Would you support the following Constitutional Amendment?

[OmahaBlueDog]

Poll question: Would you support the following Constitutional Amendment?

"Terms of service shall be limited as follows:

No Senator shall be elected to more than 3 terms and in no event shall serve longer than 24 years

No Representative to the US COngress shall be elected to more than 10 terms, full or partial.

No Justice shall serve on the Supreme Court for more than 20 years from their initial date of appointment."

[leftstreet]

1. Why not. We don't have job security. Why should they?

Fuck 'em

[Occam Bandage]

2. I'm pretty sure that "eh, why not, fuck 'em" is never a good foundation for governance. nt

[Hawkeye-X]

3. OB - in response to your signature...

我將踢您的屁股，間諜

[leftstreet]

6. "Eh, why not, fuck 'em" should be a ballot option in all US elections

:D

[Occam Bandage]

18. Counts as a vote against all parties!

Sure, it's the same as not voting, but it feels so much better.

[laconicsax]

8. Are you saying that Republican Party ideology isn't good for governance?

Exact discussion I had with my partner less than three hours ago.

[Posteritatis]

28. They don't

That's what those little "election" things are about.

Of course, it's different for the judiciary, but they should have it.

[LiberalEsto]

4. Maybe we should outsource these jobs nt

[david13]

5. How about Power corrupts and

absolute power corrupts absolutely?
Perpetuity on the job is almost like absolute power?
How about we want a civilian government not a professional or military government, and thus we want people to go and do some other job?
The problem is, if we like the senator or congress person or justice, we want them to stay. But then the opposition wants them limited, and out. And vice versa.
dc

[bowens43]

7. I would NEVER support any amendment

that puts limitations on our freedom. That's not what the Constitution should ne about. the 22 amendment was also an abomination.

[baldguy]

13. Image Reagan getting a third term.

Image Bush.

[Occam Bandage]

19. Imagine FDR not. nt

[Posteritatis]

22. If a majority of people wanted 'em? Sure

Not a fan of changing the rules because I don't get the result I want from the current ones. There's a reason the Republicans got that amendment through in the first place. It's antidemocratic in intent and in practice.

Term limits are a way of telling the people they may not vote for the person the want in fairly arbitrary circumstances. The idea of a constitutional amendment specifically intended to reduce freedoms is repellant to me.

(Of course, Clinton running in 2000 would've reduced Bush to a faintly glowing crater.)

[baldguy]

37. The our republic would long ago have devolved into a dictatorship.

[Posteritatis]

38. ... Because people could vote for who they wanted? Right

It sure was a dictatorship before the 22nd amendment rescued us all, wasn't it?

[baldguy]

40. You believe that in a country of 300 million people

We can only find, what - 2000 people to govern us? Term limits don't restrict the choices we get for candidates.

[Posteritatis]

41. Sure they do

You're using some strange, alien definition of "restricting choices" that somehow suggests restricting choices isn't restricting choices. That's bullshit. If voters aren't allowed to vote for someone they want to vote for, the voters' choices are restricted. Arbitrarily banning individuals from holding a public office doesn't automagically become good or even okay just because it's that one guy, any more than any other actions restricting folks' freedom do. If someone's a citizen in good standing, and people are willing to vote for them, they should have the right to stand for any office they want, as often as they want, and the voters should have the right to vote for them or not.

[baldguy]

43. Opening up elective office to *MORE* people restricts voters choices?

Saying some can't run for the same office again and again is an arbitrary ban?

What is restrictive, arbitrary an undemocratic is limiting elective office only to the elites chosen by the corporatocracy & the media - and letting them stay there forever.

[louis c]

9. I've always thought that the supreme court

should have alternating appointments. 18 years (one generation). With one justice appointed every two years.

Like this, if we were starting now. Justice one (J1) . 2 years. (J2). 4 years. (J3). 6 years. (J4). 8 years. (J5) 10 years. (J6). 12 years (J7) 14 years. (J8) 16 years. (J9). 18 years. Every 2 years there after appointments are made for either the remainder of the existing term or 18 years for expired terms.

