Senator introduces Constitutional amendment requiring term limits

[babylonsister]

Senator introduces Constitutional amendment requiring term limits
By Jordan Fabian - 11/10/09 01:40 PM ET


A Republican senator on Tuesday introduced a Constitutional amendment that would mandate term limits for all federal lawmakers.

Sen. Jim DeMint's (R-S.C.) amendment would limit House members to three terms and senators to two terms. Every lawmaker then could serve no longer than six years in Congress. DeMint said term limits are a reaction to the influence of special interest groups on Capitol Hill, corruption, high federal deficits, and a Democratic agenda he says will increase the size of government.

"Americans know real change in Washington will never happen until we end the era of permanent politicians," said DeMint in a statement. "As long as members have the chance to spend their lives in Washington, their interests will always skew toward...amassing their own power."

Two thirds of the House and Senate as well as three quarters of the states would need to vote for DeMint's amendment for it to become a part of the Constitution.

Sens. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), and kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas) cosponsored the bill. Coburn has long supported term limits. He retired from the House in 2000 after being elected in 1994, pledging only to serve three consecutive terms.

Coburn then ran for Senate and won in 2004. Brownback is stepping down from the Senate in 2010 to run for governor, citing his support for term limits. Hutchison is running for governor against incumbent Rick Perry (R), who is running for a third term in 2010. If elected, Perry will become the longest serving governor in Texas history.

more...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/67189-senator-introduces-constitutional-amendment-requiring-term-limits

[tekisui]

1. I doubt it will ever happen,

but I would support it.

[undeterred]

2. I can't believe this is coming from a Republican.

Its exactly what we need.

[Ineeda]

7. Something is behind it. Something dark and unsavory.

I know this because all of the named sponsors are (R). :tinfoilhat:

[Brigid]

63. I think you are right.

No tinfoil hat smilie necessary.

I think that they fear a stable majority of Democrats, like the stable majority of Republicans they so recently hoped for, will develop without term limits.

[blm]

10. Because each one has no plan to run for Senate again....this is an issue to EXPLOIT

at a time when Dems are majority in senate and look like they will be for at least two more election cycles.

[Blue_Tires]

34. no, he's smart...he probably forsees a Democratic majority for years to come

and remember, pre-'94, the GOP were HUGE proponents of term limits (since they had been the minority for three decades), and ol' Newt made it a part of his "contract"...Of course they instantly dropped it and never mentioned it again once they came to power...

[dysfunctional press]

41. term limits were part of the "contract on america" the pugs ran on in 94.

nt

[anonymous171]

55. Term limits are anti-democratic. They have no place in a democracy. nt

[LostInAnomie]

3. I'd support it.

Never going to happen though. It would be like trying to get a crack addict to vote for a crack limit.

[jberryhill]

23. Yes - Heaven forbid that lobbyists be deprived of fresh blood

The goal of "term limits" is to ensure that professional lobbyists have the edge in legislative experience.

[LostInAnomie]

26. I would think the goal of term limits is to make sure that legislators...

... aren't constantly positioning for re-election and become less afraid to take stands on votes.

[anonymous171]

57. A scared legislator is a good legislator. We live in a representative republic

Which means that a politician is elected TO REPRESENT by his constituency to represent them on a federal level. Term limits allow politicians to play games and makes them basically unaccountable on their last term.

[Blue_Tires]

58. i can see both sides of the debate

especially against 'career' congresscritters perpetually drunk at the beltway insider's country club pork orgy...it can be very addicting, and sooner or later most love the lifestyle of being a congresscritter rather than the actual JOB they were elected to do..

[LostInAnomie]

59. Being up for perpetual election allows them to play games...

... never take stands, play to a non-existent middle, whore for corporate cash to fund their perpetual campaigns, etc. They intend on making careers of being in congress, not to actually work for the good of the country.

[anonymous171]

60. Politicians should not "take stands." They should represent their constituents.

Giving them an arbitrary resignation date just encourages them to play more games, not less.

[LostInAnomie]

62. Do you think their constituents are really their concern in the current system?

Their first and foremost concern is to get reelected which means they have to work hard for big donors.

[struggle4progress]

72. The goal of term limits is to make sure that legislators never master issues so remain dependent on

lobbyists

[Obamanaut]

I support it, but the weasels involved would never do anything to

thwart their pocket-lining careers.

Some say it is public service, but whatever they do has nothing to do with 'public', but rather 'self.'

