What do you think of a one term, term limit per federal position?

I think 2 then skip maybe.  Some folks cant get things undone in 1 term.  
And the idea that they HAVE to pass a new law is ridiculous, I heard once the idea that for every new law passed, they would have to repeal 2 old ones! :) Sounds pretty good to me! 

Unfortunately they passed the 17th Amendment to call for popular elections for Senators. The ONLY way to undo that is to pass ANOTHER Amendment repealing the 17th.

SSG Brown.... I think the intent of the Framers is that The Federal government, by design was supposed to get very little done. They weren't All supposed to agree on so many things, with the exception of fealty to the Constitution, and in keeping enough power in the States, and in the hands of the people to effectively thwart Federal power-grabs. I agree with the Framers of the Constitution when I say that the less the Federal government gets done, the better. Let them focus on acting Generally, and on Providing for the Common Defense as is written in our Constitution, the document they and we all swore oaths to uphold and defend.

I agree that term limits should be in place and be similar to the presidential office. Limit two terms. However, if an individual wants to run again, they have to "sit out" the number of terms servered (either one or two terms).

I agree that it would be tough to get things accomplished in one term, but I would hope the current process would "heal itself" and become more efficient. I am a firm believer that members of Congress needs, and must, come live under the laws they have passed. If it is good enough for "We the People", then it should be sufficient for "Those in Congress." In addition, if the law is good enough for Congress, then it should be good enough for the people.

SSgt George Brown Thanks for posting.

Thats great in theory.  The truth is that we don't have enough voter turnout to impact the turnover.  Thus the "Term Limit" issue comes up every few years.

Indeed, Maj Woods. When a 4% turn-over in the House is labeled a "house-cleaning", the idea of voting out entrenched members of Congress becomes a high hurdle. This is not by accident either. Congress has created election laws and Gerrymandered districts to ensure their re-elections, distorting the idea of the vote, as the ultimate term limit. Congress is adept at ignoring The Constitution, and it's own laws and rules, as we have seen with over 6 years of failing to pass a Budget. Congress has proven that it is incapable of governing itself, and requires laws with consequences to keep it in check. Unfortunately, the problem is that every branch of the Federal government, including both parties, is incensed with one objective. The expansion of the Federal government, and the control over the States and the People that comes with such an expansion. This is EXACTLY the course the Framers of the Constitution sought to avoid, and the outcomes that people like Jefferson, Bastiat, and De Toqueville all warned us of.

LCpl Winiger, I agree with with your point, though where does that family exclusion stop? The Roosevelt's ran decades apart (and both administration's were troublesome and destructive to liberty in many ways. Should a descendant of Thomas Jefferson, or George Washington be excluded as Family members? What about 2nd cousins (by marriage)? We also had John, and John Quincy Adams. So while I agree the intent of service was never intended to establish dynasties, a "Family" restriction would be difficult to manage, and would require extensive Ancestry databases likely run by the Federal government, and more likely running afoul of numerous amendments in the bill of rights.

SSG Sedel, You raise a very good point. It should stop somewhere. This is where the voters need to become educated and become proactive with politics. Only the voter can stop a family affair.

Too many people thrive on the rhetoric and mud slinging. This is a dangerous way to cast ones vote. An educated electorate is the best defense we have against legal dynasty's from occurring.

Perhaps one way, is to forbid immediate family of a past or current president, including children and spouse, mother, father, brother, and sister. from running for high office.

Of course, Our Constitution sets no such limits. Only a minimum age of 35 Years, and being a Natural born citizen.

Good points Cpl. But keep in mind that the Framers of the Constitution INTENTIONALLY staggered the terms of office, and intentionally made the House of Representatives the voice of the people by having them elected every 2 years, EXACTLY to give the people a check against an obtrusive Executive, Senate, or Court.

@cpl Charles Brown, If one believes that the federal government should be even larger, more powerful, and even more complicated than it already is, then your statement makes perfect sense. If on the other hand you believe the federal government should abide by the constraints given it when it when it was created by the states, then it can be constitutionally argued that the less they get done the better. if one understands that most of what they do is unconstitutional then hamstringing the federal government makes perfect sense.

LTC, One could suggest that there is an enormity of political clout in Washington DC, and that far too much gets done. Certainly far more than the Constitution allowed for, or those who framed it ever intended. The "One Term in a Row" plan is designed to change the status quo that has brought us to this tangled mess we now endure. In short, respectfully, I believe it is such " clout" that we can live without. Let us guide Congress away from governance by political power and toward fealty to the Constitution they have failingly sworn to uphold.

