Term limits for Senators and Representatives

Liberty
884

The founding fathers had jobs outside of serving. It is a public service. Not a career! Although it would be great to do it immediately I think putting it in affect after 10 years when this crew is out is a good fix. Otherwise they’re not going to pass it unfortunately.

I’d also like congress to do some actual Work! The first few times I watched congressional hearings I thought,“Yes! They’re (whomever) finally going to pay for what they’ve done.” They don’t though. It’s like they filibuster their whole work day away for 2 years and never get anything done.

And NO pensions for government personnel. Let them get a job like it was meant to be in the Constitutional Republic! Make lobbying illegal. They come in middle class and end up millionaires. How’s that happening in govt jobs?? Bribery! Make them subject to audits like anyone else.

(Idk how to post separate topics. Every time I try it says i don’t belong to any groups. I have no idea how to do that. Please create new ones off this post if you think it’s worthy of comments.)

885

do what you say FIRST—-before any mention of term limits!!! i guarantee you wont NEED term limits! lame ducks LOVE “term limits!!!

886

Statesman:

A skilled, experienced, and respected political leader or figure.

You really aren’t making sense anymore, it’s clear you don’t have a good understanding of the 17th Amendment, or have a good way to convey how appointment-by-committee is a better system. I asked a question:

So your differing definition between ‘politician’ and ‘statesmen’ is whether they are elected or appointed?

You responded with a question:

Do you know the difference in a statesman and a politician? Do you know the value in keeping our Senators in fed Congress on a tight, accountable leash?

You obviously aren’t reading, or are just trolling at this point.

The 17th Amendment does not affect the impeachment process of any Senate of the United States.

If you’re concerned about term limits creating incentive for individuals to just hold office without doing anything, than you, or the people who want to see someone removed, need to petition for a specific person to be impeached. If needed sue your State legislature until your petition is enforced by the Supreme Court.

or

Create legislation that actually has to do with the impeachment process of Senators instead of calling for the repeal of an Amendment that has nothing to do with what you are calling for.

Actually, if you wanted ‘the people to have tighter control’ wouldn’t you rather be able to choose your Senator? What you are arguing for is taking your direct choice away and granting it to another person.

If you were concerned about actual representation you’d be arguing any of these points:

887

i have reiterated on here many times that with repeal of the 17th, the PEOPLE, who have regular correspondence or face to face conversations with their STATE (one of the several states) have more influence than with their FED reps (tighter leash) then if appointed by the state legislature the state legislature has a tighter leash! This used to be the case. NOW—not being appointed and subject to re-call—we get more politicians and fewer Statesmen. look at the word “states men.”. People directly elect the House, but not statesmen. The local legislature APPOINTED “statesmen.”. and the local or state legislature WAS directly accountable to the people of the state. and it was clear going in that they were subject to recall if they did not hold the particular states’ interest first and foremost.. It acted MUCH like the electoral college is meant to do. Otherwise, we would see 3 large cities elect every president. THAT is what I mean when I say “tight leash.”.

888

I would add per deim pay for their work as they are working for the people and their retirement pay nullified. They should participate in what we the people are given. When they are no longer in office they should not be paid “retirement benefits”. Same with medical insurance they should participate in what the rest of the country has to. I just read an article that they receive 80% in pay for life after leaving office. They have degrees(most of them) Let them go back to their careers. With term limits they will not have enough years to “retire” from government.

889

‘Under Article I, Section 5, clause 2, of the Constitution, a Member of Congress may be removed from office before the normal expiration of his or her constitutional term by an “expulsion” from the Senate (if a Senator) or from the House of Representatives (if a Representative) upon a formal vote on a resolution agreed to by two-thirds of the Members of that body present and voting.’

The 17th Amendment has nothing to do with the recall of Senators or the impeachment thereof.

‘As to removal by recall, the United States Constitution does not provide for nor authorize the recall of United States officers such as Senators, Representatives, or the President or Vice President, and thus no Member of Congress has ever been recalled in the history of the United States.’

I sadly cannot continue this conversation unless you read the 17th Amendment.

890

maybe you need to fi9nd out PRE 17th amendment. can you do that?

891

All of the changes from the original to the Amendment are listed in the link I sent above.

892

before the 17th , the STATE legislature filled all senators’
seats, unless the legislature was in recess, then the governor would make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the state legislature which shall then fill all vacancies. not the House, just the senate. the senators were strictly at the beck and call of the state legislature.

893

That is exactly what I said. Today, instead of the House controlling the appointment of the Senate, it is up to general election. The 17th Amendment doesn’t have anything to do with the recall/removal of Senators.

Through this conversation you helped me identify a problem that I see with the 17th Amendment. → That being the legislature’s choice to promote the executive to make appointments, and the time of the temporary Appointment being in office being increased.

