Ted Cruz & Rep. Ron DeSantis propose Congressional term limits amendment - Polidicks

[quote]Congress will soon deliberate whether or not to impose term limits on themselves, after Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Republican Rep. Ron DeSantis of Florida introduced a bill on Jan. 3 to keep career politicians away from Washington. "D.C. is broken," Cruz said, according to his official Senate website. "The American people resoundingly agreed on Election Day, and President-elect Donald Trump has committed to putting government back to work for the American people. It is well past time to put an end to the cronyism and deceit that has transformed Washington into a graveyard of good intentions." The bill would add an amendment to the Constitution to restrict U.S. senators to serving two six-year terms and U.S. representatives to three two-year terms. "Term limits are the first step towards reforming Capitol Hill," DeSantis said. "Eliminating the political elite and infusing Washington with new blood will restore the citizen legislature that our Founding Fathers envisioned. The American people have called for increased accountability and we must deliver. Senator Cruz has been instrumental in efforts to hold Congress accountable, and I look forward to working with him to implement term limits." Congressional term limits are popular among the vast majority of Americans. According to an October Rasmussen Reports poll, 74 percent of voters support the idea of subjecting legislators to term limits, and 13 percent opposed the idea. Cruz and DeSantis announced their intentions to bring term limits to Congress in a Dec. 9 op-ed for The Washington Post, in which they urged Republicans to follow through on their promises to "drain the swamp." "With term limits, we will have more frequent changes in leadership and within congressional committees, giving reformers a better chance at overcoming the Beltway inertia that resists attempts to reduce the power of Washington," the pair wrote for The Post. "The time is now for Congress, with the overwhelming support of the American people, to pass a constitutional amendment establishing congressional term limits and send it to the states for speedy ratification. With control of a decisive majority of the states, the executive branch, the House of Representatives and the Senate, the Republican Party has the responsibility to respond to the voters' call to action."[/quote] [url]http://www.americanow.com/story/politics/2017/01/03/ted-cruz-introduces-congressional-term-limits-bill[/url] the official proposal: [url]http://www.cruz.senate.gov/files/documents/Bills/20170103_TermLimitsBill.pdf?[/url]

This bill is dead in the water already. Who would vote themselves out of office.

[QUOTE=Code3Response;51621090]This bill is dead in the water already. Who would vote themselves out of office.[/QUOTE] Optimistic reason it could pass: congressional approval falls so low that this is all that could bring it back up But seeing as 11% isn't low enough yet maybe we need 0%

Term limits have Trump's support so we may just see this become a reality. [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/17/us/politics/as-trump-embraces-term-limits-allies-in-congress-pull-away.html[/url]

I'm not convinced this will help in any way.

[QUOTE=geel9;51621185]I'm not convinced this will help in any way.[/QUOTE] It won't. It's only a band-aid fix for many of the deeper problems in American democracy. [editline]4th January 2017[/editline] Eg if Cruz and DeSantis are interested in getting more, new blood into Congress, doubling or tripling the size of the House of Representatives would do so much better.

[QUOTE=geel9;51621185]I'm not convinced this will help in any way.[/QUOTE] It's a start.

[QUOTE=download;51621283]It's a start.[/QUOTE] It would probably be the finish, too. The people in Congress will probably decide that it would be enough reform to make voters happy, and voters would probably be deluded into thinking that it was all of the reform that was needed. That's not to suggest I'm being a defeatist, but if any reform should be done, it needs to be properly comprehensive and taken to an election, and not just a little bit now, with a small chance of more being done a decade or so later.

The way I see it, if they're worth a damn, I have no problem with them staying. It's all these jack-asses with low approval ratings that keep getting voted in that's weird to me. I wouldn't mind a system where you have to have at least a 50% approval rating to be eligible for re-election. Oh, you want a raise, too? Better have 65% or more.

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;51621354]The way I see it, if they're worth a damn, I have no problem with them staying. It's all these jack-asses with low approval ratings that keep getting voted in that's weird to me. I wouldn't mind a system where you have to have at least a 50% approval rating to be eligible for re-election. Oh, you want a raise, too? Better have 65% or more.[/QUOTE] The problem is, its a lot easier for an incumbent who isn't worth much to stay in the position due to name recognition. This would help usher in new blood and keep things fresh.