[liberal_at_heart]

4. I would support it but without campaign reform

they can still become millionaires in just a few short years by taking money from lobbyists. Term limits by themselves don't solve the problem.

[PuraVidaDreamin]

5. It's only coming from the Repugs now

because they know they are in deep shit through the long term future.

It does need to happen tho- and if and when it does it should
be added that no x-lawmaker can lobby- PERIOD!

[rd_kent]

6. Now THIS is a Republican bill I can support!

[jberryhill]

24. Yeah... we can't have another disaster like Ted Kennedy...

:shrug:

[rd_kent]

27. Always someone who needs to be negative. WTF?

[jberryhill]

46. If by "negative" you mean disagreeing with term limit proposals, then yes I am negative

But I think it is "negative" to tell me that you know better than I do for whom I should be allowed to vote.

Term limits favor lobbyists and professional insiders over the judgment of experienced elected officials, and are anti-democratic.

[rd_kent]

47. Not sure I follow your upside down logic?

I feel exactly the opposite. Why do you think that?

[jberryhill]

61. Look At The California State Legislature

The CA legislature perpetually consists of green amateurs who cannot draft legislation capable of withstanding judicial review, and who are played like a violin by an advisor/lobbyist cadre with years of legislative experience.

This is a complex country with 300 million inhabitants. That it should be governed by a group of people with not much experience in a perpetual on-the-job training cycle simply strikes me as plumb stupid.

You have a difficult legal problem, and prefer a lawyer who has been at it for 2 years over 10?

If a majority of voters favor term limits, the power is right there in their fingertips to make it so without passing a single amendment or piece of legislation. My notion of representative democracy is that people vote for the candidate of their choice.

Term limits became a part of the American vocabulary as an effort by the reactionary fringe to derail the progressive policies of FDR.

It boils down to saying "if someone is good at their job" as measured in the only way a Democracy can measure that, "then fire that person". It makes positively no sense to me.

[Luminous Animal]

64. Yep. Lobbyist with years of legislative experience run circles around

greenhorn legislators.

It give lobbyist and thus corporations, even more control over our government.

[rd_kent]

65. Interesting view. I had not seen if from that angle.

Makes sense, too. Seems like the common denominator is the lobbyist. Mabye THEY should be shut out?

[jberryhill]

67. What is a "lobbyist"?

I do not have time to meet with legislators and convey my concerns about environmental issues, nor do I have the time to follow everything that goes on in DC that may impact those concerns. Accordingly, I donate to organizations which DO keep an eye on those things and which do engage legislators on my behalf.

What is it that is wrong with Greenpeace? The NOW? ACLU? and scads of other organizations which, yes, engage lobbyists to press their member's concerns?

If you are going to DC to meet your Congressperson and I give you five bucks for gas, are you not my lobbyist?

Over time, performance will out, but instead of considering a demonstrated long term voting record and other accomplishments of the Senator I've been voting for since I was 18 - Joe Biden - term limits seems to be an effort to prevent that sort of leadership based on longstanding voter approval, from having a chance to develop.

Yes, it means that Delawareans kept sending Joe back to the Senate for the same reason that Utahns keep sending back Orrin Hatch - because they are in tune with the electorate they represent, and they know they have to stay in tune for their regular performance review. Someone who is there for a quick in and out strikes me as someone who is more prone to look for favor trading with their next employer than someone with a motivation to make a career of public service.

I guess I just never saw a reason why Joe Biden should not have continued to be my Senator.

[rd_kent]

70. No, I do not think the system NEEDS lobbyists.

If representatives, ESPECIALLY congressmen, would spend MORE or MOST of their time in their districts, available to listen to the concerns and points of view of their constituents, then there really isn't a NEED for lobbyists, right?

If they were to go home,get a sense of how their CONSTITUENTS want them to vote, then returned to Washington and ACTUALLY VOTED the way their districts want them too..........

[Engineer4Obama]

32. Exactly this is the anti-Ted Kennedy amendment

just like the amendment limiting presidential terms was the anti-Roosevelt amendment.

[dysfunctional press]

44. career politicians were never supposed to be a part of the plan when we were founded.

i think it's a great idea- something needs to change so that congresspeople aren't spending most of their time in office running for re-election or raising money to do so.

[onenote]

54. maybe not, but a lot of early members of the legislature ended up being career politicians

read up on the lives of the members of the first congress -- a lot of them came from or went on to serve in state legislatures or as governors, etc. after their time in the Senate or House and a lot of them died while serving in an elected position.

