Should There Be A Constitutional Amendment On Term Limits For Congress For 12 Years?

[Turbo Flame]

Here's my first Political Debate. For me, yes. I'm sick and tired relaying on the same people like Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, etc for change year in and year out. If we get new members every 12 years, then I believe the Government can be more efficient as new bold ideas will come into Congress and maybe even pass to the White House if given the right circumstances. You can only relay on the same people that we have right now for so long. They are eventually going to fall on deaf ears sooner or later. That's why I want a Constitutional Amendment for Term Limits on Congress for 12 Years. What are your counterattacks?

[Del Tachi]

No, term limits only empower party leadership, lobbyists, and career executive branch bureaucrats at the expense of ideal citizen-legislators.

The legislature is the branch closest and most accountable to the people.  Congresspeople are accessible and accountable to their constituents in a way presidents and bureaucrats were not designed to be.  By relegating Congress to a permanently infantile branch of government (while judges serve lifetime terms, and executive branch bureaucrats often have 40 year careers), we are only hamstringing the people's role in our government.   

[Ferguson97]

No. Term-limits violate the will of the people. If the voters want to keep electing the same person to the Senate for 30 years, that is their prerogative.

Term-limits also encourage inexperience, and would only cause more build-up in the lobbyist-politician sphere.

[Dereich]

15 states have legislative term limits. I cannot say that those 15 states (which include absolutely atrociously run states like California and Michigan) are more efficient or have bolder legislative ideas than those that do not.

To highlight the problem others have mentioned, in Florida representatives have 8 year maximum terms. However, power structures being as they are, you can't wait to choose leadership teams. So the House leadership team, up to and including the future speaker, are chosen 5 to 6 years in advance within six months of legislators winning their first election. Voters will know within weeks (and its almost certainly known by those who matter much before that) if their new legislator who has just taken office will amount to anything or will be a backbencher until they are termed or voted out. I don't think this is a positive development! No term limits allows at least to some extent for some degree of organic relationship building and discussion among legislators in deciding their leaders.

[Turbo Flame]

No. Term-limits violate the will of the people. If the voters want to keep electing the same person to the Senate for 30 years, that is their prerogative.

Term-limits also encourage inexperience, and would only cause more build-up in the lobbyist-politician sphere.

That is true on the inexperience part. And I will say this, When a congressman terms are up, they can run for Senate if they like so they can gain 12 more years in the Senate and vice versa. Though it's hard to imagine almost any Senator wanting to downgrade to House of Representative. But, if they have only 12 years, I believe they can accomplish a lot more in Washington because they have a short window to pass their policies that they want. If there's no term limits, then the chances of accomplishing is very little. There's no pressure as they're likely going to be reelected for almost egoistical purposes and not to represent the district or state.

[Damocles]

No.

[Calthrina950]

I'm not sure if it should be twelve years, but I certainly do believe that there ought to be term limits imposed through constitutional amendment-although I don't think that will ever happen. I wonder when we will have the odious distinction of the first member of Congress to have served 60 years in the body (John Dingell fell just short of that record). What about the first member to serve 70 years? I shudder at the thought.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Term limits make some sense for the executive branch, but not the legislative branch.

[MarkD]

I agree with what some other posters above have said -- that there is no evidence that term-limited legislators are any better than legislators who are not term-limited, that term limits on Congressmen might make the lobbyists more important and powerful, that experience is not something that should be thrown away.

Voters already have the ability to throw out an incumbent who might be in office for "too long" (whatever that might mean). We have already seen members of Congress get rejected for re-election even though they had been in office for 20 years, 30 years, and more. Think of former members of the House like Joe Crowley, Mike Capuano, Dana Rohrabacher, Pete Sessions, Corrine Brown, John Mica, Ralph Hall, Nick Rahall, Tim Holden, Cliff Stearns, Paul Kanjorski, Soloman Ortiz, Rick Boucher, James Oberstar, Ike Skelton, and current Representatives Eliot Engel and Lacy Clay. Those are just members of the House who have lost in the last 10 years even though they had 20 years or more of service in the House. Then there are Senators who have lost even though they were in office already for 24 years or more: Arlen Spectre, Richard Lugar, Ted Stevens, and William Roth. These lists include members of Congress who lost primary elections as well as general elections.