I think we have shitty legislators because the only people with the time and effort to get involved in local politics are retired and rich people. You used to be able to support a family on one income. The partner staying at home could watch the kids while taking care of work around the house, leaving more time for both parents to spend on other things. We need the economy reworked so people have more free time.

What democracies have term limits out there? Do they work? If so, why? I don't see how they work. I dont' see why people should be forced out of office for anything other than the will of the people. The fact idiotic congressmen and women keep getting voted is merely a sympothm of the real problem; the problem being the first past the post system (a horrible, misrepresentative voting system), the gerrymandering of voting areas and various other issues such as having two main parties that practically control everything, etc. Term limits won't help. You'll merely get more inexperienced politicians and you'll force out good ones.

I really hope this amendment passes. It'll be an uphill battle but it must be done.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51622118]What democracies have term limits out there? Do they work? If so, why? I don't see how they work. I dont' see why people should be forced out of office for anything other than the will of the people. The fact idiotic congressmen and women keep getting voted is merely a sympothm of the real problem; the problem being the first past the post system (a horrible, misrepresentative voting system), the gerrymandering of voting areas and various other issues such as having two main parties that practically control everything, etc. Term limits won't help. You'll merely get more inexperienced politicians and you'll force out good ones.[/QUOTE]The United States, in regards to their presidency. This will definitely reduce the amount of corruption within Congress, for starters. I honestly never knew I could be as much of a fan of Cruz as I am right now-- this is absolutely wonderful. Next thing you know, they'll put in laws against bribery as well.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51622118]What democracies have term limits out there? Do they work? If so, why? I don't see how they work. I dont' see why people should be forced out of office for anything other than the will of the people. The fact idiotic congressmen and women keep getting voted is merely a sympothm of the real problem; the problem being the first past the post system (a horrible, misrepresentative voting system), the gerrymandering of voting areas and various other issues such as having two main parties that practically control everything, etc. Term limits won't help. You'll merely get more inexperienced politicians and you'll force out good ones.[/QUOTE] It's because the presidency has term limits, so people want term limits for the senators and representatives too.

[QUOTE=Monkah;51622141]The United States, in regards to their presidency. [B]This will definitely reduce the amount of corruption within Congress[/B], for starters. I honestly never knew I could be as much of a fan of Cruz as I am right now-- this is absolutely wonderful. Next thing you know, they'll put in laws against bribery as well.[/QUOTE] I don't see how. You'll have a different sort of corruption, more rapid and aimed at different individuals, especially since this only applies to congress. I was looking for more answers besides the president of the United States. And you have to admit, many Presidents in the past have been corrupt as well - while before there were formal term limits one of your greatest Presidents, FDR, proved that he deserved a third term.

Ah yes, because when I think of a broken Washington D.C., I think of Ted Cruz and Ron DeSantis still having political power despite being as useful as wet noodles.

This can only be a good thing. Career politicians are the primary reason why so many have been bought out by large interest groups and the rest are just so out of touch with reality and the current/future state of the world that they literally cannot relate to their constituents. We need this.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;51622163]This can only be a good thing. Career politicians are the primary reason why so many have been bought out by large interest groups and the rest are just so out of touch with reality and the current/future state of the world that they literally cannot relate to their constituents. We need this.[/QUOTE] I dunno man. As much as we need new blood, just systematically culling a system of potentially decent people just because of having seniority is kinda stupid. "Career politicians" need to go if they only serve to sit in a seat. If they are "career politicians" who have actually fought for the things they represent, then they deserve to keep their power.

