Your Response was posted! Click here to see it.
Posted on Jul 12, 2015
Should we have term limits for every federal government branch?
13.5K
192
105
23
23
0
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?
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?
Election 2016
Elections
Politics
Government
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 51
6
6
0
6
6
0
6
6
0
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.
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.
(6)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
CPT Alan W. - Captain; Cutting the election campaign down to 12 weeks from the current 208.7 is a really good idea.
I don't like the idea of no advertising from anyone but the candidate, but I would approve on no advertising unless it contained (in big bold letters) either "This advertisement has been approved by __[fill in the blank]__ and __[fill in the blank]__ supports all of the statements in it 100%" or "__[fill in the blank]__ refuses to endorse this advertisement and disclaims any connection with the people who are paying for it." PLUS listing the actual names and business telephone numbers of the "directing minds" of the group/person that is paying for the advertisement.
I don't like the idea of no advertising from anyone but the candidate, but I would approve on no advertising unless it contained (in big bold letters) either "This advertisement has been approved by __[fill in the blank]__ and __[fill in the blank]__ supports all of the statements in it 100%" or "__[fill in the blank]__ refuses to endorse this advertisement and disclaims any connection with the people who are paying for it." PLUS listing the actual names and business telephone numbers of the "directing minds" of the group/person that is paying for the advertisement.
(1)
(0)
PO3 Jonathan Cooper
Love this idea CPT. Add that they can't start fundraising until 9 months before teh election. Keeps the money limited as well.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Unfortunately what you are limiting in that scenario is the First Amendment, Free Speech. Saying someone can't run an add, or campaign is censorship. Because of the First Amendment, I could actually start campaigning right now for the 2020 election, but that is what freedom is for.
(1)
(0)
CPT Alan W.
SSG (Join to see) - Good point, although there is a good bit of precedent for restricting certain types of advertising that doesn't violate the 1st Amendment. Thanks for the input!
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
6
6
0
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.
(6)
(0)
PO3 Jonathan Cooper
The biggest problem is how much it cost for anyone in Congress to get their name out there. Just 15-20 seconds of airtime for a commercial is outrageous.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
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
http://www.archives.gov/about/laws/former-presidents.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_Presidents_Act
Welcome to the NARA Web site.
(6)
(0)
CPL Eric Allen
I think the reason they get paid for life is because
1. The posses a lot of classified info on America.
2. They basically are always being hunted Down.
So to say that they shouldn't get paid for life is a little like saying this country doesn't need a president
1. The posses a lot of classified info on America.
2. They basically are always being hunted Down.
So to say that they shouldn't get paid for life is a little like saying this country doesn't need a president
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
CPL Eric Allen - I heard something a long time ago along the lines of the President or Congress or someone thought it would give a company an undue advantage to hire a former President to work or market for them. This would provide an undue influence that could erroneously drive the market and even cause competitors to go out of business. Therefore it was deemed that after serving in office a President should retire. Therefore the President should receive a pension for life in order to perpetuate that retirement.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
5
5
0
I don't think we would need limits if we had a "rule": You can"t vote for incumbents.
(5)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
(4)
(0)
SGT Tim Soyars
We have to take the "age limit" thing with careful consideration. One of out greatest presidents was also one of out oldest. Ronald Reagan.
(0)
(0)
MCPO Roger Collins
SGT Tim Soyars - Agree, but was he effective his last two years? One of the best in my lifetime, but he and FDR both had medical conditions that effected their ability to serve.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
I agree CH (MAJ) William Beaver there should be a term limit and add an age limit in there also.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google