Cruz, Rooney Introduce Constitutional Amendment

[rlvaughn]

Press Release: Sen. Cruz, Rep. Rooney Introduce Constitutional Amendment Imposing Term Limits on Members of Congress

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Francis Rooney (R-Fla.) yesterday introduced an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to impose term limits on members of Congress. The amendment would limit U.S. senators to two six-year terms and members of the U.S. House of Representatives to three two-year terms.

Should the resolution pass the House and Senate, the amendment would go to the states for ratification, requiring a vote of 3/4 of the state legislatures within seven years.

 

[HankD]

Press Release: Sen. Cruz, Rep. Rooney Introduce Constitutional Amendment Imposing Term Limits on Members of Congress

Should the resolution pass the House and Senate, the amendment would go to the states for ratification, requiring a vote of 3/4 of the state legislatures within seven years.

It will die on the floor.

 

[church mouse guy]

They tried that with Gingrich in the Contract With America and it failed.

The most important problem is reducing the size and cost of government and paying off that stupid national debt. The American people waste so much money on government. Government as big as ours is a roadblock to personal wealth.

 

[Aaron]

Term limits are not the answer. Winning elections is the answer.

 

[rlvaughn]

It will die on the floor.

I don't doubt that. Nevertheless, I would be glad to see term limits. Those who won't limit themselves should be limited. That adds another layer of "checks and balances" to the system.

The most important problem is reducing the size and cost of government and paying off that stupid national debt. The American people waste so much money on government. Government as big as ours is a roadblock to personal wealth.

Agreed, and I see part of that problem as politicians who keep going back to Washington, lining their pockets while they pick ours.

Term limits are not the answer. Winning elections is the answer.

Winning elections is always the final answer, but that doesn't keep me from favoring term limits as well.

I didn't post this thinking it has much chance of passing, but as some news you wouldn't likely hear in the mainstream media.

 

[church mouse guy]

I don't doubt that. Nevertheless, I would be glad to see term limits. Those who won't limit themselves should be limited. That adds another layer of "checks and balances" to the system.
Agreed, and I see part of that problem as politicians who keep going back to Washington, lining their pockets while they pick ours.
Winning elections is always the final answer, but that doesn't keep me from favoring term limits as well.

I didn't post this thinking it has much chance of passing, but as some news you wouldn't likely hear in the mainstream media.

As Mark Twain said, we have the best Congress that money can buy....

 

[HankD]

I don't doubt that. Nevertheless, I would be glad to see term limits. Those who won't limit themselves should be limited. That adds another layer of "checks and balances" to the system.
Agreed, and I see part of that problem as politicians who keep going back to Washington, lining their pockets while they pick ours.
Winning elections is always the final answer, but that doesn't keep me from favoring term limits as well.

I didn't post this thinking it has much chance of passing, but as some news you wouldn't likely hear in the mainstream media.

Thank you for the post. You are right it went unnoticed to most of us (me at least).

 

[OnlyaSinner]

Our state had term limits enacted through the public referendum process several decades ago - both senate and house maximum is 4 two-year terms, though one "piggyback" is allowed, so it's possible for a legislator to serve 16 consecutive years. It's also possible to have a "time out" period (I forget how long it must be, either 4 or 8 years I think) and return to the legislature. Term limits have definitely increased legislative churn, but also have empowered lobbyists to some extent, as they have the institutional background that newbies lack. The jury seems still to be out, on whether term limits have improved things here.

 

[Aaron]

People who lose elections always bring up term limits. They're already limited. Every four or six years the people decide if they still want such and such as a representative. Term limits don't limit the politicians. They limit us.

 

[HankD]

People who lose elections always bring up term limits. They're already limited. Every four or six years the people decide if they still want such and such as a representative. Term limits don't limit the politicians. They limit us.

Except for instance the case of FDR. It was implemented to break "Good ole Boyism".

 

[Aaron]

Except for instance the case of FDR. It was implemented to break "Good ole Boyism".

But did it? And was the intent really noble as that? You think Dems push gun control because they think it promotes safety? Or were term limits imposed on the President more likely to ensure a conservative president couldn't stay in office long enough to undo his Socialism?

 

[rlvaughn]

People who lose elections always bring up term limits.

I think there is a certain truth in that, although for someone in Congress to introduce a constitutional amendment for term limits, those persons have to have actually won and be in office, such as Cruz and Rooney. Perhaps the ultimate losers who introduced term limits were the Confederate States of America. Long before the U. S. thought of limiting the term of the President, their Constitution limited the President of the Confederate States to a single six-year term (in the U.S. it was unlimited at that time). Perhaps they got the idea from Jefferson, who argued at one time for a single seven-year term for the President. I don't recall that they limited the Congress, though.

They're already limited. Every four or six years the people decide if they still want such and such as a representative. Term limits don't limit the politicians. They limit us.

