>

broken clock right twice a day
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! >

Maybe we should ban gerrymandering so it’s harder for deep red/blue politicians on just passing go on their elections every cycle. >

I invite Ted Cruz to do the honorable thing and not run for office again, you know, because he’s entrenched. 
I’m sure this will happen. Right? >

Republicans: elect “outsiders” 
Also republicans (in 8 years): “Get that guy outta here! We gotta drain the swamp! >

Bribery and lobbying work on rookie members of congress all the same. >

Raffy would retire if he said this honestly. He’s not giving up his lifelong Senate seat voluntarily. He’s lazy. His work consists of being a performance troll. He’s not a legislator and he’s not in the Senate to serve Texans or America. Why Texans would even consider voting for him is beyond comprehension. At the first sign of trouble he escapes to Mexico. >

First, Ted Cruz is a fucking hypocrite for exempting himself in this proposed legislation.  Next, Term Limits would exacerbate the Congress to Lobbyist pipeline problem.  The power would fall further onto the backs of lobbyists to draft/influence legislation because Congress people wouldn't have to worry about re-election for long.
We need age/cognitive test limits, not term limits. >

Lets start with him. >

Good. He can start with himself, but I know it’s too much to ask this walking sack of rancid suet to lead by example. >

Show em how it’s done Ted. Go the fuck home. >

Ted IS an entrenched politician. Don't run again, Teddy >

Oh shit... Do I agree with Ted Cruz on something??? >

Hate when I agree with Cruz >

Agreeing with Ted "Zodiac" Cruz... someone must've turned the AC on in Hell. >

We already have term limits. They're called elections. We need more open fields and an educated electorate. >

I propose Congress be limited to Humans Only. 
What say you to that, Rafael?????? >

are you implying Hispanic individuals aren’t Human? >

I’m implying, nay, I’m flat out STATING, that Rafael “Ted” Cruz is a Lizard Man and not remotely human. >

The fact that Ted Cruz introduced this and 10 Republicans co-sponsor it, this should be a huge red flag for everyone.   It just feels like there's something about this that isn't being told, like what is in it for them? >

We don't need to be told, it just takes 10 second of analysis from anyone with a functioning brain - term limits will hamper the function of government and dramatically increase the power of lobbyists. Republican stooge #3 can replace republican stooge #2 with no negative effect on their party since all their marching orders come straight from corporate lobbyists. >

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Every so often one of these morons proposes something that I whole heartedly support. And nothing ever happens, nothing changes. I think a lot of Americans are reaching a point where occasional good ideas with no action isn't going to cut it anymore. And that applies to every politician. Less talking, more action, and if you aren't going to act, go the fuck home and let someone else do it. I'm so disheartened by our politics. >

I am a supporter of term limits for every branch of the government. Ted Cruz is not the person I would trust to make it happen. >

i hate agreeing with ted cruz. it makes me feel scummy. >

This is one of the few things I agree with him about >

Yeah but he doesn’t agree with him, or else he wouldn’t have sought re-election so many times. >

Term limits are terrible for democracy.
Term limits increase:
* Partisanship
* Corruption (doing things to benefit themselves for after they leave office)
* Turnover (both a symptom & cause of organizational dysfunction)
* Power of unelected lobbyists
* Power of unelected staffers
* Amateurism
* Performative bullshit to increase name recognition for post-legislative jobs (eg, Fox News)
Term limits decrease:
* Voter choice
* Cooperation
* Institutional knowledge
* Trust
* Long-term planning
Term limits don't solve:
* Gerrymandering
* Old people in office
* Campaign finance
* Democratic unaccountability
* Lobbying
* Any other problems, real or perceived
Of course Republicans support them, for all the above reasons. They're a seductive "solution" that's simple to understand, & superficially, purport to solve many unrelated problems while actually exacerbating them & creating others.
Eg, if your district is gerrymandered and you can't vote out your disliked representative, term limits sound like a solution, because they'd force out the representative. Success! But they'll just be replaced by an equally bad representative elected by the gerrymandered district. Term limits won't solve the problem, because the problem there is gerrymandering, not longevity.
Kentucky wouldn't just elect a good Senator if McConnell were term limited. Kentucky would just elect a different shitty Republican to replace him.
Whatever the problem is, term limits aren't the solution. They're an idiot's simplistic solution to a plethora of complex problems. People like Ted Cruz know this. He knows they're bad, but that's what he wants, so he lies to the public, counting on his lies being repeated, and the allure of a simple solution. They're the click-bait of electoral politics ("solve your electoral woes with this one weird trick!").
The only time we should have term limits is for unelected officials who can't be fired. Eg, federal judges could use term limits, since they aren't elected, but unlike (sub-)cabinet officials, they also can't be fired. Elected officials have elections as their term limits, and cabinet officials can be fired at will, in addition to being impeachable or removable by expulsion.
Term limits for executives are bad, too, and the 22nd Amendment was a mistake, but they're more tolerable since the executive power at least resides in a single person, whereas legislative powers are diffuse, shared between dozens or hundreds of legislators in two different legislative chambers (except Nebraska, which is unicameral), so no single legislator has much power. But the first and only President to serve more than two terms was FDR, and I think the only others who could've conceivably been elected to third terms were Clinton and Obama. All three, Democrats. >

