Ted Cruz proposes constitutional amendment for term limits

5,661 Views | 86 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by BTKAG97
Definitely Not A Cop
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Are the people who are against term limits also against term limits for presidents? Why or why not?
Booma94
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You're misreading my post. Cruz is very intelligent, and I readily admit that. But the same cannot be said for many of the people he works alongside. Some of his peers think islands can capsize, among other nuggets of intelligence. So saying Cruz is the smartest guy in DC isn't really giving him his just due.
tysker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Definitely Not A Cop said:

Are the people who are against term limits also against term limits for presidents? Why or why not?
I'm not against term limits but I'm not sure they'll work as intended

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46705/30
Quote:

The average length of service for Representatives at the beginning of the 117th Congress was 8.9 years (4.5 House terms); for Senators, 11.0 years (1.8 Senate terms)

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R41545
Quote:

Aggregate statistics on Member service tenures tend to disguise the variety of congressional service records found among individual Members. Some Members have very short tenures of service and choose not to seek reelection; other Members have long tenures that end after reelection defeat. At the aggregate level, average careers have become longer, but a great deal of variation in the length of congressional careers still persists.

Additionally, the institutional and policy contexts that have shaped Member decisions to seek or not seek reelection, and succeed or fail when seeking reelection, are not static factors. Just as the institutional contexts of elections and congressional operations have developed since the 19th century, they continue to change in the contemporary Congress. To the degree that patterns of congressional service in part reflect the incentives provided to Members by these institutional factors, it is likely that the patterns of Member service tenure will also continue to change. Similarly, the continued development of the institutional environment suggests that there is no way to predict how the patterns of service tenure will change; just as seemingly stable 19th century patterns rapidly changed toward the end of the century, so could the service tenure patterns we observe today.

It seems there's a fair amount of turnover already. The average length of service is one thing, but its the variance that everyone is concerned with. If term limits result in a higher average length of service while also a lower variance, are we really better off? We're arguing about the long-tail representatives here which seem to be very much the exception but getting more problematic over time.


eta: would voters give a failing congressperson (whatever that means anymore) 'one more chance' on their last term instead of finding new blood?
TxTarpon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Aggie95 said:

it needs to happen. How else do you start the process?
The Zodiac Killer tried to kill Obongocare a few times and was mocked be his own party.
If anyone is going to stir the pot it will be him.
AggieVictor10
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Good.
Less virtue signaling, more vice signaling.

Birds aren’t real.
schmellba99
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So your argument is that looking at an average and calling it good enough?

  • Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) 47 years*
  • Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) 45 years*
  • Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) 41 years*
  • Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) 41 years*
  • Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY-05) 41 years
  • Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-04) 41 years
  • Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD-05) 40 years

Those are active members, historically the longest serving have exceeded 5 decades. 50 years. The government was never designed to have people sitting in Congress for anything close to that length of time. 23 members of the Senate are in their 70s at the beginning of 2022, while the average age of senators was 64.3 yearsthe oldest in history.

This is exactly why it should be implemented. Absolutely NOBODY should be in congress for 4+ decades. Thomas Jefferson was of the opinion that career politicians would ultimately abuse the system. He was correct on that front. He was also of the opinion that those running for office would be of a higher quality than what we have today, which is one of his incorrect assumptions.
Aggieangler93
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Term limits are a very solid approach to ending the sneaky overnight never ever suspicious backpack full of ballots that need to be counted for the next 6 weeks while we all know what the outcome will be. This is next level theft prevention if it would just pass.

But alas....the same *******s are in charge there too.....
Class of '93 - proud Dad of a '22 grad and a '26 student!
tysker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
schmellba99 said:

So your argument is that looking at an average and calling it good enough?

  • Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) 47 years*
  • Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) 45 years*
  • Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) 41 years*
  • Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) 41 years*
  • Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY-05) 41 years
  • Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ-04) 41 years
  • Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD-05) 40 years

Those are active members, historically the longest serving have exceeded 5 decades. 50 years. The government was never designed to have people sitting in Congress for anything close to that length of time. 23 members of the Senate are in their 70s at the beginning of 2022, while the average age of senators was 64.3 yearsthe oldest in history.

