Term Limits

Term Limits Unlimited

The movement to limit politicians' terms in office has continued to grow with support from libertarian thinkers and financiers.



In "Exit Interviews" (October 2000), reason's Michael W. Lynch and Katherine Mangu-Ward spoke with members of Congress who were voluntarily on their way out the door, having signed a pledge to limit themselves to three terms when they came to power as part of the Republican wave of 1994.

As Lynch and Mangu-Ward wrote, "the term-limits movement has been a huge success. Eighteen states have enacted term limits on their legislators; tellingly, all but two of the laws came about via ballot initiatives." But 23 states that put term limits on their federal representatives found themselves out of luck when "a 1995 Supreme Court decision declared such laws unconstitutional," leaving congressional term limits the only aspect of the Republican Party's Contract with America that failed to pass the House.

The movement has continued to grow with support from libertarian thinkers and financiers. According to Philip Blumel, president of U.S. Term Limits (USTL), "Term limits don't guarantee positive change. They make it possible. Under a seniority system where incumbents statistically cannot lose, change is not really possible."

Nearly two decades after the legislative route to federal term limits was blocked by the Supreme Court, USTL is hoping that Congress will pass a constitutional amendment requiring them. It's a propitious time, with a July Wall Street Journal/NBC poll finding a record-high 83 percent disapproval of Congress. In 2012, 97 percent of term limits proposals on ballots across the nation passed. In 2013, a Gallup poll found 75 percent of Americans supporting the idea. A statewide constitutional amendment for term limits in Illinois, spearheaded by GOP gubernatorial candidate Bruce Rauner, earned over half a million signatures to get on the November 2014 ballot. In late August, the state Supreme Court let stand a lower court decision knocking the popular amendment off the ballot on procedural grounds, thus killing it for this year.

The 22nd Amendment was a term limits amendment on the president-but that didn't require his approval. By contrast, Congress will have to pass the amendment limiting itself before the states can. USTL is seeking pledges from representatives to support term limits. As of early August, 30 sitting members of Congress (12 in the Senate, 18 in the House) are co-sponsoring a term limits amendment, and 180 current candidates for Congress have signed USTL's pledge.


NEXT: Libertarian Candidates Could Decide Outcome in Georgia Races

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I am of two minds here. Term limits would help dissolve unhealthy power centers in DC (somewhat) but voters should be free to choose whatever asshole they see fit.

    1. I put it to you that voters aren’t choosing the asshole they want, but are choosing the lesser asshole that’s available to them.

      1. Tell me, what color is the sky in the world where you exist, where every flavor of ice cream you could possibly want is on the shelf when you walk into the store? Where the best and brightest run for public office, debating honestly the merits of various public policies along the way? IN CASE YOU CAN’T TELL THAT’S SARCASM.

        1. No one is forcing you to eat the ice cream you don’t like. You still have to deal with the dickhead in office.

    2. …”but voters should be free to choose whatever asshole they see fit.”

      I’ll argue that, as a republic, rather than a democracy, we can constitutionally limit terms as much as we can other matters.

      1. I don’t disagree that we can.

      2. you have term limits, they are called

    3. I don’t even agree that this would ‘dissolve unhealthy power centers.’

      It’s a basic fact that whenever a politician does happen to lose, there is invariably a cushy job with a think tank, an investment bank, or a high powered law firm available because the people running such institutions appreciate having a former senator on payroll.

      As such, I don’t really think term limits change anything because the real ‘unhealthy power center’ is the incestuous relationship between multiple institutions in the Beltway which will continue to exist regardless of whether a particular individual is a long-term senator or a short term senator who then works for a major law firm.

      1. The unhealthy power centers would gravitate toward people that the voters can’t get to – the bureaucrats.

    4. A study ~20 yrs. ago showed that the longer members stayed in Congress, the bigger spenders they became. What I think is the case is that various popular pressures push spending up over time within a band of possibilities. Turnover in Congress would keep the spending at the low end of that band. So what I think you’d see with the adoption of term limits is an initial drop in spending (or in its rate of growth) followed after a few years by a resumption of profligacy, though from a lower baseline. Still worthwhile IMO, but won’t be as big a deal as some hope.