Term limits do limit the politicians; they are limited from running again. But, yes, they do also limit us, the voters -- that is, limit our choices. But as a general principle I don't see that as a strong argument against term limits. We have any number of laws/regulations that limit who can run, thus limiting the voter from making certain choices he or she might otherwise make. No doubt these vary by state, but here in our state one must be a citizen, must be 18 years of age, cannot be mentally incapacitated, cannot be a felon, must live in the state/precinct where running, must be registered to vote, has to apply for a place on the ballot, and probably some others. In the case of the President the age limit is raised to 35, and we have placed term limits on that office. So, as I see it, laws that limit the voter are not something we have rejected out of hand. Then, it becomes a question of whether term limits on offices in Congress have more pros than cons.

Possibly one of the greater possible "cons" is that the rate of turnover might increase the power to bureaucrats and lobbyists. On the positive side term limits could prevent politicians from garnering too much power, making politics their career while spending much of their time raising money for re-election and voting in such a way that helps insure their re-election.

All of the arguments are probably academic. Term limits didn't happen in the so-called Contract With America, and it is unlikely that a bunch of career politicians will ever limit how long they can hold their jobs.

 

[HankD]

But did it? And was the intent really noble as that? You think Dems push gun control because they think it promotes safety? Or were term limits imposed on the President more likely to ensure a conservative president couldn't stay in office long enough to undo his Socialism?

Who knows?

 

[rlvaughn]

Except for instance the case of FDR. It was implemented to break "Good ole Boyism".

But did it? And was the intent really noble as that?...Or were term limits imposed on the President more likely to ensure a conservative president couldn't stay in office long enough to undo his Socialism?

Who knows?

I don't know either, but here are a few considerations.

• Republican opponent of FDR, Thomas Dewey, supported the presidential term limit, and Republicans with majorities in both houses of Congress introduced and passed the amendment
• Southern Democrats joined the Republicans in supporting the amendment
• The constitutional amendment not only had to pass in Congress (by 2/3)—it had to be ratified by 3/4 of the states
• The states re-elected the Democratic incumbent, Harry Truman (who had been FDR's Vice-President)
• The states (41 of them) voted to ratify the amendment between 1947 and 1951. (2 states rejected it, and apparently 5 never voted on it.)

All that to say that it seems to me there is too much going on in the ratification of this amendment for it to merely be an effort to keep a conservative President from staying in office too long.

 

[HankD]

I don't know either, but here are a few considerations.

• Republican opponent of FDR, Thomas Dewey, supported the presidential term limit, and Republicans with majorities in both houses of Congress introduced and passed the amendment
• Southern Democrats joined the Republicans in supporting the amendment
• The constitutional amendment not only had to pass in Congress (by 2/3)—it had to be ratified by 3/4 of the states
• The states re-elected the Democratic incumbent, Harry Truman (who had been FDR's Vice-President)
• The states (41 of them) voted to ratify the amendment between 1947 and 1951. (2 states rejected it, and apparently 5 never voted on it.)

All that to say that it seems to me there is too much going on in the ratification of this amendment for it to merely be an effort to keep a conservative President from staying in office too long.

Still limited terms IMO would put a damper on the problem of power and corruption due to "seniority".

 

[Aaron]

I don't know either, but here are a few considerations.

• Republican opponent of FDR, Thomas Dewey, supported the presidential term limit, and Republicans with majorities in both houses of Congress introduced and passed the amendment
• Southern Democrats joined the Republicans in supporting the amendment
• The constitutional amendment not only had to pass in Congress (by 2/3)—it had to be ratified by 3/4 of the states
• The states re-elected the Democratic incumbent, Harry Truman (who had been FDR's Vice-President)
• The states (41 of them) voted to ratify the amendment between 1947 and 1951. (2 states rejected it, and apparently 5 never voted on it.)

All that to say that it seems to me there is too much going on in the ratification of this amendment for it to merely be an effort to keep a conservative President from staying in office too long.

Of course the Republicans introduced it. Just like I hear "Term Limits!" from everyone whose candidate didn't win.

What term limits will do is effectively stahl any real reform and fill both chambers with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezes in very few years.

 

[rlvaughn]

Of course the Republicans introduced it. Just like I hear "Term Limits!" from everyone whose candidate didn't win.

Cruz was "my candidate." He won.

What term limits will do is effectively stahl any real reform and fill both chambers with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezes in very few years.

I'm not aware of any real reform that is going on or has gone on.

 

[Aaron]

If a Republican majority wasn't so tenuous, it would be the Dems crying for term limits. It's the cry of losers.

 

[Aaron]

Cruz was "my candidate." He won.

He won in Texas, but he doesn't win in D.C.

 

[Adonia]

Term limits are not the answer. Winning elections is the answer.

But if you win elections with the same set of RINOS like Murkowski and Collins nothing changes. Entrenched politicians need to be limited so the damage they can do can be limited.