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
1
1
0
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
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....
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
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
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
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)....
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Let me post this question. Could States impose term limits on their Federal elected officials, just as many do their governors?
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
I don't see how States could impose such a term limit on federal office. The Constitution at this time defines how long each branch, and the Executive can serve. Furthermore, the Executive was limited to two terms by Amendment to the Constitution.... Most likely, such a restriction on Congress would likewise have to come in the form of a Constitutional Amendment.
(0)
(0)
SGT Tim Soyars
SSG Gerhard S. - There is no language in the Constitution that addresses the limit of terms of state's congressmen. It only addresses the length of each term. (Two years for the House, and six years for the Senate, per Article I of the Constitution.) There is nothing that precludes states from limiting the number of terms that may be served.
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
SGT Tim Soyars - I agree, I was working on my phone for that post, and I apologize for wording that so poorly. I meant to convey the Constitution defines how long the term is for each branch/house. My error. Thanks for catching it.
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
SGT Tim Soyars - I'll stand by the second half of my post though. It took a Constitutional amendment to limit the term of the President to two terms. I still find it likely it would take a Constitutional amendment to limit the number of terms of those in the Federal Congress. Respectful regards.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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.
(0)
(0)
ENS (Join to see)
SPC David S. wouldn't that do everyone, but the rich injustice? I certainly couldn't afford to campaign without the help of contributors.
(0)
(0)
SPC David S.
Yes - however when's the last person to run who wasn't a millionaire. If Bernie Sanders would have won he would have in fact been the first non-millionaire president since Harry Truman in 1945. Amounts raised by candidates in the 2016 race: Over $900 million. Super Pacs are another $500 million. This is with all the advances in communication - social media as well as in transportation. The election should take 60 to 90 days. Just goes to show how inefficiency the government/political process is.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
PO3 (Join to see)
Not to be THAT guy, but given our track record...
In all seriousness though, I've come across people who completely disagree with an idea I present to them in conversation (which "their" candidate was actually in support of) and then ask why they are in support of Candidate X. They state something like "That's who I've always voted for," or "that's who my parents voted for," or "I can't vote for -other guy- because he's black/white/Christian/Muslim/etc." It's pretty ridiculous.
I haven't seen any statistics (just because I haven't gone searching), but I'd wager that a good chunk (if not the majority) of voters are not as informed as they should be.
In all seriousness though, I've come across people who completely disagree with an idea I present to them in conversation (which "their" candidate was actually in support of) and then ask why they are in support of Candidate X. They state something like "That's who I've always voted for," or "that's who my parents voted for," or "I can't vote for -other guy- because he's black/white/Christian/Muslim/etc." It's pretty ridiculous.
I haven't seen any statistics (just because I haven't gone searching), but I'd wager that a good chunk (if not the majority) of voters are not as informed as they should be.
(0)
(0)
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google