      1. I see it more as a way to kill cronyism. If I don’t need to get re-elected, campaign donations aren’t worth much. Granted, they would throw money at the initial campaign, but there would be less incentive to follow through with the bribe once elected.

        1. By the same token, if I don’t have to worry that I might not get reelected (because I can’t run), then there’s no compelling reason for me not to wet my beak as much as possible before my final term is up.

        2. Just don’t call it a libertarian position. You want to use government to restrict people’s choices.

          That is true even if you think the choice of reelecting an incumbent is a trivial one (I think it’s an important choice people should be allowed to make).

          1. The term limits position isn’t one where anyone wants “to use government to restrict people’s choices.” Government’s charter, i.e., the Constitution is what establishes these positions in the first place. I believe a Constitutional Amendment that defines term limits for all national offices is required, as it was it prevent future Presidential power abusers like FDR. Then we might hope to depose the authoritarian power-seeking impositionistas who inhabit Congress now in order to restore the concept of the part-time / occasional, citizen legislator.

  2. Strong advocate of single term limits, PROVIDED there are measures put in place, such as votes of confidence, to keep the scumbags loyal to the constituency.

    1. Ive got a scheme: vote for contracts, not the representatives themselves. Thus if the contract promises to vote against sugar tariffs, and they don’t, BOOM, anyone in that district can sue for breach of contract.

      Of course the obvious result would be contracts full of platitudes and unbreachable. But it would at least make a few squirm.

      More to the point, and even more unlikely, is change the legislative process. Put it in the constitution itself: Any legislator can propose a bill by putting it up for review, and any legislator can approve a bill. If, at the end of a 30 day review period, it has a majority of approvals, then it passes that chamber. Any changes to the bill during the review period restart the review period.

      Party seniority would no doubt still exist, with parties holding their own versions of committee meetings, and they slap down party members who violated party rules. But their slapping would have nothing to do with the legislative process itself. The only punishments they could dish out would be withhold campaign funds, tell the remaining faithful to never approve the rebel bills, etc. They could not block legislators from proposing or approving bills.

      And while I’m dreaming, if at any time, more than half the legislators in any chamber are on record of wanting to repeal any law, it disappears without a trace.

      1. I’ve been joking with the wife about writing a libertopian constitution by amending ours. Three things I’d be sure to include.

        1. Term limits.
        2. Sunset provisions for ALL laws.
        3. A limitation upon congress that says that they may not pass any law that applies to or benefits one group or individual over another.

        #3 would eliminate about 97% of their power.

        1. I did something of the sort, started peeling back pieces with a couple of simple goals: preserve anonymity and individual responsibility. For instance, the census has always bugged me. To eliminate the excuses for it, legislators cast as many votes in the legislature as they received in the last election, not just one; and anyone who owns a border parcel can shift it to a neighboring district as long as the new district had fewer overall votes in the last election.

          I would also send the three highest winners in each district to the legislature, in an attempt to discourage the two-party mess we have.

          And every voter can check a box to be a volunteer legislator (obviously losing anonymity in the process): one is chosen at random from all volunteers and becomes a legislator in a third chamber. That would really shake things up, especially since all the “professional” bills would have to pass the volunteer chamber.

        2. Careful with #2. All sorts of mischief & leverage possible there.

          #3 is ridiculous, because all value is subjective. For example, a law against murder benefits most the people who have the least desire to commit murder, and least the people who are the biggest practitioners of murder.

          1. The only flaw I see with requiring laws to sunset or be renewed is that legislatures will lump a zillion laws together so they can be renewed easier.

            My fix is to say that anyone can bring suit for defective laws (internally inconsistent, inconsistent enforcement, vague, unclear, or simply unconstitutional) and if they win, the law is discarded in its entirety; no court gets to revise it as part of a verdict.

            I couldn’t think of any other way to discourage omnibus laws.

            1. The only flaw I see with requiring laws to sunset or be renewed is that legislatures will lump a zillion laws together so they can be renewed easier.

              Yeah I came to the same conclusion, but there are several ways around that. Dictate that they cannot combine unrelated concepts or better yet, no law may be longer than one single sided 8×10 page, double spaced in size 12 font (or limit the number of characters).

