Redstate

Do people ever win these battles?  I can't remember if I've ever heard someone make a dent in this case.

Blanton -- Why aren't you a fan of term limits?  

I've given this a lot of thought, and the more I think it through, the more I think term limits for legislators and executive office holders (e.g. governors, the President) are a good idea (judges present a much different set of issues).  As a small-government libertarian conservative, I don't like the idea of "professional politicians," and I don't think the Founders would have either.  

Instead, I prefer the admittedly quaint concept of a "citizen legislator" whose goal is to make sure government does the few things it is intended to do well, and doesn't view staying in office as his reason for existence.  Also, if a politician knows that he will eventually have to return to the "real world" and get a "real job," his perspective on government might stay a bit more realistic.

I've heard the argument that term limits deprive voters of their "choice" of candidates, and I'm not persuaded.  In most races these days, particularly for the U.S. Congress (and more particularly for House seats), voters don't have a legitimate "choice" anyway.  The power of incumbency, combined with gerrymandered districts, prevents any real competition for most elected offices.  Term limits solve this problem by creating a truly "open" seat once every 2, 4, 6, 8, etc. years.

The other argument against term limits that I've heard is that it takes an elected legislator some time to "learn the ropes" and that more experienced legislators are better equipped to serve their constituents.  If all legislators are term-limited, however, all would be similarly inexperienced, so the "playing field" would be level in that regard.  And if "learn the ropes" means getting better at passing more laws, I don't want anyone learning the ropes very well.

I am certainly open to having my mind changed on this, and I'll be interested to see the pro-con arguments on this thread.

Are why Orrin Hatch had to give way as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee after the 108th Congress.  They are a one-size-fits-all rule that more often than not throws the baby out with the bathwater.

And if "learn the ropes" means getting better at passing more laws, I don't want anyone learning the ropes very well.

That's really the key point. It doesn't take a whole lot to learn to pass laws. What does takes time is to integrate yourself into the big complex network of competing special interests and figure out where the money is. And once you're snugly plugged into the network, then all of the relevant stakeholders (which emphatically does not include the voters) want to keep you in there.

Speaking as a somewhat well-off person, I want to make sure that when I buy a legislator or executive (through campaign contributions), that he stays bought. Term limits decrease the value of my investment. That's the way our system works. But speaking as a citizen, I'm disgusted by the whole thing.

Harold's example of Orrin Hatch ceding the gavel to Arlen Specter is probably the best argument against Committee chairmanship term limits, but it's an equally strong argument against seniority rules in the Senate.

I think it works well in the House, but not the Senate.

When the GOP took over in 1994 and imposed term limits on Chairs, it was due to the examples of Rostenkowski and Dingell (and oh so many others) who ruled their committees with dictatorial powers.  It certainly gave more power to the GOP leadership (for good or ill) but it also enabled new ideas and new blood to come in.  Jerry Lewis, the new chair of Approps, is a good example of a new leader for that committee.  

There's a whole crop of House Committee chairs that will have to give up their Chairs at the end of this Congress, including Boehner at Education, Sensenbrenner at Judiciary, Thomas at Ways and Means.  Sometimes it works out well, sometimes it doesn't.  (Remember that when Henry Hyde gave up his Judiciary chairmanship he got to lead the International Relations Committee.)

But on the whole, I think it can be helpful to have committee limits.  It keeps Chairmen thinking about the good of the party, not just their own power.  It keeps bills within the mainstream of the party views (by and large).  And it allows the leadership to reward relatively junior people who are more staunchly conservative and more in line with what the party wants, not just rewarding longevity.

The Senate, with its devotion to rewarding longevity, is more problematic.  For every Judd Gregg at Budget, you get a Specter at Judiciary.  If only they would give chairs to the better person not the longest serving, we might get some decent policy.

While term limits are appealing, and I applaud those who impose them on themselves, I think that they can be taken too far, and in the end do more harm than good.

In Virginia, we have a single term limit for governor. That means that, every four years, we end up with, not only a new executive, but an entire new body of political appointees. Even if the new governor is the chosen successor of the old one, the whole state government has to change and bring in new people; new people who have to "learn the ropes" in order to effectivily administrate. Not only that, but policy initiatives of the old governor, usually not completely fulfilled, often are cast aside for new plans, and nothing is accomplished. Take, for example, the Department of Transportation. How much work can it get done when every four years the plans to improve traffic problems and the people charged with carrying thse plans out changes.

If someone is doing a good job, and the voters wnat him to stay in and keep doing that job, I say let him run.

I understand where the author is coming from about term limits; often the drawbacks of term limits outweigh the potential benefits.  The reason term limits are in place in the first place is because citizens love incumbents so much that they will often reelect them for an inordinate number of terms.  Term limits just force citizens to go against their own "vote for the incumbent" instincts and send somebody new in there every six or twelve years.

