B.C. by Mastroianni and Hart for July 21, 2019

Term limits is a method of retiring legislators about the time they begin to understand what they are doing and it removes the motivation to meet the needs of the constituents. (Not that evil and/or incompetents shouldn’t be voted out by those they poorly serve.)

“Term Limits,” Huh?

And here I was gonna say, *BURN IT TO THE GROUND.”

PS: Remember, with “Term Limits,” you get RID of “friends” as well as “enemies.”

Anybody else wonder, how is it that those stone tablets float?

Amen! Look at congress today! They’re so old and incompetent, but the greed, the deceit, the lies, the bribe monies keep them inspired…..

Term limits? It’s called elections.

Legislators should already be informed and know what is going on and accomplish what is necessary before their TERM is over in a few years, not many years.

We have always had term limits; they are called elections.

We can replace 2/3 of the government over the span of 6 years. We can replace all of the House of Representatives every two years, about 1/3 of the Senate every two years and the President every 4 years. We’re stuck with the Supreme Court.

The biggest reason for term limits is to get rid of the other person’s politicians that you don’t like, since you can’t vote them out yourself.

Many voters don’t cast their ballots because of fatalistic belief that their vote won’t change anything. Change that mind set and ‘term limits’ will become a self-fulfilling process.

The original term limits put in place by those who set up this government were on 4 year term for the House and 1 6 year term for the senate, more than enough time to get things done, but not enough time to develop corruption. Seems they knew what they were doing.

Public campaign financing?

I think Messrs. Mastroianni and Hart are expressing their frustration with Congress. While I share it, I don’t think term limits are the answer. Some of Congress’ greatest mischief has been performed during lame-duck sessions, while numerous legislators are no longer accountable to the voters. If term limits are imposed, that would make large numbers of legislators ineligible for re-election at any one time, and might have the unintended consequence of turning every session of Congress into a lame-duck session. I think a better solution would be to return Congress to its original design, laid out in the Constitution. Article I, Section 2 requires one Representative for every 30,000 citizens in a State. (Alexander Hamilton wrote that 30,000 was the optimum number.) In 1929, however, the House capped itself at 435 members. As a result, each Representative today “represents” about 750,000. While returning to the Constitution’s requirement would give us a House of Representatives of some 10,000 members, I believe modern communication makes this doable. I see these advantages: Congressional districts would once again become more or less homogenous. Campaigns for the House could be conducted on a fairly modest budget. Constituents would find it much easier to hold Representatives accountable to the Constitution and their oaths of office. A special interest would have to corrupt over 5,000 people to be successful. Finally, up to about the end of the nineteen century, when the requirement was still observed, turnover in the House was typically about 50 percent every 4 years — without term limits. As for the Senate, I believe we should repeal the Seventeenth Amendment, which made Senators elected directly by the people instead of being appointed by the State governments. The Senate was supposed to represent the States and their governments — but no one in Congress has represented them for over 100 years.

These were never intended to be career positions. The people that worked among you were to go and represent you and then return to live under the laws they made.

Good idea.

I ran out of space, so let me continue my remarks. Congress originally consisted of two houses, answerable to two different electorates. It was another of the checks and balances the founding fathers so wisely built into the Constitution. Originally, the Senate was comparatively — not absolutely, of course, but comparatively — aloof from partisan politics and comparatively immune to pressure from special interest groups. The Seventeenth Amendment changed that, transforming the Senate from “the world’s greatest deliberative body” into essentially a glorified House of Representatives, whose members serve longer terms. The Seventeenth Amendment was a serious mistake. I believe it is one of the main reasons Washington has been able to usurp so much authority that properly belongs to the States and the people.

Think about the Congressman that serves only one term but get that same salary for rest of his/her life. They need to be on a retirement system like rest of government.

As far as the US Congress is concerned, I wish.

I don’t think term limits really work all that well. I just means the politicians have to got rotten faster. Less time to get any worthwhile work out of them.

LongTom presents a very good description. I agree wholeheartedly about the 17th Amendment. To his discussion I will add two related points of my own. 1) Voters for Congress vote local, not national benefit, so retaining an incumbant with seniority can benefit the district. 2) If the power of government were again limited to the enumerated powers of the Constitution, the power of elected officials to do harm would be greatly limited.

Hey -did anybody think it was a funny cartoon?

We’ll never get people who don’t want to leave to offer and vote for a bill 180 out from their own personal interests. Until we can have a national vote on the matter, it’s not going to happen. We COULD have one every four years, but too many don’t get voted out already because they write the rules in their own favor.

Yeah, so the only continuity is the lobbyists and they make bigger and smellier messes by controlling the lawmakers. Groups like ALEC end up taking over and the lawmakers are merely puppets of the monies interests. Term limits in the long run take power away from the voters by giving it to the lobbyists.

You lefty dems will be against term limits the moment you finally get elected… IF, you ever get elected again, that is.

How about “None of the Above” on primary ballots?

Politics should be a temporary service to the citizens of their community, not a career choice from which you can retire. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t get paid while serving, just serve a short time then go back to being a civilian that must live with the laws and regulations you enact.

I’ve seen no ill effects in local governments where term limits have been applied.

How about a senility test for all members of congress; and all legislators at the state level also; and all county commissioners also.

These are the same ones who want to eat B.C. and friends and keep their 22nd century technology working.