Lawmakers Propose Amendment to Congressional Term Limits

[Okie RP fan]

"Strike while the iron's hot" may be appropriate in this iteration of term limit proposals. Of course, this will probably endure the same fate as the previous attempts.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) have introduced joint resolutions in the Senate and House respectively, calling for congressional term limits.

“With the evident abuse of power that has taken place in Congress, the notion of term limits is basic common sense,” Norman said in an emailed statement.

The amendment would limit House members to three terms of two years, and Senate members to two terms of six years.

However, terms that began before the amendment’s ratification are not counted towards the total number. This has relevance for Cruz, who began a third term in the Senate this year.

“The Founding Fathers envisioned a government of citizen legislators who would serve for a few years and return home, not a government run by a small group of special interests and lifelong, permanently entrenched politicians who prey upon the brokenness of Washington to govern in a manner that is totally unaccountable to the American people,” Cruz said.

The action currently has support in both chambers of Congress—11 senators and 29 members of the House—but it is no small feat to amend the U.S. Constitution.

The amendment will require support from two-thirds of the House and of the Senate and agreement by three-fourths of states to be ratified.

More here: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/lawmakers-propose-amendment-congressional-term-limits

 

[Occam's Banana]

I am skeptical of the value of term limits. At best, they're apt to be more of a cosmetic bandage than anything else.

Regularly cycling out the few really good Congressmen we manage to get (such as Thomas Massie) - just so they can be replaced with a steady stream of mediocrities - doesn't seem like such a great idea to me.

But in any case, Congress is pretty much just a dog-and-pony-show veneer for the executive plantation's permanent phalanxes of entrenched bureaucrats, lobbyists,"stakeholders", etc. - which routinely fob their collective nose at Congressional authority and "oversight" (LOL). I don't see how adding a game of "musical chairs" to the mix will do much if anything to address that problem. (In fact, it could make the problem even more impervious to mitigation than it already is.)

Less time and effort should be wasted on trying to get the feds to play right, and more time and effort should be spent on trying to get the states to just stop playing the fed's game with the feds' deck of cards on the feds' table under the feds' rules (although admittedly, that isn't likely to happen, either ... at least, not until SHTF, if even then).

 

[Okie RP fan]

I am skeptical of the value of term limits. At best, they're apt to be more of a cosmetic bandage than anything else.

Regularly cycling out the few really good Congressman we manage to get (such as Thomas Massie) - just so they can be replaced with a steady stream of mediocrities - doesn't seem like such a great idea to me.

But in any case, Congress is pretty much just a dog-and-pony-show veneer for the executive plantation's permanent phalanxes of entrenched bureaucrats, lobbyists,"stakeholders", etc. - which routinely fob their collective nose at Congressional authority and "oversight" (LOL). I don't see how adding a game of "musical chairs" to the mix will do much if anything to address that problem. (In fact, it could make the problem even more impervious to mitigation than it already is.)

Less time and effort should be wasted on trying to get the feds to play right, and more time and effort should be spent on trying to get the states to just stop playing the fed's game with the feds' deck of cards on the feds' table under the feds' rules (although admittedly, that isn't likely to happen, either ... at least, not until SHTF, if even then).

You make plenty of great points here. I think having term limits will be a better starter than continuing the current charade we endure, although, I'm not sure how much better. I think with this, we don't get politicians like McConnell, Feinstein, Pelosi, et. al. who overstayed their welcome by decades. And, if nothing else, it forces the parties to actually try and move a little instead of just backing their incumbents of choice over and over again.

We'll also likely see fewer congressmen and senators leaving D.C. with net worths in the multi-millions.

 

[Occam's Banana]

You make plenty of great points here. I think having term limits will be a better starter than continuing the current charade we endure, although, I'm not sure how much better. I think with this, we don't get politicians like McConnell, Feinstein, Pelosi, et. al. who overstayed their welcome by decades. And, if nothing else, it forces the parties to actually try and move a little instead of just backing their incumbents of choice over and over again.

To be clear, I don't support term limits - but I don't really oppose them, either [1].

I just think the supporters of term limits are going to be disappointed with the results, which are apt to be a wash, at best.

"Excessive" incumbency [2] and the problems associated with it are the symptoms, not the disease.

We'll also likely see fewer congressmen and senators leaving D.C. with net worths in the multi-millions.

I considered mentioning something to that effect in my previous post.

It's the thing on the "pro" side of the term limits issue that is likely to be most significant (or least insignificant, anyway).

But even then, I don't think there will be fewer Congressmen who become multi-millionaires over the course of their shortened incumbencies - rather, they'll just end up those shortened incumbencies with fewer millions than they otherwise would have.



[1] Al least, not apart from the "let's not throw out the Thomas Massie babies with the McConnell/Pelosi/et al. bathwaters" angle (and it occurs to me that the former could be avoided and the latter achieved by means of age limits, rather than term limits - at least with respect to the most egregious cases).

[2] And note that the concept of "excessiveness" in this context is not merely (or even mainly) a matter of temporal duration. I would not consider a dozen-term incumbency by the likes of Ron Paul to be at all "excessive", whereas I very much do consider one term by the likes of AOC to be one term too many.