[IDFbunny]

8. Exempt incumbants

unfair as it is, then you'd have an outside chance of passing. There'd be one generation of entrenchment politics but it would be worth the price for the next generation.

[Obamanaut]

43. Those are the very weasels who got us into this mess. On ballots,

if the challenger to the incumbent doesn't have some really serious stuff against him/her, I vote against the incumbent - especially in the primaries.

[dysfunctional press]

45. MAYBE exempt their time already in office,...but DEFINITELY apply it going forward.

nt

[IDFbunny]

48. That would get the

old timers vote that figure 6/12 more years might be good enough. The youngsters that just got there would feel gypped and vote against it. Too bad it wasn't written in from the start. No surprise getting limits on the executive is much easier than on the congressfolk.

I do think entrenchment is a corrupting influence for the executive or the law maker.

[dysfunctional press]

49. it wasn't written in from the beginning...

because the framers didn't foresee things like career politicians, lobbyists, or the price of airing television campaign ads.

[Mojambo]

9. I don't support term limits.

You're just solidifying the power of lobbyists, who will be the only permanent residents in the capitol.

[DJ13]

11. Me either

Eliminating the private money in campaigns is the only way to eliminate the corruption.

[Xithras]

20. That's EXACTLY what has happened in California

You literally have lobbyists greeting new legislators at the doors of their new offices with "Welcome to Sacramento, let me help get you up to speed on some legislative projects that we've been working on these last few years..."

The lobbyists are the only people with any real, permanent power.

[MattBaggins]

30. How about term limits on lobbyists.

You can lobby for 4 years than have to take a 2 year break.

Unconstitutional though... That whole crazy bit about the right to petition ones government.

[Johonny]

37. I agree

You get into office and immediately work on getting your next office instead of the business of the people. Term limits have been a disaster for California.

[MattBaggins]

28. I don't support term limits either

If people are not satisfied with their elected officials they can vote them out. Term limits says that a minority thinks that everyone else is too stupid to decide things for themselves.

[npk]

31. Think of it this way

If you impose term limits you make it more difficult for lobbyist to keep their influence on certain committees in congress. For example a lobbyist now knows that if they can influence a small percentage of career politicians they will have those politicians in their pockets for life. If there were term limits those lobbyist would not be able to keep that influence except for short term gains. The lobbyist would then have to start all over once the incumbent is forced to leave office. The lobbyist are always going to be there, might as well break up the other dynamic that keeps them in business.

[MattBaggins]

33. Or you could make sushine laws

and try to get the Media to expose the lobbyists. When I think Schumer isn't doing a good job; I will vote against him. I would kindly appreciate other people not interfering with my right to vote for whom I choose to.

[derby378]

12. Too many Republicans were in favor of term limits before they were against them

I don't trust this snake.

[bikingaz]

52. Term limits would limit influence by lobbyists

Most of the posts here are about how stupid the electorate is with latest issue, vote or poll.
Now some one saying that term limits are good only where the electorate is stupid.
Guess what?
Term limits are what electorate of this country need !!

[Wapsie B]

13. Instead of that prohibit anyone leaving office to lobby in DC after their term is over.

Or at the state or local level for that matter.

[liberal_at_heart]

18. that is a good idea as well

[crimsonblue]

25. This is actually the law..

Congress passed a bill that limited Ex-Congressman and Senators from lobbying the Government. I believe they are restricted from lobbying directly for 2 years or something (I'm not exactly sure on the specifics).

[Ardent15]

14. Public financing of campaigns would be better

What if Ted Kennedy had term limits?

[ThomCat]

15. You are right.

They were against term limits when they thought that Republicans would have a permanent Majority. It This only shows they think Democrats have long-term control.

But regardless of who will have the majority, unless we get public financing, it is still the corporate money party.

If, somehow, term limits get enacted, I would hope that people like Kennedy would go to the top of a government agency where they could continue to really help the American people instead of becoming lobbyists and political consultants. Ex-politicians who really cared could do a whole lot of good in government agencies, and circulating people between legislative positions and civil service would be a really good evolution for government.

[Merlot]

16. I don't support term limits.

The problem is with the politician, not how long they are in office. It talks a long time to become an expert in something. All term limits does is dumb down senators and congress people. And imagine having to vet a new candidate every other election cycle. I like knowing I can count on people like Barbara Boxer, or John Kerry. I would hate to loose their years of expertise. Look at Joe Biden how much foreign policy experience he has gained over his career.

