I think we should not have age limits, as everyone ages very differently. I think the point is cognitive ability. Dementia or other brain diseases can begin at a surprisingly young age, resulting in the inability to perform the job. Dementia is a disease that entails specific brain diseases, and is not a normal aging process. Instead of age being a criteria, ability to do the job should be the standard.
And no lifetime benefits! Thatās ridiculous.they can use the same healthcare systems we have to. Maybe then, that will get fixed also. No more rules for thee, but not for me.
But they also need to learn how to effectively do things, and if they actually are doing a good job then the people do have a right to elect them for longer. There is a line somewhere between career politician and not enough timeā¦ 10 years is fine, and I would even say 12 is fine too. The idea that they can just do it for 20 or 30 years though is very wild.
This will be a true test to see if the Republicans we put in office, really have our back. With the WH, the House and the Senate their is no reason for term limits not to pass. NO ONE SHOULD BE IN OFFICE AS LONG AS SOME OF THESE PEOPLE ARE. I would grant a maximum of 12 years, three terms. And thatās being generous!
I concur! Cut that six year limit in half.
if you want wild, then just be FOR term limits!!! the āwildā part will take place in the ālame duckā sessions.
Thatās to long, 4 years and out, give Americans new opportunities without power hungry people taking control, thats what we have now
I agree that term limits are badly needed. I am sick and tired of politicians making a career out of government posts, only to crony up to their special interest groups and make millions off insider information. Senators should represent their home state, and like the Presidential requirement of being born in the US, they should have been born in the state they represent.
Must also have FULL financial disclosure of āconflicts of interestsā AND -NO making $$$$$ off of knowledge obtained serving
Yes, is the money incentive were sucked out FIRST, then we would not NEED term limits.
Yes term limits for all Senators and Representives. Two terms and if they donāt do there job we fire them before there term is up. We need to get these old farts out that have one foot in the grave. Why is someone age 82 doing in politics. Get the h*ll out.
Thanks for making a great argument that many (including me) have not considered.
Iām a retired Quality professional and, unknown to most, the job is mostly about solving problems. To that end the focus is on the processes in place that yielded the failure.
Most folksā¦ especially those higher up the chainā¦ tend to blame people first. Forty years of chasing answers has taught me that the root cause of failures rarely can be found there. Fixing a problem by focusing on the people usually results in a trival solution that often makes the problem worse.
As you pointed out it is the system that has failed. As all systems are a collection of processes it is important that these processes be identified and mapped so that each piece and its relationship to the failure can be considered. If we leap to a solutionā¦ like term limitsā¦ weāll feel better for a while but weāll only complicate things.
That said, both accountability and reward systems are people focused actions. Could it be the operational rules of congressā¦ or the ad hoc activities of lobbyistsā¦ or the pressures of party conformityā¦ or any of the many other potentially related factors?
Our constitution represents one of the very best solution to mankindās histotical struggle with leadership control. That set of principles and processes came out of a team of folks with varied ideas, backgrounds, opinions, ideas, and motivations. Thatās what the issue of governance in this day and age needs as wellā¦ not a new system, but some changes in the processes that support it.
This is covered in @MarkMecklerās proposal:
Call a Convention of the States to Limit the Scope, Power and Jurisdiction of the Federal Government
His website: https://conventionofstates.com/
1 Like
Wonderful!!! Sarc/ Not! If you want to get rid of our constitution where delegates have plenipotentiary powersājust call a convention.
Yes. Agree. Changes in the processes . Nothing wrong with our constitutionāit is the ADDED FAT that needs severe reductionālike lobbying, like citizenās United Supreme Court caseāthat basically says corporations can give unlimited campaign donations while the people are limited to $2,800. Shutting down UNITED STATES INC, establishment in 1871, where the president is CEO AND Congressmen are the board of directors and the share holders are all foreign. Our republic is buried beneath this.
They DID represent their home states until the PEOPLE decided to go along with the 17th amendment. Ever read it? Ever read the constitution?
Defiantly, but also they shouldnāt be winding up multimillionaires. Remove the profit potential, of holding office, and maybe we will only get people who are truly interested in being only civil servants.
Agreed, and what I addressed in the comments and Meckler disagreed saying thereās no grassroots support for it (which I challenged)
Our constitution already limits federal power. Read 10th amendment. 18 powersā¦.and NO MORE.
agree!!!