The original vacancy appointment clause required that the executive preform their duty at the next recess of each State’s legislature, and that the next meeting-not the next election period-the legislature would officially fill the vacancies. The original clauses in Article I, Clauses 1 & 2 were superior in preventing corruption and assuring representation to the States, but lacking granting the People any say in their election/appointment.

Are we done? The 17th Amendment doesn’t have anything to do with the recall/removal of Senators.

894

You said: Are we done? The 17th Amendment doesn’t have anything to do with the recall/removal of Senators.

That is the problem. Before the 17th, the state (which is the people) were in control.

895

TERM LIMITS SEN. CRUZ INTRODUCES CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO IMPOSE TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) today introduced an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to impose term limits on members of Congress. The amendment would limit U.S. Senators to two six-year terms and Members of the U.S. House of Representatives to three two-year terms after the date of its enactment.

Sen. Cruz said:

“Term limits are critical to fixing what’s wrong with Washington, D.C. The Founding Fathers envisioned a government of citizen legislators who would serve for a few years and return home, not a government run by a small group of special interests and lifelong, permanently entrenched politicians who prey upon the brokenness of Washington to govern in a manner that is totally unaccountable to the American people. Terms limits brings about accountability that is long overdue and I urge my colleagues to advance this amendment along to the states so that it may be quickly ratified and become a constitutional amendment."

Rep. Norman stated:

“Elected office should represent a short-term privilege of public service, not a career choice. Those of us in Congress ought to serve for a reasonable period of time and then return home to live under the laws we enacted. That’s why I’ve proposed a constitutional amendment to establish term limits in the legislative branch, and I am honored that Sen. Cruz has introduced a companion bill over in the Senate. This effort will go a long way to positively impact American politics, and I appreciate Sen. Cruz’s leadership on this important issue.”

The amendment was cosponsored by Sens. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), Mike Braun (R-Ind.), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Josh Hawley (Mo.), and Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.).

Sen. Haggerty said:

“The Founders intended serving as a Member of Congress to be just that—service, not a career. Setting term limits for senators and representatives is a step toward ensuring that Washington works for the American people, not for itself.”

Sen. Lummis said:

“Too often, Senators and Members of Congress become out of touch with the rest of the country when they find themselves in Washington for too long. Congress was designed to be a body representative of the people, so ensuring we have elected officials who truly understand what it is to work, raise a family and live their lives in their home districts is essential. That’s why I’m proud to introduce an amendment to the Constitution alongside my colleague Sen. Ted Cruz to put term limits in place for both Senators and House members.”

Sen. Rick Scott said:

“The status quo in Washington isn’t working for the American people. Until members of Congress are willing to put the best interests of Americans over everything else, they will never make the bold, tough choices needed to put our nation back on track. It’s time to reimagine government as it currently operates, and term limits for members of the House and Senate are a great place to start.”

Nick Tomboulides, executive director of U.S. Term Limits, said:

“Supermajorities of Republicans and Democrats favor term limits because they know Congress will never be fixed without it. We applaud Sen. Cruz for continuing to lead on this issue.”

The full amendment may be viewed here. Sen. Cruz previously introduced a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits in each of the three prior Congresses – in 2017, 2019, and 2021.

1 Like
896

Two terms, four years each term, similar to other elected positions such as the president, governors, state insurance commissioner, etc.

1 Like
897

I think this is still waaayyyyyyy too much!
Two terms, four years each term. This should also apply to other elected positions such as the president, governor, state insurance commissioner, etc.

898

I would like edit the statement to say, maximum two terms or 8 years in office cumulative between Senate and House. This will keep ideas fresh and potentially long term lobbying organizations under control.

899

Absolutely stop lifetime ‘retirement assistance.’ They should get a salary Social Security and a 401K like the rest of us.

1 Like
900

Well, I could see allowing lobbying as long as it is done by mail, with no face-to-face meetings. You send the representative your argument in the mail or by email, just like every other citizen.

901

Okay, thanks for debating.

My words fall upon deaf ears.

902

The first line of defense for the republicans must happen before even the primary through making sure those voting are properly and accurately informed voters. Registered republicans must vote out the career politicians owning the label of RINO in each State! They must vote out the incumbent from the past primary ticket that have records supporting special interest groups just out to make another buck of taxpayers, Buying favor for causes that don’t align with the majority of party-line voters cannot make it on the general election tickets. Primaries are the time to clean house of the frauds that have told us one thing and done another. When the general election cycle comes into play that is the time to assure the right candidate for the good of ‘We The People’ will be armed with the information required to convince the majority of voters to cast their ballots for the people.

904

Term limit proposals tend to be popular— and never agreed upon. Senator Cruz (I voted for him) proposed this 2 term limit for Senators plan above then filed for a third term. Any ideas on what it would take for the idea to happen?

1 Like