              I also thought of putting limits on the legal language as I figure the people it applies to should be able to understand it without a team of lawyers. Laws must be written in common language (no special legal definitions) of the day. Specify a dictionary.

              Also want the SCOTUS to sign off on the constitutionality of all legislation before it can be enacted, with the ability to review that decision later.

              1. I think you can rely on inconsistent enforcement for voiding legalese, fine print, and other quibbles; plus requiring a jury to make that decision, not a judge. All court decisions have to be unanimous, whether civil, criminal, appeals, or whatnot, and appeals are merely trials over defects in verdicts.

                A jury might not unanimously agree that the language of a particular law is inconsistent, but if you can show conflicting verdicts for similar cases based on that law, that shows the law is confusing and unclear, ie defective, and out it goes.

                1. My reform included trials, inverting the way juries are treated. During the trial, they are assumed to be gullible and naive, so the judge and lawyers quibble inordinately over what the jury is allowed to know. But once they go into the jury room, they are treated as infallible gods who must not be questioned and never need explain themselves.

                  I would instead put the juries in charge and get rid of judges. Let the opposing parties introduce any evidence they want, let the jury ask all the questions it wants.

                  But their verdict has to explain every piece of evidence presented, whether it was accepted or rejected, and every step of reasoning from evidence to final result.

                  This greatly reduces the need to screen for conflict of interest. No matter how biased someone is, they can’t hide behind the jury room veil, they have to explain exactly how they arrived at their conclusion.

                  And that verdict, with all its steps listed, is what appeal trials judge, on the same standards as laws — is it clear, complete, falsifiable, consistent, etc?

                  If a verdict is found defective, any party can request a restart, otherwise the issue is done. So if some relative tries to throw a trial by clouding the verdict, they will almost certainly only cause a restart instead.

                  And loser pays all costs, court, other parties, etc. So a relative who throws a verdict will only cost their side more money.

          2. For example, a law against murder benefits most the people who have the least desire to commit murder, and least the people who are the biggest practitioners of murder.

            Thought of that too. It’s all in the wording. What I’m driving at is limiting their ability to do favors. SO you can make a law against murder that applies t everyone, but you can’t make a law excepting Bob from the law. You can make a law against poisoning the water but you can’t make a law against Exxon poisoning the water. I’m sure there’s a way to write that.

            There is also going to be appencicies in my constitution. Justifications and definitions.

  3. Who the fuck cares? Billionaires will never stop milking tax-payers for billion dollar stadiums and space ports. Fuck taxation and it’s corrupt misuse. Not a single goddamn penny of confiscated moneys should ever land in a billionaire wallet. Fuck those goddamn whores.

    1. Agile Cyborg|11.1.14 @ 2:33PM|#
      “Who the fuck cares? Billionaires will never stop milking tax-payers for billion dollar stadiums and space ports. Fuck taxation and it’s corrupt misuse. Not a single goddamn penny of confiscated moneys should ever land in a billionaire wallet. Fuck those goddamn whores.”

      Well, what if they’re just millionaires?!

      1. What do you think, ol’ Sevo boyo?

        1. Shit faced already? Starting earlier than usual?

          1. Oh look at this. The Gill is pegging down the bro.

            1. Oh look at this. The Gill is pegging down the bro.

              Priceless. Never change.

        2. Well, I have a great deal of sympathy for millionaires; they poor souls have failed to accomplish much. So I’d be willing to let, oh, several pennies fall into their pockets.

    2. Yea but space ports are awesome.

  4. my co-worker’s mom makes $87 /hr on the internet . She has been fired for five months but last month her paycheck was $14491 just working on the internet for a few hours. check out this site….

    ???? http://www.cashbuzz40.com

    1. She’ll never be a billionaire!

    2. Only a 42-hour work week. Someone’s finally been doing some math.

  5. Charles C.W. Cooke is easily the best person currently writing for National Review.

    In the exquisitely calibrated judgment of The Nation’s “racial justice” guru, Aura Bogado, the spot was “deeply problematic,” serving not to highlight the frequency with which women are bothered on the street, but instead perpetuating “the myth of the cult of white white womanhood by literally placing this white woman in neighborhoods where men of color will be the ones who catcall (or, in some instances, say hello to) her.” “Doing so,” Bogado writes, “makes it appear as if men of color are the perpetrators of all that is bad on this planet, which can only be balanced with the exigent need to therefore save white women above all else.” The only solution, she says, is to remake the video with a “universalizing” cast: the camera centering on, “say, a black trans woman.”

