Sen Cruz and Rep DeSantis introduce amendment proposing term limits for members of Congress

Sen Cruz has teamed up with Rep DeSantis (Florida R) to introduce a constitutional amendment that would term limit members of Congress. According to the language of the proposed amendment, reps would be limited to three terms (six years) and senators two terms (eight years).

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=2940

I found this passage in the write-up on Sen Cruz's webpage to be rather interesting:

“Term limits are the first step towards reforming Capitol Hill,” said Rep. DeSantis. “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.”

While this is true, it was expected that the people hold our officials accountable in elections. To me this is a work around. Rather than making the people take on the responsibility of holding officials accountable - which we do not do given reelection rates of 90% for members of Congress - term limits will do the work for us. So this does not encourage a more informed and active citizenry. In fact, it could result in the opposite and further disengagement.

I thought we already had term limits on congress... they're called "elections"..

it's not surprising that someone like Cruz - who runs around beating the drum of "freedom" - wants to strip Americans of one of the most fundamental freedoms there are.

I don't necessarily hate term limits.... but they need to be way longer than that, like 3xs as long. All you get with that is a bunch of idiot rookies getting pushed around by lobbyists- they'd be the real ones in control. Work with some reps in Lansing to really understand this (I did for several years) they don't know what the hell theyre doing. Apply that same thing to D.C. And it would be the same, just on steroids when compared to Lansing.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I thought we already had term limits on congress... they're called "elections".

That is the point I was trying to make. It is up to the people to limit the terms of members of Congress. The problem is we do not hold members of Congress accountable. We see low congressional approval ratings but high reelection rates. There are a number of explanations for that disconnect - the simplest being that people are happy who they vote for but not happy who you vote for - and I think we should find a way to create an environment of responsibility rather than further absolve the people of their responsibility.

Turtleneck wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I thought we already had term limits on congress... they're called "elections".

That is the point I was trying to make. It is up to the people to limit the terms of members of Congress. The problem is we do not hold members of Congress accountable. We see low congressional approval ratings but high reelection rates. There are a number of explanations for that disconnect - the simplest being that people are happy who they vote for but not happy who you vote for - and I think we should find a way to create an environment of responsibility rather than further absolve the people of their responsibility.

yeah - everyone is unhappy with congress but they always re-elect the one that represents them.

and, as our most recent election demonstrated, Americans are really big on holding people accountable for their actions and words.. and they're easily distracted by the mainstream media/fake news - which is actually the larger issue.

Awesome.

Our government was set up to have citizens serve, and then get out.

Not to have career politicians that simply become out of touch with reality and their fellow man. Once it becomes all about getting re elected and nothing else, the country loses. And we have been losing for a while.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Turtleneck wrote:

That is the point I was trying to make. It is up to the people to limit the terms of members of Congress. The problem is we do not hold members of Congress accountable. We see low congressional approval ratings but high reelection rates. There are a number of explanations for that disconnect - the simplest being that people are happy who they vote for but not happy who you vote for - and I think we should find a way to create an environment of responsibility rather than further absolve the people of their responsibility.

yeah - everyone is unhappy with congress but they always re-elect the one that represents them.

and, as our most recent election demonstrated, Americans are really big on holding people accountable for their actions and words.. and they're easily distracted by the mainstream media/fake news - which is actually the larger issue.

Yeah, incumbents have all the $ and name recognition. Thats all you need to win for the most part.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I thought we already had term limits on congress... they're called "elections"..

it's not surprising that someone like Cruz - who runs around beating the drum of "freedom" - wants to strip Americans of one of the most fundamental freedoms there are.

You realize every state has term limits, right?

Bad idea. Very bad. Term limits do not hold the senator or congressmen as responsible to his or her constituents during their last term in office. The term limited politician will be able to go off the grid as far as promises they've made to their electorate back home. They don't have to return constituents calls, don't ahve to take them, don't have to be as responsible to them as those that are relying on them to be re-elected. Your congressman who has served and got a committee job that is helping your state is more likely to lose the ability to help your state.

