Term Limits: A (Partial) Solution to Corruption? (1 Viewer)

[oldreliable67]

I gotta admit, I've never thought a great deal about term limits and have not had any particular leanings for or against. But this Abramoff thing and the confirmation goings-on with the Bush judicial appointees (not just Alito, but Roberts and the filibuster business as well) have me leaning very much toward term limits as at a partial solution to some of this stuff.

I confess I still haven't thought about it enough to form an opinion. What do you think?

 

[Crispy]

I gotta admit, I've never thought a great deal about term limits and have not had any particular leanings for or against. But this Abramoff thing and the confirmation goings-on with the Bush judicial appointees (not just Alito, but Roberts and the filibuster business as well) have me leaning very much toward term limits as at a partial solution to some of this stuff.

I confess I still haven't thought about it enough to form an opinion. What do you think?

Hmm, Haven't thought about it myself either but I'm kinda for the life position on the Supreme court.

The one branch of govt that can't be pressured (as others can) by election and partisan politics.

 

[Axismaster]

Term limits are a very good thing, I say limit it to twelve years across the board. This way we can get an influx of new ideas. No more old guard, that just slows us down. I was watching Kennedy today and said, "He has to go." I said the same about Stevens a few weeks back.

 

[Crispy]

Term limits are a very good thing, I say limit it to twelve years across the board. This way we can get an influx of new ideas. No more old guard, that just slows us down. I was watching Kennedy today and said, "He has to go." I said the same about Stevens a few weeks back.

Well we definitely can't have senile folks hanging in that line up lol.

 

[The Real McCoy]

Term limits are a very good thing, I say limit it to twelve years across the board. This way we can get an influx of new ideas. No more old guard, that just slows us down. I was watching Kennedy today and said, "He has to go." I said the same about Stevens a few weeks back.

Ted Kennedy and Ted Stevens or Anthony Kennedy and John Paul Stevens?

I'm confused as to whether we're talking about the Supreme Court or Congress.

 

[Stupiderthanthou]

I gotta admit, I've never thought a great deal about term limits and have not had any particular leanings for or against. But this Abramoff thing and the confirmation goings-on with the Bush judicial appointees (not just Alito, but Roberts and the filibuster business as well) have me leaning very much toward term limits as at a partial solution to some of this stuff.

I confess I still haven't thought about it enough to form an opinion. What do you think?

I'm for term limits only to prevent individual politicians from becoming too powerful. While one senator or representative can be a dominant personality in his house, all he can do in the end is cast his own vote, for or against (the same goes for justices). Therefore, I would say that, while reform is necessary, term limits are not the answer.* All they do is deny the man chosen directly (or indirectly, in the courts' case) by the people his vote. Perfectly capable Congressmen would be ousted too soon, and corrupt politicians would only be replaced by other corrupt politicians.

The president, on the other hand, has more power than any other individual in government. His terms should be limited simply because the presidency is an "all or nothing, winner take all deal." The lack of an "opposition president" to represent large minorities (like the opposition party in Congress) means that the people as a whole have to be continually finding new presidents so 51% of the population can't stonewall 49% nationwide for decades on end. Because no two candidates are made from the same mold, the White House changes hands despite most people's voting along party lines.

In sum, I'm for term limitations exactly as they exist now (at the federal level). While corruption definitely needs to be reduced, they're not the way.

* certainly they are not to the corruption problem; people who become corrupt are not worn down over decades so much as turned by a single offer at a single moment in time. All lobbyists have to do is step up their lobbying, and they can bring about the moment sooner. They just don't have to now because of their comfortable relations with the "Old Guard."

 

[jamesrage]

I confess I still haven't thought about it enough to form an opinion. What do you think?

I think terms should be no longer than 3-4 years,only 2 terms for each office and that politicians can only represent the state they have lived in for the past 10 or 15 years.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

I completely agree with shorter terms of office for politicians. The problem is: Do you really think congress would pass such a bill?

 

[jamesrage]

I completely agree with shorter terms of office for politicians. The problem is: Do you really think congress would pass such a bill?

Voter initiatives.

 

[Mr. D]

Term limits have given a great advantage to lobbyists who take advantage of green legislators! Corporate lobbyists love term limits! It gives them a big edge! Also we throw out good leaders just when they learn how to get things done! Yes, there are some good leaders! If we are too dumb to know which they are it's our own fault for spending our time watching trash TV shows!

The real answer will never come! Real campaign reform! Government funding of political campaigns and no candidate or elected official and take a dime without being sent to prison! Companies and individuals can express opinions freely (free speech), but may not support candidates with directed ads! That's the answer, but it doesn't favor incumbents, so it won't happen!

So much for democracy! :2wave:

 

[cnredd]

In order to provide a solution of "term limits" for the problem of corruption, you'd have to provide some evidence that the ones who have passed the "expiration date" on these limits are the culprits and not the new crew...

If you find some who have been there 3 years taking bribes, and ones that have been there 30 and not taking bribes, you'll be hurting that State's Senator/Rep...

Also, someone can be a Senator for a couple of years, but has been a politician at the local level for 30...According to the logic presented here, that person is more "corruptable" than someone who's only political position has been Senator/Rep for, let's say, a decade...

In order for your "solution" to work, you'd have to limit "professional politician" in general, unless you mean "no ONE position" for an extended length of time...That would make the situation MUCH worse...

You force someone like Kennedy out of the Senate through your rule, and he'll just go after the House of Rep seat in his district, virtually pushing out whomever was there in the first place...

From there on out, Reps will have to campaign knowing that in X amount of years, the Senator from his/her own state will have to leave the Senate and pounce on the Rep job...

Then we'd only have good Representatives based purely on time limits of a Senator...

You got some major thinking to do before swayin' me...:2wave:

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I gotta admit, I've never thought a great deal about term limits and have not had any particular leanings for or against. But this Abramoff thing and the confirmation goings-on with the Bush judicial appointees (not just Alito, but Roberts and the filibuster business as well) have me leaning very much toward term limits as at a partial solution to some of this stuff.

I confess I still haven't thought about it enough to form an opinion. What do you think?

I am all for term limits. However, with term limits, you conservative activist judges like Scalia, Thomas, and now Alito, would probably not be confirmed as both parties would be much more moderate with term limits.