Tag: Term Limits

Join Jim and Greg as they enjoy the fun ad for GOP congressional hopefuls in Texas, an ad starring Rep. Dan Crenshaw and includes skydiving and multiple movie references. They also fume over the latest revelations proving the FBI knew the Steele dossier was based on a likely Russian spy and still sought FISA warrants without ever revealing the source to the FISA court. And they get a kick out Democrats suddenly wanting Supreme Court term limits since we may soon have an actual conservative majority.

Jim Geraghty of National Review and and Greg Corombos of Radio America find themselves drowning in crazy martinis again today. They slap their foreheads as a new GOP congressman from Tennessee – who is also a doctor – appears to tell a constituent that he’s hesitant to accept the government’s denial that childhood vaccinations cause autism and says he thinks the Centers for Disease Control have “fraudulently managed” data on the issue. They also rub their hand with glee at the possibility of political inroads with young people as Democratic regulators in California consider a tax on text messaging and then consider some far more annoying aspects of modern communication that ought to be taxed. And they can only smile as Nancy Pelosi somehow jumps on the bandwagon for term limits in the Democratic leadership in exchange for four more years as Speaker of the House.

Member Post

 

The idea of term limits for our federal Representatives and Senators is something that we haven’t talked about in a while. As we watch efforts for reform die over and over in the Senate, maybe it’s time to talk about term limits again. Term limits are very popular with the vast majority of Americans. Rasmussen […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

The Argument for Term Limits

 

President Elect Trump recently had an interesting idea: drain the swamp. Term limits for elected politicians would allow far more turnover, which would in turn allow for a greater diversity of politicians to be elected. It is almost a no-brainer when you consider how many benefits the incumbent politician has over the challenger.

If term limits are a no-brainer then why don’t we have them already? By far the most popular explanation is simply that politicians will not vote to term limit themselves; therefore we cannot get term limits. This is obviously an oversimplification, however. Surely if term limits are obviously good, then some ambitious politician would support them in order to build his or her reputation as a principled individual. This leads to the second explanation: term limits are actually bad.

Member Post

 

According to the Blaze The proposed constitutional amendment specifies that senators could only serve two six-year terms, while House representatives would be allowed two three-year terms. [three two year terms. Error in the original. -UF] It also states that the term limits would not begin until the bill becomes law, so the clock for current lawmakers wouldn’t […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Why Republicans Should Oppose Term Limits

 

Today, Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) introduced a bill that would impose a six-year term limit on members of the House, while Senators would be held to 12 years in office. This is a magnificently stupid idea.

I worked on Capitol Hill for eight years back in the ’90s and early 2000s. I came into the job right before the 1994 elections and saw the incoming Republican majority as an opportunity for me and my ilk to do our part to re-make a Constitutional government. Like most Republican staffers on the Hill, I was bright, but young and laughingly inexperienced. As a result, I got my rear kicked day after day by my Democrat counterparts.

Rand’s Reforms: The Ricochet Survey

 

RandHere’s a protip for the approaching presidential campaign season: when the candidates take to the stump, always read the transcript rather than watching the speech. I adopted this technique during the 2008 presidential campaign, when it simply became too arduous to sit through 75 minutes of mass hysteria (and at least one audience member fainting) to get through 15 minutes worth of Barack Obama’s cotton candy remarks.

The transcripts are clarifying. You’re not distracted by the delivery or the audience dynamics. You’re essentially alone with the candidate and his thoughts. And, nine times out of ten, you’re going to be disappointed — because the vast majority of these guys don’t have much to say.

Now, I don’t especially blame them for this. Running for the presidency in the modern era often dictates hiding the ball (the 2008 Obama campaign is a textbook example of this). But it does make mining the transcripts an interesting exercise. You’ll often discover that dozens of paragraphs worth of rhetoric only yield two or three concrete proposals.

Member Post

 

Salon posted a 3,600 word piece setting a vision for a new constitution. It wanders across the left wing landscape, and the proposed constitution would enshrine many broad left-wing policy objectives (like environmentalism, an even more statist educational system, even more taxes on the rich, equitable division of power, FDR’s freedoms from). Although the piece is pretty vague about the details, […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.