Anyway, term limits certainly don't put an end to "career politicians;" all they really do is force politicians to run for another office when their allotted time in one office is up.

The one problem with your concept of 'staying bought' is that term limits proportionately increase the power of the money-men and the congressional staff.

Look at the Jack Abramoff mess.  He was influential because he raised a lot of money and knew everyone.  If all Members were term limited, they'd all want to be his friend because he'd help raise money for them.  The same with George Soros types on the other side.  The people with the money would then have greater influence than they even do know.

And term limits significantly increase the importance of congressional staff.  There's so much minutae and legislative arcana that most Members don't really follow or deal with.  I can't imagine any Member has the time to read every bill they vote on or work on.  It'd be impossible.  So they rely on staff to summarize the bills and negotiate for them in committee or conference negotiations.  In a term limited environment staff would have disproportionate influence because they would know the process and know how to maneuver while new members every 6 years would take some time to learn the process.

is enacted every time Americans go to vote.

Remember round about '93-'94, when the term limits debate was in full swing? What happened? Lots of politicians lost their jobs. What better argument against such laws?

... experienced legislators are able to provide better service to their true consituents, the money-men and the lobbyists. Well, at least it's democratic. I thought that legislators hire their own staff, and so the staff would turn over with the legislators.

Despite my support for democratically enacted statewide term limits on legislators and executive office holders, I am emphatically against politicians who impose term limits on themselves because: (a) I have yet to hear of a Democratic legislator term-limiting himself; and (b) when no one else is term-limited by law, an individual politician harms his party by bowing out after an arbitrary, pre-set number of terms.

Case in point -- my own Congresscritter, Don Manzullo (R-IL, 16th Dist.).  Manzullo's original campaign platform included a "term limits" promise.  Specifically, Manzullo voters in this District that he would only serve six terms in the House and would then step down.  When the time came to fulfill his promise, he reneged, saying that his accumulated wisdom and experience are too valuable to this District and that voters had expressed a desire that he stay in office.  

Though he broke his "term limits" promise, I voted for him last election and will vote for him again this time.  His promise was self-defeating in the first place, and I much prefer Don Manzullo to: (a) a GOP candidate who may or may not win the seat; or (b) any Democrat.

I'd have much less of a problem "losing" Don Manzullo if ALL Congresscritters were term-limited.  Because they aren't, I hope Don serves until he's 85 and that he hand-picks a like-minded successor.

So, is the seniority system that bad?  I think not, personally.

Is that USTL decided to make the perfec the enemy of the good, and ended up being in favor of neither.  By insisting on a truly ridiculous 6 year House, 12 year Senate term limit, and branding everyone in favor of other policies traitors, it opened the entire term limits movement to the charges that have been levelled here.

Personally, I think an 18/18 term limit strikes a good compromise by allowing people to learn how to move legislation and gain some experience without completely becoming creatures of Washington and gaining too much power and insulation from the legislative process.

Even in 1994, fewer than 30 incumbents lost.

I hope that term limits survive the court challenges in Nebraska. Sen. Ernie Chambers has been a thorn to any sort of progress for too many years, but even term limits won't get rid of him until 2008.

While this might be a good idea, the Supreme Court found it unconstitutional in U.S.Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).  Thomas wrote a pretty good dissent, in which Scalia, Rehnquist and O'Connor joined, saying essentially that term limits for federal politicians should be an issue for the states electing those politicians.  But seeing as how the 5 judges who wrote the majority opinion are still around, this is still the law of the land.

which is a rarity for me, but I don't think that the vast majority of our elected leaders are in the service of nefarious money-men and lobbyists.  Some certainly are, but the vast majority are there to try to do what they consider the right thing.

As for staffing, well it depends.  In the personal offices, staff tend to come from the district or the state, but they don't usually have too much power (especially in the House).  Most of the experienced and knowledgeable staff work for the Committees themselves, or leadership offices.  These staff tend to stay a long time, or flip over to the lobbyist side of town.

So when a committee wants to rewrite, say, the transportation bill, Members would tend to want to look for someone who is an expert on transportation issues, not just someone from home.  So the staff builds the expertise, advises the Member what to do, and the Members tend to rely on the staff for their expertise and the minutae of writing the actual legislative language.

Contrary to your previous comment, legislating is rather difficult and complex (or it has become so).  Bills have to be written with a great deal of technical and legislative language that the average Member doesn't have the time or prediliction to master.  That's not necessarily a bad thing.  I don't care if my Member knows the difference between a subclase and a subsection, I want him or her to lay out a strategic vision, make good decisions, and vote the right way.

