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 its enactment.
Sen. Cruz was joined by Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Todd Young (R-Ind.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Bill Hagerty (R-Tenn.), Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Katie Britt (R-Ala.), and Jim Banks (R-Ind.) in introducing the amendment.
Including Eric Schmidt of Missouri.
US Rep. Ralph Norman, R-SC, introduced the companion resolution in the US House.
Several state legislatures have passed resolutions asking Congress to pass an amendment.
I am against it. We have a hard enough time getting quality candidates and if we have term limits it won’t be long before we are down to the last common denominator. If you don’t like them vote them out.
Most voters thought Trump was a good idea, so what does that tell you.
Yep. If no one in the House is going to be there longer than 6 years, the Congressional Staff are going to be much more experienced than the legislators. If your Congressman is using his wisdom and experience to collude with health insurers and drug makers against your interests, vote him out.
When this situation is imposed, what usually happens is that the staffers that remain in their positions for decades do the collusion instead. Every once in a while, but quite rarely, you get someone elected that can clean house during their 6 years, but people are elected mostly based on popularity, not based on honesty or conviction.
I am against it on the principle that Ted Cruz has never done anything that was for the benefit of the people.
There must be something in there that benefits him or the Party.
What occurs to me is that a pol is most receptive to “protected free speech”, and “gratuities”, when he is a relative unknown, running for the office, for the first time. Once a pol has been in place for years/decades, he has a good start on having a safe seat, because incumbents tend to win another term with little effort, and the pol will be well on his way to being financially “set for life”, so might not be as open to bribes.
Term limits cause constant upheaval, and more opportunities to buy influence.
…and of course the lobbyist orgs with their in-depth experience and files will be far more experienced than even the most seasoned knowledgable congressional staffs.
We need to reinvigorate participatory democracy; an urgent, neglected, very tall order. I would start by using ranked voting. I would then experiment with using “lottery selected citizen electoral committees” who would be tasked with recruiting (!!), interviewing, discussing, and then selecting slates of candidates for state legislative offices.
Without actual normal people, discussing and selecting from amongst themselves, the algorithms will always win, and the algorithms will never align with any interests other than wealth and other forms of power.
The ancient human rite, of looking around your community for “the best” (aristos) and brightest or whatever, and picking/recruiting them as civic leaders, is dying out. If we do not replace our antique obsolete rituals we will be trapped where we are: elections as a kabuki “theater of the absurd” distracting citizens from the grinding money powered (SCOTUS free speech!!!) processes of control by wealth and inertia.
Of course normal citizens are disgusted, discouraged, and angry. They are also ignorant of how power works.
Yes, experience is important in getting the job done in Congress and avoiding the various traps set by lobbysts. But 10 yrs experience is quite a bit.
And we certainly know of people who have been there too long. Because incombents almost always get re-elected. Some turn-over has to be better.
We have term limits in our state legislature. It is far from perfect but much better that a super senior member blocking whatever he likes on his committee forever.
Well your poll is incomplete. Because most people, want other people’s, Congress to be term limited. But if you ask them if they like their own legislatures the majority of them will say yes.
I like that idea. You can have term limits because that is what your state has voted for. While my state will not have term limits because that is what we have voted for. Now let’s see which state does better.
Term limits or no term limits, the body politic has gangrene from the collapse of competitively accurate news sources replaced by like/dislike contests. Term limits or not will have little effect except in destructive spasmodic jerks, as GBofUK is still experiencing from Boris Johnson’s empty performative administration and Brexit.
I agree discussion of what the term limits should be will be part of the discussion. But you see the current proposal before Congress. Thats a starting point.
Some think term limits should be extended to the Supreme Court. And what about other courts? That is more of a reach for now.
Term limits and the elimination of the deep/admin state are odd bed fellows. Arbitrarily getting rid of politicians that have knowledge and experience would absolutely more empower federal civilians since most of them would likely hold their positions much longer than any congress critter.
I get it is politically popular but it is completely contrary to the idea of the elected pols gaining more control over the civilian federal workforce.
Emphatically exactly. The imposition of term limits on California legislators was a crux move in shifting the state to ideologically driven debates and agenda, and demolishing most long term thinking and planning.
Jesse Unruh and Willie Brown were punching bags because they had the power to cut and enforce deals and so got stuff done, and it was mostly good stuff. That capability now rests only with the Governor’s office, and only if the governor has a Richard Daley style personality.
A lot of “JCs” do exactly that, because they can get someone off the street to work cheaper, and that’s all they care about. My uncle took a buyout from AT&T when he was in his late 50s.
i don’t think the founders anticipated service in Congress as a lifetime occupation. Probably not even a full time job. Some turn over breathes some new life into the organization. That is not all bad. Yes, you would retire some well known participants but you would also give new people the opportunity to shine. You are not waiting for the person ahead of you to die to move forward.