 4% turn-over in the House is labeled a "house-cleaning", the idea of voting out entrenched members of Congress becomes a high hurdle. This is not by accident either. Congress has created election laws and Gerrymandered districts to ensure their re-elections, distorting the idea of the vote, as the ultimate term limit. Congress is adept at ignoring The Constitution, and it's own laws and rules, as we have seen with over 6 years of failing to pass a Budget. Congress has proven that it is incapable of governing itself, and requires laws with consequences to keep it in check. Unfortunately, the problem is that every branch of the Federal government, including both parties, is incensed with one objective. The expansion of the Federal government, and the control over the States and the People that comes with such an expansion. This is EXACTLY the course the Framers of the Constitution sought to avoid, and the outcomes that people like Jefferson, Bastiat, and De Toqueville all warned us of.

LCpl Winiger, I agree with with your point, though where does that family exclusion stop? The Roosevelt's ran decades apart (and both administration's were troublesome and destructive to liberty in many ways. Should a descendant of Thomas Jefferson, or George Washington be excluded as Family members? What about 2nd cousins (by marriage)? We also had John, and John Quincy Adams. So while I agree the intent of service was never intended to establish dynasties, a "Family" restriction would be difficult to manage, and would require extensive Ancestry databases likely run by the Federal government, and more likely running afoul of numerous amendments in the bill of rights.

SSG Sedel, You raise a very good point. It should stop somewhere. This is where the voters need to become educated and become proactive with politics. Only the voter can stop a family affair.

Too many people thrive on the rhetoric and mud slinging. This is a dangerous way to cast ones vote. An educated electorate is the best defense we have against legal dynasty's from occurring.

Perhaps one way, is to forbid immediate family of a past or current president, including children and spouse, mother, father, brother, and sister. from running for high office.

Of course, Our Constitution sets no such limits. Only a minimum age of 35 Years, and being a Natural born citizen.