Lots of bad shit about term limits. The ballot box always seems the best way to do it.

The_Dude wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:I thought we already had term limits on congress... they're called "elections"..

it's not surprising that someone like Cruz - who runs around beating the drum of "freedom" - wants to strip Americans of one of the most fundamental freedoms there are.

You realize every state has term limits, right?

yeah - and I'm opposed to them.

I am tacitly in support of term limits. Government shouldn't be something representatives gain expertise in. It should be common sense decision making. There are plenty of career bureaucrats and they can be the keepers of the knowledge of procedure. Citizen rule is best and what the forefathers envisioned.

Rocinante wrote:I am tacitly in support of term limits. Government shouldn't be something representatives gain expertise in. It should be common sense decision making. There are plenty of career bureaucrats and they can be the keepers of the knowledge of procedure.  Citizen rule is best and what the forefathers envisioned.

I will pushback on citizen rule. While the framers intended for citizens to serve in government, I think they were of the opinion that not all citizens were qualified to serve in government. My opinion is they saw only a minority of the population as wise and knowledgeable enough to make decisions about public affairs. I think the electoral college and the process by which senators were selected at the time of ratification of the Constitution are evidence of this.

Again, term limits further absolve us of our responsibilities as citizens. I doubt this is what the framers wanted. They wanted a country that acted with a certain civic virtue. Term limits by themselves do not prevent civic virtue or a larger civic culture, but in our current political climate I think they would further dismantle the idea of the responsible citizen.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
yeah - everyone is unhappy with congress but they always re-elect the one that represents them.

and, as our most recent election demonstrated, Americans are really big on holding people accountable for their actions and words.. and they're easily distracted by the mainstream media/fake news - which is actually the larger issue.

There is a certain information literacy problem in this country. People are unable or unwilling to vet information. Term limits do not encourage us to overcome this problem. In fact, I think they might reinforce this problem because they will serve as a crutch by replacing any need to engage in information gathering and analysis.

I know Bob. In your ideal world, the government would control every aspect of your life and the state would be the only religion you can worship. Lol

Aren't term limits an example of government conting us?

Term limits not only hand more power to the life time staffers selected by the parties (and lobbyists) they also encourage more gridlock because everyone knows the SOB's they refuse to compromise with will be gone after a fixed amount of time.

Plus, how do you drain the swamp when we would be releasing batches of term limited pols every 2 years?

We're fucked either way.

xsanguine wrote:We're fucked either way.

We are unless we get a repeal of Citizens United decision and return to the legal premise that corporations are not individuals.

Just kicking back and saying we're fucked makes it that much easier to let those who will do anything to make the US a one party system.

GRR Spartan wrote:

xsanguine wrote:We're fucked either way.

We are unless we get a repeal of Citizens United decision and return to the legal premise that corporations are not individuals.

Just kicking back and saying we're fucked makes it that much easier to let those who will do anything to make the US a one party system.

I just mean whether we're as we are or like you and some of the others have pointed out, term limits just creates new incentives for the politicians and problems for the public, so politicians will do what politicians have always done. It's a game where some of the objectives would change but none of them for the benefit of whom they're supposed to represent.

So, whether Cruz's amendment goes forth or we keep what we have... meh. Maybe I just see this particular aspect of governing to be lose-lose. Perhaps there's other areas in the system that could be changed that might benefit the people it supposedly exists to represent.

Actually a bigger issue in my mind is gerrymandering of districts. I don't have a issue with a area electing someone over and over again if they think he's doing well. I think these safe district's are a issue. I mean if you get the same Democratic or Republican party rep with just a different name, really what's the difference? Also campaign finance reform.

It's like Cruz is trying to cure cancer by treating it like the flu.

msugolfguy wrote:Actually a bigger issue in my mind is gerrymandering of districts. I don't have a issue with a area electing someone over and over again if they think he's doing well. I think these safe district's are a issue. I mean if you get the same Democratic or Republican party rep with just a different name, really what's the difference? Also campaign finance reform.

It's like Cruz is trying to cure cancer by treating it like the flu.

If only there were a chemotherapy for government.