Should There Be Limits On Terms In Office For Our Political Leaders?

Should There Be Limits On Terms In Office For Our Political Leaders? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

slutslave4u -> Should There Be Limits On Terms In Office For Our Political Leaders? (8/30/2009 8:42:28 AM)
While sitting around watching the Ted Kennedy Services these past few days. A question came up with family members that was interesting to see their thoughts/views as to whether they thought there should be any set limits on terms or lengths of service our political leaders may serve once elected to office. Watching it you could see even a 91 year old sitting in a wheelchair unable to do most things for himself, yet he makes decisions for the rest of us? Why do we allow such to happen, retire already and let another take the helm and move forward. In most any other arena be it private sector and most government positions you have lengths or terms as to how long one can be there. Call it mandatory retirement or whatever you wish to label it as. But you have 20 or more years as being a set term, or even the set retierment age in this country being in your 60's. Instead we have officials well beyond their retirement age in years still in office making decisions for the rest of us. It is clear, looking at both party lines for many years now, just how those decisions have been both good and bad ideas/laws with their "old" ways of thinking. Point being much as old saying goes, out with the old in with the new as one family member put it. With ages, illnesses ( do we wait to see when they get ill, or allow them to make decisions while ill and us not even know ). The discussion at the family table was an interesting mix......your thoughts?

tazzygirl -> RE: Should There Be Limits On Terms In Office For Our Political Leaders? (8/30/2009 8:44:35 AM)
Strom Thurmond comes quickly to mind.

slutslave4u -> RE: Should There Be Limits On Terms In Office For Our Political Leaders? (8/30/2009 8:51:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Strom Thurmond comes quickly to mind. Yes he was one in particular we were speaking about. I mean even Ted Kennedy himself being 77 and in office, remaining ( however not much seen on the Senate floor ) even after being diagnosed with his illness remaining in office until it took him.

Thunderbird56 -> RE: Should There Be Limits On Terms In Office For Our Political Leaders? (8/30/2009 8:57:36 AM)
I say no term limits. As desirable and beneficial as the results of term limits might be, it reduces our freedom to say that we can't vote for someone. Clearly John Q. Voter isn't doing his/her job as once in office incumbents in congress have a 98% chance of being re-elected, but that's no valid reason to eliminate one more freedom/choice of the public's. With that I will say, "Throw them out!".

slutslave4u -> RE: Should There Be Limits On Terms In Office For Our Political Leaders? (8/30/2009 9:21:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Thunderbird56 I say no term limits. As desirable and beneficial as the results of term limits might be, it reduces our freedom to say that we can't vote for someone. Clearly John Q. Voter isn't doing his/her job as once in office incumbents in congress have a 98% chance of being re-elected, but that's no valid reason to eliminate one more freedom/choice of the public's. With that I will say, "Throw them out!". So then you have no set limits? Then, for instance, a 91 year old in a wheelchair that cant do for himself that has been in office longer than most of us have been alive....not able to do for or take care of himself much less anyone else, and make decisions/laws for the rest of the country.....is okay? When we do have such limits on how long the President can be in office as another example.

TheHeretic -> RE: Should There Be Limits On Terms In Office For Our Political Leaders? (8/30/2009 10:01:24 AM)
California has term limits in place for our legislature and I cannot say there is much benefit to it. Effective representatives are forced out, and the experience level remains low. A constant stream of new idealogues parade into the Assembly every two years with no idea of how the process works, or how state government functions. An informed and intelligent electorate seems the better way to go. (yeah, I know...)

DomImus -> RE: Should There Be Limits On Terms In Office For Our Political Leaders? (8/30/2009 10:04:47 AM)
I support term limits for those in Congress but there are good arguments on both sides for and against and clearly the founding fathers saw no need for Congressional term limits. If we are not going to have term limits for Congress then I feel we should repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution that provided for presidential term limits. There's a clear discrepancy there. Kennedy himself would have voted back and forth for and against presidential term limits as democrats and republicans occupied the White House if it didn't take a Constitutional amendment.

DarkSteven -> RE: Should There Be Limits On Terms In Office For Our Political Leaders? (8/30/2009 10:10:07 AM)
It's not the length of service that I object to, it's the fact that clout is related directly to seniority. Thus a Thurmond, Byrd, Kennedy, or Ted Stevens is able to consistently deliver "the goods" (pork) back home. It's a kickback system that's entirely legal and open - the Congressperson/Senator uses the resources of the United States to get goodies for his or her home state and receives reelection as a reward. I wish there was a solution. The line-item veto gives the President too much power IMO.

