Someone finally got a clue!

I'll go one further and say the amendment that allowed reps to be selected by vote should be repealed. This would leave at one house of congress free of lobby influence, campaign fraud and such and would probably return it to more serving the interest of the states rathe than of the federal government. I honetly don't think this has a prayer either. We could in all likelyhood get both ratified by the nessesary number of states, but the odds of congress cutting their own throat are pretty slim. It is almost as realistic as hoping they'd vote themselves a pay cut.

If this is such a problem, it's the voters' fault for voting for such people. That's all we have to do, and the problem would be solved right now. I would rather see lobbying restricted or more regulated.

What they've proposed is two terms, or 12 years for Senators and three terms or 6 years for members of the House of Representatives. This really isn't anything new since it was a big part of Newt Gingrich's 1994 "Contract For America". Interestingly, many of those who ran and won on that went back on their own pledge to "limit" their own terms and are still there. Many of those who aren't still there were voted out and didn't leave voluntarily. Those who are proposing it now didn't suddenly "get a clue", it's nothing more than a gimmick trying to capitalize on the anti-incumbent mood right now. Ironically, all of those who have put their name on this proposal have already announced their retirement from the Senate. I don't think it has a prayer since it needs 2/3 votes in both Houses of Congress then it has to be ratified by most of the states. Personally - and I KNOW this isn't a popular view - I'm not for a Constitutional Amendment for term limits. I certainly know there are many who have been there too long and maybe a mandatory retirement age would be a good idea, but I believe it should be up to the voters to limit their own Senators and Representatives terms. Granted, "We the People" as a group need to pay more attention and get out and vote and those who just automatically vote for one party over the other or for the incumbent whichever party he or she is in should do their homework, but I don't think "throwing the baby out with the bath water" is the right answer. The one thing I think we really, REALLY need before we even begin to discuss term limits is true, meaningful campaign finance reform. Otherwise we risk replacing some of the admittedly few good experienced lawmakers with new members who have little going for them other than deep pockets full of cash! Annie

I would definately support it...I don't think they need to stay in there more than just term or two. Too many of them have gotten comfortable in their position and they need to find a new spot...get some fresh ideas in there. [b]~~I AM WHO I AM~~ **STANDING STRONG IN MY BELIEFS**[/b]

Did you mean 12 years in the Senate and 6 in the house? That should be reversed, and cut in half. 3 years in the Senate, and 6 years in the House.

Apparently, Congress has taken notice of our discontent. WND supported a camaign of sending 'pink slips' to Congress. Anyone aware of it? I just came from Whiteheather's discussion on it. I found this report on CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/17/pink.slip.protest/ It's good to know that they at least acknowledge our discontent. Perhaps they will reconsider their self interest now?

If the President can only serve two term then Congress should only serve two term, but two in the Senate and three in the House will work. Does this have any chance, well I have a better chance at winning the Socialist party nomination on a platform of smaller government than Congress passing a bill that limits the terms they can serve. The only way this could pass is if there was wide spread pressure put on Congress. The kind of pressure that says if you do not vote for this we will term limit you ourselves.

I would favor term limits and going back to what the Constitution called for. Let the states appoint the Senators, they would be beholden to the states and not special interest. The House members should be 1 for every 30,000 people. Just think we might even get to see our Rep and know who they are. They would have to come and see us and talk to us if they wanted our vote.

I'm for eliminating the house rule that sets the number of representatives at 435. Originally, under the constitution there was supposed to be one representative for every 30,000 citizens, something like that. In the early 1900's Congress determined that a House of Representatives that large was unmanageable, so they set the number at 435. The argument of being unmanageable is mute because of the great advancements in technology we have experienced over the last 100 years. With the internet and Telecommunications, we could easily expand the size of congress, and still be manageable. Currently, there is approximately 300 million people in the US. That means that each representative represents nearly 700,000 Americans. I understand that a representative for every 30,000 Americans is silly. Just as technology has allowed for a larger Congress, technology has allowed for a larger number of represented. However, being set at 435 is against the spirit of the Constitution in my opinion. The reason incumbents so easily get re-elected is because they have the resources to campaign to the masses, where challegers do not have such resources. If we changed the rule so that every 150,000 americans we would not need to have campaign finance reform because the financial backing of incumbents could easily be neutralized by grass-roots financing of challengers. Plus 3rd parties could really become a factor, as door-to-door campaigning would be a viable option.

Even though we voters should be more aware of what's going on in Washington and how our representatives are voting, not enough of us are paying attention and therefore continue to put the same representatives back into office time after time. The only way I can see to remedy that is with term limits. I don't see Congress ever approving it, though. I truly believe most of them, Republicans and Democrats, believe they're entitled to the job. Since Congress won't go for it, is it possible for the states to get together and demand a Constitutional Convention? If the states got together and demanded a nationwide vote on the issue, maybe term limits could come to pass.

Although I would love to see term limits in both the house and senate, I don't think this bill has a snowballs chance. I wouldn't be at all surprised if my elected officials vote for it, and hope it doesn't pass. Of course, we the voters could take care of the matter ourselves, but I'm not holding my breath on that either.

i agree! and i also think that with all the politics i have seen foreign and domestic i can say this with complete and utter certainty, that is governments all around the world are terrible at politics! lol they problem is simple the fact that they can do what they are elected to do in secret, rather than out in the open is a huge factor. there are so many crap that goes along with politicians it is a wonder why they do not carry lots of toilet paper whereever they go...

You are right. Term limits are long overdue. Maybe three terms is the most I can see. I don't know if it's got a prayer.