TED Conversations

Melissa Seideman

Teacher,

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Should term limits be imposed on Congress?

This debate has made for many impassioned, provocative, yet fruitful discussions between myself and others. On the one hand, some call for the imposition of term limits (much like the 2-term limit on presidencies) on Congress in order to ensure the interests of "The People" are valued. These same persons believe that should term limits be imposed, Congress will be more openminded, able to understand the youth of the nation, be more attentive to the problems of today versus those of yesterday, and more technologically advanced, educated, and modernized.

On the other hand, some argue term limits would destroy all sense of stability in the Congress. These same persons claim that Congressmen and women who have served for terms on end are much more aligned with the political system, experienced in writing, debating, and passing legislation, and ultimately hold a better understanding of America and its governmental institutions than their newer and/or younger colleagues. As such, they argue term limit imposition would damage the Congress, "The People's" representation, and ultimately the United States.

Still, others compromise and call for term limits on the House of Representatives, which is meant to be more volatile and more keen to the immediate concerns of the "The People" while leaving the Senate immune to term limit imposition, as it is meant to be more stable and more keen to the longterm concerns of the Union.

+2
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Nov 27 2012: After the Presidency of Bill Clinton I think term limits should be removed from the Presidency anyway. Imagine where we would be, if Bill Clinton were President during those 8 years after "term limits" kept him out of office.
    • thumb
      Nov 28 2012: Thanks for that reminder of the advantages to be had from term limits.
      • Nov 29 2012: Gee whiz, edward.. I cannot imagine you not appreciating what President William Jefferson Clinton did for our economy and national debt. And I know you must be aware of the enormous negative impact George Bush had on the national debt, respect for the USA internationally, the war in Iraq where he ignored the financial impact on American taxpayers such as yourself, and of course Republican George Bush's creation of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. I do not understand how it is you select facts that support your preconceptions, rather than looking at the truths and reality. Try truth, try facts. That's the only way we can get our lovely nation back on the track towards increasing well-being for all human beings.
        • thumb
          Nov 29 2012: Oh, so your comment was meant to be supportive of the hedonist philanderer whose debauchery (truth) and blatant infidelity (fact) caused America to endure the first impeachment hearings since Andrew Johnson (fact)? Wow! Go figure. Character does not matter?
          By the way, be careful about using the middle name of the POTUS. I was chastised recently for including the name Barak Hussein Obama in a post.
          The national debt today is not the same number it was when Barak Hussein took office (fact). Select that fact when assessing your liberal party of choice and its contribution to well-being for all humans. Do you think 8-years will be enough time for Barak Hussein to clean-up Bush's mess? Thanks again for the strong argument in favor of term limits.
      • Nov 29 2012: The impeachment process was the creation of jealous, ambitious, questionable Republicans who despised the many successes of the Democratic, properly elected President of the USA. That Republican-caused impeachment process cost the American taxpayers/citizens in many ways. You know that. I wonder how you would describe the 8 years our nation was drained and diminished by Republican George Bush. Furthermore, I suspect you are against term limits because you know Republican George Bush would not have been re-elected, if there were no term limits and Bill Clinton would have been re-elected, if there were no term limits.
        • thumb
          Nov 29 2012: Your argument continues to strengthen the pro side of the term limit debate. You said, and I quote: "I do not understand how it is you select facts that support your preconceptions, rather than looking at the truths and reality. Try truth, try facts." Well, truth and facts are that William Jefferson was found impeachable for perjury and obstruction of justice by independent (not Republican) counsel. Do you really argue that no wrong was done by Mr. Bill? It is not impossible that he would have been returned to office for a third term. As you point out the only thing that saved this country from such a travesty was term limits. Long live term limits! At least we fellow Americans can agree on that.
      • Nov 29 2012: edward, see my addition to above comment. No, we sisterfellow Americans do not agree with you about term limits. Let's put it to a vote now. If it were possible to re-elect Bill Clinton as President, that is exactly what would happen, barring illegal and improper interference in the election process by Republicans. You know that is true, edward.
        • thumb
          Nov 29 2012: Oh my, now you drop the gender bomb. "Sisterfellow"?? That is irrelevant and inappropriate.
          Sorry Mr. Bill can't run now because Barak Hussein has the job.
          I do not know "that" (whatever you intend by that word) is true. Actually I don't know anything you have said thus far is true, with the exception of the absolute necessity of term limits. Right On sister!

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.