[QUOTE=MadPro119;51621180]Term limits have Trump's support so we may just see this become a reality. [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/17/us/politics/as-trump-embraces-term-limits-allies-in-congress-pull-away.html[/url][/QUOTE] he doesn't get a say in it, it requires most of the states in the country to enact it. After seeing how the republicans managed to heavily gerrymander this country, I can't help but think they'll somehow sneak in something to ensure they benefit from it. 12 years for senators is probably good but 6 years for congressmen is really low and kind of seems aimed at the dnc more than anyone else since the republicans currently have a lot of new members who wouldn't fall under the term limits yet while the democrats would have to scramble to replace some of the people in heavily gerrymandered districts where they easily get reelected but don't have much of an actual community

[QUOTE=Sableye;51622292]he doesn't get a say in it, it requires most of the states in the country to enact it. After seeing how the republicans managed to heavily gerrymander this country, I can't help but think they'll somehow sneak in something to ensure they benefit from it. 12 years for senators is probably good but 6 years for congressmen is really low and kind of seems aimed at the dnc more than anyone else since the republicans currently have a lot of new members who wouldn't fall under the term limits yet while the democrats would have to scramble to replace some of the people in heavily gerrymandered districts where they easily get reelected but don't have much of an actual community[/QUOTE] Considering the amendment specifically states that even if it were passed tomorrow everything before its enactment is ignored. So the DNC would have the full term limits to figure it out. [quote]‘‘SECTION 3. No term beginning before the date of the ratification of this article shall be taken into account in determining eligibility for election or appointment under this article.’’. [/quote]

Given that this Congress's [I]first[/I] thing was an attempt to kill the ethics oversight, I don't see how this would make it through. Still hoping for it though; it won't be a fix for everything but it's by far a step in the right direction.

[QUOTE=Kigen;51622361]Considering the amendment specifically states that even if it were passed tomorrow everything before its enactment is ignored. So the DNC would have the full term limits to figure it out.[/QUOTE] eh I still have a hard time believing they wont enact this in some way to hurt the dnc. the 115th congress hasnt exactly been starting out on good footing like they could enact it with a provision to delay counting until congress enacts then and the GOP could simply wait until they're lame ducks about to loose control to suddenly drop the caps on people

i thought they already had term limits in the form of elections where people can decide to get rid of them or not

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51623004]i thought they already had term limits in the form of elections where people can decide to get rid of them or not[/QUOTE] Term limits seem to generally be a way for people to get around an ignorant population.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;51623004]i thought they already had term limits in the form of elections where people can decide to get rid of them or not[/QUOTE] the issue is a lot of voters just vote down the ticket for the party they support with no info on the congressperson other than being a democrat or republican

I feel like term limits are a band-aid solution for the sucking chest wound that is the general apathy and ignorance most Americans seem to have with regards to their government and congress especially They are elected officials, and they do regularly have to be reelected, and it's not a lack of term limits that's keeping them in their positions, it's a lack of people giving enough of a shit to learn about their government and participate in the process

[QUOTE=Judas;51623206]the issue is a lot of voters just vote down the ticket for the party they support with no info on the congressperson other than being a democrat or republican[/QUOTE] I'd argue that that's a problem that you can't solve with regulation, but education. That being said, I think we all know the chances of that ever happening are practically nil.

I'm skeptical of term limits. I feel like being a congressmen will just become an easy way to put something nice on your resume and get connections to get a comfy lobbying job or whatever after the terms up. And why is experience necessarily a bad thing, or why shouldn't a district be able to re-elect a congressmen as long as they feel they best represent them. Term limits doesn't really seem like it would fix anything, but people assume its great because they hate Congress meanwhile they go into booths and vote for their incumbent for the 6th time.

[QUOTE=shadow_oap;51624386]I'm skeptical of term limits. I feel like being a congressmen will just become an easy way to put something nice on your resume and get connections to get a comfy lobbying job or whatever after the terms up. And why is experience necessarily a bad thing, or why shouldn't a district be able to re-elect a congressmen as long as they feel they best represent them. Term limits doesn't really seem like it would fix anything, but people assume its great because they hate Congress meanwhile they go into booths and vote for their incumbent for the 6th time.[/QUOTE] the more difficult issue is that it will cause a serious brain drain in DC, not necessarily a bad thing but there's congressional committees that have senators and congressmen on them that have been in that field for decades. People generally only think congress exists to vote laws, but the majority of what they do involves the various committees that have broad ranges of powers. putting term limits on, especially those proposed by senior ted, would basically stop the most knowledgable people from serving in there.