Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, February 06, 2014

Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.) filed a bill on Tuesday that would amend the Constitution and impose term limits on members of Congress.

The measure would call for a maximum of 24 years of service for lawmakers, with 12 years each in both the House and Senate.

Lawmakers in the House are up for election every two years, while senators' terms run six years. The Constitution, however, does not limit the number of terms a person can serve.
"Believe me, 24 years is more than enough time to serve in Washington. (I actually pushed for much shorter terms but compromised at 12+12 in order to gain the support of additional co-sponsors),"

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

MUSTANG

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

More

AND IT'S ABOUT DAMNED TIME, although 24 years is WAY too long.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

In 2012, then-Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) proposed a similar amendment that would place limits on how long members of Congress could serve.

The Senate overwhelmingly rejected DeMint's measure, voting 75 to 24 against it.

At the time, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) voiced opposition to the amendment, having already served three terms himself.

"For some members of Congress, two years in office is too long and for some members of Congress, 20 years in office is not long enough," Durbin said. "Who should make that decision? The Constitution in its wisdom says the voters of America make that decision. Let's stand by that Constitution and its language and defeat this sense of the Senate resolution."

Before the mid-1990s, nearly two-dozen states previously limited how many terms their representatives in Congress could serve.

In 1995, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton that states could not determine the length of service their representatives at the national level could serve.

#1 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-02-06 07:46 AM | Reply | Flag:

maximum of 24 years

18 too long.

#2 | Posted by 726 at 2014-02-06 07:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

Dick Durbin is the Poster Child for a 2 term limit.

#3 | Posted by wisgod at 2014-02-06 08:52 AM | Reply | Flag:

I would be willing to go 12 years but require 4 years off before trying again, and I would push for 4 year terms for both the House and Senate to eliminate the perpetual campaigning. Election day would be once every 4 years and that would be house cleaning day in America, where we could toss everyone out at the same time.

#4 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-02-06 08:54 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

I would expect any rational person to support this bill, regardless of political persuasion.

They should tack on a provision making it illegal to go work for connected lobbying firms when your time is up.

#5 | Posted by JOE at 2014-02-06 08:58 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

#5 At a minimum, congressmen should be restricted from follow-on employment in much the same way that military officers are, that is to say they should not be able to be employed in any job that directly benefited from decisions they made while elected. That's Ethics 101, Chapter 1 "Conflict of Interest".

#6 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-02-06 09:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

Contrary to the opinions of many here I think that if constituents are happy with their representation they should be able to keep them as long as they want and as long as their representative wants to serve. I can think of many who served longer than this amendment would allow and they were great leaders who accomplished much.

#7 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-06 09:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

"#5 At a minimum, congressmen should be restricted from follow-on employment in much the same way that military officers are, that is to say they should not be able to be employed in any job that directly benefited from decisions they made while elected. That's Ethics 101, Chapter 1 "Conflict of Interest".

I do agree with that 100%. I think it is unlikely that Congress would pass such a bill though.

#8 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-06 09:11 AM | Reply | Flag:

Do you feel the same way about Hillary who served on the board at Wal Mart?

#9 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-02-06 09:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

#7 I respect your opinion, Danni, and I suppose there are arguments for both sides, but far too many legislators build themselves empires and spend inordinate amounts of time wrangling for positions of greater power (chairmanships, committee memberships, etc..). I want my elected officials to be focused on constituents and not their next election. If they are really good, they're free to come back after a 4-year hiatus. Sadly, low-information American voters treat national elections like high-school popularity contests, where name recognition is sufficient.

#10 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-02-06 09:24 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Yeah she was on that board until 1992, the same year Sam Walton died and his greedy kids took over and god rid of the American made goods.

#11 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-06 09:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

And NO pensions. What job pays you a pension after 4 years?

#12 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2014-02-06 09:27 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Danni, and I suppose there are arguments for both sides, but far too many legislators build themselves empires and spend inordinate amounts of time wrangling for positions of greater power (chairmanships, committee memberships, etc..)."

But don't those positions also enable those representatives to serve their own constituents better? I think gerrymandering is a much bigger problem than lenth of service and some of the most entrenched (both sides of the aisle) are only still there due to gerrymandering. I don't believe politicians should be involved in the drawing of districts.

#13 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-06 09:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

Riiight Danni. Wal Mart hates Hillary soooooo much they just gave a PAC a wad of cash.

#14 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-02-06 09:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Brian Ross, ABC first-rate investigative reporter, has obtained tapes of sessions of the board of directors of Wal-Mart when Hillary Clinton sat as a board member for six years, ending in 1992.

