Posted on Nov 23, 2015
PO1 Richard Knox
9.26K
76
58
2
2
0
Was holding political office meant to be a lifetime career? Or does a life in office open the door to political corruption? Today, members of the US Congress and Senate have little fear of losing their job. Of course they can be voted out, but with the use of gerrymandering coupled with no term limits these Politicians can and do serve for decades. With each passing year in office we witness these officials amass political power and influence. And with their growing power, money and influence we have seen their motivation and loyalty turn from the people to their Party's interests, more power and the sources of money that helps them hold onto their little kingdom.

The attached link shows the top 25 longest serving Senators ranging from no less than 35 years to over 50 years in office. Could Term Limits make our politicians more accountable and responsible to their Constituents and our Country knowing they will soon return to live with the very people they were governing?

If Term Limits are good ideas, how do we get it enacted? If it need to be voted on, how do we get it on the ballet so we can vote it into practice? Can getting Term Limits in place be done?

http://www.senate.gov/senators/Biographical/longest_serving.htm
Edited 9 y ago
Avatar feed
See Results
Responses: 16
LCpl Mark Lefler
3
3
0
I'd like to see term limits, i dont feel it should be a career. I dont think it was suppose to ever be a career.
(3)
Comment
(0)
PO1 Richard Knox
PO1 Richard Knox
9 y
Cpl, thank you for your service and for your comment. You are right on target. So what can you and I do to change it?
(0)
Reply
(0)
LCpl Mark Lefler
LCpl Mark Lefler
9 y
PO1 Richard Knox - I fear it would take a constitutional convention to do it, I don't believe members of congress will willingly limit themselves, that would be narcissistic of them. The president is limited, so should they.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MCPO Katrina Hutcherson
3
3
0
Edited 9 y ago
It's high time we voted for a constitutional amendment for congressional term limits along with a provision that they can pass no law that exempts them. I don't believe the framers of the constitution meant for there to be a political class. The professional politicians are doing us a disservice all the while voting themselves raises, perks and amassing massive war chests that make it almost impossible to vote them out. For those willing to serve we need to pay them well enough for them to take time away from their own careers and put in place protections like USSERA laws (The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act is a federal law, passed in 1994), that protects military service members and veterans from employment discrimination on the basis of their service, and allows them to regain their civilian jobs following a period of uniformed service. As an added incentive maybe they could be entitled to contributions to their retirement in their absence as an incentive. Other than that, they should be civil servants and subject to civil service benefits. It might be nice if we could also do away with party affiliations and just have those running for office run on the merits of their platform only....but that's just a pipe dream...
(3)
Comment
(0)
PO1 Richard Knox
PO1 Richard Knox
9 y
BZ - Master Chief. That was very well said. I would like to encourage your deeper thoughts to a workable resolution to bringing Term Limits forward to enactment. Reading through the comments posted so far the hurdles are presented, but there's been no ideas or suggestions on how to bring Term Limits to life. I welcome your further comments and thank you for your service.
(0)
Reply
(0)
MCPO Katrina Hutcherson
MCPO Katrina Hutcherson
9 y
PO1 Richard Knox I was going to say a grass roots effort would be the only way to make it happen. Trust and approval rates for congress are at an all time low, but then I noticed SGT Aaron Kennedy's post about the non-profit USTL that already lobbies for term limits. Linking up with them and growing the organization might accomplish the goal. I think there is also a great chance that if any one of the three Republican presidential candidates gets elected that they would be all for it. Unfortunately, IMHO, if it is Donald Trump who gets elected term limits might be the least of our problems...

On a promising note the state of Ohio just overwhelming passed an unopposed law with bipartisan support that requires the congressional redistricting panel have two lawmakers from the minority party and two from the majority to ensure minority representation. There is hope...

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
CPT Jack Durish
3
3
0
There are two questions here: Term Limits and Popular Referendum. I'm for one and against the other. Once upon a time my positions were exactly reversed. I always felt that term limits were an insult on our intelligence. Surely we could vote out the bums when they failed. It now appears obvious that We the People simply can't. I used to think that it would be unfair to force out a good legislator simply to make room for another possibly less competent. That now appears to be a small price to pay for cleaning up Congress. As for referendums, I live in a state, California, that has them. I've lived in others that didn't. When I lived in those places where We the People couldn't introduce legislation, I felt deprived. Now that I've lived in a place where almost as many laws come from referendums as from the state legislature, I wish they'd stop. We get more bad laws this way. Every time I opened a ballot laden with referendums I was painfully aware of how unprepared I was to vote on them. What did I know? Each was layered with unforeseeable consequences. This is why we pay legislators and provide them with staffs, isn't it? So they can deliberate on these matters, listen to expert counsel, and decide wisely. Generally, it seems, most referendums are attempts to circumvent a legislature that has already considered the matter and found it lacking. But, of course, if you refer back to my first issue, I don't have all that much faith in them. Damned if we do and damned if we don't.
(3)
Comment
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
CPT Jack Durish
9 y
PO1 Richard Knox - Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS My one fear of a Constitutional Convention is that it opens up the whole document to revision. Think about that. You go in focused on Term Limits and suddenly you find the other amendments, especially the Bill of Rights under attack. Now I believe there is a method of limiting the Convention to a specific purpose, but I'd still be cautious, very cautious.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
9 y
CPT Jack Durish - Again, I concur. Once the convention is called... everything is open.

PO1 Richard Knox The problem with a Representative Government is that "we" can't all work together. We aren't a democracy.
(0)
Reply
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
CPT Jack Durish
9 y
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS - That's a problem? I've seen a democracy at work here in California with the referendum system. It sucks. We pass more bad laws that way. I prefer a representative republic. We just need to get the right representatives. But even with the ones we have, it's better than democracy. Trust me on this...
(0)
Reply
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
9 y
CPT Jack Durish Oh, you misunderstand. I was providing a counterpoint of why "if we all went to work together" line of thought. Representative Republic is a HUGE safeguard against Direct Democracy. One I would not want to give up. But it has it's flaws, like all forms of government.

But every safeguard we add removes a little more power from the People, and shifts it into the system itself, which lets it be manipulated later.

Our Constitution, the Nation's "rulebook" is simple and relatively effective. It has flaws, but a way to change them. However the People working together (Democracy) isn't feasibly one of them. The deck is stacked against that method.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close