Term limits

[pecksniff]

Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin recently announced his bid for a third term despite having previously promised to limit himself to two. But, of course, that kind of personal promise is not what the issue is about.

The idea played some role in Republican rhetoric in 1994 -- it might even have been a plank of the "Contract with America," I'm not sure. After that election, I saw a cartoon of an elephant in a "Just Married" carriage, kicking out an astonished bride labeled "Term Limits."

In 1995, the SCOTUS ruled term limits (for Congress, imposed by states) unconstitutional.

But never mind that -- do term limits have value?

Every republic needs a class of experienced professional politicians. Government is not a simple matter -- amateur "citizen legislators" won't do. OTOH, it hardly seems worthwhile to vote in any case where the incumbent's re-election is certain because he's built up connections, etc.

My thinking is, if we have term limits, they should not be lifetime limits -- i.e., you can't be re-elected to the same office, but you can run for it again next time. That breaks the advantage of incumbency, while still leaving us with a pool of experienced talent.

 

[BBW_T&A_Lover]

Chuck Grassley is running for another term as senator. He's 88 years old.

HE is the reason for term limits.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Chuck Grassley is running for another term as senator. He's 88 years old.

HE is the reason for term limits.

Not really, he's just gonna die as people do.

 

[pecksniff]

Of course, in 1994, the GOP's concern was that incumbency appeared to have given Democrats a permanent lock on Congress. They lost interest in term limits after they took over.

 

[LupusDei]

People spawn roots in the chairs they occupy. If those are allowed to grow for too long they reach the poisonous water deep down, leading to apparent insanity.

It doesn't necessarily happen, and sometimes happens extremely quickly, but limiting that risk is what term limits are meant to manage.

 

[ll74]

I'm a proponent of voter imposed limits.

Get the people to vote incumbents out....make that a campaign

 

[pecksniff]

I'm a proponent of voter imposed limits.

Get the people to vote incumbents out....make that a campaign

How much voter appeal is "Vote against X because he's the incumbent!" really likely to have? X can always say, "You need me! I have seniority and plum committee assignments!"

 

[ll74]

How much voter appeal is "Vote against X because he's the incumbent!" really likely to have? X can always say, "You need me! I have seniority and plum committee assignments!"

With the right message, it can have a great deal.

Simply show the messaging that legislator to limit terms will never happen, so voters are the only way.

 

[Rightguide]

When the American people decide it's a good idea they will amend the Constitution to put term limits on House members and Senators, until then it's a lot of hot air and wishful thinking.

 

[ryan8558]

People spawn roots in the chairs they occupy. If those are allowed to grow for too long they reach the poisonous water deep down, leading to apparent insanity.

It doesn't necessarily happen, and sometimes happens extremely quickly, but limiting that risk is what term limits are meant to manage.

In some cases there has been insanity present at the swearing in ceremony.

 

[GothTalk]

No need. that's what elections are for.

If people like their officials, they should be allowed to keep them.

If not, elect someone new.

 

[pecksniff]

When the American people decide it's a good idea they will amend the Constitution to put term limits on House members and Senators, until then it's a lot of hot air and wishful thinking.

No, it could be done by legislation. SCOTUS hasn't ruled that out if it's federal.

 

[pecksniff]

In some cases there has been insanity present at the swearing in ceremony.

You're not talking about that Muslim who swore on a Koran, are you?

 

[Comshaw]

No, it could be done by legislation. SCOTUS hasn't ruled that out if it's federal.

SCOTUS hasn't, but the lower court has. Years before the case you sited happened, in 1992, The Speaker of the House, Tom Foley (D), sued the people of the state of Washington over a term limit initiative they had passed into law. The U.S. 9th District court ruled it was unconstitutional for states to impose term limits for federal offices. I believe that would be true of congress also. I do not believe they could institute term limits with legislation. In fact, the only term limits on a federal office are for the POTUS. And those term limits took a constitutional amendment, which I believe would be the case for any federal term limits.

The interesting thing about Foley, he got served with a term limit anyway. The very next election after he won his case he became the first Speaker of the House to be voted out of office since Galusha A. Grow in 1862. The moral: don't piss off your voters by suing them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Foley.

Comshaw

 

[JohnnySavage]

The old white guys just refuse to step aside and let the next generation have a chance

 

[Champakian]

The old white guys just refuse to step aside and let the next generation have a chance

How dare you!


Joe Biden was clearly the best hope for American Minorities...

We just cannot do it on our own because of all that white oppressing going on out there!

 

[JohnnySavage]

If I were dictator, I'd set an age limit of 65 for all people on the public payroll.

It's not worth amending the Constitution over though.

 

[Champakian]

Term limits is a sword that cuts both ways.

It's just one of those great ideas to solve a nonexistent problem
that has severe unintended consequences because if it is applied
up and down the entire chain of government, then the bad as well
as the good just runs for the next higher, now vacated, office...



... then when they run out of offices to hold, they have the
experience in government that gets them hired into the bureaucracy.

So, it's a glass half full, win-win and lose-lose.

Therefore the only valid check
is the vote not the limitation.

 

[Champakian]

What use does a dictator have for a Constitution other than to keep
his rubber-stamp show legislators knee-deep in busywork?

 

[JohnnySavage]

I would be a benevolent dictator.

 

[Champakian]

That's how they always begin. Right up until they gain power.


Then, only Brutus can end it.

 

[Cubantripod]

I'm a proponent of voter imposed limits.

Get the people to vote incumbents out....make that a campaign

So do you support a repeal of the 22nd amendment?

 

[Cubantripod]

SCOTUS hasn't, but the lower court has. Years before the case you sited happened, in 1992, The Speaker of the House, Tom Foley (D), sued the people of the state of Washington over a term limit initiative they had passed into law. The U.S. 9th District court ruled it was unconstitutional for states to impose term limits for federal offices. I believe that would be true of congress also. I do not believe they could institute term limits with legislation. In fact, the only term limits on a federal office are for the POTUS. And those term limits took a constitutional amendment, which I believe would be the case for any federal term limits.

The interesting thing about Foley, he got served with a term limit anyway. The very next election after he won his case he became the first Speaker of the House to be voted out of office since Galusha A. Grow in 1862. The moral: don't piss off your voters by suing them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Foley.

Comshaw

Not necessarily. The holding in both cases is that states can't place limit on that state's elected members to Congress. Neither case says anything that could be interpreted to mean that Congress can't either by a simple federal statute.

 

[ll74]

So do you support a repeal of the 22nd amendment?

I stated what I support in regards to term limits. Note how repeal of anything or additional legislation are not mentioned

 

[Comshaw]

Not necessarily. The holding in both cases is that states can't place limit on that state's elected members to Congress. Neither case says anything that could be interpreted to mean that Congress can't either by a simple federal statute.

Hence, my use of "I believe". If the states are barred from implementing term limits, it follows that congress would probably be too. However, my belief is further bolstered by the fact that congress saw the need for a constitutional amendment before term limits were implemented on POTUS. A great legal argument can be made that by passing the 22nd amendment congress set the precedence that federally elected offices can not, without a constitutional amendment, be term limited.

That said the only way we will ever know for sure is if such a case makes it's way to SCOTUS.


Comshaw