[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Platapus

They already have it. 2 years for Representatives and 6 years for Senators, unless the citizens of the respective states use their constitutional authority and re-elect them.

If they are still electable then there is no real term limit is there?

We may not agree with the decisions of the voting public, but I really don't want to place more restrictions on our dwindling civil rights.

Career politicians are one reason why our civil rights are dwindling.

Realize that the term "term limitations" really means that the government is telling the citizens who they can and can't vote for in an election. Is this really what we want?

I don't see it that way. Term limitations exist to limit or reduce power and corruption in the government. There is something inherently wrong when one can say that presidents come and go, but some congressman are always there. It's a good ole boys club on capital hill, and many times, they act in a way that is summarized as "I know what's best for you". That in my view, is dictatorial.

A better solution is to educate the citizens so that they make informed decisions when it comes to voting. It is not an easy solution, but one I believe is the best.

That is part of the solution, but not "the" solution. Sometimes I don't know what is worse, the politicians, or the idiots who elected them.

Term limitations for congress sounds attractive as a short term solution, but I fear that it may be a cure worse than the disease.

I strongly disagree here. Term limits are part of a long term solution to put the government back in control of "We the people", in this fast fading constitutional republic. We need to irraticate the truth that we have the best government money can buy, and getting rid of career Politicans is part of that solution. We do not need the situation where public officials can be bought and paid for in order to maintain power of office; which coincidentally makes voting, more often then not, illusionary.

What we really want is term limitations for those members we don't like, but no term limitations for those members we do like.

Can't do that without having a double standard. I think one standard will do, besides, resting our well being on the shoulders of an aging politician sounds like a very bad idea to me.

I don't like term limitations for the president, but I understand the historical and practical differences between a president and a member of congress.

Speaking of historical contexts of No term limits, "President for life" or "Congressman for life" is no different then "Dictator for life". Power corrupts, its a truth as sure as we are human.

Given the choice of one or the other, I would rather eliminate term limitations for elected positions.

I think you'd be trying to put a fire out with gasoline by doing so. We need congressional term limits, and we needed them yesterday. We don't need anymore Feinstien's or McCain's.