Ted Cruz Introduces Term Limits Amendment

Doubt very much the GOP congress wants limits on their jobs but we'll see.


Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Florida Rep. Ron DeSantis introduced a constitutional amendment on Tuesday that would impose term limits on members of Congress, following through on their December announcement about the proposal.
"D.C. is broken," Cruz said in a statement Tuesday evening. "The American people resoundingly agreed on Election Day, and President-elect Donald Trump has committed to putting government back to work for the American people. It is well past time to put an end to the cronyism and deceit that has transformed Washington into a graveyard of good intentions."
The proposal would limit senators to two terms (12 years total) and representatives to three terms (six years total). President-elect Trump campaigned on reining in Congress by implementing term limits, though it is unclear if the incoming administration has been involved in the proposal, which comes during Congress' first week in session this year.

Both Cruz and DeSantis are Republicans.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/ted-cruz-introduces-term-limits-amendment/article/2610799

There are already term limits.....they are called elections.

2seaoat wrote:There are already term limits.....they are called elections.

Nonsense. EVEN YOU know better than that.

If our founding fathers wanted term limits they would have included the same.  They worked very hard on Article 1 to set the frequency of elections and balance the house and senate.   Their term limits were very specific and purposeful.   If I do not like how somebody is representing my interests in Congress, I vote for the primary opponent if it is my party, or I vote for the opponent in the other party.  Term limits have zero merit when talking about congress, and I personally think they serve no purpose for President either.  I think the voters can get anybody out of office.

2seaoat wrote:If our founding fathers wanted term limits they would have included the same.  They worked very hard on Article 1 to set the frequency of elections and balance the house and senate.   Their term limits were very specific and purposeful.   If I do not like how somebody is representing my interests in Congress, I vote for the primary opponent if it is my party, or I vote for the opponent in the other party.  Term limits have zero merit when talking about congress, and I personally think they serve no purpose for President either.  I think the voters can get anybody out of office.

Then you'll agree that the Seventeenth Amendment must be repealed.

Attaboy!

I said nothing about a new amendment. I just think if our founding fathers wanted to limit the term of the President they would have done the same. I have no problem with the 17th amendment because the executive branch has appointed positions which do not get the scrutiny of the voters, but I see no problem with a President being elected for more than eight years.

2seaoat wrote:I said nothing about a new amendment.  I just think if our founding fathers wanted to limit the term of the President they would have done the same.  I have no problem with the 17th amendment because the executive branch has appointed positions which do not get the scrutiny of the voters, but I see no problem with a President being elected for more than eight years.

Then you agree that the Seventeenth Amendment must be repealed.

Attaboy!

2seaoat wrote:If our founding fathers wanted term limits they would have included the same.  They worked very hard on Article 1 to set the frequency of elections and balance the house and senate.   Their term limits were very specific and purposeful.   If I do not like how somebody is representing my interests in Congress, I vote for the primary opponent if it is my party, or I vote for the opponent in the other party.  Term limits have zero merit when talking about congress, and I personally think they serve no purpose for President either.  I think the voters can get anybody out of office.

That sounds very philosophical for those who are politically savvy but most Americans are not and continue to vote for people w/o realizing the consequences of their vote.

That sounds very philosophical for those who are politically savvy but most Americans are not and continue to vote for people w/o realizing the consequences of their vote.



I totally agree. I think a better process would be setting up not for profit corporations which fund non incumbent candidates who run in both parties in primaries. If people have no choice in a primary because they have no funding for alternative candidates, then those who want term limits are correct. Rather, than a constitutional amendment, I would like to see bipartisan not for profits helping both parties field primary candidates. Even if it was 10k per candidate with some type of public funding option for all congressional elections. It is not a lot of money, but it gets people into the race, and does not allow an incumbent to skate. Also, campaign finance reform is much more important than term limits because a bought and paid for candidate for 12 years or 30 years makes little difference if the people are out of the loop.

2seaoat wrote:That sounds very philosophical for those who are politically savvy but most Americans are not and continue to vote for people w/o realizing the consequences of their vote.



I totally agree.  I think a better process would be setting up not for profit corporations which fund non incumbent candidates who run in both parties in primaries.   If people have no choice in a primary because they have no funding for alternative candidates, then those who want term limits are correct.  Rather, than a constitutional amendment, I would like to see bipartisan not for profits helping both parties field primary candidates.  Even if it was 10k per candidate with some type of public funding option for all congressional elections.   It is not a lot of money, but it gets people into the race, and does not allow an incumbent to skate.  Also, campaign finance reform is much more important than term limits because a bought and paid for candidate for 12 years or 30 years makes little difference if the people are out of the loop.

Not surprising.

Once again Progressives CLAIM they are open minded and yet, what they DO is support the same ol', same ol'.