>

Maybe we should ban gerrymandering so it’s harder for deep red/blue politicians on just passing go on their elections every cycle.
Wouldn’t he be one of them? >

On the contrary. 
Accepting any grandfather clause that has been mentioned, term limits precisely benefit unpleasant social climbers like Ted cruz. 
Congress is very much a traditional institution and Leadership roles are often very heavily determined by seniority. 
Mitch McConnell is a skilled politician. But Mitch McConnell is also Mitch McConnell because he's been in the Senate since 1985.   
If you impose term limit of say two consecutive six-year terms.  Every new election cycle you'd have an argument about who among the most senior senators are qualified to be the majority leader. 
A self promoter like Ted Cruz thinks he could benefit from that. >

That's an interesting angle.  My first reaction was "I fucking hate Ted Cruz but this might be good".  Now I wonder if I'm falling victim to thinking the grass is always greener. >

You've got to look beyond just getting rid of today's politicians that you don't like.
You also need to ask "Why would term limits get us better politicians tomorrow?"
Because Ted Cruz?  He's only on his second Senate term.  
Boebert, Greene?  They're only on their second term in the House.  Gaetz is only on his third.
And the best example I can think of for why term limits do not automatically mean better people in office?  Barack Obama was term limited, and he got followed up on by Donald Trump.
And if you're a right winger who got upset about me saying that, then you probably hate Obama - who was the follow-up to a term limited Bush.
The problem isn't shitty politicians who have been in office too long.  The problem is shitty politicians who have been in office at all.
And I just don't see how replacing shitty politicians on a more frequent basis is supposed to make them less shitty instead of just a slightly different flavor of shit. >

Every at bat is a chance to get things right. Every chance to replace a McConnell or a Biden, a McCarthy or a Pelosi should be pursued because the longer corrupt politicians sit in office the more damage they do. >

Every at bat is also a chance to get things wrong; to be forced to fire a non-corrupt politician.
And you don't even need term limits to get what you want.  We've already got at bats to replace those people every two to six years. >

Right but you can't deny that incumbents enjoy a massive advantage, and term limits help mitigate that advantage. >

And the part about how your term limits would force us to get rid of good politicians?
And what's your plan for improving the quality of candidates?  How are term limits supposed to do that?   If the only ingredients you have in the pantry is shit, you're going to end up with shit for dinner no matter what recipe you use. >

Then what the fuck are you expecting term limits to achieve? >

Like people that spent a decade in office and are only capable of fucking off to Cancun in a disaster. >

Ted Cruz is the most entrenched politician... right up his own ass. >

idk mitch mcconnell might give him a run for his money on that front >

Chuck Grassley has entered the chat >

Ok! Let’s do Supreme Court too! >

And age limits for presidents >

By the time they get this done Congress will be full of Gen-Z. >

Then we could actually do some good, particularly on climate change. >

Yeah, but by then Gen-Z will all be in their 70's and most people will be living in migrant camps and eating bugs. >

You can just not run and affect the same thing and more: lead by example.
Go for it, Rafael. >

It should be illegal to do what I am and will continue to do! >

Exactly. Someone commented, "it's safe to say that he will not seek reelection. Now it's the democrats turn!"
I guess they must have considered the shamelss, naked hypocrisy of this jackass and thought better of their assumption, deleting their comment as a result. >

Yeah...pretty sure most term limit proposals limit one to two or three terms...so he'd be shoving himself out the door along with Moscow Mitch.  Getting those two alone out of the senate would be a massive boon for the country...even with the loss of many left wing politicians. >

I’m in, so long as we do Ted Cruz first. >

Nobody in the history of people has ever said “we do Ted Cruz first” until you said it right now. >

Conservatives love term limits because it arbitrarily expels effective legislators who make government function.
If you want to make term limits democratic, then let the people decide when a politician should leave office. >

That's what the courts have said over and over and why putting term limits on house and Senate members is probably unconstitutional. We have a different Court from when I took conlaw, but it most likely would still be considered unconstitutional even if something did pass. >

Nothing in the Constitution bars legislation passed by Congress by setting term limits for themselves nor does it restrict Congress from doing so. >

The case is something like Thornton v. term limits corp. But the supreme court ruled that adding term limits expands the constitutional requirements of who can serve in congress and was ruled unconstitutional. So the constitution does most likely bar legislation passing term limits. It would have to be retested under the current Court. >

The holding for that case

States cannot impose additional restrictions, such as term limits, on its representatives in the federal government beyond those provided by the Constitution.                

This is because the Constitution does not permit the states to set those restrictions. The Constitution sets what states can and cannot do in regards to elections in the Elections Clause.
Election Clause for reference

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

So this ruling is saying that States cannot set term limits for Federal Elections. It does not say that Congress cannot set term limits for Federal Elections. That's an important distinction.
However, there is a valid argument that the Constitution does not permit Congress from changing the requirements for being a Congress member as Congress isn't explicitly granted that power. >

This is a good summary, thank you for making the distinction. >

I want to smoke a joint with you two. >

First to go: Ted Cruz >

I’m sure the actual language will exclude any currently entrenched politician. >

You first asshole >

Lead by example Ted. >

Nah, he is just afraid the dems will retain power for a long while and figures an out for his party. >

Just like Rand Paul promised when he was elected in 2010.
He just won another six-year term last year.  Next election is in 2028.
Anyone who actually believes these people is either delusional or deliberately ignorant. >

Well, Ted... There's the door.
Seniority is one way those little states get some out scaled power... I'm looking at WV... Byrd before Manchin. >

Be the change you want to see in the world Ted >

He can start with himself. >

You've been there long enough, Rafael. Make an example and go away. I hear there's some nice resort property in Cancun. >

He can retire any time he wants to. >

Is he running again in 24? Or is fat wolverine continuing his long history of hypocrisy? >

A leopard prowls in the bushes. >

Stopped clock, twice a day. >

Hey!  I've got a strange idea.  If you don't like "entrenched" politicians, let's make sure that all states are fairly redistricted and completely remove money from politics. >

If it gets rid of him sooner, let’s do it already!