I used to think that "term limits" on Senators and Congressmen was a violation of some kind of freedom or other

and I thought "if we get a good one we want to keep him"

but I changed my mind

I think the pros of term limits outweigh the cons

I've come to the conclusion that the only way to eliminate the professional politician "ruling class" is to restrict em to no more than two terms. ever. period.

The government that we have today is anathematic to the vision of the founding fathers. They never intended an elite ruling class to run this country

They intended "citizen statesmen" to go to Washington and do their share and then go home

i would like it if we could get a few ethical ones . but at there schools they are taught to get the guilty people off for money what do you expect from a lawyer . they aren't taught to be honest .

in principle we could merely vote them out of office. in practice however their considerable political power is used to prevent this from happening - regardless of their record. serving as a representative should be a privilege but we should make it as easy as possible to allow many different people this opportunity to serve.

i can envision a time when the term of service is limited to 10 to 15 years total and elective representatives are subject to an annual electronic vote of confidence. that would be nice.

you can't vote em out because everyone wants everyone else to vote their guy out

ten year

and after their service they leave

with no retirement

well maybe a little bit tacked on to SS when they really retire

cut the deficit. rescind wealthy ex-representatives pensions!

The annual salary of each senator, as of 2009, is $174,000;[14] the President pro tempore and party leaders receive $193,400.[15] In June 2003, at least 40 of the then-senators were millionaires.[16]

Along with earning salaries, senators receive retirement and health benefits that are identical to other federal employees, and are fully vested after five years of service.[15] Senators are covered by the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) or Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS). As it is for federal employees, congressional retirement is funded through taxes and the participants' contributions. Under FERS, senators contribute 1.3% of their salary into the FERS retirement plan and pay 6.2% of their salary in Social Security taxes. The amount of a senator's pension depends on the years of service and the average of the highest 3 years of his or her salary. The starting amount of a senator's retirement annuity may not exceed 80% of his or her final salary. In 2006, the average annual pension for retired senators and representatives under CSRS was $60,972, while those who retired under FERS, or in combination with CSRS, was $35,952.[15]
-wiki

well I guess that doesn't sound all that bad

15 years ago, I was studying the Constitution, American History and Political science on my own as a hobby. (and in the university as well, but I like studying history and politics)

When I got to the part how senators do not have term limits I mumbled a 3 words.


W. T. F.

They should have no more than 2 terms at max, just like the president.

I also don't agree how the president chooses his(her?) vice president and his cabinet.


Basically...by simple...dummy logic....You (could) (done it?) elect a president who tells you everything you want to hear, and he could be (actually is) a trojan horse, later unleashing his minions around him, who would never ever be there in the first place, if it would have depended on votes/popularity/ideology/experience.

O.K. first, i do not like discussing politics, BUT i agree. I do think there should be term limits. Why would those of less authority, than the President, be treated any differently.

I do have one concern, though. That this "lesser, constituent assembly" may opt for funding, in order to support their campaign.

I do not agree with private funding for the presidency, and i do not agree with it for the "law makers"

If a man/woman makes it, then he/she deserves it, without the help/ dismay/detriment of taxpayers. (and that is exactly what it is, and has been for years)

Just my opinion.

Actually....before you decide one way or the other about term limits, you may want to take a look at the current situation in Michigan.

We voted for term limits a few years back, and it hasn't worked out all that well.

The elected officials come in, and knowing that they are only going to be there for a certain amount of time, constantly butt heads and refuse to make any kind of compromises on what they think is " right ".

As with the line item veto, term limits are not constitutional.

In theory, if they limited the terms today, tomorrow they could mandate minimum terms. We could have the congress looking like the Supreme Court..

maybe so but I think its the only way to get the entrnched entitled ruling class out of washington

make everybody temps

there are pros to not having term limits but I think the cons outweigh them

and if it requires an amendment then so be it

here here!

I think the time is ripe for the formation of a "reform party"

Ross Perot was on the right track but the country wasn't ready at that time. this vicious polarization between the right and left hadn't reach quite enough of a boil for the people to be disgusted with it

I think now it has though

Apparently, they are constitutional.

We have had them in effect, voted in by the people of the state, for several years now.

No one has challenged it.

How would you qualify them as " unconstitutional "??

I have seen nothing in the Constitution that says anything about an elected official having the right to stay in office.

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
this is not accurate . thee vested after 1 term and fully vested after 2 ..I believe your info may be out of date . but total money for a senator is close to a half million . we pay there expenses up to 250000 dollars . but they do keep the figures quiet ..

BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB
Ross could of done just that . he had most of America on his side when he flipped out . George Wallace had the whole country on his side when he punked out . he confessed later that he wasn't really trying because he didn't think it was possible . but when the people rolled out in big waves of flesh to greet and root for him he stepped back and stopped . it was a shame we have needed a new view of thing s for a long time ..he said he was only trying to irate the other politicians ... he could of beat them easily .
reform is one way but my favorite would be is an old fashion rat hunt ..

ummmm didnt George Wallace drop out because someone put a bullet in his gut?


Ross Perot was doing fine until the media and late night comics started portraying him as a clown with big ears. and the sheeple bought into that and to this day he has the reputation as a nut case

but some things Ross Perot did that are not common knowledge

in the 70's he chartered a 747 with his own money and loaded it up with care/christmas packages for the america POW's in Hanoi. The Vietnamese refuse to allow them off the plane and they sat there for several days before the Vietnamese ordered them to leave

when the Iranian Revolutioin took all the hostages at the American Embassy. They also took hostages from his company EDS (the atm company) corporate headquarters in Tehran. Ross Perot spent his own money and hired a team of mercenaries to sneak in and rescue his people (see the movie, On the Wings of Eagles)

Ross Perot bought into GM and promised to turn their management and business around (that is what he does, takes failing businesses and revives em) His first order was to trim 30% of GM management as redundant and wasteful. Of course that didnt go over so GM wound up buying him out for $6 Billion dollars. and twenty years later had to be bailed out by the fed

He was almost there but about twenty years too early I think

In 1995 the Supreme Court ruled states could not set term limits on federal representatives..

WASHINGTON

The Supreme Court dealt a blow to the term-limits movement Monday, ruling that states may not restrict how long members of Congress serve on Capitol Hill.

The 5-4 ruling strikes down measures in 23 states that would have forced federal representatives off the ballot after several terms in Washington. The ruling does not affect term limits on state officeholders.

The justices concluded that the authors of the Constitution wanted the people to be free to pick their lawmakers through frequent elections, rather than limit who can serve.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-4284858.html

Ah. I see the mistake.

I was referring to term limits having been set on our reps in the State's capitol. Not the Federal reps.