Term Limits are way, way overdue ...

[dogtag]

and they should be retroactive. Lengths of terms
to be worked out at some point, but looking at this
democrat party in both House and Senate shows
precisely the damage career politicians can do to
the Country. Has Schumer ever contributed anything
worthwhile during his near forty years in both House
and Senate. The same can be said for all the long
termers who care less about anything other than
getting re-elected. Trump's Presidency has proved
overwhelmingly that people with business acumen
are far better in the job than those who have never
made payroll or held a job where shirking would get
you fired. Most now in office fit the latter category.
It's time for a change, but how when the very people
you're trying to get rid of are the ones who'll vote on
the Bill that if passed would get rid of them ?
How to do it ? A referendum ?

[Roadkingtrax]

You dont vote.

[togor]

DT, are you a US citizen? Not asking you to upload papers but you ought to at least come clean on whether or not you took the oath.

Term limits deliberately force out people based on years of service only. Good businesses don't automatically flush their most experienced leaders, so there's that. You always want a mix.

[barretcreek]

Term limits are just another way of avoiding civic involvement in operating the gub'mint. Vote the %&&)&%^%) out. It's not restricted to D.C.

Locally we have a problem with the folks at the wealthy solid blue end of the valley renting out their personal residences, which are taxed as such, for short term during the tourist season. Where do they go? Onto a piece of land, next to a river, which is in dispute as whether it is owned by the county or (mis)managed by the federal government. Each points at the other. So all summer long people who own houses worth around a million bucks are squatting on public land and the paper pushers refuse to move them out because it might cost them a few votes. It will become an issue very soon and our term limited county commissars ain't doing squat about it. It will become a public health issue and the state will have to resolve it. Or maybe the EPA will.

- - - Updated - - -

[Vern Humphrey]

Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Power, therefore should be strictly rationed, with no man having more than a few years of it.

[dogtag]

Doesn't answer the basic question - HOW do we do it ?
Is there such a thing as a Nation wide referendum ?

[Roadkingtrax]

You would have to vote.

[togor]

Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Power, therefore should be strictly rationed, with no man having more than a few years of it.

Yeah but that's hardly the problem today, Trump notwithstanding. The problem today is that special interests run DC. The problem is in fact, worse than ever. How many cabinet appointees are insiders from and in hot water for secret meetings with industries they are supposed to regulate? About the only one who has stayed somewhat clean is a Rick Perry at DOE. In my opinion you don't want to be rolling in a bunch of yahoos every 8 years. I agree entrenchment is a problem, but that stems from districting as much as anything else. Imagine the US military if all officers were limited to 8 years max.

[Allen]

This won't answer your question either because I don't believe there is one. No standing members of congress are going to want to pass such an act.

I feel all judges have way too much authority. No single judge should be able to block a president. A majority of them? OK, but not a single judge. That gives him/her more power than the president (who is elected, not appointed).

Members of congress should have certain guidelines to go by to determine what party they belong to. We see too many crossovers like McCain and Graham.

Term limits should also include family limits. We don't want a dynasty of Bushes, Clinton's, Kennedy's and such.

One requirement of running for any office should be military service, male or female.

Voting out members of congress seems to be the logical choice but what do we see at election time? We see the SOS candidates with built in money backing them along with the corruption that would rival a s**thole nation. So we don't usually have any choice.

Having said all of this and of course it's only my 2 cents worth, lets not bring up the issue while we finally have a real president in office with the promising outlook of a second term and while the supreme court is almost balanced.

[blackhawknj]

How about eliminating judges as a full time position ? Jurors are drawn from a pool, why not judges ? Instead of it being a full-time position make it a duty position-like Officer of the Day in the Army, Officer of the Deck in the Navy ? Anyone with a law license, say 10-15 years experience, no record of disciplinary actions, their names goes in a pool, set up a training course...? Judge of the Month Club. Eliminate all the all the arrogance and corruption of a full time judiciary. Hard to shake someone down, drop hints that "something" might influence your decision in their favor knowing a year from now the roles might be reversed ?

[Vern Humphrey]

Doesn't answer the basic question - HOW do we do it ?
Is there such a thing as a Nation wide referendum ?

There is not, but there could be.

The thing is to draft a term limits amendment and push it -- get a lot of publicity.

Then ask all the states that have voted for a Constitutional Convention to rescind their calls and pass a new call, specifying that the Convention will be solely to vote on the Term Limit Amendment, up or down. States that have not yet voted for a Constitutional Convention could follow suit until we got 38 states to sign on.

In wording the amendment, I recommend we sweeten the pot. Let's say we want a 12 year limit -- but elected officials serving in office DURING THE YEAR THE AMMENDMENT IS RATIFIED shall count the year following the NEXT election as their first year.

[dogtag]

So, no way other than a Con Con ? That could be dangerous
even with the safeguard - knowing those wily politicians.

[Vern Humphrey]

So, no way other than a Con Con ? That could be dangerous
even with the safeguard - knowing those wily politicians.

A Constitutional Convention would not be dangerous -- because anything the Convention produces must still be ratified.

[togor]

IIRC you once argued that such a convention could be dangerous because it could put the Second Amendment in play for modification.