This is exactly why it should be implemented. Absolutely NOBODY should be in congress for 4+ decades. Thomas Jefferson was of the opinion that career politicians would ultimately abuse the system. He was correct on that front. He was also of the opinion that those running for office would be of a higher quality than what we have today, which is one of his incorrect assumptions.

So cool, put the term limit at 40 years and now you've stopped like, what 15 total people from getting reelected? Congrats bro! Mission accomplished I guess? The variance also matters, which I explicitly noted.

The average age of Congress has nothing to do with this argument. Maybe younger people need to run for office. LDP's favorite Kari Lake is 53 and Kevin McCarthy is 57 not much younger than the current average. Would McCarthy be re-electbale under your term limit proposal?

Your Thomas Jefferson statement isnt true. Hamilton did think re-electability would lead to good behavior and better utilization of what we now call institutional knowledge. (from federalist 72):

Quote:

The last is necessary to enable the people, when they see reason to approve of his conduct, to continue him in his station, in order to prolong the utility of his talents and virtues, and to secure to the government the advantage of permanency in a wise system of administration.
Of course, this was more directed at the executive branch.

Madison reminds us, if men were angels, no government would be necessary.' Politicians are just like you and me. We get the government we deserve.
YokelRidesAgain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggie95 said:

tysker said:

If only the voters had a way to remove a politician they don't like from office
things are not like they used to be. The impact of legislation across states is too great. I can't vote someone out in NY or CA, but they can impact my life. More so, it SHOULD get it back to serving the people for 2 years or 6 years and not a career.
I'm not sure that term limits would give you any more control over the ability of a swamp creature to impact your life--in fact, I think it might make it even LESS possible to have an impact. You can, at least in theory, donate to the opponent of a NY or CA politician you don't like--of course, for about 80% of Congressional seats you would have to donate to a primary opponent to have a chance of influencing the outcome, since most seats are drawn to the extreme advantage of one party or the other.

As things stand, people leaving Congress willingly after a few terms can slither right over to K street and become highly paid lobbyists, frequently exerting tremendous influence over legislation and (in particular) the formulation of rules and regulations. If you term limited out most of Congress, of course some of the geezers would just retire, but plenty more would become lobbyists, and they are TRULY unaccountable to the citizenry. They work for those who write the checks.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Tom Doniphon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
You're not wrong... while I do support term limits, the bureaucrats and lobbyists are the ones running the country.
InfantryAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
YokelRidesAgain said:

Aggie95 said:

tysker said:

If only the voters had a way to remove a politician they don't like from office
things are not like they used to be. The impact of legislation across states is too great. I can't vote someone out in NY or CA, but they can impact my life. More so, it SHOULD get it back to serving the people for 2 years or 6 years and not a career.
I'm not sure that term limits would give you any more control over the ability of a swamp creature to impact your life--in fact, I think it might make it even LESS possible to have an impact. You can, at least in theory, donate to the opponent of a NY or CA politician you don't like--of course, for about 80% of Congressional seats you would have to donate to a primary opponent to have a chance of influencing the outcome, since most seats are drawn to the extreme advantage of one party or the other.

As things stand, people leaving Congress willingly after a few terms can slither right over to K street and become highly paid lobbyists, frequently exerting tremendous influence over legislation and (in particular) the formulation of rules and regulations. If you term limited out most of Congress, of course some of the geezers would just retire, but plenty more would become lobbyists, and they are TRULY unaccountable to the citizenry. They work for those who write the checks.
exactly. Change the rules (term limits) and they will just figure out another way to game the system.

Term limits addresses a symptom, not the root problem. The root problems are the incentives to be a politician, money, power, prestige. Take those away and only people who truly want to serve will run.

