TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.randpacusa.com/limits.aspx?pid=0130b" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I am absolutely opposed to term limits at the state or federal levels. If an elected official doesn't have to answer to the people who elected them, then they are free to do whatever they want.

People who support terms limits tend to want to limit other people's choices, not their own.

Chsa.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I am absolutely opposed to term limits at the state or federal levels. If an elected official doesn't have to answer to the people who elected them, then they are free to do whatever they want.

People who support terms limits tend to want to limit other people's choices, not their own.

Chsa.

Would you repeal the 22nd Amendment?

I've really struggled with the idea of term limits for years. I've come to the conclusion that the Founding Fathers got it right. We as voters are the ones to blame...If they are abusing their power and/or creating legislation that we disagree with, then it's our responsibility to send them home.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I am absolutely opposed to term limits at the state or federal levels. If an elected official doesn't have to answer to the people who elected them, then they are free to do whatever they want.

People who support terms limits tend to want to limit other people's choices, not their own.

Chsa.

Mr Cotton,
I am not sure I understand your statement here. You say you are opposed to term limits and then go on to speak of the reason there should be term limits. Am I missing your point here ? Are you saying that term limits would create a time period where the elected representative knows that they are done so they could do as they please? I really never thought of it this way but it makes sense to me.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I am absolutely opposed to term limits at the state or federal levels. If an elected official doesn't have to answer to the people who elected them, then they are free to do whatever they want.

People who support terms limits tend to want to limit other people's choices, not their own.

Chsa.

I'm going to have to respectably disagree with you. Congress was never intended to be a life long career. Go, serve and go home. I'm sure Obama would agree with you.

If it was up to me it would be, one term for Senator and two terms for the House. Anyone who served on the Senate or the House would need to wait a minimum of 4 years before running for the other. After that they would not be allowed within 1,000 miles of DC.

I'm going to have to respectably disagree with you. Congress was never intended to be a life long career. Go, serve and go home. I'm sure Obama would agree with you.

If it was up to me it would be, one term for Senator and two terms for the House. Anyone who served on the Senate or the House would need to wait a minimum of 4 years before running for the other. After that they would not be allowed within 1,000 miles of DC.

I believe his point is that if the senator or congressman knows they are not entitled to another term then why not do as they please during their final term? We the people have the ability to replace those in place currently. It just seems that several seem to find a way to keep getting re-elected.

louisf1 wrote:

I'm going to have to respectably disagree with you. Congress was never intended to be a life long career. Go, serve and go home. I'm sure Obama would agree with you.

If it was up to me it would be, one term for Senator and two terms for the House. Anyone who served on the Senate or the House would need to wait a minimum of 4 years before running for the other. After that they would not be allowed within 1,000 miles of DC.

I believe his point is that if the senator or congressman knows they are not entitled to another term then why not do as they please during their final term? We the people have the ability to replace those in place currently. It just seems that several seem to find a way to keep getting re-elected.

And that is the problem. Once they get in power they are almost impossible to remove (Feinstein, Pelosi, Queen Sheila, etc) Once they are entrenched they do exactly what you are afraid of, anything they want. We need new blood every few years.

I agree that we need to replace many of those serving. Unfortunately there are too many liberals that don't agree thus the reason they keep getting re-elected,

Choctaw wrote:I've really struggled with the idea of term limits for years. I've come to the conclusion that the Founding Fathers got it right. We as voters are the ones to blame...If they are abusing their power and/or creating legislation that we disagree with, then it's our responsibility to send them home.

I would agree with you if Congress hadn't rigged the system so that incumbents get re-elected most of the time. As it is, the only way to get them out is to force them out through term limits.

If you don't believe in term limits for Congressmen, do you favor repealing the 22nd Amendment? If not, why not?

BaldEagle,
I am with you, I am all for term limits.

If they deserve to get elected to a term beyond the limit, they can run for a different office

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I am absolutely opposed to term limits at the state or federal levels. If an elected official doesn't have to answer to the people who elected them, then they are free to do whatever they want.

People who support terms limits tend to want to limit other people's choices, not their own.

Chsa.

Would you repeal the 22nd Amendment?

No.

Chas.

louisf1 wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I am absolutely opposed to term limits at the state or federal levels. If an elected official doesn't have to answer to the people who elected them, then they are free to do whatever they want.

People who support terms limits tend to want to limit other people's choices, not their own.

Chsa.

Mr Cotton,
I am not sure I understand your statement here. You say you are opposed to term limits and then go on to speak of the reason there should be term limits. Am I missing your point here ? Are you saying that term limits would create a time period where the elected representative knows that they are done so they could do as they please? I really never thought of it this way but it makes sense to me.

Yes, that's my opinion. The only time elected officials are answerable to the people who elected them is when they want to get reelected.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I am absolutely opposed to term limits at the state or federal levels. If an elected official doesn't have to answer to the people who elected them, then they are free to do whatever they want.

People who support terms limits tend to want to limit other people's choices, not their own.

Chsa.

Would you repeal the 22nd Amendment?

No.

Chas.

Then I ask you sincerely, what is different about term limits for the President versus term limits for Congress? Why are you opposed to the latter yet wouldn't support repeal of the former?

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

Charles L. Cotton wrote:I am absolutely opposed to term limits at the state or federal levels. If an elected official doesn't have to answer to the people who elected them, then they are free to do whatever they want.

People who support terms limits tend to want to limit other people's choices, not their own.

Chsa.

Would you repeal the 22nd Amendment?

No.

Chas.

Then I ask you sincerely, what is different about term limits for the President versus term limits for Congress? Why are you opposed to the latter yet wouldn't support repeal of the former?

I know this is not for me to answer but will offer my thoughts. Atleast with the president we have the senate and congress to keep the president in check to some degree.