Biden Impeachment Inquiry

[ClydeR]

Simple non-partisan question: do you oppose bringing forward a bill of term limits for members of Congress to the floor for a vote?

I would need to read the bill to know if I supported voting on it. Point me to it, and I will take the time to read it.

I assume it will say that, upon approval of 2/3rds of each house of Congress, the Constitution will be amended to provide that each House member may serve a maximum of 3 terms and each Senator may serve a maximum of 2 terms. If the bill contains appropriate accounting for partial terms, then I would not oppose a vote on it.

There are already term limits on the President, of course. There are no term limits for the Supreme Court.

After approval by 2/3rds of each house of Congress, the constitutional amendment would then require approval by 3/4ths of the states. You know what would greatly improve its chances? Combine it with term limits for the Supreme Court. A single amendment covering the House, Senate and Supreme Court would have broader appeal, and a combined comprehensive amendment would be more consistent with the principle of limited citizen-driven government.

[Suppressed Poet]

I would need to read the bill to know if I supported voting on it. Point me to it, and I will take the time to read it.

I assume it will say that, upon approval of 2/3rds of each house of Congress, the Constitution will be amended to provide that each House member may serve a maximum of 3 terms and each Senator may serve a maximum of 2 terms. If the bill contains appropriate accounting for partial terms, then I would not oppose a vote on it.

There are already term limits on the President, of course. There are no term limits for the Supreme Court.

After approval by 2/3rds of each house of Congress, the constitutional amendment would then require approval by 3/4ths of the states. You know what would greatly improve its chances? Combine it with term limits for the Supreme Court. A single amendment covering the House, Senate and Supreme Court would have broader appeal, and a combined comprehensive amendment would be more consistent with the principle of limited citizen-driven government.

The thing about the courts (SCOTUS and the other federal courts) is those positions are appointed by POTUS & confirmed by Congress. The idea is that they serve a long period of time and interpret the law of the land, not public opinion. Our founders recognized they couldn’t perform well if they had to worry about reelection or short terms of service. I do realize that justices are flawed humans like the rest of us. I’d be ok with more judicial oversight but I can’t get on board with SCOTUS term limits at this time.

[~Rocktar~]

30 years is entirely too long.

4 terms in the House = 8 years
2 terms in the Senate = 12 years

These are reasonable terms of service... and if someone wanted to do both, that's 20 years of service.

Term limits are not the panacea people think they are. They will lead to a much more balkanized administrative state of "experts" than we have now despite what people think. It takes a lot of time and work to become an expert on something and in Congress, the people running things should develop some expertise in matters. I want the years in each house to be equal to alleviate whining about "equity".

[Suppressed Poet]

Term limits are not the panacea people think they are. They will lead to a much more balkanized administrative state of "experts" than we have now despite what people think. It takes a lot of time and work to become an expert on something and in Congress, the people running things should develop some expertise in matters. I want the years in each house to be equal to alleviate whining about "equity".

Both the House & Senate (Senate less so but still) has complete bumbling idiots that are incapable of being “experts” at anything, and yet those people continue to be elected for a lifetime of service. Is George Santos or AOC going to become experts at anything 20 years from now?

Edit: Trump is not an expert career politician. I don’t think you really believe that it requires a long period of service in politics to become effective at it. They do get better at campaigning though.

[Parkbandit]

I don’t disagree that legally term limits is the easy answer.

We don’t call it ageism when our Constitution states the minimum age to serve in Congress is 30 and it’s 35 to be President. I work with someone that is 28 years old, has a MBA from a prestigious university, and is much more capable & responsible than the average person that’s a decade older than him. Why is it socially & legally acceptable to have a minimum age for public service but a discussion around a law or amendment for a maximum age is considered unacceptable behavior?

There will always be exceptions when you use age as a benchmark. Most people into their 30's are not as mature as say someone in their 40's or 50's with the same life experiences. Middle aged people tend to be more emotionally and intellectually mature and have had more life experiences for the added 10-20 years.

[Parkbandit]

Term limits are not the panacea people think they are. They will lead to a much more balkanized administrative state of "experts" than we have now despite what people think. It takes a lot of time and work to become an expert on something and in Congress, the people running things should develop some expertise in matters. I want the years in each house to be equal to alleviate whining about "equity".

Elected officials are able to get rid of these so called "experts" though.. they aren't permanent structures in our government.

But when you become entrenched in politics, it's very, very difficult to get rid of you... and it becomes your seat until you die.

Public service shouldn't be a career where you just continue to gain power and money to the point you are too big to fail. You become beholden to too many entities and they in turn ensure your re-election every cycle.

We put term limits on the Presidency, on most governors, on most state house and senate.. on most elected posts with the obvious exception of the federal House and Senate. The only reason they aren't in place there is because the corrupt politicians won't vote against their own well being.

I'm even ok with grandfathering in all the pieces of shit in Congress right now.

We need to get term limits imposed if we are going to ever hope to drain the swamp.

[ClydeR]

I’d be ok with more judicial oversight but I can’t get on board with SCOTUS term limits at this time.

The question is whether or not you support allowing Congress to vote on a term limit for the Supreme Court. Congress could vote on that issue on the same day they vote on term limits for members of Congress.

[Seran]

I don’t disagree that legally term limits is the easy answer.

We don’t call it ageism when our Constitution states the minimum age to serve in Congress is 30 and it’s 35 to be President. I work with someone that is 28 years old, has a MBA from a prestigious university, and is much more capable & responsible than the average person that’s a decade older than him. Why is it socially & legally acceptable to have a minimum age for public service but a discussion around a law or amendment for a maximum age is considered unacceptable behavior?

That is a pretty valid argument, why would the Constitution apply a minimum age threshold and not a maximum age threshold? Presumably the Framers considered an individual to have reached mental majority and stability in their thirties, and would die off before infirmity caused service issues given the average lifespan back then was 64-65 years. If there is a minimum threshold that isn't simply being an adult, then it bears to reason a maximum age for service should be written as a constitutional amendment.

[Seran]

In a thread about the Biden impeachment inquiry, it's a strange subtopic. Since it isn't a law, and Biden hasn't committed any crimes then it follows the inquiry should be dropped.

[Parkbandit]

In a thread about the Biden impeachment inquiry, it's a strange subtopic. Since it isn't a law, and Biden hasn't committed any crimes then it follows the inquiry should be dropped.

Biden is under investigation of committing crimes.

Let the investigation continue.. the inquiry will get the investigators greater access to the information.

I think it's hilarious that the Dems impeached a President over a phone conversation where nothing was illegal... but investigating Biden for money laundering.. this must stop!