ABC believes the tapes are authentic and claims they were obtained from the service hired by Wal-Mart to record, archive and keep safe tapes of the Wal-Mart board of directors meetings.

The tapes show that Mrs. Clinton sat silently as Wal-Mart directors planned assaults on labor unions trying to organize Wal-Mart workers.

Wal-Mart's anti-union efforts were evidently a key element of business for the board of directors and the tapes of four meetings obtained by ABC News show that Hillary Clinton sat silently and, quoting ABC News now, never once rose to defend the role of American labor unions."

Read it and excuse Danni.

#15 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-02-06 09:32 AM | Reply | Flag:

"And NO pensions. What job pays you a pension after 4 years?"

That's another reason to impose term limits. We're taking care of these folks after a short time there so their defense for staying longer can't be $$$ as we remove that with the pension.

If we can't get term limits, then lengthen the time required to serve before being eligible for the pension.

#16 | Posted by eberly at 2014-02-06 09:33 AM | Reply | Flag:

"The tapes show that Mrs. Clinton sat silently as Wal-Mart directors planned assaults on labor unions trying to organize Wal-Mart workers."

That ain't good, I'm not defending her on that.

"If we can't get term limits, then lengthen the time required to serve before being eligible for the pension."

It ought to be the same as it is for other federal employees though I'm not really sure we owe them more than a 401K and SS.

#17 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-06 09:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

#13 I agree regarding gerrymandering, but not on higher positions benefiting their constituents. In fact, I would argue that once you have reached those committee levels, you are no longer answering to your constituents.

I thought the gerrymandering bill that went up for a vote in Florida back in the early 2000's was on point: districts should follow existing county boundaries, be contiguous, etc... Everyone points fingers at the other side regarding gerrymandering, but both sides are guilty.

We need a single bill that institutes congressional term limits, ends gerrymandering as we know it, and institutes Mustang's Campaign Finance Reform Law (no PACs, no corps, no educational institutions, no unions, no bundlers - just voter to candidate with monetary limits on donations and overall campaign spending). We could call it the Omnibus You Work For Us bill.

#18 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-02-06 09:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

What we need is more transparency. We need to see how these law makers and politicians in general make their money. There is no reason to get a law degree then run for Congress for life other than money. Perfect example is law makers ability to insider trading based on the information gained by being in congress. It's illegal for everyone but them.

#19 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-02-06 09:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

"We could call it the Omnibus You Work For Us bill."

I agree with that but you could never get Congress to pass it.

"What we need is more transparency. We need to see how these law makers and politicians in general make their money. There is no reason to get a law degree then run for Congress for life other than money. Perfect example is law makers ability to insider trading based on the information gained by being in congress. It's illegal for everyone but them."

I agree with that too but it also would never get passed.

#20 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-06 10:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

#20 Ours but to do or die, Danni. There are always a few legislators out there willing to run it up the flagpole. Make the rest say no.

#21 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-02-06 10:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

Oh Boy!

Here is where the "strict constitutionalists" start yammering on about their desire to amend the constitution, again.

Don't get me wrong, I am not pooh-poohing this idea. I am however laughing at the dweebs who so easily transition between pretending to be defending the constitution --- to whining about the need to change it.

#22 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2014-02-06 12:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Ending gerrymandering is a great idea, if you can do it.

But in principle, I've never thought that telling American citizens who they can and cannot vote for outside the minimal restraints of the Constitution is a good idea.

I would rather see elections financed at least in part by the purchase of public air waves at real market prices, contingent upon some of that time going to qualified candidates for commercials, which is their major cost of running for office.

That, and overturning CU and like-minded "money is speech" and "corporations are citizens" policies and rules would counter much of what is trying to be accomplished by term limits, without depriving voters of the ability to elect someone they want to represent them just because they had experience.

Just as any other profession, skill and experience count in politics.

#23 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-06 12:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

A strict constitutionalist approves of amendments via the proper process, which is in itself constitutional. Constitutionalists do not, however, agree with any branch of the government doing an end-around on the Constitution. Defending the Constitution include defending the amendment process.

Your worst retort ever...and that's saying something for a career troll. Congratulations.

#24 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-02-06 12:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

would counter = would do

#25 | Posted by Corky at 2014-02-06 12:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

"#20 Ours but to do or die, Danni. There are always a few legislators out there willing to run it up the flagpole. Make the rest say no."

It would have to be proposed as an Amendment to the Constitution in order to get around CU and "money is speech" decisions of the SC.

#26 | Posted by danni at 2014-02-06 12:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

And NO pensions. What job pays you a pension after 4 years?

#12 | POSTED BY TFDNIHILIST AT 2014-02-06 09:27 AM | REPLY | FLAG:

The one where you get to set your own rules.

