Constitutional Amendment on Term Limits Proposed
Senator Ted Cruz and Representative Ralph Norman have proposed a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on members of Congress, aiming to reshape the legislative branch and return to the vision of citizen legislators.
At a Glance
• The proposed amendment would limit U.S. Senators to two six-year terms
• Members of the U.S. House of Representatives would be limited to three two-year terms
• Terms served before the amendment’s ratification would not count towards the limit
• The initiative aims to address power abuse and entrenched politicians in Congress
• The proposal aligns with the Founding Fathers’ vision of temporary government service

https://patrioticpost.com/cons...erm-limits-proposed/

All for it.

Retroactive.

Won't pass. Senators get 12 total years in office and Representatives would only get 6. The House wouldn't pass it on that issue alone. This is designed to fail with the Senate then getting to say "We tried, it's them".

I like it but it’s not going to happen.
I also think it should include that you can’t be one then the other.

quote:

Originally posted by Paten:
Won't pass. Senators get 12 total years in office and Representatives would only get 6. The House wouldn't pass it on that issue alone. This is designed to fail with the Senate then getting to say "We tried, it's them".

Sounds about right

How about term limit with no pension. I don't see this happening because once their term is up they realize they have to get a real job.

quote:

Originally posted by blueye:
How about term limit with no pension. I don't see this happening because once their term is up they realize they have to get a real job.

Which won’t reduce corruption since they’d be spending their time advocating for and greasing palms while in office to ensure a great job for themselves after leaving office. Only ones immune to that would be the ones who came into office already independently wealthy.

Not making it retroactive and letting them keep their pension is the only way this has any chance of passing. I honestly don't care about the pension dollars...IMO they'd earn it if they serve honorably, and even if not, paying a two-term senator a pension is a small price to pay compared to the cost of the damage that career politicians cause over a lifetime of bad policy.

I’d have no problem if the Representative limits are the same as the Senate.
Just getting term limits is a huge step in the right direction.

quote:

Originally posted by 220-9er:
I’d have no problem if the Representative limits are the same as the Senate.
Just getting term limits is a huge step in the right direction.

The proposed amendment would limit U.S. Senators to two six-year terms
Members of the U.S. House of Representatives would be limited to three two-year terms

I agree with you... 12 years would be fine for both.

I too am in favor of no more than 12 years for both houses…

quote:

I too am in favor of no more than 12 years for both houses…

We term limits at the state level here in Missouri, and that has been one of the suggestions on how it could have worked out better. Instead of allowing limited Senate and House terms, simply have a time limit that includes both.

.

I think outside money is more of a problem. I would love to see that only people, not Unions or Corporations are able to donate to an election campaign and only to the districts in which they reside.

You want to donate to the people running in the district that will represent you, great. You want to donate to someone running in a district that does not represent you, no go.


California has a 12-year term limit and the problem I've seen with this is...

The non-elected people working on a district staff, people working for legislative staff, and special interest lobbyist have more influence. These non-elected become "professional" and are kept on because elected Members see them as having more experience.

.

Mark Levin's longtime proposal has been to limit House and Senate members to a total of 12 years in office, whether all in one chamber or divided between the two.

I'd vote for that.

Won't pass, DC is a gravy train of money, benefits and the ability to not have to get a job. The insiders will keep "the game" protecting themselves.

It won't even make it to a vote .

Not sure what people are thinking would happen, other than legislators who know their way around the labyrinth will be fewer and farther between, and the committee chairs will have less experience.

Are there long-serving legislators that aren't worth spit? Yes. Are there some good ones that have been in for a good long while? Also, yes.

What is supposed to happen, is that incompetence/corruption/ignorance is to be corrected at the ballot box by an informed voter base. And, sadly, there are no Constitutional Amendments under consideration to upgrade voters.

So, what would happen? The same voter base, on the same criteria, would simply elect younger less-experienced incompetent/corrupt/ignorant candidates.

Yeah, well worth the time/headache to get this done. Or, not.

Gotta love the positivity!

quote:

Originally posted by selogic:
It won't even make it to a vote .

Probably not...
No one would want to be on record voting against it, so they will try to kill it in committee; keep it from coming to a vote.

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
Gotta love the positivity!

Yup, like clockwork. Always some folks who throw their hands up, "Never going to happen", before it even starts. I get it, the road is long and tough. But, if you keep pushing and pushing, year after year, with hopefully more new blood in Congress who are for it, then one day, we might just be successful. It may take years, or even decades, but it never hurts not to try. Because the status quo is not the solution.