The mention has been made about term limits for members of the house. How do you feel about this? Are term limits even constitutional? Why should we have them?

I don't actually think term limits are a good thing in any case. The people of this country have an opportunity to decide for themselves at the polls whether or not they feel a person has been in office long enough. You can apply my attitude on this to any given office you like, including president. I think the government really overstepped its authority creating term limits of any kind. It should be up to the people, plain and simple.

I believe that term limits are a good thing. To me, it is dangerous to have any one person be in any one position of power, for too long.

The term limits are a check against someone keeping the power indefinitely.
Even if the ignorant masses believe that the politician is doing a great job, it does not mean he is. A range of individuals from both ends of the spectrum helps to even out the politics.

I also believe that, over time, after one gains such power it clouds their integrity. They begin to think they are god or something. (I you need some examples look up some Illinois politicians... )

The people do decide! They are the ones who elect, either directly, or by representation.

Travis

I feel we should have term limits for legislatures (maybe even for the Supreme Court also).

The main reason I'm for term limits is that power corrupts. We need to have a constant fresh blood supply in Congress.

I think that term limits are not constitutional. It would be adding another qualification to the job. The qualifications to be a Senator are very specific and they do not mention anything about previous length of service. I believe that you would have to amend the constitution to enact term limits.

That being said, I believe that the Executive Branch should NOT have term limits and that the Legislative Branch should. We all can vote out the President regardless of where we live, but we can only vote for our Congress (wo) man. So, dinosaurs like Byrd and Thurmond continue to hold office because the tenure system of Congress rewards long-timers. It would be unwise to vote out your legislator (who may be chair of a prestigious committee) and send a rookie who would have to go to the back of the line. The argument that we can vote out those we do not like does not work because I can't vote against Hillary and likewise, a Hillary lover can't vote out Trent Lott.

The current system protects incumbants. This kind of power is unhealthy. We need new blood.

Mark

Mark, you actually bring up some very good arguments in favor of term limits for the legislative branch. The point you bring up about preferences for senior members is absolutely the truth, which is why Teddy Kennedy keeps winning in Massachusetts.

As opposed to term limits for representatives and senators, however, I would prefer to suggest that the rules be changed, so as to curb the power of long time members. Perhaps an unbiased rotation system for committee members? There is something to be said about experience... Especially when you consider the massive undertaking of running the government. But at the same time, we can't allow corrupt individuals to hold seats of power, while virtually holding their constituents "hostage", because they're unwilling to lose their voice in government.