Should we have term limits for every federal government branch?

CH (MAJ) William Beaver — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 20:39:10 -0400

I have a proposal for term limits for all three federal branches. But does anyone beside me think we need term limits for all branches?

Here's my proposal:

President and VP: no re-election. Simply one 6-year term. Election held every six years (starting 2016).

Supreme Court: Still appointed and confirmed, but get one 10 year term.

Senate: One 6 year term. Half elected same year as President (2016) and other half 3 years later (2019).

Representatives: One 4 year term. 1/3 of House elected every 3 years (2016, 2019, 2022).

Congress and President can run for re-election and serve ONE MORE TERM, but must stay out of the office for one full term between occupying any federal office.

Sample election cycle:
2016: President, Senate 1, House 1
2019: Senate 2, House 2
2022: President, Senate 1, House 3
2025: Senate 2, House 1
2028: President, Senate 1, House 2
2031: Senate 1, House 3
....and so on.

What do you think?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2015 8:40 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 20:40:33 -0400

Two terms for anything above city level.

Response by Sgt David G Duchesneau made Jul 12 at 2015 8:40 PM

Sgt David G Duchesneau — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 20:40:50 -0400

Sounds good to me!

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Jul 12 at 2015 8:41 PM

SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 20:41:29 -0400

I like your proposal, it shows diversity in all 3 branches.

Response by CH (MAJ) William Beaver made Jul 12 at 2015 8:43 PM

CH (MAJ) William Beaver — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 20:43:46 -0400

Correction: 2031: Senate 2, House 3

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2015 8:48 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 20:48:04 -0400

I don't think we would need limits if we had a "rule": You can"t vote for incumbents.

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jul 12 at 2015 8:56 PM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 20:56:16 -0400

Are you telling me I can't have the official I elected?
Further are you going to junk the seniority system?

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jul 12 at 2015 8:56 PM

PO1 John Miller — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 20:56:32 -0400

I would say 2 consecutive terms, but otherwise I agree!

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2015 9:22 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 21:22:15 -0400

I would further ask the question and propose that they no longer get paid for life, except the President. There is a good reason behind that and I have no problem with it. After a congressman/representative serves their term(s), they go back to their law firms or where ever they came from and earn their living just like the citizen they were before they went to Washington.
http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/former-presidents.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_Presidents_Act

Former Presidents Act

Welcome to the NARA Web site.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jul 12 at 2015 9:33 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 21:33:59 -0400

I was opposed to term limits for a long time. It seemed to me that term limits were an admission that we couldn't be trusted (didn't have the common sense) to vote out those who performed poorly. Well, I've come around. It seems we can't be trusted. We don't have the common sense. What's more, I would apply the same rationale to bureaucrats. Let's limit their time at the public trough. Make them get "real" jobs after some specified time. Lastly, let's add a sunset provision to every bureaucracy. What has NASA done lately. For a fraction of what it costs us today, they once put a man on the moon. Their mission was accomplished. What good are they now?

Response by Sgt Jay Jones made Jul 12 at 2015 9:41 PM

Sgt Jay Jones — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 21:41:26 -0400

The only problem I see is with the Supreme Court. I think twenty (20) years would work out better, especially if you get a few individuals playing tag team with the office of President. I think a better solution would to limit the amount of money that can be spent on elections. When you reach that amount you can no longer collect any money. I.e. President $25,000.000 U. S. Senate $5,000,000 must be raised from home state only. U.S. Representatives $2,000,000 must be raised from their district only. Then we can see how well they manage their budget before they are elected.

Response by CSM Charles Hayden made Jul 12 at 2015 9:43 PM

CSM Charles Hayden — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 21:43:36 -0400

CPT William Beaver, I vote yes! Please enact your term limit proposal.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Jul 12 at 2015 11:31 PM

COL Charles Williams — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 23:31:32 -0400

YESSSSS

Response by LTC Bink Romanick made Jul 12 at 2015 11:34 PM

LTC Bink Romanick — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 23:34:32 -0400

We have term limits, they're called elections!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2015 12:05 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 00:05:12 -0400

I love to talk about the constitution! With great respect sir, allow me to dissent on the matter and offer this rebuttal. The constitution does not need term limits put in. It simply needs to be put back the way it was. Originally, Senators were put in place by state legislatures, not direct election. By enacting this one thing, you would get most everthing you are after. Cronieism would become less of an issue, the administrative aspect of government would shrink, the unregulated parts of government (epa,irs,etc) would shrink. Why? Because senators would be beholden to a much smaller group of people. The needs of states would be at the forefront. This automatically affects conformation hearings for offices like the supreme court who, by the way would have a lot less to do as the senate would likely be sending a lot less their way.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2015 12:59 AM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 00:59:28 -0400

