Right renews push for term limits as Trump takes power

[milestogo]

Source: The Hill

Emboldened by President-elect Donald Trump’s call to “drain the swamp,” conservatives on Capitol Hill are renewing their push to impose term limits on members of Congress. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) have already offered a constitutional amendment that would limit senators to two six-year terms and House members to three- two-year terms. Several other lawmakers are preparing to roll out similar legislation.

And the far-right House Freedom Caucus, to which DeSantis belongs, has been discussing whether to take a formal position in the coming weeks to support restricting congressional terms. Term-limit proponents have a key ally in Trump, who will be sworn in as president on Friday. On the campaign trail, the political outsider and billionaire business mogul vowed to press for term limits and end the “decades of failure in Washington and decades of special interest dealing."

But Trump faces huge hurdles in trying to enact such reforms. For one, the institution of Congress is slow to change, run by leaders like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) who’ve spent decades roaming the halls of the Capitol. Second, changing term limits requires a constitutional amendment, meaning any proposal will need to clear a two-thirds threshold in both the House and Senate, then be sent to the states for ratification.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who is starting his 10th House term, has said he’s “always” backed term limits but that he won’t be the one leading the charge. Instead, he said he’d leave it to the Judiciary Committee to take up the issue — yet another hurdle.

Read more: http://thehill.com/news/house/314308-right-renews-push-for-term-limits-as-trump-takes-power

---

I actually agree with this.

[milestogo]

1. from further down the article:

“There’s a lot of support” for term limits, said Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho), another Freedom Caucus member who plans to introduce his own term-limits legislation in the coming weeks. “This president elect is supporting it, and I think he’ll tweet about it.”

The Freedom Caucus, a band of roughly 40 conservative House Republicans, discussed the Labrador, DeSantis and other proposals during their weekly meeting at Tortilla Coast, a Tex-Mex restaurant near the Capitol. The group could formally vote on endorsing term limits at a future date, but members said they want to wait until other proposals are rolled out.

“You become worse the longer you are here. You become less responsive to your constituents and more responsive to special interest groups,” Labrador said in an interview while walking down the steps of the Capitol.

“People who come here come with good intentions, but this place makes you forget what you came here for,” he added. “And I think it’s important that you have turnover.”

[HoneyBadger]

2. Hmmm, how about reducing the term limit for President/Vice President to 1 term?

Trump/Pence might get bi-partisan support.

[cstanleytech]

5. President is already term limited.

[HoneyBadger]

9. Not to 1 term

I mean that you have one shot, one opportunity to serve as either P or VP in one life. I.e. Trump and Pence are done after one.

[cstanleytech]

35. That could cause alot of disruption for long term projects.

I could see however implementing a progressive voter requirement that makes it so the president has to win 10% more of the voters than they won in their first election.

[HoneyBadger]

37. Be prepared for 1 year long recounts

Which the electoral college would supercede regardless

[cstanleytech]

39. Simple solution to that is to change the term to a 6 year term with the elections held on the 5th

year that gives more than enough time to count the votes properly.

[DRoseDARs]

3. Rare issue to agree with. Take away the term-long focus on getting reelected...

...and put that focus back on doing the job you were elected to fucking do. This, and a clampdown on the post-Congress revolving door would do wonders for the legislative branch.

[cstanleytech]

10. I believe a better way might be term limited to 1 term but you can run for more terms

but you can't win them unless you get a progressively higher % of the votes than you got the last time that you won and it raises by 5% each time you run.
That way it forces the politicans to work for everyone in their districts rather than pigeon hole them to only work for a specific political party.

[DRoseDARs]

21. Fair point. nt

[Lanius]

28. We have a similar system in my tribal government

IIRC, a candidate can win two consecutive terms on the General Tribal Council with just a plurality of the vote. But to win a third consecutive term a candidate would have to win either 2/3 or 3/4 of the vote. And a fourth consecutive term has to be won by even more than that.

AFAIK only a few people since the 1930s has ever won three or more consecutive terms on the Council.

[secondwind]

4. won't term limits cost the american taxpayers more $$? With folks coming and going every few

years, won't this cost us more in terms of pensions down the line?

[Perseus]

12. I believe it will considering the following

You know all those perks that politicians get? Such as "Universal Healthcare Just for Politicians"? "Salary for Life, Just for Politicians", and others...so yes, the more that people become senators/congressmen the more it will cost to carry these people.

What needs to happen is that the perks should also have term limits....it should be limited to two years after the leave office, after that they need to "carry their own weight" (a popular republican term), so they get the benefits for two years while they get ready to go back into the job market.

[HoneyBadger]

38. Not if you eliminate pensions for public office

[yeoman6987]

44. No. Congress gets 1.8 percent for every year they serve

But you need time and age to get it. It would actually save the government a lot because many would be ineligible for a pension.