Well laid out argument, you flipped my opinion. 
100% agree about the term limit necessity for the un-elected officials that can't be fired >

He's trying to stop AOC from becoming the next lion of the Senate. >

Every study every shows that term limits are a net negative, increase corruption, decrease government competence, and of course are inherently anti democratic. >

Citation needed >

Legislative term limits only bolster donor power >

Term limits is disenfranchisement. 
No one should limit the will and vote of any Congressional district.   
Voting is how representatives are decided. And it should be the only way. Not liking the product of late should not be an excuse to change things. It SHOULD be an excuse to invest in a more informed electorate. 
I prefer the current way of choosing senators, but it's not like there's no precedent for the state legislatures to choose the senators (as was done from the founding of the U.S. until little more than a century ago). >

I'm against anything that limits democracy, and limiting people's options regarding who they can vote for is exactly that. Why can't we just let people decide who they want to represent them? I say get rid of all restrictions on running for office. Age restrictions on voting are also unconstitutional. Do people actually want a democracy, because it sure doesn't seem like it. >

Seems laudable until you see a ballot with 12,384 names on it >

So we can have more social influencer or entertainers?? No thanks..we’re setting the bar too low. >

Better then a bunch of law degree holders who haven’t worked a day in their lives. >

While seemingly attractive, term limits will inevitably lead to an inexperienced legislature that is even more beholden to corporate interests than it is now.
Not to mention it's anti-democratic: if I want to elect the same person for 20 years, who the hell are you to say i can't? >


even more beholden to corporate interests than it is now.

Doubt. At the very least it would make buying democracy more expensive for corporations if they have to keep bribing new politicians as opposed to keeping them on retainer >

You think it would be more expensive to entice young new candidates without a voter base than an entrenched incumbent who already has one?
Doubt >

See, from what I understand about the power structures of Congress, the corruption grows the higher up you go. Corporations bribe committee chairs and caucus leaders, the people who actually determine the agenda. I think for junior members corruption comes in the form of knowing that in order to ascend to those bribable levels of power they need to vote the way they are instructed to. >

None of that responds to my point. I can accept all of that as true and my point still stands: they will ascend to leadership faster and will have less entrenchment with their voters and will be more susceptible to corporate influence. >

They rise faster and are replaced faster with term limits, requiring corporations to pay out more often. If corruption is inevitable let's at least make it expensive >

Elections happen every two years regardless, they are going to be paying out just as often, if not more, to all the fresh candidates that are ripe for bribing.  
I'm not sure why you think it would be more expensive, it would almost certainly be cheaper because (as I'll state for the third time), long-term incumbents have entrenched voter cases and do not need to rely on corporate donations nearly as much as new, no-name candidates do. >


Elections happen every two years regardless, they are going to be paying out just as often, if not more, to all the fresh candidates that are ripe for bribing. 

Not true, because incumbents enjoy a huge advantage when it comes to re-election. Once they've bought a high ranked member of Congress that investment is likely to last for years. >

It only lasts until the next election, idk why you are refusing to accept this.  They don't buy them out for a decade in one pop. They need to do it every time they are up for reelection >

Holy shit. The first thing I can agree with from this total turd with hotdog flaps of a face. It honestly hurts to say. >

the fact that senate terms aren't 4 years, and limited to 2 terms is absolutely wild to me >

They are called elections.  Term limits for the executive branch makes sense because one person shouldn't be the singular head of state for an extended period of time.  Every legislature is unique based on the members it is composed of.  We have tried term limits before and it only leads to a brain drain, increased lobbyist power and ineffectual legislators that can't build enough rapport to work together reasonably well.  Term limits on legislatures in the states have shown these problems to be true. >


Ineffectual legislators that can't build enough rapport to work together reasonably well

This is a truly headscratching argument to me. "Well this group of people who we're paying 6 figure salaries to are objectively shit at their jobs. We'd better give them another 10 years!" >

Something relatively unknown is that Congress passes legislation quite frequently.  What doesn't get passed are the highly publicized bills due to the nationalization of politics.  They are ineffectual when they first start because they are new at their jobs and everybody sucks when they first start out. >

I'm sorry but if you can't figure out how to do your job in the first six years you shouldn't have that job. >

If true, the smartest words to ever cross his lips >

After the French Revolution so many politicians had been executed that no one knew how to run Parliament. Term limits would put the newcomers at the mercy of the veterans. With a steep learning curve. Ted wants term limits for Democrats. They can't beat the incumbents so he wants to take away your choice. If I want the same guy for fifty years that's my business not Ted's >

Let's start with the Senate and then Congress. After 3 terms you're out and can't go back in, and no lobby positions for you. 
Get bent Cruz >

I did not come up with either of these but I believe in both:  We have term limits. They are called elections and you do not get the government you want, you get the government you deserved.    Many, including me, became complacent and let this happen. Now we have to work to undo it and move forward. We deserve better but we are going to have to earn it.