    Quite why there would be nothing “manipulative,” “specific,” or “politicized” inherent to a project such as this is never adequately explained. Were a “black trans woman” to be filmed being catcalled or criticized even once by a white construction worker, many of those who are currently twisting themselves into knots would no doubt write four-hour operas on the incident.

    1. Yeah, that’s a pretty spectacular breakdown of the ridiculous reactions.

    2. Were a “black trans woman” to be filmed being catcalled or criticized even once by a white construction worker, many of those who are currently twisting themselves into knots would no doubt write four-hour operas on the incident.

      By “four-hour operas”, surely he means “masturbating for hours to the video on youporn”.

    3. From the comments, the wisdom of elders:

      toughteri Lisa ? an hour ago

      I’m a 73-yr old white female, and have to say that in my younger days I received plenty of catcalls. It was just something women experienced, and they usually ignored it. But, when the day came and catcalling stopped, I sadly noticed the silence..

      Tempus fugit.

      1. Somebody should throw her a piece as a thank you. I vote you.

        1. As long as you supply the tequila.

          1. Deal.

          2. How much tequila do you think she would need ?

            1. The giant bottle from Costco.

    4. http://theothermccain.com/2014…..-lesbians/

      Stacy McCain had a really good piece on that video.

      Outside the hyper-politicized precincts where feminist orthodoxy exercises hegemonic control, however, there are still males who have not yet been properly indoctrinated. They dropped out of high school or they couldn’t afford to go college. Maybe they joined the Army or got a muscle-and-sweat job where Doing the Work mattered more than Having the Correct Attitude. Or maybe, as seems to be the case of the lower-class New York City men featured in the viral video, they just accepted their liberal-endorsed status as Authentic Victims and haven’t bothered to wonder if there is anything wrong with their way of life.

      One way or another, these men are not invested in the bureaucratic system within which feminist orthodoxy is uncontested. So when they see a good-looking woman, they react.

      They are not repressed. They are not ashamed to be male. Their basic animal sexuality doesn’t cause them any psychic conflict.

      1. Ok, wow. I uhm. Yeah, so it looks like she gave ’em two barrels of double aught.

    5. And let me just say it so we continue to ensure that there are no female Libertarians and that Virginia Postrel contineues to hate this board; the women in that video, while a bit of a butter face, has a hell of a nice rack.

      1. Okay, John. Simmer down, buddy.

        1. Its true. And as I point out below, I am sure she knows how nice her rack is and has no problem when the right men notice it or using that fact to her advantage whenever she can. But oh my God she is so oppressed because the wrong men may have looked at her.

          Fluffy one time said something I wish I had said; something to the effect of “all the talk about ‘the male’ gaze is just a grown up version of a pretty girl in 9th grade telling her bloyfriend ‘that nerd looked at me'”. They love the male gaze. They just want to be able to control who gets to use it.

    6. From the Cooke article.

      To contend that the minorities depicted in the video are mere victims of circumstance and that they have been forced by their conditions into badgering innocent women on the street is to contend that those minorities lack agency, intelligence, sensitivity, and the capacity to reason ? that they are child-like figures who act on their base instincts and who need excusing and explaining by their betters.

      Yeah, that pretty much sums up how white Progressives view minorities. They are nothing but paternal white supremacists.

      1. Yes , it does to a Tee.

        Read “Boomeritis, a Novel That Will Set You Free” by Ken Wilber. It explains the liberal mindset like no other book I have read. Written by a liberal it also explains why the liberal world view is so devestating to those it claims to help.

        I cannot reccomend this book enough to every Reason reader.