I've been shouting term limits every chance I get. And if the congress didn't give up their power, they still have the means, via the US constitution to impeach those in the SCOTUS. The Constitution says that judges hold their office only during “good behavior” (Art. III, Sec. 1). Didn't ginsberg say she was drunk while at a SOTU. In my opinion, she was on duty and that was not good behavior worthy of her position.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/ruth-bader-ginsburg-napping-alcohol-sotu-115172.html

Ginsburg: I wasn't '100 percent sober' at SOTU

She admits that this year she slept through the speech “as I often do.”

Response by CPT Alan W. made Jul 13 at 2015 1:53 AM

CPT Alan W. — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 01:53:40 -0400

The terms lengths are okay, maybe don't need to be changed. The only exception might be SCOTUS, it's tough to remain relevant for 30 years. 10 to 20 years, maybe somewhere in between might be appropriate for SCOTUS. A 2 term limit for elected positions is a good choice.

I think where we can really improve is in shortening our election cycles. 6 weeks max from when candidates can announce and start campaigning to election. No political advertising until 6 weeks prior, and possibly no advertising from anyone other than the candidates. Ballot measures would have to handled differently but should still have a 6 week campaign period.

Response by CPL Eric Allen made Jul 13 at 2015 2:13 AM

CPL Eric Allen — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 02:13:36 -0400

That would be great but all those old crusty people hate change and the American people are to lazy to vote this.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2015 4:17 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 04:17:20 -0400

Terms limits and no retirement for first termers... time to hold those clowns accountable!

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Jul 13 at 2015 5:58 AM

SSG Gerhard S. — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 05:58:51 -0400

I mostly REALLY like this proposal, it is similar to the "One Term In A Row" proposal I have advocated for quite some time. I especially like the Supreme Court limitations, and the fact that we're not paying politicians to run for office by making them take a term off between elections.

Response by SGM Steve Wettstein made Jul 13 at 2015 6:56 AM

SGM Steve Wettstein — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 06:56:55 -0400

I agree CH (MAJ) William Beaver there should be a term limit and add an age limit in there also.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2015 10:06 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:06:07 -0400

SCOTUS term limits would be disastrous. We don't need volatility in the courts, we need consistency. The only reason to have term limits on the Court is to achieve an outcome that you want, but the law isn't about what one person or one group wants.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 13 at 2015 10:34 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:34:01 -0400

In the strongest possible terms...YES!

Response by CW4 Abdulaziz Bulling made Jul 13 at 2015 10:40 AM

CW4 Abdulaziz Bulling — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:40:07 -0400

I have always advocated two term limits for both the house and senate. These offices have become for some lifetime positions. From my readings, do not believe that was the intent of the founding fathers.

Response by SCPO David Lockwood made Jul 13 at 2015 11:10 AM

SCPO David Lockwood — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:10:40 -0400

Absolutely!

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Jul 13 at 2015 11:27 AM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:27:03 -0400

I wish our Founding Fathers had seen the crap we got and written it in.

Response by LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow made Jul 13 at 2015 11:47 AM

LCDR Rabbah Rona Matlow — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:47:28 -0400

Indeed...

Response by SGT Nathan Huff made Jul 15 at 2015 2:08 PM

SGT Nathan Huff — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:08:08 -0400

We do need term limits. But I do not fully agree with those you listed as changes.

Also we need benefits and pay cuts for elected, also no business can donate to election funds

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Jul 15 at 2015 2:38 PM

SSG Warren Swan — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 14:38:27 -0400

Sir, term limits sound great, but the next problem would be the parties lining up who they want as their "hand picked successors" (Like Putin being VP/PM and then back to President). And then that could lead into a rotation issue of the same clowns doing the same amount of work (none), for the same people Big (insert Co or whatever here). Also even with term limits the biggest factor no one is talking about is the people (voters) themselves. If they are uneducated or just fixated on who they think they want in office we get what we have now; men and women in office that don't represent anyone that won't pay $100 (or more) a plate at their dinner. But in keeping with what you said, I'd add in there that any and ALL leftover monies raised through campaigning gets donated to various approved causes and not get left to the vices of the individuals or their parties. If not donated and those donations tracked publicly with no FOIA, then they are taxed at the highest level possible under the law. For the Supreme Court, I'd remove the ability to nominate off of political affrication. It's not a good thing no matter what to claim objectiveness yet be put in a job by a particular president holding an allegiance to a particular party. They must be good at their jobs or they wouldn't even be allowed to serve (being that to be a SC Justice you DO NOT have to be an actual lawyer). Make their time on the bench 20-30 years max depending on age and keep a set of fresh minds in the pipe as replacements. America needs change on a regular basis and we need both political parties as a balance/counter to each other. And I know many are going to disagree, but keep religion OUT of any of the branches of government. Practice it, believe it, or anything else, but don't bring it to work with you.