[OmahaBlueDog]

20. I've thought along similar lines for 36 years

To me, the problem now (and for the foreseeable) is that we'll keep pushing to get justices in their 40's to early 50's so one President can shape the court for 30-40 years.

[Cid_B]

46. The SCOTUS was the reason I voted no...

As you well know the SCOTUS is supposedly the final word. With a new justice every two years it would just be a merry-go-round of whoever was in power and invalidating the previous courts positions... again and again and again....

[louis c]

47. 18 years is a generation. Isn't that enough of a term? NT

[Idealism]

10. It is a great idea

The incumbency rate in Congress was in the 90s for awhile there... why do we want that? These people can do the dumbest shit and get re-elected on name recognition alone. It discourages others from running, knowing that they are having to challenge "Senator XXX" who has millions in his war chest, brand recognition, and a network of lobbyists that they sell their votes to.

It would mean the Senators who got millions from, lets point out one, the FIRE lobby (Financial, Investment, Real Estate) that helped pass the Commodities and Futures Modernization Act, help repeal Glass-Steagall, and pass Gramm-Leach-Blilley wouldn't remain fixtures in Congress. This would mitigate the effects of lobbying, as well, because it would make is less effective to buy off certain ranking members on committees because they will be gone sooner.

[GreenArrow]

11. no.

I'd prefer:

No Senator shall be elected to more than 2 terms and in no event shall serve longer than 12 years.

No Representative to the US Congress shall be elected to more than 2 terms, full or partial.

No Justice shall serve on the Supreme Court for more than 10 years from their initial date of appointment."

[Tesha]

12. "Term Limits" were a means used by Republicans to eject popular Democrats.

They infringe on our right to be represented by whomever we choose
for as long as we choose.

Tesha

[OmahaBlueDog]

23. Tesha, my response would be two expressions I learned from my Grandparents

1. "Even a broken clock is right twice a day" - just because it was a Republican rallying cry 16 years ago doesn't make it wrong. Heck - David Swanson (it doesn't get much more to the left) just recommended ending the filibuster, which was embraced by the Republican Senate majority just 4 years ago.

2. "It rains on both sides of the field" - I'll grant the infringement, but in return, we get fresh voices and a means of reducing the permenant beholdenness (if that's a word) to special interests that we see in the current crop of long serving officials.

[Tesha]

29. I rather *LIKE* the fact that Ted Kennedy is still in the Senate.

I hope Bernie Sanders has a good long run there as well.

And if Paul Hodes gets promoted to the Senate, I want him to
serve until I say he goes, not until he hits some arbitrary limit.

Tesha

[OmahaBlueDog]

33. I could live without Orrin Hatch and Richard Shelby

..again, it rains on both sides.

[JerseygirlCT]

36. Yup. Agreed.

We can talk about more public financing of campaigns, we can talk about more openness about funding... but term limits? If I want to re-elect the same person over and over because he or she is doing a great job, why should term limits get in the way?

[baldguy]

14. I'd agree.

But public funding of political campaigns would address the underlying problem.

[Occam Bandage]

15. I don't like further codifying in the Constitution

the idea that voters are too stupid to elect the appropriate people, nor do I believe that continued re-election of competent/popular politicians is a bad thing. I don't believe we need to tell voters, "no, I'm sorry that you believe your representative is very effective, but he's been there a while, so go find someone else."

As for 20-year terms on the Supreme Court? Absolutely not. SCOTUS justices are able to vote as they please, without concern for political popularity, because they are secure in the knowledge that they need never find alternate employment. The last thing I want is a Supreme Court justice, in a 4-4 split, weighing whether he should give the final vote to the plaintiff, which he believes has the stronger case, or to the defendant, who will certainly give him a nice, cushy job once his retirement comes up in a year and a half.

