Term Limits

With respect to the US federal government, I think some positions should have term limits and others shouldn't. There are significant pros and cons to both approaches and having different positions operate differently plays into the system of checks and balances designed to limit the negative impact of either approach. Executive positions should be term limited because it's the greatest source of consolidated power, judiciary positions shouldn't be term limited because of the extremes of knowledge necessary to perform the job well, and I like the idea of splitting the legislature: one house with, one house without. I think term limits in the house and no term limits in the senate makes sense; the senate was designed to be the wiser and more experienced house from the start. Right now, the only one that's different from my ideal scenario is the house, which does not have term limits, so I'd be completely in favor of implementing that.
 
While term limits would indeed be great, I think it's wishful thinking that it would ever become reality.

Do you really think we could elect enough members of congress who would vote in favor of a bill limiting their own power?
 
I think all positions in govt should have term limits. Say three terms with two out before you can run again. The Supreme Court is debatable about length. 15 years maybe?
 
The Supreme Court needs term limits too.

When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Constitution, life expectancy was 50 years at most. He had no idea how long a lifetime appointment would eventually become.

But again, no way any Congressman will ever vote on - let alone propose - such a bill. Certainly not the ones we have now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top