Limit terms for Senators and Congressmen

Hello Emeraldisle, Great question! I am from a 'small state'. And, the argument against term limits has long been that small states would lose out if our Senators were not given the opportunity to garner enough power to gain senior ranking, so as to 'bring home the bacon'. The longer I live, and the more active I become in my state political arena, the more convinced I am that the above theory is 'hooey'. Yes, there should be term limits. I say no more than (2) six year terms. Any longer than that and the politician is out of the work force for too long to successfully get back in. Which means that 'politicking' becomes a way of life. Professional politicians are the bane of our nation! With your permission, I'm going to take this one step farther and submit that I also suggest that "We the People" demand that our political structure be amended to schedule (2)two 6-8 week legislative sessions per year, where our rep's are required to be in D.C. full-time. The build up to those sessions will find the rep's in their home states, 'town-halling' with their constituents and submitting issues (bills) to be placed on the semi-annual agenda. This will save the taxpayer an enormous amount of money. I believe that the only way to get our elected representatives out of the arena of corruption is to separate them, to limit the political favor sharing that takes place. And, to inundate them with the task of debating and either approving or rejecting bills with a limited time frame. This is how our 'Founding Fathers' envisioned the work of the nation. From the State to the Federal. This would also render political lobbying far more costly. The lobbyists would have to incur state to state expenditures to rally passage of bills that favor their issue. As it is now, lobbyists have far too much access to our electorate, and far too much power to pursuade them. I believe that each Senator should have a professional political staff, in D.C., to act as liason between the Rep in their home state, and the issues being submitted daily by other reps. This would cause no additional financial burden on the taxpayer, because the current system has a full-time staff for each rep in D.C., as well as their home state. The use of political interns in both locations should not change. Lastly, I suggest that the Senate and House leadership positions should be elected by the people from among senior rep's in their second term. I suggest this because if the turn-over rates of rep's increases, as it will with my suggestion, then someone has to be in a leadership position who knows the in's and out's of how Congress works. If I sound a bit fatigued by elitist politicians, it's because I recently visited D.C. and spent some time in the halls of Congress. The elitist air is overwhelming throughout our Capitol. And, it's "We the People" who suffer! Whew! Thanks for letting me get all that off my chest. Once again, you've submitted a great topic for debate Emeraldisle. Thank you!

I definatley think there should be term limits on senators and congress people. I having been screaming term limits since I have been in diapers. Needless to say, I agree with you. Term limits have the potential provide so many benefits, I don't see why more people cannot see this. Some of the benefits of limiting terms are: 1-less corruption (self explan.) 2-fresh prespectives and insights; 3-more work gets done; b/c career politicians don't do anything. They are to secure in the fact that they will return, regardless if they actually do anything or not. 4-limits their pay; since pay & other benefits is based on grade(which translates to years). 5-We simply shouldn't be stuck with them forever. If they are serving the "public good" as claim, then get in and get out. There are plenty of public sector jobs, they don't have to linger in office forever...it is always good to have change and new direction... Great discussion! Good to see like minded thinkers on here....A+!

I think all elected officials should be limited to one 6 year term. That would allow them time to settle in, get to know the process and focus on what they were elected to do. They would not have to worry about campaigning for re-election, their time could be spent doing their jobs. They wouldn't have to cater to special interest groups that could make or break them in the next election. Term limits would ensure that doddering old fools with the money to buy elections don't set themselves up for life to the detriment of their constituency (and the country when it comes to Congress and the President.)

For the most part presidents limited themselves to only two terms because that was the amount of time George Washington spent in office, with FDR being elected to 4 terms then Harry S. Truman winning the election the Republican party wanted to make sure that the Democrates couldn't remain in the White House so long in future elections. I doubt that any presidents following FDR would have been able to last in office for that many terms, the times were different, the circumstances the country was going through were different. Thought the limit of terms makes it nice to know that the dictatorship we are currently in will end. I am torn though between the idea of limiting the terms of office or not, I can see where putting limits on this would be a good thing, but since those who hold those offices maintain their benefits for LIFE, then they should at least attempt to earn them. Rarely are there any really great people who are elected rarely are there any who really do the job they were elected to do, mostly they are after making money and taking care of personal interests rather than the interests of the people, or following the ideals the country was founded on. For this reason I am all for limiting terms, at least give people a fresh chance. On the other hand, if the terms were limited then perhaps those being elected would be even more corrupt trying to fleece even more out of the situation knowing they haven't much time to make the money off of others. On the other hand, if more politicians thought that the people would vote out the incumbents then maybe they would get more good things done in an effort to get re-elected. There was actually a campaign here NJ to vote out incumbants reguardless of what party you were affiliated with, just vote out the incumbant so that the message would be sent, don't do the job, or at least part of it, or pretend to, and you get the boot. So it is difficult issue, why not have the same person stay in office if they can do the job? This would include the presidency, and yet if we limit the terms we limit the time they have to do damange to the country. So it is hard choice to make I don't think I know which to say is the best.

I agee with you. The number of terms our Senators and Congressmen should be limited. The Preident is limited to two terms. Should not those below him have at least the same limitation? This would stop abuse of power and ensure they did their job. So many of them do nothing once they are in. They seem to know that once in, never out. And that my friend is sad.