Response by SFC Benjamin Varlese made Jul 27 at 2015 2:11 PM

SFC Benjamin Varlese — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:11:48 -0400

I'm all for term limits for members of Congress similar to that of the President, two eight-year terms then return to "civilian" life as was the original intent of the Founders. The Senate of Rome was an aristocracy that bred corruption not near on the level we see today in my opinion; representing the people of your district or one's state was meant to be a short-term civil service, not a career wherein one could manipulate the law to line one's pockets indefinitely.
Becoming a Senator should also return to an appointment position by the Governor of that state, the people know little of what is in the state's interests so should not have voice in who represents the state in the federal government, as opposed to the Governor they elect to run the state who should (another one of those things that was part of the Founders' original intent but we have strayed from due to career politicians).
As for the Supreme Court...this is a difficult one. The Judicial Branch should be devoid of political interference and was intended to be the stop-gap to prevent the kind of nonsense and partisan interpretations of law we have been seeing for decades. I would propose that they continue with their "life terms" however the sitting members of the Supreme Court nominate the replacement justice who is then vetted by Congress and confirmed by the President in a similar fashion to how a bill becomes law (or is supposed to anyway).
While I'm no civics major, the level of mental midgetry I have witnessed over the course of my lifetime by the average citizen as to how our government works and is supposed to operate is dumbfounding, and they plod through life blissfully unaware or needlessly upset. If they are unhappy with how our government is conducting business, they need to quit reelecting the same corrupt career politicians into office. Period.

Response by PO1 Richard Knox made Nov 24 at 2015 1:28 PM

PO1 Richard Knox — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 13:28:33 -0500

Since our posts are working along the same line I thought you may be interested in seeing some of the feedback I've received. Take a look at:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/shoud-term-limits-for-state-and-us-congressmen-and-senators-be-allowed-on-state-and-national-ballet-for-us-to-vote-on?urlhash=1127316

Shoud Term Limits for State and US Congressmen and Senators be allowed on State and National...

Was holding political office meant to be a lifetime career? Or does a life in office open the door to political corruption? Today, members of the US Congress and Senate have little fear of losing their job. Of course they can be voted out, but with the use of gerrymandering coupled with no term limits these Politicians can and do serve for decades. With each passing year in office we witness these officials amass political power and influence....

Response by MAJ Rene De La Rosa made Apr 9 at 2016 10:25 PM

MAJ Rene De La Rosa — Sat, 09 Apr 2016 22:25:31 -0400

Totally agree with the plan. If we can get scum-sucking individuals (no offense to the scum suckers of the world), then the process will be improved. I dream of a Senate and House that will work together instead of being obstructivist; I yearn for the days of Reagan and Tip O'Neill. They worked well together, even though they were from different political parties.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2016 3:17 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:17:09 -0400

How many of you folks who want term limits would like it if you were doing a good job and had to leave it because you had just done it too long? Not saying who is or is not doing a good job, just asking a question.

We have a way to change things - the vote.

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Aug 12 at 2016 3:17 PM

Sgt Kelli Mays — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:17:31 -0400

and REDUCE their pay! and TAX TAX TAX them...for they do not pay taxes. What a CROCK!

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2016 3:20 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:20:30 -0400

YES!!!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2016 3:24 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:24:53 -0400

Put that on the ballot... let the people choose!

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Aug 12 at 2016 3:33 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:33:08 -0400

I'm not sure if you remember when we had them (pre-1995). They were state imposed for Federal Elected Term-Limits (Senate/Congress) and were declared Unconstitutional (SCOTUS) in 23 States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Term_Limits,_Inc._v._Thornton

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/05/23/us/high-court-blocks-term-limits-for-congress-in-a-5-4-decision.html?pagewanted=all

U.S. Term Limits - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. Term Limits (USTL) is a non-profit, non-partisan grassroots organization dedicated to enacting term limits for elected officials at every level of government in the United States. Since its founding in 1992, USTL has helped facilitate over 500 successful term limits campaigns at all levels of government.

