Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bill Pushes Term Limits

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bill Pushes Term Limits

    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...term-limits-on
    Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) filed a bill on Tuesday that would amend the Constitution and impose term limits on members of Congress.

    The measure would call for a maximum of 24 years of service for lawmakers, with 12 years each in both the House and Senate.

    ADVERTISEMENT
    Lawmakers in the House are up for election every two years, while senators’ terms run six years. The Constitution, however, does not limit the number of terms a person can serve.

    “Believe me, 24 years is more than enough time to serve in Washington. (I actually pushed for much shorter terms but compromised at 12+12 in order to gain the support of additional co-sponsors),” Mulvaney said in a statement on Wednesday. "And I want to thank my friends Steve Scalise (R-La.), Reid Ribble (R-Wis.) and Steve Palazzo (R-Miss.) for their work in getting this bill together."

    The introduction of the bill comes after a series of polls have indicated Congress’s approval rating is at record lows. A Gallup poll in January found 13 percent of people approved of the job that Congress is doing. During the government shutdown in October, the approval rating stood at just 5 percent.

    “Now the question becomes: How can we convince enough members of Congress that they are the problem?” Mulvaney added.

    In 2012, then-Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) proposed a similar amendment that would place limits on how long members of Congress could serve.

    The Senate overwhelmingly rejected DeMint’s measure, voting 75 to 24 against it.

    At the time, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) voiced opposition to the amendment, having already served three terms himself.

    "For some members of Congress, two years in office is too long and for some members of Congress, 20 years in office is not long enough," Durbin said. "Who should make that decision? The Constitution in its wisdom says the voters of America make that decision. Let's stand by that Constitution and its language and defeat this sense of the Senate resolution."

    Before the mid-1990s, nearly two-dozen states previously limited how many terms their representatives in Congress could serve.

    In 1995, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton that states could not determine the length of service their representatives at the national level could serve.

    Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...#ixzz2sTX25QQO
    Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
    Let me guess Dem/Libs. "This bill is racist!"

  • #2
    Dude and his bill are about to be capped by his own party.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by UltimateHoboW/Shotgun View Post
      http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...term-limits-on


      Let me guess Dem/Libs. "This bill is racist!"

      It's unconstitutional so neither party will support it.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by DenverBrit View Post
        It's unconstitutional so neither party will support it.
        It doesn't stop them from amending the constitution when it supports their agenda, but there's no way they'll vote themselves out of a career.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Arkie View Post
          It doesn't stop them from amending the constitution when it supports their agenda, but there's no way they'll vote themselves out of a career.
          This. As I've said multiple times before, I would be for term limits as long as we can make it next to impossible for corporations and the monied aristocracy in this country (and others) to buy and rig elections.

          Since that won't happen because of the reasons you list as well as others, this is all kind of a moot point.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Arkie View Post
            It doesn't stop them from amending the constitution when it supports their agenda, but there's no way they'll vote themselves out of a career.
            Politicians will always act in their best self interest.

            Unfortunately, too many voters are partisan sheep and don't 'cull the herd.'

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by houghtam View Post
              This. As I've said multiple times before, I would be for term limits as long as we can make it next to impossible for corporations and the monied aristocracy in this country (and others) to buy and rig elections.

              Since that won't happen because of the reasons you list as well as others, this is all kind of a moot point.
              I guess you are ok with Unions and non-profits not influencing things either huh?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Breaker View Post
                I guess you are ok with Unions and non-profits not influencing things either huh?
                Absolutely.

                There should be very moderate caps with increasingly graduated amounts for each level of public office. In my perfect world, we would hire a non-partisan outside group to analyze the amount of money spent on elections pre- and post-Citizens United that makes a determination of how much each elected position can spend during a campaign.

                Just for sake of argument, for example (and I made these numbers ridiculously low on purpose): Representatives could spend up to $100,000 on their campaign, Senators $500,000, Presidents $1,000,000. Obviously they would have to scale it to districting and state populations.

                That would do a lot in leveling the playing field. Add in making the entire first week in November Election Week, enacting a law preventing exit polling to prevent news organizations and the like from calling races before the polls close to discourage people from voting, and I think things would look very different in Washington.

                Again, this is my perfect world solution. I realize it will never happen.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The amt of money spent by unions is nothing In comparison to what is spent by corporations.
                  Unions true influence derives from it's ability to get out the vote via as a voting block and more importantly it's ability to organize people to phone bank,knock on doors etc. volunteers for campaigns.

                  Corporations don't have that kind of organizing ability, and as a result can't compete. It's why you saw such a strong push against unions after the 2008 elections and to this day.
                  Last edited by peacepipe; 02-05-2014, 04:16 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Breaker View Post
                    I guess you are ok with Unions and non-profits not influencing things either huh?
                    Non-profits like the NFL? So many non-profits are complete jokes when their boards and CEOs are making millions.

                    I think it would benefit us all if unions, non-profits, for-profits, and individual spending on candidates and acting politicians was absolutely disclosed and/or capped.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Irish Stout View Post
                      Non-profits like the NFL? So many non-profits are complete jokes when their boards and CEOs are making millions.

                      I think it would benefit us all if unions, non-profits, for-profits, and individual spending on candidates and acting politicians was absolutely disclosed and/or capped.
                      I agree completely. All I'm saying is a unions influence isn't reliant on the money we spend.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by peacepipe View Post
                        The amt of money spent by unions is nothing In comparison to what is spent by corporations.
                        Unions true influence derives from it's ability to get out the vote via as a voting block and more importantly it's ability to organize people to phone bank,knock on doors etc. volunteers for campaigns.

                        Corporations don't have that kind of organizing ability, and as a result can't compete. It's why you saw such a strong push against unions after the 2008 elections and to this day.
                        Yeah but corporation give a lot to dems also. Unions never give to repubs. That is why you can't cut off one and leave the other.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by cutthemdown View Post
                          Yeah but corporation give a lot to dems also. Unions never give to repubs. That is why you can't cut off one and leave the other.
                          Wrong. The Fraternal Order of Police has endorsed a republican president every year in recent history except 1996 when they endorsed Clinton, and 2012 when they didn't endorse anyone.

                          IAFF generally leans republican as well.

                          Comment


                          • #14

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Who in there right mind would vote to limit how long your career can be? You will never get a majority. Dems and Repubs are in cahoots to keep power and until we realize that we will keep having choices like Hilliary Clinton/Insert cookie cutter conservative here type elections.

                              Does anyone really believe Hilliary has proven she should be running foreign policy and be commander in chief of the military? Cmon how can even liberals believe that?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X