    7. The thing about that video is that the cat calling is just a side effect of the privilege, and I mean real privilege not the fake kind, that woman has. The most privileged group of people in the world are Western, upper middle and upper class, attractive white women like that one. I guarantee you that women in that video has never had to take care of herself in her life. First her parents and then a series of boyfriends and perhaps in the future a husband have taken care of her needs. And even if she turned down the fruits of this sort of privilege, it is still there and she knows that if things ever get bad she can always find some guy to take care of her. The reason she enjoys this privilege is her looks and the fact that men and its effect on men. If she doesn’t like that it effects men in ways she doesn’t like sometime, well life is like that and she still is better off having it.

      1. Jesus Christ, John. She’s just an actress who was hired to do a gig. I’m sure her entire thought process during those 10 hours were “I’m not getting paid enough for this shit”.

        1. Leave John alone, HM, he’s on a roll today.

          1. When is John never on a roll? What the fuck numbered area are you originating from?

            1. Irish? Earth-41, definitely.

              1. Look at this guy. Gettin’ cute with pop culture.

        2. An actress she may be but what John says is correct.

          Attractive young women are the true face of “Privledge” and we all know it.

          The only fail in their game is a guy with plenty of money who has his choice from amongst her competitors.

      2. John, why in the living whirling hell are you devoting so much cerebral juice to this creep? You need to fuck some hot steaming pussy and then get fucking drunk, broseph. And, fuck Virginia Postrel, the fonts on her blog are so goddamn hideous I want to kill myself with a bowl.

        1. Why a bowl?

  6. But with all the gerrymandering around do term-limits really work? You just get another joker from the same political party.

  7. I think the Senate should be elected and the house should be filled by lottery. Just draw the name of one able bodied person of the proper age who doesn’t have a criminal record and resides in the district to serve for a single two year term. We pick juries like that and let them decide life or death in some cases. And juries generally do a very consciencous job. Could doing it this way be any worse than what we have? I don’t see how. And it would probably be better.

  8. I spy naught but oppression and injustice, from here to the horizon, in every direction!

    Fetch my smelling salts, Erasmus.

    1. …rushes to the medicine cabinet, stubs toe on coffee table in the process…sits down on couch and pours a screwdriver…

      You’re on your own buddy.

    2. This is a favorite:
      Picture the prince, such as most of them are today: a man ignorant of the law, well-nigh an enemy to his people’s advantage, while intent on his personal convenience, a dedicated voluptuary, a hater of learning, freedom and truth, without a thought for the interests of his country, and measuring everything in terms of his own profit and desires.

  9. “Getting stuff done” in Congress doesn’t just include growing the state. It includes shrinking the state as well. The state doesn’t shrink itself, in the absence of familiar legislators. Shrinking the state in a democratic republic is an intensive, long term project that primarily involves moving popular opinion to our way of thinking, mobilizing that popular opinion to elect sympathetic legislators, and then KEEPING THEM THERE as long as possible. It is probably going to take at least a generation or more, and any assessment of the task that doesn’t take that into account is extremely short-sighted.

    Term limits are, and have always been, a counter-productive quick-fix scam that consistently not only fails to work as advertised, but results in more government bloat than ever. The only people who benefit from them are statists who are willing to approach the position as just one more item on a resume, and who are eager to fill that resume blurb with as much legislation as they can squeeze into the limited time that their term limit allots to them. If you don’t believe that this is how term limits actually work, I refer you to the State of California, and the level of bloat that we have suffered from in the past 20 years since we enacted them.

    1. What about the argument that a single term for each member of Congress would act as a disincentive against Corporatism? If a Congressman need not worry about receiving money for re-election would that not at least curtail the special privileges granted to donors through legislation?

      I get that it would happen to some extent regardless, there’s a lot of cushy jobs waiting for you if you grease the right hands, but it if it’s ineffective, please explain why. I’m genuinely curious.

      1. I get that it would happen to some extent regardless, there’s a lot of cushy jobs waiting for you if you grease the right hands

        Make serving in Congress contingent upon never taking a job working for another individual ever again and give them a decent pension for the rest of their lives. If they want to self employ or write books, fine, but no further employers.

        1. That sounds like a reasonable argument. If I’m not mistaken, they receive the salary and benefits of being a Congressman for life. I haven’t checked lately if that’s true. If so, I think that’s more than enough of a recompense for sacrificing your aspirations outside of the role of public servant. Good call.

