Vitter Introduces Term Limit Bill

Vitter Introduces Term Limit Bill

Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana introduced a bill to amend the Constitution and implement term limits on Senators and Congressmen:

“Not allowing individuals to remain in office for an eternity is an important step we need to take to restore confidence in Congress,” Vitter said on the floor Wednesday. “It won’t be the be-all and end-all for good government reform, but it would help us reconnect with the people.”

One of Vitter’s proposals would limit House members to three and Senate members to just two consecutive terms. He said the legislation is being co-sponsored by Sens. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.).

That is an all-star Tea Party lineup of co-sponsors.

I’m conflicted on this.  On one hand, I’m against it because I’m against the federal government limiting who I can vote for, regardless of how many times they have been in office.

On the other, some people get in office and dig in like a tick, making it near impossible to unseat them.

And, one problem that comes up is you get a group of fresh blood and no one knows how to do anything.

But, it also opens the door for new faces who are not dedicated to re-election or promoting the party, but instead want to enact true reform.

There is bad along with good here.

Where are you on this?  Do you support it?  Why or why not?


    This is definitely good news. Conservatism cannot grow as a movement when you have old rhinos running everything with no hope of removing them from office. Fresh faces means new realities and forward progress. Not status quo stagnation.

  • TiredOfThePoliticalBullDookie

    1. ticks that dig in become exceedingly fat, but AT LEAST ticks will fall off the dog after gorging on its blood.
    1(a). when (some) congress(wo)men become entrenched, they become gods in their own minds
    Federal government was defined by the Constitution to protect its citizens and serve them, NOT the other way around…

  • little granny

    I do support it!!! None of them should have more than two terms, and end their lifetime salary. If they aren’t working for us, why do they deserve a lifetime of pay? If they die, their widow gets it, even if it is reduced. New blood, and a real commitment to serve the people is tantamount in importance. They have stopped doing that, especially the ones who have made a career of it. They, too, seem to believe they are entited, and unanswerable to their constituents

  • William Smith

    I’m in favor of it, simply because “The way things are done” was established by people who managed to be in Washington for several terms.

    It used to be that our representatives in the Senate and House had actual jobs “back home”. They had good cause to be in touch with their constituents.

    NOW, many (though not all) of our representatives go to Washington with an eye to stay there as long as possible. They frequently lose sight of why their constituents put them in Washington and end up becoming part of the problem instead of part of the solution.

    If term limits are good for the Oval Office, it’s good for the Senate and the House as well, for pretty-much the same reasons.

  • Brian Lee

    Strom Thurman was a senator for 48 years. About 2 weeks after he retired, he DIED. He was in his 90’s after all. There should be limits on senators and representatives, and the supreme court. No one should have a lifetime appointment in the federal government.

  • Nick Athens

    This is only good. We know our politicians are corrupt. There is an advantage of having to “relearn” It would bring many more people into the process.

  • Cathy Wagner

    When the people can’t seem to have their voices heard any longer, it’s time to replenish the ears in Washington. When the country continues a decline, it’s time for new ideas of reform. Rotation is good in all things, as the old gets spoiled and must be thrown out, like expired food. This country needs nourishment and vitamins to build strong muscles once again to hold that constitution high and proud. Mental corruption must come to an end, and only with fresh minds will that ever happen.

  • MartinAustinTX

    I have concluded that this must be done. Republicans and Democrats alike are becoming a ruling class that is more interested in perpetrating their power and wealth than serving the Nation’s interests. I don’t see Congress ever passing such an amendment, however, so we need to get it passed through the state legislatures, many of which have already passed limits on their own offices.

  • Melinda ‘Hobbit’ Reffalt

    Just like everything else. The bad apples have spoiled the process. The very reason that this is has become an issue is shameful. I have no problem with limits. If a person is so magnificent that anyone would want to keep them in office forever and a day. There is no reason they cannot turn there hand to a different office in public service. If a Senator feels that becoming a Congressman is beneath him/her or vis versa; then they are in the wrong profession in the first place.

  • Stubbleduck

    All for term limits; works on the prez so why not the leg. branch

  • James M.Stepp

    I agree-2 year terms,2 terms per rep.,no after-pay,no running for a different office. The Congress and Senate were intended to be filled with regular working people,who would serve their terms and then go back to their regular jobs. These positions were NEVER INTENDED TO BE CAREERS.

    There also needs to be Campaign reform. A general Campaign or Election Fund,held by the Government,all candidates get an equal slice of. Candidates ALL would have to show hard-copy proof of their qualifications to run for office,to a board of 3 non-partisan people,selected by the US MARSHALL’S OFFICE,who would be REQUIRED to VERIFY EVERY DOCUMENT. No private funds allowedfor campaigns-ONLY what’s provided by the Fund,no “promising anything to get votes”,EVERYTHING declared against any other candidate must be documented and proved true before it can be used in a campaign ad. Violations of campaign rules get the violator thrown out of campaign.

    This would serve to eliminate “buying votes”,”buying Politicians” and “buying Elections”. All any Candidate would have would be to tell the American Public what HE or SHE could bring to the table,why we should vote for THEM. Derogatory campaigns would be carefully scrutinized,and there would have to be restrictions for unscrupulous behavior.

    Also,no “out of Country” donations at all,any person or business owner IN America can contribute as MUCH as they want,but it all goes into the Election Fund and is dealt out evenly to each qualified candidate.

    I’m sure there are a lot of details to be covered,but you probably get my drift.

  • Jodie Consoles

    term limits will allows those who want to work for the people to get hired…those who want to be ticks won’t be interested as they won’t be there long enough to become tax blood suckers….

  • Dawn Kubin

    I’m all for TERM LIMITS! Their lobby family members and friends follow them. They aren’t there to protect the Constitution nor to represent us. It’s all about lining their pockets and the pockets others they care about! Just watched a special report on Fox News the other night. What a sickened and disgusted state I was left in after watching it! ! They sit up there and write laws for us ‘commoners’ and exclude themselves from those same laws! The life time benefits they receive have to come to a stop! The amount and extent of corruption through out our government is mind boggling and I fear there is nothing the average voter can do to stop any of it. Why isn’t there a special interest group representing ‘We the People’ in Washington pulling strings and buying votes for laws and exemptions we want? Oh Wait! That would be a major CONFLICT OF INTEREST now wouldn’t it!

  • yorkieczar

    Return the offices to being about
    “SERVING THE PEOPLE”. Stop ALL retirements, medical benifets, daily
    deliveries of fresh flowers, close down their resturant and medical clinic on
    the HILL, limit the $ amout that can be spent on elections, only pay for time
    on the job, and ALL salaries based on US GDP.

  • Brandon Mealer

    I’m against this in theory, because I don’t like being told who I can or can’t vote for via government mandate, but I agree it is necessary given our governments course lately