There are better ways to make congress run. This repub bill is just another way of establishing their fact that gov't can't be trusted. It's grandstanding that does absolutely nothing to solve the problems of election finance or lobbyists.

[liberalpragmatist]

17. Term limits have been disastrous in California

You end up throwing out good legislators. The only ones who stick around are the lobbyists, and even in their absence, the remaining legislators have no expertise or experience passing legislation.

If you had term limits in Congress, you wouldn't have people like George Miller, Henry Waxman, Ted Kennedy, or Russ Feingold.

[Ardent15]

19. Exactly.

Term limits are just simplistic "solutions" to a larger, more complex problem.

[Bitwit1234]

21. People wondering why we can't get a referendum

to put term limits on the US wide voting ballot. I don't think it would be legal, but a lot of people are wishing they could limit these terms. That way they would work for the people and not collect lobbyist money to get re-elected. And if we could also outlaw lobbyist. I bet this country would start to SOAR.

[struggle4progress]

22. Yawn. Vitter (R-LA) and Platts (R-PA19) introduced the similar SJRes 1 and HJRes14 in January,

Vitter's was immediately sent to the Senate Judiciary and Platts' to the House Judiciary (and then to CCRCL Subcommittee). DeMint cosponsored Vitter's text in September; I guess he didn't get enough press coverage for doing that

[doc03]

29. Wasn't that supposed to be part of Newt's

Contract on America?

[Spike89]

35. Would have the opposite effect

Man, this makes no sense. Think about it...it takes a boatload of money to get elected, but once you're in office, you can win reelection with less money (OK, still boatloads, but challengers must almost always outspend you). Lobbyists will just keep throwing money at candidates and whenever we actually get a lawmaker that has principles--they don't even need to worry, it's only temporary.

Term limits without hard and effective campaign finance reform are about the worst idea imaginable--we'd constantly have inexperienced people who depended much more on lobbyist money for their elections.

[GaYellowDawg]

36. Funny how those fuckers do that when they're in the minority.

I still remember a whole lot of "term limits" talk in the 1994 elections, and 99% of those assholes stayed in office as long as they could manage.

[optimator]

38. awesome

too bad it will fail.

[Winterblues]

39. Right and let the lifer Staffers run the show..

As if they don't right now...:shrug:

[dysfunctional press]

40. the founders never intended for the government to be made of career politicians...

so i would support this effort 110%.

one question-

according to the piece-
"...Sen. Jim DeMint's (R-S.C.) amendment would limit House members to three terms and senators to two terms. Every lawmaker then could serve no longer than six years in Congress."

two terms for a senator adds up to 12 years...:shrug:

[ShortnFiery]

68. Exactly. Our fight is not just Democrats vs. Republicans but Corporatists vs. Populists

We have corporatists and other corrupt politicians galore in OUR beloved Democratic Party.

We will LOSE in 2010 and 2012 unless we, those in the Democratic Party, turn AWAY from Corporatism.

[ProSense]

42. Summary:

GOP suddenly facing the reality that they may be in the minority for a long time. They should have thought about that before they joined forces with their lunatic base, turning off a majority of Americans.

[Mari333]

50. can we throw them out after 6 months?

That would be so cool.

[blue_onyx]

51. Term limits didn't work so well in Michigan

We have those same term limits (3 terms for House and 2 for Senate). Now we have a dysfunctional congress that can't get anything done which has led to 2 government shut-downs in the last 3 years (although they only last a few hours). Term limits are a bad idea.

[David Zephyr]

53. The GOP pulls this shit every time they are out of power.

Newt's idiotic "Contract for America" had term limits as it's Rebel Yell.

And then, when they took over Congress they quietly forgot all about their promise for term limits.

Ask the self-hating homosexual Republican David Dreier why he never termed himself out after he swore that he would.

[eppur_se_muova]

66. You got it. Even if it ever passed, it would be repealed when inconvenient.

(Personally, I think term limits are a bad idea. They bascially tell voters they don't have the right to vote for the candidate they want -- even if they, themselves, never had the opportunity to vote for that candidate before.)

[anonymous171]

56. How about Federal Recalls instead?

It would help us deal with assholes like Lieberman who completely ignore what their constituents want.

[tonysam]

69. This is an obvious ploy to help the GOP

They tried this garbage with the Contract ON America back in the 1990s, and then abandoned the idea when they were in the majority of Congress.

[rd_kent]

71. Of course it is, but it is a ploy that will help fix the system.

If enacted, it will limit them as well.