ColdMiser wrote: 
Thanks for noticing this.

Here's the rub.  For the US Congress it requires a Constitutional Amendment same as a line item veto power.

There are two ways to initiate an Amendment.  Congress begins the process or the states themselves call for a Constitutional Convention.

Congress won't do it.  We need to start a grass roots campaign to do it from the states.

Myself, I'm going to start bringing this up whenever I find an opportunity.  Get people talking about it again.  It is and should be a non partisan common sense goal.

Thanks again for noticing, seriously.

 kurtster wrote:
I'll vote for it 

Sigh.

Here we are nearly 12 years later from the OP.  Anyone ready to reconsider that this is the only thing left we haven't tried in order to get things back to the people and end the political dynasties which are destroying this country in order to perpetuate their unholy constructs ?

 sirdroseph wrote: 

I arrive at this conclusion based upon discussions here already seeing who has argued for and who is against and as referenced in the attempt to pass a Constitutional Amendment for the same purpose.  It was the Democrats who defeated passage in the House three consecutive times in the 90's.  The proposal is the same as mine, 6, 2 year terms in the House and 2, 6 year terms in the Senate.  I was unaware and / or forgot what the stipulations of the Amendment were before I went to wiki, which is fairly reasonable for the purposes of this discussion.

On campaign reform, you're right about the ads, they are mostly attack oriented, untruthful and not informative.  We can't keep them off youtube, but it would keep the lies off the public airwaves where simple repetition usually morphs a lie into truth.  People would have to seek them out, not be lambasted on an hourly basis.  It might cause more people to seek real information just to find out what a candidate is about.

FWIW on the subject of uninformed voters, 2 weeks ago we were watching TV and a story about Bachmann's campaign came on and our 36 yo son said he didn't even know Bachmann was running.  That, after her effort was long underway and is now nearly over.  He would rather just play video games, text and do nothing.  He is of the generation Nirvana sang about, here we are now, entertain us.  How sad and how dangerous for our future.

 kurtster wrote: 
I assure you Kurt, this is not a partisan issue. The only party against term limits is whatever party the particular long incumbent representative term limits would affect belong to. Also I was not aware this was mentioned only by one side of the political spectrum. Where do you derive that opinion from?

Edit: Not only am I for term limits, I am for Draconian campaign finance reform. Hell, I am for campaign abolishment. Meaning, I think we should eliminate all political ads altogether, making them actually illegal. We should have public funded debates by anyone who meets the office candicacy qualifications deemed by the Constitution. Take money and party out of the equation altogether. Anything short of that is just spitting into the wind.

 

Its a bug under my skin, Term Limits.

I know its been discussed here often but usually only as a threadjack.

The Tea Party and now OWS are reactions to broken government.  Only OWS has yet to figure out that the government is the real problem, simply because it allows everything it is protesting to happen.

The Tea Party does not trust government and OWS still does and that is evidenced by the primary target of OWS, Wall Street.

At any rate, government is totally broken and no longer trustworthy, that most can agree upon.

So why do so many people have a problem with term limits ?  We never thought we would need the 22nd Amendment limiting the POTUS to two terms, but we found it necessary to prevent a recurrence of what happened during the Depression, a Four Term POTUS.  Would FDR have run for a fifth term had he not died in office ?  None the less, America had no problem with passing the term limits, because it saw the Amendment of as a fix to prevent an abuse of a POTUS so entrenched and so powerful with the power of incumbency as to rule until death or establish a dynasty that would lock the government in one unchangeable direction.

Congress has now failed us and made the previous statement 100% true.  The power of incumbency has established dynasties with unchanging goals and direction, putting party ahead of their constituents.  It's finally time to reign in Congress and break up this ruling dynasty of professional politicians by limiting their tenure and forcing change.

Is it unreasonable to limit terms in the House to 6 and the Senate 2 or 12 years in both.  Someone could potentially serve 24 years in both Houses of Congress.  Those who claim that turnover would hinder the functions of Congress need to take into consideration it is unlikely that every seat is going to flip every two years and that one would hope that a Congressman would be up to speed somewhere in their second term, leaving 4 more terms (under my scenario) to take and affect leadership positions that would allow Congress to function as intended.  The Senate does just fine with most senators only serving two terms as a rule anyway.

What other fears are to be held against term limits ?  That every twelve years everyone would be brand new ?  I'm sure that there would be many one and two termers, deaths and retirements along the way to prevent that scenario from ever happening.

We will lose a good, honest and effective legislator prematurely ?  What, are they so hard to find ?  Or is it that new ones won't run because they face taking on a machine that is dedicated to preserving the incumbent, regardless of skills and qualifications ?  I'd be willing to bet it is the latter and not the former.

I will proffer that those opposed to term limits are afraid of change and dwell in the worst possible outcome based upon these fears.  The excuses that bad ones will be voted out hardly ever come true, with over 90% being reelected, yet with an approval rating in the teens how many are good and should be reelected ?  This argument just doesn't work.  The public just doesn't care anymore.  Voter turnout proves this, especially in the off years.  Our reps are voted into office by the few not the many.

Odd that term limits are real change, yet this position is usually only found in the conservative camp.  What's that ?  Conservatives in favor of change and liberals opposed to change ?  Holy role reversal.  Being conservative is a dynamic position unafraid of and encouraging change ? 

Being against term limits is giving approval of the same old things that got us into this mess.  I realize that many don't feel good if they have nothing to bitch about.  Their are some who would be deprived of this if Congress got better.  What a sorry excuse to prevent change. 

So are you for them or against them ?  This is truly a non partisan topic, unless my comment regarding the idea of term limits is only a conservative position.  I only mentioned that because it only seems to be coming from one side of the political spectrum.  If its true, then the polarization of America and the resulting gridlock will continue, indefinitely.  Or is it a coincidence that the primary attempts to repeal the 22nd Amendment have been initiated by Democrats ?

There is no other solution, IMO.