From the office of Congressman Andy Harris:
Today, Representative Andy Harris M.D. introduced a Joint Resolution that would limit the number of consecutive terms that a person could serve in the U.S. Congress. It would limit persons to two consecutive terms in the U.S. Senate and six consecutive terms in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Representative Harris released the following statement on the bill:
“Limiting Congressional terms is a common sense way to change Washington and make sure our elected leaders work for the people instead of the special interests. We need more citizen leaders who are willing to address our challenges instead of coming to Washington to become career politicians. Far too many of our leaders are more worried about the next election than addressing out of control spending or preserving our entitlement programs. We need to break the gridlock in Washington caused in part by career politicians.”
Instead of limiting terms, remove all corporate money from politics. Publicly funded campaigns would benefit us much more than limited terms. Good elected officials shouldn’t be removed from office due to arbitrary limits.
I don’t see Rep. Harris doing any of the things he’s asking these “citizen leaders” to do. What has he done to curb gridlock? He’s walked lockstep with those causing this drama in government. He’s done nothing to work toward compromise. This “press release” is nothing but hot air.
Good elected officials should serve one or two terms and return to a productive life paying their fair share of taxes!! It is not a profession – term limits would solve most of our national problems, but take a look at who makes the laws….nuff said.
People keep voting these clowns back into office. So limiting the terms they can serve will not change anything.
Mike, could you go back and actually read what you wrote? I see term limits as a last resort but there are not many resorts left.
I applaud Congressman Harris’ term limit legislation. Those of you that bash his integrity, his motivations, his compassion, his partiality really should stop, even though I know that won’t occur. He stated early on in his congressional race and then again during his first term that he believed in term limits and personally would not make his congressional appointment a lifetime job. So, Representative Harris truly is a man of honor. He says what he will do and does what he says. It’s moments like this, when an elected employee really does follow through on promises, that reignites the flames of hope in a constituency. Job well done sir!
It’s so easy to propose legislation that you know has ZERO chance of passing. What a joke.
I’ll believe it when I see Harris voluntarily step aside from Congress after 6 terms…assuming he manages to get elected that many times.
Gerrymandering is a MUCH bigger issue than term limits and a major reason why no one will work together and compromise on anything. There is no incentive for any Congressman or Senator to compromise on anything and in most cases it’s detrimental to their future prospects of being re-elected. That’s something that term limits won’t fix…all it would is maybe get someone in their final term willing to actually do something productive IF they aren’t running for another office afterwards and IF they can find enough other people also in their last term willing to work with them.
Take drawing political districts out of the hands of politically appointed committees and use GIS software to draw the districts will go a long way towards fixing these problems. It’s absolutely ridiculous that in the 21st century districts are drawn by committees of partisan hacks. The software already exists to do this. Feed in information about population, neighborhood boundaries (since it makes no sense for one neighborhood to be in multiple districts), etc and leave out all information regarding voter registration, gender, ethnicity, income, etc and let the software do the work.
Agreed Nick!
Gerrymandering is successful only because this State is a one-party State. Term limits would solve that problem too. Our electorate has been dumbed down to the point where we elect the same stooges and expect different outcomes – or maybe we don’t. Maybe “we” think all is well in Oz? Either way, we got a big problem.
Finally an issue where I agree with Rep. Harris! Term limits would be a great way to reinforce the concept of a public servant as our forefathers intended, instead of a lifetime politician.
What really needs to be done is to stop gerrymandering Congressional districts (including Congressman Harris’s). There are so few districts which are not “safe” districts for one party or the other right now that there is no need for most congressmen to even consider compromise, as any compromise will be used against them in their next primary, which is where most congressmen face their real challenge. Term limits are just a red herring to real change in the system.
Term limits are limits on my Constitutional Rights. We have term limits; it is called elections.
How would term limits infringe on your constitutional rights? You may vote for anyone you wish by simply writing their name in.
But the electorate has to use their brains – and that isn’t working out too well. Lawmakers will never choose limits and dopey voters won’t change their blind faith party voting. So here we sit in this bog!
The office of President has term limits. Is that unconstitutional?
Total support. I agree. There is a reason from term limits for the president. Our representatives would not make a career out of one office. Why not make it easier for the average citizen to get in? Time to break up the good ole boys system!
We would not need term limits if the citizenry recognized the pitfalls of lifetime reelection and had the inclination to stop enabling those characters.
I believe that you’d need a constitutional amendment for this. I don’t think that Congress would vote themselves out of a job by approving such an amendment. Even if they did, you’d need 3/4 of the state legislatures to approve it; slim chance, since most of them are hoping to get elected to Congress some day and get in on the gravy train.
I agree with the idea of term limits but I would make them one term in the senate and two in the house of representatives. Twelve years is too long for someone to be there.
One could argue the point that if a politician had any honor or even a desire to do what’s right he/she would step down after one or two terms. That stands about as much chance of happening as Rep. Harris’ resolution does passing.
I agree with the general thinking of 99.9% of posted comments here, not that it matters to anyone. Maybe I was overzealous and too hopeful with regard to my original post singing Congressman Harris’ praises. Yes, I do believe he’s a man of integrity, honor, and compassion. But, I also agree with the mention made of over staying in an elected position. The citizenry does have the opportunity to vote out long term politicians. For whatever reason many decide it’s easier to keep incumbents around forever or when they retire or expire, whichever comes first. What’s more problematic in my mind are those elected employees that once elected find how cushy their new job is and the aphrodisiac like feel that the associated power brings, keeps these guys and gals hanging on, never to let go. This in turn makes it virtually impossible for other well qualified folks to have an opportunity to serve the public in the captive position. Actually, captive elected seats are a big problem on all governmental levels; local, county, state, and federal. Nepotistic like behavior is epidemic in politics. So, until the people fully understand the implications of which we write, legislation can be introduced, maybe even voted on but it will take a savvy citizenry to truly control how our elected politicians interact in our lives.
A step in the right direction, thank you Rep. Harris. Even if this does not get passed, I’ll be very curious to see who will vote against it.
Do term limits really make any difference? You will end up with the same politician in the senate once their congressional seat is up. Leave it up to the voters to decide who will be in office. If you are going to waste time debating a bill that will never pass, a balanced budget amendment is way more important.
I basically agree with almost all the comments made previously, but I do want to emphasize my appreciation for Rep. Harris finally doing something of real substance.
That said, he fell short of real credibility on the issue by not also announcing his personal pledge not to seek office longer than the parameters of his bill. Without this pledge, it opens him up to attacks on the efficacy of this legislation and his support of it and allows people to claim it is more political than substantive.
I am hopeful he would make this pledge and abide by it, for it would be far far better to make this the new standard for politicians than having to codify it into law.
Noble,
You mention the ‘new standard for politicians’. Could you share with me any evidence you might have that would lead either of us to believe that politicians are aware of or aspire to meet any standard? I suppose if you scrape around long enough you might find one.
I think that congress as to many long term people in there. I beleave
a term limit would stop this from happening.