#27 | Posted by 726 at 2014-02-06 12:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

I wonder how this polls. The reason I ask is that 80% of America doesn't like the patriot act, of which the party of "the peoples work" majority has yet to hold a single repeal vote.
Anyway. Did any of you self-appointed constitution keepers (aka political charlatans) run this by the founders at the last séance?

#28 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2014-02-06 12:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Easier to pass than an amendment would be a law requiring drug and alcohol testing for members with forfeiture of office if they flunk.

#29 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-02-06 01:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

"A strict constitutionalist approves of amendments via the proper process,"

That makes sense. But only if you forget it's very same people who claim it a dead document.
How do you "amend" a document that was previously claimed as "dead, dead, dead"?
Just sounds like more opportunism by the someone with a "principle" problem

#30 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2014-02-06 01:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

You're getting your apples and oranges confused, Chief. The people who claim the Constitution is dead are almost exclusively liberals who disagree with specific portions, i.e. the 2nd Amendment. Those people are obviously not Constitutionalists...they are the polar opposites. In fact, if you look for members of SCOTUS who consider themselves Constitutionalists, you'll only find conservative members.

#26 The (R) who is submitting this bill for consideration is doing that. I don't see any reason why some other legislator couldn't do the same for the rest of the Omnibus You Work For Us amendment.

#31 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-02-06 01:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The people who claim the Constitution is dead are almost exclusively liberals who disagree with specific portions"

www.politico.com

You are certifiably retarded.

#32 | Posted by ChiefTutMoses at 2014-02-06 01:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

"The people who claim the Constitution is dead are almost exclusively liberals who disagree with specific portions"

LOL...this cracks me up.

the people who claim the constitution is dead.....don't know any people claim such but when I hear someone make such a claim it is usually from some extreme fringe.

#33 | Posted by moneywar at 2014-02-06 01:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

#32 HA! Do you not understand the context of his remarks? His pretext is that it's dead because this and the previous administration have been killing it instead of abiding by it or amending it. He does not agree that the Constitution is "up for interpretation" which he equates with it being a living document. He has said in the past that if you disagree with the Constitution and how its original intent has been viewed by SCOTUS, get a bunch of friends together and amend it, but don't try to play fast and loose with intent based on this week's moral whim.

You are one of liberalism's useful idiots.

#34 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2014-02-06 03:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

I would support an Amendment to the US Constiution imposing term limits on all Congressman. I think most people would. The challenge would be getting 3/4 of the Senate (and their corporate/big bank owners) to sign off on it.

#35 | Posted by moder8 at 2014-02-06 03:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

More needless headbanging from the elite ultra-conservative party of Rand. We have term limits. They are called elections. They happen every so often so the People can choose their representatives. Just because you do not like the results is no reason to change our founding document.

There is no reason for this waste of time bill.

Give us a JOBS bill.

#36 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2014-02-06 06:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes we should have term limits, one term that's the limit and that would help remove the money to these crooks.

#37 | Posted by moneywar at 2014-02-06 06:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yes we should have term limits, one term that's the limit and that would help remove the money to these crooks.

#37 | POSTED BY MONEYWAR

I could go for 2 terms, 4 years each for everyone federal with states being able to do whatever they please with state legislation.

2 years for a representative seems absurd because it forces the the candidates to waste time and resources that could be put to better use, which would be representing their constituents instead of chasing money.

2 terms because the idea is to get people who don't want to make a career of politics (at least at the federal level) a chance to figure it out. If they don't do that fast enough, they can be voted out. There is also the benefit of no real incentive to pump a ton of money into any particular candidate because there's no long term return on it.

Gerrymandering, like everyone said, get rid of it or somehow take it out of the hands of the political parties.

#38 | Posted by Lohocla at 2014-02-06 07:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

Give us a JOBS bill.

#36 | Posted by Prolix247

Cool! You want to repeal Obamacare too?

#39 | Posted by Diablo at 2014-02-07 01:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

Lots of lazy people out there, apparently. Elections are our term limits. Some guys, I can see being in for a long time. Some guys, one term is way too much. Again, the voters' decision, no one else's. Don't like the guy? Vote him out! Don't try to limit the people I can vote for just because you want a change and don't want to get off your duff to go vote.
Now what we do need, in my opinion, is uniform terms. Senators' 6-year terms are way too long, and Congressmens' 2-year terms are way too short. It should be 4-years across the board.

#40 | Posted by hawk at 2014-02-07 02:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Diablo - what makes you think that repealing Obamacare will create jobs? I don't follow the logic in that statement?

#41 | Posted by Prolix247 at 2014-02-07 03:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort