Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
[Image: congress.jpg?w=658&h=438]

Members of the House of Representatives serve two-year terms and are considered for reelection every even year.

Senators serve six-year terms and elections to the Senate are staggered over even years so that only about 13 of the Senate is up for reelection during any election.

U.S. Term Limits (USTL), based out of Washington, D.C., advocates for term limits at all levels of government. Since it was established in the early 1990s, USTL has assisted in enacting and defending term limits on state legislatures in 15 states as well as Congressional term limits in 23 states.

Then, in 1995, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton that states may not individually enact term limits for their members.

Thus, imposing federally-enforceable hard term-limits on Congress would likely require a Constitutional amendment.
Commonly-cited Pros:
Those in favor of Term Limits contend that they would limit special interest influence, assure that fresh perspectives would be brought to Congress, and better ensure government of the people, for the people, and by the people instead of fostering a culture of career politicians and corruption.

This is an area where Trump and Paul Ryan agree (if Trump stays consistent with what he's saying now; he previously opposed term limits).

Commonly-cited Cons:
Those against Term Limits contend, in line with the Supreme Court decision, that term limits already exist via re-elections. The people of each state decide whether a Representative or Senator gets another term every two and six years respectively.

So, why should the people be denied the option of having a congressperson who they feel is serving them well continue representing them for as long as they want (and instead be forced to choose between two inexperienced new candidates)?

What do you think? Should Representatives be limited to something like 6 years of service (3 terms) and Senators be limited to 12 years of service (2 terms)?.........Or, should the people continue to decide how long their Representatives and Senators continue serving them via re-elections?
I know there are some Representatives and Senators who have been reelected multiple times and served for decades, but was curious whether that was a trend or more of an exception.

The average length of service for both Representatives and Senators has actually been decreasing.

--The average years of service for Members of the 112th Congress, as of January 5, 2011, when the Congress convened, was 9.8 years for the House and 11.4 years for the Senate.

--The average years of service for Members of the 113th Congress, as of January 3, 2013, when the Congress convened, was 9.1 years for the House and 10.2 years for the Senate.

--The average years of service for Members of the 114th Congress, as of January 6, 2015, when the Congress convened, was 8.8 years for the House and 9.7 years for the Senate. (pg 2 Summary, paragraph 3)
I don't think that term limits would do any good. Each Senator comes with a full faculty that is doing quite a bit of the work. They are the support team that encourage the figurehead to do be able to manipulate the laws and voting views of the Senator or Representative to get the best deal for their state so they can be re elected again. If they suck they will hopefully get booted by the voters. Many would cause more problems in the private sector and its good to keep them in view.
You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the clue mating dance.
How will changing the name on the door make any difference when the staffers who control what the name sees remain? As soon as a new member goes to orientation they are inundated by existing leadership to choose existing staffers to "guide" them through the learning curve. The real reason terms are shorting is the good people going there get sick of the corruption, bull shit and filth so they don't seek reelection.

The only way to get Washington under control is to cut spending by 50%. Take the profit out of being there.