Response by 1SG Robert Rush made Aug 12 at 2016 3:50 PM

1SG Robert Rush — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:50:04 -0400

yes they should, including the supreme court.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2016 3:54 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:54:48 -0400

ENS Private RallyPoint Member - The problem with short term limits . . . is organizations like the Congress need some form of institutional memory ( older established politicians ) or the organization becomes feeble and weak . . . like a parent with Alzheimer's . . . and the organization will shrivel up and die at the hands of competing organizations . . . like an overarching dominant presidency determined to do whatever it wants to do. Sandy :)

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Aug 12 at 2016 3:58 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:58:22 -0400

I don't believe in any type of permanent appointment. There should be term limits and age limits. In past years, the Congressmembers have even been carried in on a stretcher for critical votes. Storm Thurmond and Heber from the state of LA come immediately to mind.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Aug 12 at 2016 3:59 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 15:59:19 -0400

If the voter continues to want to be lazy and not insist on good representation, then term limits can ensure that "bad" has a limit along with "good". It does tend to break up the monopolies that just never get it. Unfortunately they tend to get replaced by the same.

Response by Capt Michael Greene made Aug 12 at 2016 4:02 PM

Capt Michael Greene — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:02:39 -0400

No term limits.
Every time you get a new guy, he or she will not understand the system, not know the people, and will be very inefficient.
A career politician by itself is just fine. If you don't like him, vote him out.

The real problem is Citizens United, which currently allows unlimited money from anywhere to control the lawmakers.
The best solution is to make the election process and the campaigns themselves limited by law and limited to taxpayer funding. So that little or no money influences the politicians.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 12 at 2016 4:17 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 16:17:56 -0400

Term limits suggest that the American public cannot handle voting

Response by SSG Gerhard S. made Aug 12 at 2016 5:35 PM

SSG Gerhard S. — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 17:35:14 -0400

I have long believed we should institute a " ONE TERM IN-A-ROW" policy. If in office, you cannot run for that office twice in a row. You can take a term off, then run for that office again... But no two terms in a row. ... No seniority, no taxpayer funded pension, or retiree health care. Oh... And if you want to run, for a different office you have to resign your currently held office. We shouldn't be paying politicians to run for new office, while neglecting their current office. Interested in your thoughts... Regards

Response by SPC David S. made Aug 12 at 2016 5:36 PM

SPC David S. — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 17:36:44 -0400

Same with campaign fiance - you want to run its on your own dime. You take the money and benefits out of it I bet a majority would resign.

Response by MSG Stan Hutchison made Aug 12 at 2016 5:41 PM

MSG Stan Hutchison — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 17:41:30 -0400

We just keep arguing this over and over,,,
We have term limits on 2 branches of our government,, they are called elections.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Aug 12 at 2016 5:56 PM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 17:56:43 -0400

Yes on term limits.

Response by SGT Tim Soyars made Aug 12 at 2016 6:55 PM

SGT Tim Soyars — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 18:55:28 -0400

Let me post this question. Could States impose term limits on their Federal elected officials, just as many do their governors?

Response by PO1 Michael Fullmer made Aug 12 at 2016 7:08 PM

PO1 Michael Fullmer — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 19:08:36 -0400

Not only with politicians, but SCOTUS as well.

Response by SSG Trevor S. made Aug 12 at 2016 7:17 PM

SSG Trevor S. — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 19:17:57 -0400

I agree, and think it's time for the people to have an opportunity for a referendum overturn of SCOTUS decisions and to overturn laws.

Response by SSG Carlos Madden made Aug 12 at 2016 7:42 PM

SSG Carlos Madden — Fri, 12 Aug 2016 19:42:47 -0400

Thanks for posting. A similar discussion already exists on RallyPoint. Check out the responses in this post:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/should-we-have-term-limits-for-every-federal-government-branch

Should we have term limits for every federal government branch? | RallyPoint

Response by CPL Rickie Byers made Jan 23 at 2020 12:07 AM

CPL Rickie Byers — Thu, 23 Jan 2020 00:07:40 -0500

I personally like the idea of 1/3 of the Senate being elected every 2 years. I don't care who the President is I don't think he/she should be stumping for anyone for office, at least while still in office. Explaining policy decisions are great but not helping someone else get elected. Besides term limits I agree that there needs to be some limits on the time for candidates to campaign and collect campaign funds. Each of the two major political parties exercise way too much power. There needs to be some constraints. A six year one term President might not be a bad idea. How much time does a President spend campaigning for others seeking office? One term and the President does not have to worry about getting re-elected. The downside is having to get re-elected does put more control in the voting public. I am not a big fan of the concept of impeachment.