That's true.  I guess we were discussing things in the context of state representatives, where Thornton wouldn't apply.  The problem is USTL made an impact at the state level, imposing term limits so severe that they are coming under criticism (rightly, imho) for being so severe.  I don't think a legislative body can really function where the most experience is six years, but I can't say 35-year incumbents are a good thing either.

of the iceberg. If this keeps up the question won't be "term limits" it will be "how long the term?"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051128/ap_on_go_co/congressman_s_house

Frist; Delay; Libby;six as yet unnamed Abramof linked congressional associates, staffers, wives; Scanlon; Safavian... icebergs getting bigger by the day and the GOP's starting to look like the Titanic.

Your argument conveniently ignores "rotten broroughs", places where people will get elected over and over again, even after they are convicted of felonies, because of the make-up of the district.

Clearly, some "districts" are more "equal" than others, which is why a universal 'leveller' is needed.

Now, if you want to argue the problem then is really district apportionment, I promise to listen, though I still won't agree.

But, in the meantime:

God Bless Term Limits!

Is that USTL decided to make the perfec[t] the enemy of the good, and ended up being in favor of neither.  By insisting on a truly ridiculous 6 year House, 12 year Senate term limit, and branding everyone in favor of other policies traitors, it opened the entire term limits movement to the charges that have been levelled here.

I agree with part of this.

The problem in CA is indeed that there is a 6-year Term Limit on the State Assembly, which is too short, even for a TL fanatic such as myself.

Also, VA's 1-Term Gov. limit is equally ridiculous.

The TL movement isn't doing anyone any favors by being basically extremist on this, and that org. has specifically lost my support until they smarten up.

That said, I disagree because 18 years is way too long.

I think the perfect limit is 12 years for House, Senate & President (along with Gov's & State legislators), and Federal Judges should have a limit of somewhere between 12-18 years on any single bench.

Part and parcel with this should be redistricting reform.

But good luck seeing any of that happen.

It will take another "Throw the bums out!" groundswell before TL & redistricting reform are on anyone's radar again...

So where do you come down on the term-limits question? Somewhere in the middle?

byrd, specter,warner,mccain,leahy,kennedy---shall i go on???

Marty Meehan, (D-MA).  Elected in 1992 on a campaign that called for term limits in the federal government, this shameless pantload immediately came down with a severe case of incumbentitis and is heading into his 13th year of grabbing your money.  He claims that he still thinks term limits are a good idea, but won't willingly give up his seat because there's no law forcing other reps to give up theirs.

I guess I'm opposed to term limits for Members, but I support term limits for Chairs and leadership.

I think that the elections are our opportunity to vote the bums out.  Just because folks want to keep sending Cynthia McKinney or Ted Kennedy to Congress doesn't mean that I shouldn't be able to send Jeff Sessions or Henry Hyde back as long as possible.

However, I would also require the NRSC, NRCC, and RNC to stay absolutely neutral during primaries, so I'm just a crackpot.

The Maine Legislature is considering working to do away with term limits.

url=Term Limits Story[/url]

While I'm against term limits as unconstitutional, I agree that sitting termed out legislators who want to end them against the will of the people so they can stay in office, is a poor form, particularly if it comes from those that ran "Pro Term Limits" campaigns to get elected.  

One solution is to stop making it so lucrative to serve (ie Salary & Pension at Federal Level, State Insurance & Perks at the State Level)

First, rather than "term limits" how about capital punishment.  Finish your second term, your family collects a generous life insurance policy.

Second, and actually a better solution, limit the amount of time the legislature or congress can meet.  Say, 90 to 120 days per year.  Reduce the days they are allowed to meet, staffs cannot meet outside of the legislative session more than an additional 20 days - ten prior to and ten after the session.  Include a requirement that the legislator cannot own property in the vicinity of the capital unless they represent the district the capital is in.

I am a BIG fan of term limits, and I think we should have a constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms.

My pragmatic self has argued term limits with my philosophical self for years. It seems my pragmatic self finally may have won because at this time I would support a Constitutional amendment limiting Senators to two terms.

No one is served by those who would carve out fifedoms in the US Senate where they remain firmly ensconced far into their dotage. I don't care if their names are Kennedy or Thurmond, on which side of the aisle they sit or what their politics are.

The 98 Senators about whose election I have no say whatsoever hold as much sway over my life as the two sent from my state, sometimes considerably more. If the voters in states like SC (Thurmond/47 yrs--Hollings/38), WV (Byrd/46), MA (Kennedy/42), HA (Inouye/41), AK (Stevens/36), VT (Leahy/35), NM (Domenici/34), etc, etc, etc, can't be persuaded, then at least let's have a way to mitigate the damage they can do.