[louis-t]

6. The 10-term repug Paul Ryan agrees with it?

[SHRED]

7. Term limits are a horrible idea

They will ensure corporate dominance of our government.

[milestogo]

11. Corporate dominance of our government is what we have now.

[SHRED]

14. Watch the video.

[milestogo]

18. Yeah, I watched it.

Lots of people have to change fields or change jobs. People who have been elected to Congress will have an easier time of it than 99% of us.

Right now we are getting very rich people and celebrities to run.

[LovingA2andMI]

17. And the Corporate Governance....

Does not END with Term Limits, as the ability to LOBBY is a right in our Constitution. As long as Lobbying Exist, forms Corporate Governance will continue and term limits will do NOTHING to end this.

[lastlib]

22. I personally favor a term limit of ten years.....

...IN PRISON for every two years in office--For those with an (R) after their names.

[LovingA2andMI]

8. Don't Agree with Term Limits AT ALL....

Our own State Government of Michigan is a Hot Mess because of it. Term Limits only results in ill-experienced Elected Officials continuing to take office, barely learning the job before being recycled with the next ill-experienced individual.

And this Proposal will never get pass Congress. Thank Goodness.

[SHRED]

13. Yep.

[milestogo]

16. We are entering the era where CELEBRITIES or VERY RICH PEOPLE get elected.

Talk about ill-experienced.

[LovingA2andMI]

19. And That Is Because Of Term Limits....

As the President and Vice-President office is LIMITED to an 8-year term -- which is another amendment in our Constitution.

So, again, how will term limits help end Celebrities or Very Rich People from elected? It won't - vis-a-vis - Donald Trump.

Again, as long as LOBBYING exists (which is a Constitutional Right Also) term-limits solve nothing.

[milestogo]

20. It has nothing to do with Term Limits

They are the only people who have the money needed to run for office in the first place - for the Congress, that is.

[LovingA2andMI]

25. What??

It takes money to run for Congress. Yes, it does take Money for run for Congress. That money can be raised a variety of ways including Grassroots (preferred), via PAC's or Super PAC's (Lobbying Organizations) or by Self-Funding.

Either way, to run a viable Congressional Campaign, the average amount of money necessary to be raised is $50,000 and in most cases, $100,000 is the minimum.

So, how will Term Limits change this exactly? It won't. In fact, Term-Limits will result in the same "Corporate Governance" that you spoke on earlier, morph to the 11th Level - with Candidates fully funded by PAC's and Super-Pacs CONTROLLING the Government - as they have been brought off to do so.

Again, Term-Limits solve NOTHING as long as the ability to LOBBY exist. And LOBBYING an elected representative is a RIGHT in the U.S. Constitution.

[milestogo]

34. I don't know where you live but if a district

takes in more than one media market - as is the case in many states - $100,000 isn't even going to buy you name recognition. If you do a single mailer to 200,000 households, you're going to spend more than half of that.

A lot of people make up their minds based on the television ads they see in the last few weeks. Buying a weekend of media ads will cost more than $100,000.

Grassroots sounds good in principle, but its pretty hard to drum up grassroots support that reaches to 710,000 people. I don't hear of PACs or Super PACs supporting first-time candidates in a way that adds up to ad money.

Our system is badly broken. We have to start somewhere.

[Perseus]

24. They are both a problem

Career politicians become corrupted, I do agree that money has to be taken out of politics, that lobbying should be something that is done in a public forum, but rules of accountability must be enforce to avoid having a Mitch McConnell or a Paul Ryan screwing the country for so long. And as I posted before, they should have a two-year term limit to the perks they have, no reason for these people who have screwed the country to be benefiting from tax payers money.

I don't know what the answer is to make sure that "ill-experienced individuals" take office, I can understand that being a problem, but I wonder if a bigger problem is to have these foxes in there for so long.

[LovingA2andMI]

27. Big Money In Politics.....

Is the Problem, not how long the Representative is in office. The Citizens United Decision made the Extreme Lobbying (Cash Flow from Corporations into the Campaign Chests of Candidates and Elected Representatives) is the problem.

Until Citizens United is OVERTURNED by a Constitutional Amendment - NOTHING will solve the problem of big money in our U.S. Politics.

And certainly, not Term-Limits as this does not solve anything. In fact, it makes Big Money in Politics and Controlling it, WORSE.

[Salviati]

40. Right, we have term limits. They're called elections.

We just need to 1) work on making them fairer, and 2) work on raising the engagement of the electorate.

[7962]

41. Simply make the terms long enough to become 'experienced"

Most people here love Sen Warren. How long has she been a Senator? Not long. Does she seem to know what shes doing? Yes.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

15. My issue with term limits

is that they'll take away our responsibility as citizens to enact "term limits" as we see fit. We need an informed and participatory citizenry who has the power and ability to decide who we want in office and for how long.

