Should there be term limits for Congressional members?

Question

Should there be term limits for Congressional members?

Answer 1

Long term Congressmen don't really concern me overly much.  They are elected after all, and one has to consider that they are there to serve their constituents.  While I might not agree with how a Congressman from Arizona votes on an issue, it might be something his constituents feel strongly about.  I would much rather see term limits on Supreme Court justices.  They are not elected but appointed and why are they allowed to stay there until they are 150???

Answer 2

Maybe, I think people should be called to serve a couple of years, much like jury duty service.

Answer 3

All politicians should have limits put on them. The ones in office now are not doing anyone any good. Their pay should be docked for bad performance and they should even be impeached if they do not do what they are supposed to do; work for all of the American people, not just the illegals, foreign nations and special interest groups.

Answer 4

Yes, and no. I would like to see limits on the number of consecutive terms a person could serve. Say, three consecutive terms for congressmen, two for senators and president. After two or three terms they would have to step aside for at least one term. Then they would be allowed to run again. The good ones could get re-elected, most would not.

Answer 5

Yes, there should be term limits.  But here's the thing, there already are term limits.  WE THE PEOPLE can simply vote the bums out.

If we really wanted term limits in congress we could simply vote against the incumbent every time they're up for re-election.  Problem solved.

Answer 6

yes because there are  to many career politicians on capital hill who are only there to work for the  spacial interest groups and not the peoples of this country .i can think of one who have been there to long he is john McCain

Answer 7

Of course. This would limit certain career politicians from being influenced by the more colorful side of money and power.

But who is going to vote for such a proposition? I believe Ron Paul and few other "mavericks" have brought this up from time to time, but it never gets anywhere. Why would a politician vote against their cash cow and then be, heaven forbid, forced to get a normal job?

Perhaps if such a point had been made in the early years of our nation it might have gone through. Now such an action requires humility, responsibility, and honor; three things that are desperately lacking in Congress.

~X~