          1. Now, they receive a pension in line with other federal employees. They are vested after several years and they get a percentage of their pay based on age and longevity. The whole, “they get full pay for the rest of their life after serving one term” is an urban legend.

            1. Got it. That seemed absurd, even from a public sector point of view.

        2. Why yes.

          Being self employed severs the link between bribery for legislators.

          No corporation could ever promise to buy all their widgets from a small business.

          need I say /sarc ?

          1. Okay, no additional income.

            Or better yet, at the end of their terms, they are put to death.

            1. Are you nuts – you’d let them escape having to live under whatever laws they created?

              That would be almost as bad as the current situation.

            2. Logan’s Run for Congress.

          2. Of course it doesn’t, but eliminating the promise of receiving a post elected office job from a wealthy corporate entity for passing legislation that favors said corporation over other, less politically connected competitors sure as Hell can’t be a negative. Aside from not being 100% effective in all cases, why object?

        3. Many do self employ as consultants for businesses or other organizations looking for an advantage on Capital Hill. So you gonna have to tighten up that restriction.

      2. I kinda think you answer your own question in the last sentence. Besides, once again, see California for how this really works. Limiting a political term does nothing to limit a political career. They just go from position to position, and feel the pressure to rack up as much legislation on their resume in the limited terms that they have so that they can sell that to the public when they run for their next office. And if you’re going to suggest limiting politicians to one single term in any elected office anywhere, well then we would end up with a bunch of unknows, with no record to judge them on, running for the Senate, and nobody running for any of the lesser offices.

        More to the point, see my first paragraph. Shrinking government is a long-term project that must be undertaken primarily by long-term visionaries, Term limits makes this all the harder by rigging the rules of the game in favor of the short term opportunist and against the long term visionary.

        1. I’m not suggesting a single term everywhere, only at the federal level. Use their track record as a member of a state legislature as a measuring stick.

          As far as California goes, I’ll take your word for it, I’m much too lazy to delve into that shitstorm. Though I suspect much of the problem has to do with the philosophy of the people aspiring for office, not term limits in and of themselves. There are a lot of long-term opportunists out there as well. Many more than visionaries, if I have to hazard a guess. Hmm, you gave me something to think about.

  10. Congress will have to pass the amendment limiting itself before the states can.

    No, the states can convene on this by their own action.

    1. I’ve often wondered what that process would look like. Would there be delegates? The governors perhaps? Where would they meet?

      It would bring a tear to my eye to watch the butthurt and handwringing of Congress, particularly if it was an amendment limiting their powers. God, I’d pay cash money to see that just once in my lifetime.

      1. Check out the Convention of States movement. This has been building for a couple of years, and got a big boost from Mark Levin’s latest book The Liberty Amendments.

        1. The problem is that it’s going to be taken over by the “positive” rights;free shit people.

          1. The problem is that it’s going to be taken over by the “positive” rights;free shit people.

            This isn’t a free-for-all, propose anything convention. The rules for what is being discussed are laid down before they meet.

            Additionally, anything they propose (per Article V) has to pass the convention by 2/3 of the delegates, and then 3/4 of the state legislatures have to ratify it.

  11. I distinctly remember the Contract with America. I remember the last item on the agenda was term limits.

    After a reasonable period of time and term limits hadn’t been inacted a journalist asked Newt the Grinch why not?

    He replied, ” the timing just wasn’t right”.

    I remember it distinctly because I laughed my ass off watching him on the teevee. It was the main reason many of us voted for them that election cycle.

    Oh well.

    1. What are you talking about? Term limits were passed by the Republican Congress, signed by Bill Clinton and then struck down by the Supreme Court.

      1. I thought that was the line-item veto.

        1. It was the line item veto. Term limits, if I am not mistaken, came up for a vote, but did not muster the 2/3 needed to pass a constitutional amendment.

          The term limits that were struck down by the Supreme Court were the ones passed by the states.

          1. I’m willing to bet that a little research would show that those who voted against it weren’t up for re election in the upcoming election cycle while those who had to face the voters next were publically all for it.

            Coniving bastards.

            Term limits seem to work for the Presidency, why not for Congress ?

  12. Term limits are no cure for big government. If they were, then California would have limited constitutional government. Which it doesn’t. Meanwhile, Texas, with no term limits, while far from perfect, is a lot better place to live as far as overbearing and meddlesome government.

