The problem is that the Congress is defined by the federal constitution – and that includes terms of office.

Anthony, that is length of terms, not number of terms. There is no provision in the Constitution that states how many terms a Rep or Sen can have, so my proposal doesn’t change the Constitution in anyway, and the SCOTUS should have no jurisdiction over this law. The 10th amendment clearly says that whatever the Constitution doesn’t define is left to the states, and since there is no defination regarding number of terms, a state should be able to limit their representation. – Lorica

Actually you do not need a Constitutional Amendment to enact term limits. Each individual state could enact term limit laws.

I disagree. I believe that was tried here in California and the SCOTUS knocked it down. The problem is that the Congress is defined by the federal constitution – and that includes terms of office. States have no authority to alter provisions of the federal constitution, other than by calling for a convention on a proposed amendment.

Gerrymandering is always a temporary condition and always reversible. It should be considered spoils of the election victory by the incumbent. They could lengthen the amount of time it takes to do the dirty deed just to make it inconvenient.

They really should take away the platinum parachutes of these pampered politicos. When your out, your out. period.

I think the best term limit is an educated constituency. WE NEED TO BE MORE INVOLVED in the political scene, not just when it’s election time, but day-to-day mundane ways. Drop a line to your congressman/woman. Send them a fax. Drop by their office. Do whatever it takes to let them know you are looking over their shoulder…sunshine does a lot to disinfect.

Increase their pay to say $300,000/yr., and eliminate any acceptance of “gifts” during the time from election to leaving office (including meals, even a Big Mac), with ANY violation of such cause for immediate removal from office.

Eliminate perks after office, especially retirement. Allow insurances during time in office, but that is eliminated at term’s end, without even a COBRA.

And eliminate franking privileges except to the media. If what they say in their pompous “newsletters” is worth hearing or reading, the media can get it out.

And as for gerrymandering, nothing will ever eliminate that. Whoever’s in power each time redistricting is done will continue to control that process.

Last, but certainly not least, power corrupts. Absolute power (like being a Kennedy in MA) corrupts absolutely. As proof, I give you the leadership of both parties in D.C.

One of the biggest problems I have with the term-limits idea is that everyone wants to term-limit the OTHER guy’s candidate. Simple fact is, if you don’t like the reps that Massachusetts keeps sending, you probably don’t agree with most of the people in Massachusetts.

And needless to say, I am FIRMLY against a good guy term-limiting himself, ensuring that the real scum keep the good congressional jobs like the committee chairs.

See also JC Watts’ endorsement LINK

We are in the process of signing a second Congressional candidate as of this writing, with another in discussion stage, along with a Senatorial challenger. (Note: We never touch the money pledged, which goes to a pre-designated charity, if he reneges.)

Go to our website. Look around. Join us … no cost. Spread our word. Call us, if we can answer questions. We are out to return legislation to We The People.

Respectfully,
Ken Benway
Alliance for Bonded Term Limits, Inc.
Office 910.420.2753

I’ve been saying it for years…

These guys spend all their time either raising money for their next election or campaigning for their next election…no wonder they never have any time left over to spend working on the people’s business.

A better alternative would be to better police gerrymandering to ensure that congressional districts are competitive.

The best choice would be clean up the blatant but legal corruption that our entrenched elected corruptocrats brazenly exploit without betraying any sense of shame.

It would also help a great deal to centralize ALL fund raising and custodying of funds in one closely regulated bank created just for that purpose.

1) Gerrymandered congressional districts, what are commonly called here safe seats. The districts are drawn not to represent roughly even numbers of population nor geographic contiguity, but to guarantee there are enough voters of a particular party to keep that seat in the party. (We do the same for the legislature and the House, though state-legislative gerrymandering was recently abolished for the next round) So, a Democrat or Republican termed out is most likely replaced by someone of the same party. Something would have to be done about gerrymandered districts at the Federal level.

2) The public employees unions (and other big donors) still have a lot of influence, because a termed-out legislator will still need their good will (and cash and campaign workers) to pursue a political career after their current office, particularly if they’re running for the next higher office. And someone new will be very tempted to accept their aid, too, since running for office is expensive and complicated.

It’s a quandary, all right.