     For many years I was "on the fence" regarding term limits, but as a resident of Pa., our state legislature would make any opponent of TL's rethink their position.

     The difficult part is how long should a term be limited?  If I may offer this answer for discussion .....   As soon as a elected official thinks they deserve a Salary/benefit increase,IT IS TIME TO GO HOME!!!

When it comes to state legislators, the people have the absolute right to speak. If the initial ballot referendum was unconstitutional by the state, then it should have been challenged at that point. Or have the state constitution amended.

All states are not the same, and their need of or desire for term limits vary. As do the need for fulltime legislatures and part time legislatures.

In California, with 34 million people, I'm sure it's legislation and governing needs are much greater, and possibly more complex, than those of say Nevada or Wyoming.

The romanticism of the citizen legislator is quaint. But probably outdated for practical application in large and populous states and on the national level.

On the states level, the real solutions are to have fair, competitive districts where a challenger has a legitimate shot at winning nomination and election. Term limits in CA seem to be turning out to be counterproductive. For instance, Senator Tom McClintock will be term limited out of his senate seat. IMO, he is very good senator. He's always well versed on most any matter, and if he isn't, he says so. So, he'll be running for Lt. Governor. Which I'm not sure what good that's going to do the state of California. He'd be much more valuable serving his district and the state in the senate. I'm sure for every McClintock, there is the countervailing example.

The issue of how we deal with our nationally elected representatives would be less thorny if we could get them to limit their scope of legislation to Constitutonally delineated responsibilities and authority. Then more politics would be local, just as it should be. Maybe then the people would pay more attention and have a more direct influence. The prevailing attitude of looking to Washington for the solution to all our problems makes governing at the national and state levels less effective, and disenfranchises the citizens.

for different offices?  I think we should take into account the roles of different branches and divisions of government at the federal level and the impact that longer terms has on those branches.  

In my view 12 years is too long for the presidency.  A president and his administration can have a huge impact on the country, though control of the various departments in the executive branch.  A two term limit limits the impact the presidency and its appointed officers can have on the operations of the government.  Anything over ten years just strikes me as a bad idea.

Also in my view, 12 years is too short for the Senate.  The Senate is in many ways supposed to be a conservative institution and longer maximum terms for Senators is more likely to keep it as such.  A little over a decade seems too short, yet anything over two decades seems too long.  I think 18 years is appropriate for the Senate.

Something between 6 to 12 years for a House Rep seems appropriate, though I think the upper end is more sensible.

I too am a strong proponent of term limits.  I think all political seats should have a term limit of varying lengths.

The U.S. Constitution, as originally framed in Article I, Section 3, provided for U.S. Senators to be elected by state legislators.

This gave the states direct representation in the legislative branch thus detering the usurpation of powers that are Constitutionally reserved to the states or to the people.

The Seventeenth Amendment (providing for direct, popular election of U.S. Senators) took away from state governments their Constitutional role of indirect participation in the federal legislative process.

Repeal the Seventeenth Amendment and returning to state legislatures the function of electing the U.S. Senate. In so doing, this would not only return the U.S. Senate to being a body that represents the legislatures of the several states on the federal level, it would also address the issue of 40+ year Senate terms.

Meehan in particular, though a number of our Representatives have called for term limits, promised to serve only six or twelve years, and then gone back on those self-imposed term limits.  If term limits are self-imposed, then they really serve no purpose except to hurt the Congressman's district, which would be deprived of the opportunity to have a representative sitting in a plum committee position because the Congressman (who presumably could easily be reelected if he so wished) chose not to run for reelection.

Kennedy et al never have called for term limits.  Blame the voters of Massachusetts for sending Teddy to Washington for 44 years.

They seem like a good idea at first... but they are really just a license to do whatever you want in your last term without any concern for what your constituents think about it. You see this all the time where there are term limits.

Term limits don't solve this problem. There's an endless supply of corrupt, incompetent people who wish to run for that office. It is a great place to be if you are corrupt and incompetent.

However, I would also require the NRSC, NRCC, and RNC to stay absolutely neutral during primaries, so I'm just a crackpot.

I totally agree with this. What is even worse is when the activist base denies a candidate their endorsement at the convention but the party still supports him in the primary. That happens all too frequently.

only about 30 are even marginally competitive, your argument just doesn't hold water.  In the vast majority of districts most people reflexively vote for the incumbant without regard to their voting history.

The districts are gerrymandered towards this end, not because people always vote for the incumbent.

Even if there were term limits, the candidate from the same party will be getting elected over and over again in those districts.

of a primary challenger winning unless the incumbent is Duke Cunningham or a similarly incapacitated pol.  Thus, my point stays intact.  In general, how a congressman votes will not effect his/her reelection chances.