[n2doc]

23. When we are given the choice

So many elected positions never have any opposition. This might be a way to change that. I am tired of seeing the same idiots on the ballot year after year, with no other choice given.

And those who say it can't work, California seems to be figuring it out.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

47. There are other solutions than Term Limits IMHO

1. Voting
2. Finding/promoting new candidates or, well, running yourself
3. Fighting Republican Gerrymandering

[lastlib]

26. THIS!!

"An informed and insightful citizenry is the arch-enemy of tyranny." --Thomas Jefferson. It should be the duty of every citizen to be so informed and insightful that they can be the bulwark against tyranny that Jefferson envisioned. But as long as republikkkans keep starving public schools (and then saying they don't work because they're starved); as long as the republikkkan-controlled media feeds us pablum like the Kardashians and Honey Boo-boo to distract us from watching them as they establish their tyranny, we are (in a word,) --F*CKED.

[jmowreader]

29. These guys haven't thought this one out

Small states get legislative clout through seniority. The only reason Utah has any pull in the Senate is their oldest guy has been there 40 years.

There are a few states that have the resources to build up a significant congressional bench of people qualified to be in Congress. Unfortunately for guys like Labrador, they're all big and mostly liberal. With term limits, you'd wind up with decent codels from CA, TX, FL, VA, PA, and IL, halfway decent ones from WA, IN, NC, SC, GA, MA and AZ, and the rest of Congress would be full of Trump clones.

Trust me on this, folks: you do NOT want Idaho to send you Heather Scott, and we would if this BS came to pass.

If you want to amend the Constitution for Congress, give the House four-year terms and the Senate revolving 8-year terms, all elected in presidential years. Further, ban campaigning until January 2 of election year.

[bucolic_frolic]

30. This leads to revolving-door short-term business interest government

It takes experience to govern. If they throw them out every 6 or 12 years the
experience gained and wisdom learned will be lost to a permanent fresh crop
of Tea Party type neophytes.

Governing is more complex with more rules. My township manager can't be thrown
out every 6 years let alone Congress.

Now ... a retirement age might work. 24 years for Senators might be ok, or 6 House
terms.

And while you're at it, limits on Supreme Court too. Every elected President should
have one pick, by mandated retirement if needed. No elected President should have
more than 3 picks, and no more than two in one term.

[LovingA2andMI]

31. Now, the Retirement Age could work.....

And Agree, it DOES take EXPERIENCE to effectively govern on the Congressional Level. As for the Supreme Court, there is another branch of the three branch government that does need a Retirement Age. Anywhere between 65-70 would work. The same retirement age should apply to the Presidential Branch also -- and if it did during this election Trump would NOT be in Office.

Furthermore, Citizens United should be overturned by a Constitutional Amendment BEFORE any of the above is debated on enacted into law.

[milestogo]

36. Presidents get 8 years

Under this plan Senators would get 12 years, Congresspeople 6 years. As it is not every representative is re-elected or chooses to run. They can always run for state office or a higher office.

6 8 12 years is not a revolving door.

[7962]

32. I've always wanted term limits. Career politicians get rich.

I hope it passes and we all get a vote on it. I'd bet that passes as well

[LovingA2andMI]

33. It won't pass out of the House...

Less known the Senate. Also, to change a Constitutional Amendment takes a 2/3rd vote of the States. That will not happen either. And frankly, that's a good thing as Term Limits solve nothing.

Instead, the focus should be on overturning Citizens United by a Constitutional Amendment to end or lessen big PAC or Super PAC money in Politics.

[7962]

42. If it DID make it out of Congress, it certainly would pass the 2/3s requirement, IMO

EVERYONE talks about "career politicians" in every state I've ever lived in or been to. It'd be an easy sell.
But no state wants to pass their OWN laws, because then that state would definitely be at a disadvantage to the others without limits

[LovingA2andMI]

46. Disagree...

On the fact, the bill would never make it out of the U.S. House and even IF it did, out of the Senate especially, and furthermore would not be passed by 2/3rd of the States.

There are other issues to focus on like Repealing Citizens United, then hyper-fixation on Term Limits. Congress should focus on that.

[Percy Cholmondeley]

45. Term limits for the Pres. is why we're in the mess we're in now

Obama would get reelected if he ran again. We once had a president who got elected 4 times, so the GOP had to get rid of that. But term limits have been enacted here in Missouri's state government, and what Hartmann says is true. After a short time, the only ones who know how to do anything are lobbyists, so they're in control of the place. So it gives the already rich and powerful even more power to get richer and more powerful. This is horrible. These dirty bastards don't want to miss screwing the public in every possible way. Anyone who knows the score, and favors term limits, is dirty.