LTC Paul Labrador I Respectfully hope you are not suggesting that there is any lack of experience OR political clout in Congress. Here are a few Statistics.

(CNN) -- Rep. John Dingell of Michigan became the longest-serving member of Congress on Friday with 57 years, five months, 27 days and counting on Capitol Hill.

His longevity record eclipses that of the late Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia.

Here's a look at congressional tenure, by the numbers:

9.1 years: Average length of service in the United States House of Representatives as of January 2013, according to the Congressional Research Service.

10.2 years: Average length of service in the U.S. Senate as of January 2013.

13.4 years: Peak average length of service in the House in the 111th Congress(2009-2010).

37: Percent of congressmen in the 113th Congress that have between 0 and 8 years of experience.

20, 11: Average percentage of members of Congress who haven't sought re-election, in the 20th and 21st centuries.

51 years, 5 months, 26 days: Length of time Robert Byrd, D-West Virginia, served in the Senate -- January 3, 1959-June 28, 2010.

6 years: Length of time Byrd served in the House -- January 3, 1953-January 3, 1959.

57 years, 5 months, 27 days: Length of time Rep. John Dingell, Jr., D-Michigan, has served in the House -- December 13, 1955-present.

22 years 6 months 17 days: Length of time his father, Rep. John Dingell Sr., served in the House -- March 3, 1933-September 19-1955.

38 years 5 months, 5 days: Length of service for Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, the longest currently serving senator -- January 3, 1975-present.

60 days: Term of former Sen. Dean Barkley, D-Minnesota. He was appointed to the seat of Sen. Paul Wellstone, who was killed in a plane crash in 2002.

36 years, 5 months, 5 days: Length of congressional service for Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Maryland, longest-serving female. She served five terms in the House and is in her fifth term in the Senate -- January 3, 1977-January 3, 1987, in the House; January 3, 1987-present in the Senate.

25: Times John Conyers, D-Michigan, has been elected to Congress. He is the longest-serving African-American in congressional history. Conyers was first elected in 1964.

Given the current state of affairs in our Federal government I can't imagine a bunch of newbies could do any worse. It could be argued that all that experience and seniority, and knowledge so many praise, is tainted with too much familiarity with Lobbyists, hubris of tenure, and a false sense of superiority over the States and the People. My Opinion.

Gerrymandering is the main reason why politicians get entrenched.  Instead of voters choosing a candidate, candidates get to choose their voters.

Indeed, Chief Gerrymandering IS a big part of the problem, but it's important to consider name recognition, previous pork, and the fact that poll upon poll tells us that people are negative regarding Congress overall, but often loyal to THEIR Congressman or Senator. Lastly, keep in mind that Politicians have done a good job of passing election law that favors fundraising for the encumbent.

I agree that the media is not doing is job of informing the citizenry, and holding our politicians feet to the fire. Personally I don't see how well do any worse without the entrenched.... Look where they've brought us this far. And those good politicians can always skip a term and run again.

1SG Michael Blount, Good points 1SG, only have to Respectfully disagree.

First, How does limiting running for office with no chance of "seniority" expose even more outside influence? The entrenched nature of our politicians means those lobbyists first, have the opportunity to create decades long relationships with policy and law makers, where those long-lasting relationships can't exist under a one-term in a row system. Though the long term nature of incumbency does lend itself to legislation through lobbyists, it is not the primary factor. The movement to the "Regulatory" state has the most impact. In short, Congress, and the Federal government in general has become involved in FAR too many aspects of our existence. Were the Federal government ONLY engaged in those powers assigned to it by the Constitution such a Regulatory nightmare would not exist, and the Lobbyists would be powerless because there would be little that Federal Elected officials could do to help them.

Second, the "complex and multifaceted issues" Congress finds itself engaged in is a direct result of a FAILURE of all branches of the Federal Government to abide by the limits placed upon them by the Constitution. Clearly, the Bureaucracy we now are forced to endure HAS become a trudging Juggernaut because of a lack of Fealty to the Constitution. So that even with decades of seniority our Politicians are incapable of fathoming the scope of the Behemoth we know as the U.S. Government. Einstein wouldn't even attempt such a task, it was below his creative abilities.

So, I would argue that leaving those entrenched politicians does NOTHING to resolve our problem, but only perpetuates it further. For the answer is not MORE government, but rather Less, right down to the powers enumerated it by the Constitution leaving the balance of powers to the States or to the People as the 10th Amendment Demands.