http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/04/...amendment/

Quote:Aiming to reform Capitol Hill, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla) officially filed an amendment on Tuesday to impose term limits on Congress. Cruz made the annoucement on Facebook, saying: “With control of a decisive majority of the states, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, we have a responsibility to answer the voters’ call-to-action. We must deliver.” The two had previously promised to introduce the measure this year in a Washington Post op-ed.

“The American people resoundingly agreed on Election Day, and President-elect Donald Trump has committed to putting government back to work for the American people,” he added in a statement. “It is well past time to put an end to the cronyism and deceit that has transformed Washington into a graveyard of good intentions.”

The proposed constitutional amendment specifies that senators could only serve two six-year terms, while House representatives would be allowed two three-year terms. It also states that the term limits would not begin until the bill becomes law, so the clock for current lawmakers wouldn’t start until reelection.

The proposal already has support from Republican Sens. Mike Lee (Utah), Deb Fischer (Neb.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Thom Tillis (N.C.) and David Perdue (Ga.).

Democratic leadership has been reluctant in the past to support term limits, but in recent years there has been a growing number of Democrats showing public support for the idea. Democratic Sens. Mike Thompson (California) and Ron Kind (Wis.) both spoke out in favor of the idea in 2015. “

So they are going to change House terms from 2 years to 3 years? I would much rather Congressmen be allowed to serve 3 2 year terms instead.

And a simple Google search reveals theblaze.com made a typo.

The proposal is 3 2 year terms.

If its going to ever pass, the time is now.

Yeah, there's some stuff I don't like about it like the clock starting when the amendment is ratified instead of counting back but I'm willing to live with that if the amendment passes and is ratified.

(01-04-2017 10:18 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Yeah, there's some stuff I don't like about it like the clock starting when the amendment is ratified instead of counting back but I'm willing to live with that if the amendment passes and is ratified.

agreed but its a compromise that is bearable, especially considering most of them would stay without the amendment anyways.

since "public service" has become so profitable why not spread the wealth around.

I would think as many seats as the democrats have lost over the last 6. years they would be in full support of this to try and gain some back.

Then there's the drawback of term-limits in that sometimes you replace someone great with someone who doesn't measure up. Here in SC we once replaced a great Governor, Carroll Campbell, with an absolute dud in David Beasley because of term limits. Going back further Strom Thurmond and Fritz Hollings were absolutely great for South Carolina and none of their replacements have been particularly remarkable with Lindsey Graham being an absolute embarrassment.

I read a quote from McConnell where he used the line "we already have term limits, they are called elections"

I always hated that because for most people, your only the only option to replace an incumbent that is in your party is to vote for someone who is not politically aligned with you of the opposite party. That is what I found most refreshing about the TEA Party, they were not afraid to go after an incumbent in the primary.

(01-04-2017 10:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Then there's the drawback of term-limits in that sometimes you replace someone great with someone who doesn't measure up. Here in SC we once replaced a great Governor, Carroll Campbell, with an absolute dud in David Beasley because of term limits. Going back further Strom Thurmond and Fritz Hollings were absolutely great for South Carolina and none of their replacements have been particularly remarkable with Lindsey Graham being an absolute embarrassment.

How many times is a dud getting replaced v. forcing out someone who actually did a good job. The former seems more common than the latter.

I love this idea. Turn it over every 6 years in the house and every 12 in the senate.

Get rid of the career political class.

Only thing I would add is a restrictive covenant precluding any lobbyist activity for 5 years after leaving federal elected office.

I'm against the idea.

I'm not a fan of career politicians but this is silly.

There should be no term limits period. This is conservative nanny-stating.

If you want new people, vote for them. People must take responsibility for their leaders as ultimately you get the government you deserve.

(01-04-2017 10:35 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm against the idea.

I'm not a fan of career politicians but this is silly.

There should be no term limits period. This is conservative nanny-stating.

If you want new people, vote for them. People must take responsibility for their leaders as ultimately you get the government you deserve.

Would you vote for a democrat, as I am assuming you usually vote Republican, to unseat a corrupt/incompetent/disliked republican?

(01-04-2017 10:37 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 10:35 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm against the idea.

I'm not a fan of career politicians but this is silly.

There should be no term limits period. This is conservative nanny-stating.

If you want new people, vote for them. People must take responsibility for their leaders as ultimately you get the government you deserve.

Would you vote for a democrat, as I am assuming you usually vote Republican, to unseat a corrupt/incompetent/disliked republican?

I have before.

Want it to get back to the point where it really is public service....it should sorta suck....you should never want to hang onto this job for decades. People should be dying to get back to their homes and their careers. This should not be the career. #1 reason for the rot in DC.

(01-04-2017 10:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 10:37 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 10:35 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm against the idea.

I'm not a fan of career politicians but this is silly.

There should be no term limits period. This is conservative nanny-stating.

If you want new people, vote for them. People must take responsibility for their leaders as ultimately you get the government you deserve.

Would you vote for a democrat, as I am assuming you usually vote Republican, to unseat a corrupt/incompetent/disliked republican?

I have before.

Fair enough.

I will counter by saying that you should not have to vote for someone you politically disagree with to get rid of a bad incumbent. This rule change will make it easier for people to get rid of bad incumbents without having to cross party lines, something that people are doing less and less.

Incumbents have huge advantages. I like the idea of the amendment, especially if it leads to the elimination of entrenched Congressmen like Reid, McConnell, Pelosi, Watters, and McCain.

They need to rework the House end of term limits. I don't think it's a good idea to give Senators 12 years and Reps. only 6. Make it 6 2-year terms for the House and I'm on board 1000%!! As it stands now, I cannot back this amendment.

(01-04-2017 10:28 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 10:24 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Then there's the drawback of term-limits in that sometimes you replace someone great with someone who doesn't measure up. Here in SC we once replaced a great Governor, Carroll Campbell, with an absolute dud in David Beasley because of term limits. Going back further Strom Thurmond and Fritz Hollings were absolutely great for South Carolina and none of their replacements have been particularly remarkable with Lindsey Graham being an absolute embarrassment.

How many times is a dud getting replaced v. forcing out someone who actually did a good job. The former seems more common than the latter.

Well we have yet to have a Governor anywhere near as good as Carroll Campbell and he left office in 1995. We followed up the dud Beasley with another dud in Jim Hodges. Hodges was followed up by Mark "Appalachian Trail" Sanford and he accomplished pretty much nothing. Nikki Haley followed up Sanford and has been mediocre at best.

(01-04-2017 10:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 10:37 PM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 10:35 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I'm against the idea.

I'm not a fan of career politicians but this is silly.

There should be no term limits period. This is conservative nanny-stating.

If you want new people, vote for them. People must take responsibility for their leaders as ultimately you get the government you deserve.

Would you vote for a democrat, as I am assuming you usually vote Republican, to unseat a corrupt/incompetent/disliked republican?

I have before.

Did that person win? If your answer is no, then you'll understand why this flawed (IMO) amendment is needed.

I would love to see Pelosi gone, but I would hate to see Bernie Sanders to go. Pelosi is the wicker witch of the west and Bernie is the good wizard of Oz.