Sen. Ben Sasse Proposes Camera Ban in Senate, Term Limits

I don't agree with the 6 year term, but we are pretty close. I prefer a limit of three 2-year terms, but we agree on term limits. Maybe two reasonable people could compromise and go for two 3-year terms.

Cheers!

 

NOOOO.
12 yrs for an incompetent is too long.
2 - 6 yr terms or 3 - 4 yr terms max.

But it's moot. Congress will never limit their lifeblood to riches.

 

McCain/Feingold was the last and only real discussion to ever happen on term limits.

It never got much traction. People must demand it. But most partisans are against it. And they still represent 70% of the votes between the 2 parties.

 

Yep!
These are the US elected officials and to say that they should not be overseen is basically an admission of guilty agendas.
This senator needs to be removed even if he is replaced by a Democrat.!!
He is far too dangerous even by Nebraska standards!

 

No one should be elected in the US for more than two years and that includes the president
And the Supreme Court should be subject to the same election cycle.
SCOTUS is in the most in need of deep cleaning!!

 

The idea behind the Senate is that they provide leadership that has a longer view.

Rather than being essentially required to create legislation for the immediate gratification of the electorate, Senators have terms that are long enough for wise legislation to prove out.

We do need that.

 

The SCOTUS has become about as partisan as congress - a real disaster.

While it's supposed to be about the constitution, party loyalty seems to have significant and growing influence. And, Trump appears to pick individuals with that as the primary objective.

However, I think giving them short terms would make the politicization even more significant and would reduce the influence of our constitution.

Look what the SCOTUS has done with the second amendment (where their interpretation TOTALLY ignores the grammar of the constitution), the notion that corporations are people, deciding that they should pick our president in 2000, freeing states to incorporate white supremacy in how they run elections, allowing the executive branch to ignore the explicitly stated checks and balances our founders created, etc.

There is NO question that the SCOTUS has shown a decreasing interest in the constitution and a growing interest in partisan political garbage.

 

Why must we automatically throw away our most experienced people?

OTOH the President is too powerful for any time. I say we have a single assemblage of three, an administrator. a legislator and a judge, Each able to veto the other and elected for a single 6 year term as a group.

 

I say we make the Presidency totally transparent for REAL. Every single thing he does or says should be on camera and going to the Cloud 24/7 recorded in 6 hour segments, accessible to any Netizen as # Whitehousecam (is #still used? I don't see it anymore). He or anyone he talks to could request the cameras off at any time and we don't want to see the First Family in the shower, making waste or making love but otherwise, you're ON baby

 

Because the job is not for life. Or should not be.
There's always more good people.

And I agree the president is way to powerful. Congress people have given away their power so they don't have to make tough votes. So much for those experience congress people you don't want to throw away.

 

Congress did not give away their power as much as the President took it. And that is not the fault of Congress. I can recall when public outrage forced a President to resign and it has been high time to repeat that for some years now.

 

It takes a politician more than two years to learn the job get some things done. The important issue is that it be a single term limit so that incumbency and the corruption that brings is eliminated. I have no problem with a single term limit of 6 years for justices as well.

 

The president can't just take power. Congress can reel in any abuse of power.
They've been ceding it for a couple decades now.

 

Not always.

How is Congress supposed to reel him in when he has the Republican Senate in his pocket?

 

I had not seen this article until now, but it sums up what I think very well.
Congress is gutless, so they can keep the elite status and the riches that come with it. Why would they ever want to leave?
And many don't.

No Power, No Blame
My working hypothesis is that they have structural incentives which make it attractive to do so, namely the dynamics of reelection. They like having power, but it’s possible that by giving away some of their power, it’s easier to keep the rest. If that were true, it would make sense to let the executive have more powers.

It limits the scope of things for which the individual legislator can be held accountable to his or her constituents, making it easier to secure reelection.

Having power, after all, is of no use if you can’t maintain it. With an incumbent-reelection rate of around 90%, it’s clear that staying in office is one of legislators’ main values. If you can stay in office for decades, what difference would it make that you’re responsible for fewer things?
https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/where-did-the-presidency-get-all-these-powers-from-congress/

 

There are definitely better ways to handle grandstanding. I'm not willing to give up government transparency to make congress more efficient.