[OmahaBlueDog]

31. I disagree with you on the SCOTUS

In a fixed term, they can still vote as they please, because they don't have any threat of reappointment. As to your 4-4 split scenario -- maybe it would encourage Presidents to return to appointing older justices at the outset. As it stands now, a President goes and gets the youngest, most ideologically pure prospect available to put that individual on the court for 30-40 years. Yes - it's great if we're talking Breyer, but not so hot if we're talking Clarence Thomas.

[jody]

16. Yes with the amendment that Justices must be approved by 3/4 of the Representatives. I don't believe

the current process of giving the 37 million citizens of California 2 votes in the senate versus 500 thousand citizens in Wyoming 2 votes is anywhere close to quasi democratic.

The 3/4 comes from the Constitutional requirement that 3/4 of the states approve an amendment and recognizing that SCOTUS can make decisions that change laws just as effectively as amending the Constitution.

[TreasonousBastard]

17. Nah. But, if I really wanted to make 'em squirm...

give 2 bucks to the challengers for every dollar the incumbant spends getting re-elected.

[OmahaBlueDog]

24. Hell- I'd settle for dollar for dollar

[ferrous wheel]

21. No, for two reasons. 1, the voters should decide, and 2, term limited politicians

(which SC Justices would even MORE become) are liable to engage in major mischief.

[OmahaBlueDog]

25. They engage in pretty major mischief now..

[ferrous wheel]

27. So they do...imagine how much more temptation they would have knowing their terms are about up.

However, my trepidations may be unfounded, I saw a lot of posts on DU back in early January expressing great fear what Chimp might do in the first 19 days of that month...and not much evil took place so...?

[TayTay]

26. Hell no!

I think term limits are a terrible idea. They generally benefit the lobbyists who get to teach the newbies how to write bills and such. Plus, I view this as an obstacle to my right to vote for whomever I want in an election.

Terrible, terrible idea. They should repeal the prohibition against Presidents running for more than 2 terms, btw.

[rrneck]

30. No. The voting public

needs amending more than the constitution.

[conturnedpro09]

32. Change the SC clause to "initial date of CONFIRMATION" and

you've got my vote!

[OmahaBlueDog]

34. Fair enough

I'd change it, but I dislike changing polls in midstream.

[ShadowLiberal]

35. The real problem in the house is gerrymandering, not lack of term limits

The fact is that most house districts are heavily gerrymandered to favor one party, to the point that the other party usually stands a slim to nonexistent chance of winning, no matter who they run.

This in turn causes quite a few people in the house to be in the awkward situation where they have a much better chance at losing to a challenge from the left (if they're a democrat) or from the right (if they're a republican) rather then a challenge from the middle in the general election. This can also cause more corruption in congress, when those safe representatives get overconfident after all of their landslide victories, and think they can get away with doing corrupt things like taking bribes, and steering money and gifts towards family and friends.

Term limits on the supreme court and senate have less to gain. It would probably help ensure more seats switching sides, but this may or may not do much other then ensure more 'chaos' and make it easier for parties to gain or lose an even larger number of seats in wave years.

[Raine]

39. No, I wouldn't

let the voter decide ... if that kind of thing was in effect Teddy Kennedy would've been out long ago. Term limits are just a rePUKE stunt to get rid of Democrats.

[MadBadger]

42. No, but I think congressional terms should be longer.

[Telly Savalas]

44. So you think Sen. Boxer is wrong to seek a fourth term in 2010?

Should Feingold not give it a stab either?

Name the people in California and Wisconsin that would represent an improvement over these two Senators.

[OmahaBlueDog]

45. I don't think she's wrong. I think the process is wrong.

I don't know enough about Wisconsin politics to give you a reasonable answer. In California, I certainly think Antonio Villaraigosa, Gavin Newsom, or John Pérez would be more than capable Senators. They'd be an improvement from my perspective because I think 18 years in DC is enough.