Senator DeMint wants term limits in Congress

by politisite | October 29, 2009 at 11:17 am

270 views | 53 Recommendations | 17 comments

Senator DeMint of South Carolina will soon be introducing a constitutional amendment that will limit members of Congress to three terms (six years) in the House of Representatives and two terms ( 12 years) in in the United States Senate. After serving ten years in the Senate, Senator DeMint said he has come to believe that Washington D.C. "has the power to corrupt even those with the most honorable intentions" He further related that, career politicians ended up, "beholden to special
interests, lobbyists, and big government policies."

The Senator's rational for term limits appears to be directed at the need for politicians to start campaigning for the next election shortly after they are elected in the House and following four years in the Senate. By doing so, career politicians spend much of their time campaigning rather than legislating. DeMint believes that by imposing term limits congress will be filled with an ever changing skill set of new ideas and fresh perspectives in congress. Term limits he says, "will keep politicians in-tune with their constituents and less focused on pleasing those who promise to help get them re-elected."

According to US Term Limits (USTL) Term limits have been placed on 15 state legislatures, eight of the ten largest cities in America adopted term limits for their city councils and/or mayor, and 36 states place term limits on their constitutional officers. USTL states, “We are the voice of the American citizen. We want a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, not a tyrannical ruling class who care more about deals to benefit themselves, than their constituents.”

Please read the Full article at - Senator DeMint wants term limits in Congress

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

albertacowpoke

at 11:27 on October 29th, 2009

Besides being beholden to lobbyists, I think spending too much time in Congress also fogs your view of reality. Maybe with term limits they could learn the KISS (Keep it simple Stupid) principle when writing bills, bills that they can't possibly understand themselves.

politisite

at 11:33 on October 29th, 2009

Our founders were very keen on writing plain language legislation. The House Healthcare bill is 1800 pages. Each page represent 43 Million dollars in Government spending. It appears both Republicans and Democrats are in for a big vote out in 2010.

politisite

at 11:35 on October 29th, 2009

Oh I also wanted to say, Sen. DeMint is for Term Limits because when he has 2 terms in 2012... he will be running for President. Mark My words.

albertacowpoke

at 16:39 on October 29th, 2009

All the power to him.

Amy Judd

at 12:30 on October 29th, 2009

I think this is a good idea

nanute

at 12:34 on October 29th, 2009

I think he should set an example and limit his term to about another day or two.

Hugh Askew

at 17:52 on October 29th, 2009

I'll buy that....as long as Henry Reid opts for a single term.....retroactive immediately.

Rory Cripps

at 17:44 on October 29th, 2009

nanute: Yeah! And he should take Obama with him! HA!

Hugh Askew

at 14:58 on October 29th, 2009

Tho i agree with the Senator in principle, there isn't a lobbyist in DC that would go for that kind of action. Why, who would they spend their time and money with? Who wants to be buddies with a lame duck?

QueensHart

at 15:06 on October 29th, 2009

I can imagine all the grunts and bodies shifting nervously over this one. Go for it! With all the corruption there it may never fly. Maybe another march the day before they vote on it?

AlvarezGalloso

at 15:28 on October 29th, 2009

I like the idea.

Rory Cripps

at 17:43 on October 29th, 2009

I'd feel much better if American voters imposed "term limits" every time they voted rather than having government-imposed term limits. In general, the American voters hold the congress and senate in utter contempt--except when it comes to their own congressman and senators.

nanute

at 02:16 on October 30th, 2009

If we had a truly publicly financed campaign system, eliminated all special interest contributions, individual donations, etc. we'd have a much better chance of taking back the government from the corporations that are running the system now. Buckley v. Valeo basically said that money equals speech, and you can't restrict an individual, and by extension a corporation from giving money to a candidate or party. My problem with that logic is that the more money you have the more speech you have. We're supposed to have the same rights under the 14th Amendments equal protection clause. Current reality will obviously tell you, we don't.

Term limits are the lazy person's way of not having to pay attention.

Hugh Askew

at 01:53 on October 31st, 2009

My problem with that logic is that the more money you have the more speech you have.

Gotta luv them limousine liberals!

63.6% agreed, nanute. Not that folks aren't lazy, they are. (Why, some can't even be bothered to capitalize their own moniker!)

The disagreement arises because incumbents - in state races for the Senate and Congress - enjoy, and employ, a HUGE advantage because of their office. They can make public statements, do things to get in the news, etc., at no cost. Local news always needs news, they fill time quite nicely.Once they make the National News, why, they are IMPORTANT!

The opposition can't do that. They need more money to get noticed. Lots more.
The longer the incumbents stay in office, the more power they get, they more notice they get. Lacking scandal, it becomes almost impossible to vote them out of office.

nanute

at 02:22 on October 31st, 2009

Who you calling a limousine liberal? If you'd want the opposition to incumbents to have a decent shot, level the playing field. (I know, it is so un-American.)

I like the small "n" in my moniker. It keeps me grounded.But if you insist, you can certainly add a captial N when you address me.

Hugh Askew

at 03:57 on October 31st, 2009

Okay, Nanute. I would be very pleased to see ONLY contributions from individuals allowed, with a limit of say, $100.00 a year. Make it so minors aren't allowed to contribute - that cuts out the "family" giving that fat cats take advantage of.

Disallow any money from PACs, national committees, etc.

It would cut way down on the total amount that candidates would collect, knock out most of the posturing TV ad blitzes, and humble them enough so that they remember who it is they are going to represent.

That still wouldn't address the inbuilt advantage the incumbents enjoy - see above.

No way to address that without we should limit the number of terms they are allowed.

We do it with the President's office, it is done at state and local levels, yet we seem to think that senators and congressman are exempt.

Regarding "limousine liberals", that was hardly a crack at you. To be fair, reading your comment yesterday evening, brought to mind an article i read elsewhere that showed liberal democrats now represent the wealthiest areas in the country.

If i injured your feelings on a personal level, i apologize. No personal offense was intended. As to the crack about not capitalizing your moniker, it was no more than that...i seldom bother to capitalize my use of "i". If further explanation is needed, please contact me privately.

nanute

at 04:09 on October 31st, 2009

I may be a liberal, but I'm not one to have my "feelings" hurt easily. I didn't see any offense, and none was taken. Thanks for being decent enough to "man up." I actually thought your comments were rather amusing.

On the incumbent advantage, there was a time when equal time was the rule. Guess who was instrumental in getting that out of the way? I'm only talking about equal time in terms of political elections. It would help. Incumbents would most likely still have an advantage, but there would be a better chance of changing representatives with limits of money and free access to our communications systems.

Now go rake some leaves!