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
0
0
0
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
The political system was never intended to become what it has. The government ran fine when it consisted of part-time legislators who had real jobs (outside of government) and met to conduct the business of the nation out of a sense of civic duty, not to seek glory, self-aggrandizement, or financial gain. The reasons we amended the Constitution to limit the terms for the Office of the President are just as valid in this case.
(0)
(0)
Capt Michael Greene
PO3 (Join to see) - "Not to seek glory...financial gain." We've been surrounded by that myth all our lives. George Washington and the others were incredibly wealthy, fantastically wealthy, thanks to slaves and the land taken away by force. I think they were brilliant, good men, who set up a beautiful Constitution. But they were not saints. And since then, for two hundred years, our leaders have been professional politicians, mostly lawyers who were born fabulously wealthy, and they wanted to be political leaders because of their egos, mainly.
You and I may have a sense of civic duty, but unless you're rich and powerful and have a strong drive to be more rich and more powerful, you wouldn't fit in. Not in the 1900s, not in the 1800s, not in the 1700s.
Our country runs not just 320 million people, but leads 7 billion people. Part time legislators are not what we need.
You and I may have a sense of civic duty, but unless you're rich and powerful and have a strong drive to be more rich and more powerful, you wouldn't fit in. Not in the 1900s, not in the 1800s, not in the 1700s.
Our country runs not just 320 million people, but leads 7 billion people. Part time legislators are not what we need.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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
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
.jpeg?1471030305)
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
and REDUCE their pay! and TAX TAX TAX them...for they do not pay taxes. What a CROCK!
(0)
(0)
ENS (Join to see)
Sgt Kelli Mays absolutely!
Also, I think you'd be interested in this:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/should-congress-members-be-chosen-at-random-much-like-jury-duty-see-details?urlhash=1800873
Also, I think you'd be interested in this:
https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/should-congress-members-be-chosen-at-random-much-like-jury-duty-see-details?urlhash=1800873
Should Congress members be chosen at random much like Jury Duty (see details)? | RallyPoint
Congress is full of lifetime members who have served decades who make way too much money making decisions that only benefit themselves. Imagine having a random system that selects Americans by SS number to serve in Congress for XX months. They get paid well, actually work full days, and are not corrupt. The system is blind to who is chosen with the exception of criminal backgrounds. Or, what if Americans could OPT IN to a selection pool, and...
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
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
Also we need benefits and pay cuts for elected, also no business can donate to election funds
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
Indeed...
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Are you telling me I can't have the official I elected?
Further are you going to junk the seniority system?
Further are you going to junk the seniority system?
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. - Spec; If it's good, keep it. If it's indifferent, take a look around to see if there is something that works better and then think about changing it. If it's bad - get rid of it as soon as possible.
There is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution of the United States of America to say that "The Seniority System" is the way that the House of Representatives and the Senate have to operate.
Remember this "Strict seniority systems are seldom introduced by either junior members of any organization or by competent senior members of any organization.". This, of course leaves "strict seniority systems" to be introduced by ....
There is nothing whatsoever in the Constitution of the United States of America to say that "The Seniority System" is the way that the House of Representatives and the Senate have to operate.
Remember this "Strict seniority systems are seldom introduced by either junior members of any organization or by competent senior members of any organization.". This, of course leaves "strict seniority systems" to be introduced by ....
(1)
(0)
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
Those are the rules of the Senate and the House. They didn't just pull them out of their butts. Are you rewriting the rules of Congress as well as restricting my elected officials ability to serve me?
(1)
(0)
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S.
Maj Richard "Ernie" Rowlette When you term limit MY elected official you are restricting their ability to serve me. How about I get to fire your favorite pol?
And they are not "policy" the are the voted rules of congress. Try to break one and see if it's just "policy"!
And they are not "policy" the are the voted rules of congress. Try to break one and see if it's just "policy"!
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. - Spec; Of course they didn't pull them out of their butts.
After long and careful deliberation the seniour members of the House of Representatives and the Senate decided that the "best solution" was for the seniour members of the House of Representatives and the Senate to keep control of all the plum positions for themselves.
If the rules of "Football" don't allow you to make forward passes and have someone else catch them with their hands, and you want to be able to make forward passes and have someone else catch them with their hands, then you simply have to invent "American Football" and change the rules.
I echo the sentiments that "term limits" DO NOT "restrict (your) elected officials ability to serve (you)". What "term limits" do is make you chose NEW elected officials every so often (and they don't even have to be from a different political party as the one who has run out their "term limit").
Now if someone were proposing that, after a certain period of time where you were represented by a person who belonged to "Political Party A" you could no longer be represented by a person who belonged to "Political Party A" I'd agree with you.
However, that is not the case and what is being proposed is that after a certain period of time where you were represented by a person who voted on legislation without either reading it or understanding it, you would have to pick a new representative who MIGHT not vote on legislation without reading it or understanding it.
After long and careful deliberation the seniour members of the House of Representatives and the Senate decided that the "best solution" was for the seniour members of the House of Representatives and the Senate to keep control of all the plum positions for themselves.
If the rules of "Football" don't allow you to make forward passes and have someone else catch them with their hands, and you want to be able to make forward passes and have someone else catch them with their hands, then you simply have to invent "American Football" and change the rules.
I echo the sentiments that "term limits" DO NOT "restrict (your) elected officials ability to serve (you)". What "term limits" do is make you chose NEW elected officials every so often (and they don't even have to be from a different political party as the one who has run out their "term limit").
Now if someone were proposing that, after a certain period of time where you were represented by a person who belonged to "Political Party A" you could no longer be represented by a person who belonged to "Political Party A" I'd agree with you.
However, that is not the case and what is being proposed is that after a certain period of time where you were represented by a person who voted on legislation without either reading it or understanding it, you would have to pick a new representative who MIGHT not vote on legislation without reading it or understanding it.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google