DDraigeuraid -> RE: Should There Be Limits On Terms In Office For Our Political Leaders? (8/30/2009 10:12:38 AM)
While I agree that there should be a set limit for congress and the senate, realistically, it isn't going to happen. It would first have to be passed by both the House and Senate, and they would never agree to limit themselves. I don't know when Sen. Byrd's current term is up for election, but if he is still alive, he will most likely run again and be re-elected again. Here in Hawaii, Sen. Dan Inoye is up for re-election next year (I think), and will likely be re-elected, and he is in his eighties. It really says more about the people than the elected ones. Byrd brought billions to West Virginia, Inoye has brought billions to Hawaii, because they know how to do it. And for that, the political hacks keep getting them elected. Dragon

kdsub -> RE: Should There Be Limits On Terms In Office For Our Political Leaders? (8/30/2009 10:37:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomImus I support term limits for those in Congress but there are good arguments on both sides for and against and clearly the founding fathers saw no need for Congressional term limits. If we are not going to have term limits for Congress then I feel we should repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution that provided for presidential term limits. There's a clear discrepancy there. Kennedy himself would have voted back and forth for and against presidential term limits as democrats and republicans occupied the White House if it didn't take a Constitutional amendment. There has been a two-term tradition for the presidency in America...although not strictly adhered to. I think the 22nd amendment was a mistake and single handedly has done more to contribute to the political polarization and stalemate of Congress than any issues before the people. It effectively makes the last two years of any President useless. I see no advantage of term limits whatsoever...they limit the power of voters. Being infirm has nothing to do with term limits... you know you can be elected for the first time at 77. Butch

servantforuse -> RE: Should There Be Limits On Terms In Office For Our Political Leaders? (8/30/2009 10:53:24 AM)
Robert Byrd comes to my mind. A racist that once was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. You gotta love those old democrats.

kdsub -> RE: Should There Be Limits On Terms In Office For Our Political Leaders? (8/30/2009 11:06:26 AM)
But did not the election of Byrd reflect on the people of West Virginia...Term limits would not have changed their views would it? The only viable arguments by posters for term limits would concern representatives of their party and their State ..Not political opponents in others states that their removal would benefit them politically…that is what we are seeing here Butch

slaveluci -> RE: Should There Be Limits On Terms In Office For Our Political Leaders? (8/30/2009 11:08:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub But did not the election of Byrd reflect on the people of West Virginia... Only the ones who voted for him. luci

kdsub -> RE: Should There Be Limits On Terms In Office For Our Political Leaders? (8/30/2009 11:13:19 AM)
lol... yes that is the point...it was the majority Butch

Thunderbird56 -> RE: Should There Be Limits On Terms In Office For Our Political Leaders? (8/30/2009 4:57:15 PM)
quote: So then you have no set limits? Then, for instance, a 91 year old in a wheelchair that cant do for himself that has been in office longer than most of us have been alive....not able to do for or take care of himself much less anyone else, and make decisions/laws for the rest of the country.....is okay? When we do have such limits on how long the President can be in office as another example. quote: ORIGINAL: slutslave4u Yes, no set limits. Again, believe me, I appreciate and dearly desire the benefits that term limits could accomplish ... but that's not the way to go about it. We have a 'representative' form of gov't and it's up to those that are to be represented to select and elect those that will be representing them. I greatly prefer the voters doing their job to some arbitrary, mindless 'control' mechanism. Again, it's way past time to throw them out!

DavanKael -> RE: Should There Be Limits On Terms In Office For Our Political Leaders? (8/30/2009 5:02:57 PM)
Imo, no, I would prefer that there not be term limits. I would hope that my fellow Americans and I would exercise good judgment in who we retain and who we eject form public service. Davan

FangsNfeet -> RE: Should There Be Limits On Terms In Office For Our Political Leaders? (8/31/2009 7:23:05 PM)
If the Majority keeps on voteing YAY, then I really don't see the problem with there not being limits on terms. However, the limit idea does help some politicians. As their terms end, the don't get pressured into or feel obligated to keep office. We all want to retire and just enjoy life at some point, right?

Musicmystery -> RE: Should There Be Limits On Terms In Office For Our Political Leaders? (8/31/2009 7:55:50 PM)
~FR~ Everybody's against the rascals--but everybody is FOR their OWN rascal. Face it--we have met the people at the trough, and they is us. Sure, it's more complicated than that. But reform starts there--or it dies on election day.

servantforuse -> RE: Should There Be Limits On Terms In Office For Our Political Leaders? (8/31/2009 7:57:53 PM)
Not me. I wish that both of our senators, Kohl and Fiengold would be gone.

Musicmystery -> RE: Should There Be Limits On Terms In Office For Our Political Leaders? (8/31/2009 7:59:10 PM)
So campaign for someone better. It ain't rocket science.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875