    What would actually help: Limit the length of time that Congress or the legislature is in session to 60 days per year or less, and make sure that salary is only paid while the legislature is in session. This forces legislators to have a day job and in the long run, makes them actually more like the people that they are supposed to represent.

    1. You can’t tell me that limiting the terms of legislators to zero wouldn’t cure the problem of big government.

      1. It wouldn’t, because then there would be nobody there to pass the laws that cut the budget, bring the troops home, privatize social security, cut taxes, eliminate the DEA, etc.

        Politicians are how you change government in a democratic republic. Like it or not, that’s how it works.

        1. Paul.’s making the case for anarchism.

  13. my classmate’s step-aunt makes $74 hourly on the internet . She has been fired for 6 months but last month her pay check was $12495 just working on the internet for a few hours. read more…

    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  14. Can someone describe the problem meant to be solved by term limits?

    1. Yes, you eliminate the professional politician. Roberts does not own a home in Kansas but yet is their Senator. He has been in DC for 49 yrs. Think about that fact. He was elected when LBJ was President. The average age of Congress is over 70. Harry Reid is a multi- millionaire and did it on a government salary, HOW?

  15. The problem is definitely entrenched unaccountable incumbency. But the solution is NOT term limits.

    The solution is a dramatic increase in the size of the legislature. Make districts smaller again and it automatically tilts the playing field back towards retail politics and away from wholesale/media/polling – and makes it possible for challengers to compete. More legislators to provide actual oversight/control over the exec branch cannot possibly be a bad thing. Gobs of districts makes it far more expensive for big money to buy a majority of legislators for their cronyism – and more districts also means more opportunities for third parties and independents. And gobs of legislators also makes it much more difficult for party and committee bosses to control/manipulate things.

    The House was frozen at 435 members back in 1920 to lock in incumbents and prevent change. Since then the population has tripled – and the only result is that individual citizens have lost virtually all effective influence over anything. Everything has become mass manipulation – by big money and big groups – because that’s what works in 700,000 citizen districts. Triple the size of the House (and yes reduce unaccountable staffs by 2/3) and we won’t even think about term limits anymore.

  16. There are 15 United States that have term limits on their legislative representatives. ME CA CO AR MI FL OH SD MT AZ MO OK NE LA NV.
    If anyone can demonstrate to me that the bills that are passed through these chambers are somehow wiser and more efficient than laws passed in the other 35 United States I will consider that term limits may be useful at the Federal level.

  17. Without term limits, you are faced with the choice of the corrupt guy that is there or someone who may be ideologically opposite of what you believe. Given that choice you will likely pick the corrupt guy. With term limits at least you might get a new guy who you agree with on some points. Seems like a way to go to me……

  18. Libertarians continue to struggle with developing a national presence because we do not have a single, unifying message. This issue could be that message. Overwhelmingly, voters think DC is broken and special interests have too much influence. We all know it is the truth because Congress was never intended to a path to unlimited wealth and power. When you have Senator who no longer even own homes in the states they represent, you have a serious problem. This issue is one that would prove to the general population we are not the “fringe” as the media portrays us, but actually we are the rational middle which is why both parties are terrified of us. In one, united voice for the next two years, we need to talk about NOTHING but term limits and how they will fix the polarization, gridlock and special interest money in DC by eliminating the ability of politicians to say for decades. Make it clear if people want the government to work again, we need to break the back of the political aristocracy that now controls the country. They are the nobles and we are the serfs. We can attract people from the left by agree with them about drug laws and issue like same sex marriage. We will attract those from the right with our stance on limited government and fiscal responsibility. There are millions of moderates looking for a party that is more than the lesser of two evils. This is our time and we need to seize it.

  19. I recently voted for allowing LONGER term limits in Arkansas because the proposed legislation was disguised as tightening lobbying rules and making these more ethical. I will pursue this VOTER FRAUD in federal courts and will teach the Attorney General’s Office, and any State Senator, Representative how expensive suborning VOTER FRAUD is legally and politically to try to apply.
    1. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comme…..0000986348 NOTICE
    2. http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/docum…..0000990371 Exhibit LINKs

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.