Post by nels96 on Jan 12, 2004 18:03:58 GMT -5
CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS AMENDMENT
Proposed Wording (note first 14 words) : Excepting current incumbents of both houses indefinitely, as long as they are reelected successively, Members of the Senate shall serve a maximum of twelve years (two terms), and Members of the House shall serve a maximum of six years (three terms). Fractional terms not included herein.
Discussion:
Having made a few posts toward reviving a discussion on Congressional Term Limits, and receiving a few responses that do not serve to stimulate debate, this is an attempt to whet the appetites of more post readers.
Most responses seem to dwell on objections, such as ‘the loss of voter’s right to choose’, and the ‘loss of truly worthy incumbents’. However, when all arguments are considered, it seems that the arguments in favor of term limits far outnumber those against. Can anyone come up with additional reasons to add to the ‘against’ list below (or reasons ‘in favor’ as well).
REASONS IN FAVOR OF TERM LIMITS:
1. Builds ‘citizen’ Congress vs career politicians.
2. Breaks ties to special interests, lobbyists.
3. Destroys seniority/enhances meritocracy.
4. Improves timeliness of Congress’s thinking.
5. Eliminates power of ‘old bulls’ caucus.
6. Introduces fresh thinking, new ideas.
7. Improves tendency to vote on principle.
8. Reduces power of staff, bureaucracy.
9. Increases competition among candidates.
10. Acts as a natural campaign finance reform.
11. Improves the quality of legislation.
12. Probably tends to smaller government.
REASONS OPPOSED TO TERM LIMITS:
1. Eliminates the good along with the bad. (Long tenures spoils the “good”)
2. Reduces the freedom of voters to choose. (Long tenures is NOT choosing)
3. Increases the power of staff, bureaucracy. (Citizen reps will control this)
4. Loss of knowledge and experience. (Outsider experience is just as valuable)
Proposed Wording (note first 14 words) : Excepting current incumbents of both houses indefinitely, as long as they are reelected successively, Members of the Senate shall serve a maximum of twelve years (two terms), and Members of the House shall serve a maximum of six years (three terms). Fractional terms not included herein.
Discussion:
Having made a few posts toward reviving a discussion on Congressional Term Limits, and receiving a few responses that do not serve to stimulate debate, this is an attempt to whet the appetites of more post readers.
Most responses seem to dwell on objections, such as ‘the loss of voter’s right to choose’, and the ‘loss of truly worthy incumbents’. However, when all arguments are considered, it seems that the arguments in favor of term limits far outnumber those against. Can anyone come up with additional reasons to add to the ‘against’ list below (or reasons ‘in favor’ as well).
REASONS IN FAVOR OF TERM LIMITS:
1. Builds ‘citizen’ Congress vs career politicians.
2. Breaks ties to special interests, lobbyists.
3. Destroys seniority/enhances meritocracy.
4. Improves timeliness of Congress’s thinking.
5. Eliminates power of ‘old bulls’ caucus.
6. Introduces fresh thinking, new ideas.
7. Improves tendency to vote on principle.
8. Reduces power of staff, bureaucracy.
9. Increases competition among candidates.
10. Acts as a natural campaign finance reform.
11. Improves the quality of legislation.
12. Probably tends to smaller government.
REASONS OPPOSED TO TERM LIMITS:
1. Eliminates the good along with the bad. (Long tenures spoils the “good”)
2. Reduces the freedom of voters to choose. (Long tenures is NOT choosing)
3. Increases the power of staff, bureaucracy. (Citizen reps will control this)
4. Loss of knowledge and experience. (Outsider experience is just as valuable)