Why is it that term limits on the President is OK but term limits on Senators or Representatives

[Bandit]

is unconstitutional? I don't understand how the explanation applies to one and not the other..

[hack89]

1. Because the 22nd Amendment applies only to the President.

as written, the Constitution had no term limits on any elected offices.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[joycejnr]

2. Maybe because the GOP was in power back then...

...and didn't want another Roosevelt. What I want to know is how we get rid of the SCOTUS being in office forever.

I would suggest a 2-term offfice for them, with NO lobbying or political "consulting" jobs for 10 years after they leave.

Just for the ones that we haven't impeached, however.

[X_Digger]

3. Umm.. the 22nd amendment?

There is no such amendment for congress.

[GoneOffShore]

4. That amendment was pushed after Roosevelt was elected to three terms.

And ratified by the states.

Could be a "good thing" or a bad thing.

Personally I would like to see Presidents get 6 years, same as Senators but limit them to 3 terms and Representatives get 4 with a two term limit.

[Skidmore]

5. Perhaps we need to start pushing a grassroots effort to get such an amendment going.

We need to kick some legislator butts hard.

[Johonny]

10. We did that in California and it sucks

I don't see nationally why career politicians are a negative. Congress has been functional in the past. The last two elections has seen a huge swing Democrat than a large swing Republican. Yet the congress is more broken than ever. So congressional turnover is overrated to congressional progress.

In California the only people that are at the capitol long term are the lobbyists. Yanking our career politicians out of office quickly hasn't produced very effective legislature. Worse last governor race we ran a person out of politics and a person last governor 30 years ago because we don't create experienced well known politicians to run for higher office anymore. I hated the idea and it has proven to be terrible.

I see why you might want to term limit the presidential office given it's power invested in only one person. I don't think people want US becoming a banana republic where we reelect the same guy to office for 20-50 years.

[BeeBee]

11. Also, the same people keep turning up...just in different jobs. n/t

[ljm2002]

6. I'm against term limits at all...

...if the people like a President or a Senator or a Representative, they ought to be able to re-elect that person. All term limits does is to increase the power of the bureaucrats and the lobbyists, who are not elected and who keep their jobs for long periods of time, IMO.

[GoneOffShore]

8. If you get good bureaucrats(and there is such a beast) and limit lobbying term limits work.

[HopeHoops]

7. I do have to give a hand to Rep. Todd Platts (R), PA for self-imposing his own term limit.

He always advocated a six term limit, and as this is the end of his sixth term, he declined to run again. That shows some rare integrity.

[Booster]

9. Because they make the rules? I dunno.

[tarheelsunc]

12. The founders never intended on people making a career out of politics.

Even before term limits, no president ever served more than 8 years (until FDR). Washington was pretty much universally adored and could have served as long as he was healthy (as it turns out, he would have died in his 3rd term). Washington set this two-term precedent himself and I am sure he would have liked for representatives in other branches to not make a long-term career out of politics as well. I've always thought the purpose of Senators and Congressmen/women was to represent their district, not represent themselves.