Take those away and you lessen the k street influence too.
InfantryAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Aggie95 said:

tysker said:

If only the voters had a way to remove a politician they don't like from office
things are not like they used to be. The impact of legislation across states is too great. I can't vote someone out in NY or CA, but they can impact my life. More so, it SHOULD get it back to serving the people for 2 years or 6 years and not a career.
This is fixed by repealing the 17th Amendment. That won't pass either, so it would take the Convention of States. Gives the power back to the states and provides a real check on the house, by the senators who represent the states.
PacoPicoPiedra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
While we're at it, may we revisit the original First Amendment (https://www.thoughtco.com/original-bill-of-rights-and-amendments-3322334) and add in a Balanced Budget Amendment?

Edit (new link): https://www.rd.com/article/original-12-amendments/
Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception.
dlbarnes76
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Martin Q. Blank said:

So he's not going to seek reelection in 2024?

So, one of the more intelligent and conservative republicans should term limit himself and let everyone else continue on their merry way ad infinitum? Sounds like a good plan to me.
YokelRidesAgain
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BobaFettsClone said:

While we're at it, may we revisit the original First Amendment (https://www.thoughtco.com/original-bill-of-rights-and-amendments-3322334) and add in a Balanced Budget Amendment?
Your link is busted, but as I read the proposed text of the "original First Amendment":

"After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons."

-At this point we are obviously well past the point where there would be 200 required members of the House, and the matter would fall upon the Congress to regulate its own number of members (which, it already does). So I'm not sure that this would change anything.

I think what you are getting at is the idea of a giant "People's House" where every mid-sized city and many semi-rural counties would have their own Congressional rep, or maybe two. An 8,000 member US House would suck some of the oxygen away from people who are primarily there to audition for future cable news jobs (e.g., AOC, Boebert), and also might make your average rep less attractive as future lobbyists simply because there would be so many of them.

On the other hand, I suspect that it would make the already quite powerful House leadership far more powerful: managing such an unwieldy body and fighting your way to the top of the pyramid would create a tremendous incentive to try to stay at the top, and the relative irrelevance of any single vote (and probable incompetence of a large number of reps) would make it very, very difficult to do anything other than fall in line behind the leadership of one's team.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
PacoPicoPiedra
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
YokelRidesAgain said:

BobaFettsClone said:

While we're at it, may we revisit the original First Amendment (https://www.thoughtco.com/original-bill-of-rights-and-amendments-3322334) and add in a Balanced Budget Amendment?
Your link is busted, but as I read the proposed text of the "original First Amendment":

"After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons."

-At this point we are obviously well past the point where there would be 200 required members of the House, and the matter would fall upon the Congress to regulate its own number of members (which, it already does). So I'm not sure that this would change anything.

I think what you are getting at is the idea of a giant "People's House" where every mid-sized city and many semi-rural counties would have their own Congressional rep, or maybe two. An 8,000 member US House would suck some of the oxygen away from people who are primarily there to audition for future cable news jobs (e.g., AOC, Boebert), and also might make your average rep less attractive as future lobbyists simply because there would be so many of them.

On the other hand, I suspect that it would make the already quite powerful House leadership far more powerful: managing such an unwieldy body and fighting your way to the top of the pyramid would create a tremendous incentive to try to stay at the top, and the relative irrelevance of any single vote (and probable incompetence of a large number of reps) would make it very, very difficult to do anything other than fall in line behind the leadership of one's team.

Stupid ass link. A House of ~6600 members would likely create Congressional gridlock and a 'can't do anything' government is the best kind of government. It would allow third party Reps to infiltrate the House from all over the country, which would be very difficult for leadership to win over and control. It would also place Reps much closer to the people with most all being known personally by many of their constituents, as well as giving us representation that more closely resembles our values. The more power voters feel they have, the more involved and less apathetic they become. Also, House leadership is already overly powerful and tends to serve long terms, best of luck winning over 6600+ other egomaniacs and staying in, much less wielding any, power.
Conspiracies are the norm, not the exception.
BTKAG97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
tysker said:

If only the voters had a way to remove a politician they don't like from office
If only less than 80% of the voting population didn't have below average intellect.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.