Where do you stand on the notion of term limits?

Against Term Limits –

Some argue that voters have the option of limiting an elected official’s term in office with each vote they cast.

They believe that with term limits, the unelected bureaucrats would simply wait until a particular elected official’s term expires and pursue their agenda at a later date when a more favorable environment exists.

They see term limits as a Constitutional issue, and believe any attempt to pass a Constitutional Amendment limiting terms in office would be an exercise in futility since it would require support by the politicians whose terms it would limit.

For Term Limits –

Others believe a system of incumbent protectionism has evolved to the point where the scales are tipped grossly in favor of incumbents. They believe the only practical way to minimize political corruption is to limit the amount of time each elected official is allowed to stay in office.

They believe the only way to start chipping away at the bureaucratic system that has been severely impeded – even corrupted by government employee union personnel is to elect term limited office holders who can make the difficult decisions because they have nothing to lose since they are not concerned with re-election.  They will have nothing to lose by breaking the union’s strangle hold on government, and by getting rid of the bureaucrats who stand in the way of real reform.

The term limit supporters see elected officials making the right decisions because office holders know they will soon be returning to the same private sector they helped regulate.

Where do you stand on the term limits issue?

Tell us why you are for, or against term limits at all levels of government.

10 responses

  1. Here’s a practical Tea Party type strategy to create a “Citizen Congress”

    A Congress of career politicians will never represent “We the People”, because their highest priority is getting reelected with the help of Big Money.

    But “We the People” have more votes than “Big Money” has, and thus can end Congress as a career for professional politicians by never reelecting incumbents.

    We can impose single terms every two years, by never reelecting Congress.

    Always vote, but only for challengers. Never reelect incumbents.

    Keep this up until Congress is mostly “one-termers”, a citizen Congress.

    Then keep it up every election, to make a citizen Congress a permanent reality.

    Every American’s only intelligent choice is to never reelect anyone in Congress!

    The only infallible, unstoppable, guaranteed way to get a truly new Congress,

    and a cleaned up new politics is

    NEVER REELECT ANY INCUMBENT! DO IT EVERY ELECTION

    Nelson Lee Walker of tenurecorrupts.com

    1. If we were living at a time in our history before the insidiousness of socialism permeated the very fabric of American society, the solution you propose may have been possible to implement.

      Tragically, your ideas will never be instituted as long as the enormous pool of near illiterate, self-serving, me-first blue state bigots have the option of choosing from amongst themselves, their representatives in Congress.

      Yes, I refer to them as bigots – an often deliberately misused word which means: One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

      I believe we arrived at this place in our evolution as a nation by taking a series of small but extremely important steps throughout the last century; steps that were guided by the sinister strategy of a powerful and dangerous supernatural enemy.

      We cannot “return to go” by taking one giant leap backward – rather, it will require many small steps to fight our way back to a point where we can once again become “One Nation, Under God” that will demand adherence to the United States Constitution.

      So… where/how do we begin? Any suggestions?

  2. To those who oppose term limits – who say we can limit terms in office each time we vote, I say, as Dr. Phil would say, “how’s that working for you?’

    We have tried it your way ever since the Constitution was ratified – it ain’t working!

    Don’t you think it is time to try something different?

  3. In the case of Ronald Reagan, Phil King, Rick Perry, John Cornyn, Greg Abbott, I’d say it’s working pretty good for me.

    1. Felmey, I haven’t decided yet if your comment was arrogant condescension or just plain stupid!

      In addition to Ronald Reagan, Phil King, Rick Perry, John Cornyn and Greg Abbott, there are other names of politicians that come to mind who have been extremely destructive to the Republic. Unfortunately, we CANNOT remove them from office without term limits. They have gutted the Constitution, and will continue to trample on the Constitution until they are replaced by their hand-picked successors. Thus the downward spiral into socialism continues.

      Here are the names and length of service of a few of the many politicians who fit in this category:

      Harry Reed – 24 years
      Nancy Pelocy – 23 years
      Joe Biden – 38 years
      Dianne Feinstein – 18 years
      Barbara Boxer – 18 years
      Barney Frank – 29 years
      Eddie Bernice Johnson – 18 years
      Alcee Hastings – 17 years (Impeached Federal Judge)
      Robert Byrd – 51 years
      Chris Dodd – 36 years
      Sheila Jackson Lee – 16 years
      Maxine Watters – 20 years

      So tell me again Felmey, “How’s this working for you?”

      1. I reject the “throw out the baby with the bathwater” approach. Those who think an incumbent (any incumbent) should be removed from office need to get off their keester and get it done. Our elective offices are some of the shortest terms in the entire 1st world – there’s plenty of opportunity for hard work to get (or keep) the persons we need in office.

    2. Joshua Tarbay

      In the case of Reagan…he was term limited, so I don’t know what your saying there, except to try and pander to what you think is a pro-Reagan audience? In the case of Perry, he switched from Al Gores campaign manager, to the Republican Party…and was NOT elected Govener, he was placed there upon Bush’s departure. Ten years later he is still the Govenor…Your making the case for term limits, right? Incumbants are VERY difficult to beat, not becuase they are better, but because the system has set it up that way. Perry is stone cold proof of that!
      In the case of bailout voting Cornyn, he voted for the 700 billion dollar Wall Street bailout and will win when he runs again! Yea…real good reason for no-term limits!
      The Constitution was designed to limit the powers of Governement and where I do not believe it should limit what free man can and can not do, once that free man puts on the yolk of public servatude, he should be limited, watched, and given strict limits of power, one of those should be term limits.
      Think about this…Ron Paul puts forth a resolution every year asking for term limits in the US congress. Guess how these brave, honest, decent, truthful and respectible congressmen vote? The bill usually doesn’t get a single co-sponsor? This is how my simple mind looks at it? If 99% of politicians are against term limits…I’m for them!!!! Simple, silly, small minded, maybe? But, if an enemy of my enemy is my friend and if term limits are the enemy of politicians, than me-new-best-freind, be term limits!

  4. Term limits take away the ‘will of the people’. How UNdemocratic! The liberty I love also allows for mistakes.

    We, the people, must be accountable for our vote – people deserve who they vote for.

    Term limits would allow for TOO many lame ducks! You think that is good for America? What a disaster – no accountability, no responsibility, no conscious – voting for whatever is good for the politician. Yes, that happens now, and it often results in an election defeat.

    1. windmill, have you ever been a proponent of term limits, or have you always opposed term limits as you do now?

      I enjoy reading your posts. I believe they reflect your true convictions and I admire your straightforward responses.

  5. We already have term limits at all levels of government; from city council to the President. Matter of fact, no less than 38 states have term limits for their Governors
    and fifteen states have term limits for their State Legislators.

    Does that mean only those states have an adequate pool of qualified citizens from which to periodically elect Governors and legislators?

    Why those offices and not other offices? Why State Legislators, but not Congressmen? Why the President but not Senators?

    The argument both for and against term limits is not a new argument, and I suspect the discussion will continue well into the future. No matter where you stand on this issue, get involved – express your opinion. Some will agree and others will disagree.

    Where do you stand?

%d bloggers like this: