Can Congress Have Term Limits? | U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 11 апр 2019
- I wrote a new book all about the Supreme Court. Order your copy here: amzn.to/45Wzhur or visit www.iammrbeat.com/merch.html.
In episode 46 of Supreme Court Briefs, Arkansas tries to get rid of career politicians through indirect term limits. Yeah but is it legal? #supremecourtbriefs #apgov #termlimits
Check out Professor Politics' video: • Why Term Limits are Awful
And subscribe to his channel! @ProfessorPolitics
Patreon: / iammrbeat
Donate on Paypal: www.paypal.me/mrbeat
Buy Mr. Beat T-shirts, coffee mugs, etc.: www.iammrbeat.com/merch.html
Reddit: / mrbeat
Mr. Beat's band: electricneedleroom.us
Mr. Beat on Twitter: / beatmastermatt
Mr. Beat on Facebook: / iammrbeat
Mr. Beat on Instagram: / iammrbeat
Produced by Matt Beat. All images by Matt Beat, found in the public domain, or used under fair use guidelines. Music by Electric Needle Room (Mr. Beat's band).
A special thank you to the AP Archive for allowing me to use footage.
AP Archive website: www.aparchive.com
Twitter: / ap_archive Facebook: / aparchives
Check out cool primary sources here:
www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1456
Other sources used:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Te...
www.termlimits.com/term-limit...
www.nytimes.com/1995/05/23/us...
www.cato.org/publications/com...
www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net...
mclaughlinonline.com/2018/02/0...
www.cnn.com/2019/01/04/politi...
Sound effects credits:
Mike Koenig
Photo credits:
Rodasmith
Arkansas
November 3, 1992
Citizens vote to approve Amendment 73 to the Arkansas Constitution, which says any federal Congressional candidate who has already served three terms in the U.S. House of Representatives or two terms in the U.S. Senate can’t be on the ballot in elections. Now, representatives could still run for a fourth term and Senators could still run for a third term- their names would just have to be written-in on the ballot. For people who can’t spell, though, this might be a problem.
Anyway, Bobbie Hill, a member representing the League of Women Voters, was not happy Amendment 73 passed. She sued Arkansas, arguing the amendment went against the United State Constitution, yo. Specifically, it’s Article 1, Section II: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen But wait, there’s more. It’s Article 1, Section III: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen . And of course Hill brought up the 17th Amendment as well.
Ray Thornton, a U.S. Congressman representing the 2nd district of Arkansas, was one of the folks who would not have his name on the ballot in the next election. He joined Hill and the League of Women Voters with another lawsuit. Representing Arkansas in the lawsuit by Hill was Attorney General Winston Bryant. Representing Arkansas in the lawsuit by Thornton was U.S. Term Limits, the organization who helped get Amendment 73 to pass to begin with.
The Arkansas Circuit Court sided with Thornton and Hill. On appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court also ruled in favor of Thornton and Hill. U.S. Term Limits and Bryant appealed yet again to the Supreme Court, who agreed to hear both cases, hearing oral arguments on November 29, 1994.
U.S. Term Limits argued that Amendment 73 didn’t actually prevent anyone from running for an additional term- she or he could run as a write-in candidate. But Thornton and Hill argued this additional obstacle was enough to overstep Article 1, sections 2 and 3 of the U.S. Constitution. So, could states do that as indirect way to prevent career politicians being in government?
The Court said “no.” On May 22, 1995, they announced they had sided with Thornton and Hill. It was a close one. 5-4, and split based on political ideology. The more conservative justices sided with U.S. Term Limits. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion, using the 17th Amendment to back it up. “The Congress of the United States...is not a confederation of nations in which separate sovereigns are represented by appointed delegates, but is instead a body composed of representatives of the people.”
My book about everything you need to know about the Supreme Court is now available!
Amazon: amzn.to/3Jj3ZnS
Bookshop (a collection of indie publishers): bookshop.org/books/the-power-of-and-frustration-with-our-supreme-court-100-supreme-court-cases-you-should-know-about-with-mr-beat/9781684810680
Barnes and Noble: www.barnesandnoble.com/w/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-matt-beat/1142323504?ean=9781684810680
Amazon UK: www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=the+power+of+our+supreme+court&crid=3R59T7TQ6WKI3&sprefix=the+power+of+our+supreme+courth%2Caps%2C381&ref=nb_sb_noss
Mango: mango.bz/books/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-2523-b
Target: www.target.com/p/the-power-of-our-supreme-court-by-matt-beat-paperback/-/A-86273023
Walmart: www.walmart.com/ip/The-Power-of-Our-Supreme-Court-How-the-Supreme-Court-Cases-Shape-Democracy-Paperback-9781684810680/688487495
Chapters Indigo: www.chapters.indigo.ca/en-ca/books/the-power-of-our-supreme/9781684810680-item.html?ikwid=The+Power+of+Our+Supreme+Court&ikwsec=Home&ikwidx=0#algoliaQueryId=eab3e89ad34051a62471614d72966b7e
Term limits is a shit idea
Can we just appreciate that 9 justices with lifetime appointments had the final say in whether term limits were constitutional? 😋
Kyle Silver (why we need term limits on Supreme Court justices)
@@fanyfan7466 I'm actually opposed to term limits, I just think it's a funny coincidence
Oh snap. Yeah that conversation needs to happen, too.
Kyle Silver To that I can only say: ruclips.net/video/poL7l-Uk3I8/видео.html
You can put in term limits in the Constitution.
Dang it Bobbie
I THOUGHT THE SAME THING ONCE I SAW HER NAME. That's a great show, btw.
@@iammrbeat The best adult animated program imo
Term limits would be alright, but money in politics is a bigger problem. The only people that run for office are the ones that have the means such that they can take a break from "work" and go out and campaign. Thus government is, and will probably always be, a bourgeois institution.
This^
Apparently, 70% of a representative’s working time is spent preparing to campaign or actually campaigning for their next term
AOC didn’t have the means she was a bar tender
Even tho I don’t like any of her politics she made it work
@@stayswervin554 she’s kinda seen more as an exception to the standard (a glitch in the system, if you will)
This is more the case in the senate. It's easier for lower class people to enter the house of representatives.
There needs to be term limits. Career politicians are running this country.
Indeed, I think most of us agree that career politicians are severely hurting this country.
Why not open that career to more people.
How would non-career politicians help the country? Or is it just cause career politicians are the current ones ruining the country.
The answer is simple. If the constituents of a Senator or Representative think he or she has been there too long - vote 'em out.
Personally i dont think so, if a person likes a senator or representative they should be able to vote for them for however long they choose to run.
It was a blast collaborating with you! I actually had no idea about the legal case re. term limits on the national level. This was really cool! (And made me ugly snort a couple times with how funny it was).
Woah, you actually get my lame sense of humor? lol
I beleive congressmen should be allowed to be in office longer than I've been alive...
NOT!!!!
I don’t want term limits for politicians. I want them to serve the full time to which the judge sentenced them. 😜
Oh snap to both of you :)
I'm fully in support of term limits for Congress, though I agree with the Supreme Court that this would require amending the US Constitution to put such in place.
Congress can impose them, the Court just said that states can't impose them.
There's no need for a constitutional amendment.
@@kennethkho7165 correct. So they can pass legislation without having to amend the constitution
@@kennethkho7165 They can, but why would they?
@@Compucles because prominent Republicans and Democrats have supported them and it has broad support from the US public. Not to be naive that there's no massive conflict of interests here, but I'm claiming this may not be as impossible as it seems.
I'd probably argue Senators should be allowed 3 terms and Congressmen 6. 18 and 12 years, respectively, would be more than enough to be acquainted with the role and allow for people to build relationships to get things done. Being in Congress for over 30 years is just lunacy to me, move out of the way!
One term be best. If representatives have a chance to get reelected, they're still going to be on the phone 24/7, 365 days a year FUNDRAISING for their reelection campaigns! That's BUSINESS AS USUAL! Better just ONE TERM instead of 2. After they get elected, their fundraising days are over.
No senators 2 terms and the House 3 terms maximum
@@f_kyt How bout just ONE 8 YEAR TERM everyone including Pres. Solves TOO MUCH MONEY in Politics, Polarization AND Dysfunction problem. After DC wins their ONE AND ONLY CAMPAIGN, their fundraising days are OVER! Just asking for term limits isn't enough. Lets outsmart DC & Do it Right!
@@radar0412so, every 2 years, you want a whole load of inexperienced freshmen coming in not knowing what they're doing?
@@BritishRepublicsn A ONE TERM ONLY REFORM SOLUTION will Solve every problem in Washington.
1. "1 term only Reform" Solves too much money in Politics. With only one term we can prohibit Congress from fundraising for their reelection campaign because with only one term THERE IS NO MORE REELECTION they'd have to raise money for!
2. 1 term only Reform solves political Polarization. With only one term Congress would no longer need the assistance of a Political REELECTION Strategist to create Polarizing Political narratives, because with only one term there'd be NO OPPONENT to smear.
3. 1 term only Solves WASHINGTON DYSFUNCTION. With only 1 term Congress can reach across the Aisle to work with the opposition Party, because with only one term there'd be no FEAR of being Primaried for working with opposition Party members.
I'm 1000% in favor of term limits for Congress. Its an absolute disgrace whats happening in our elected body and its an absolute shame that Congress continues to perpetuate this idea that they represent us with 17% below approval rating. Absolutely disgusting.
YES YES YES YES GET RID OF THE CORRUPT COMMIES
Yes, Congress should have term limits
The Court didn't ban term limits, they just said that states can't impose them, but the US Congress can. There's no need for a US constitutional amendment.
Yes
True, but would Congress ever actually vote themselves into having term limits?
Yes,,,term limits,,,harder to corrupt more people,,,hopefully
Definitely awesome intentions.
Weirdly enough, the opposite seems to happen, as lobbyists have grown in state with some form of term limit
@@alphadoughnut2651 outlaw lobbyists. PACs. Gerrymandering
@@gordybishop2375 you do know that "lobbyists" are not even close to be exclusively 'big bad mega corporations' right? Do you know what is the role of lobbying on people's freedom of speech?
@@TheSiprianus the only lobbying needed is the peoples vote. Especially no lobbying away from the people that elected them. Lobbying special interests is the issue. Other lobbying is not needed either if the ones you elected are not evil.
How do term limits go against article 1, sections II and III? They only put restrictions on possible senators and congressmen, I don't see anything saying that there cannot be additional restrictions.
It's implicit that states cannot put further obstacles that interfere with sections II and III of Article 1.
@@iammrbeat
*+*
You just answered your own question. Here’s why. Up until the 1960’s, the courts, even the United States Supreme Court, said since privacy was not written in the constitution, it should not be protected.
It wasn’t until Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut, though annoy abortions, the court decided sexual privacy and extended it to additional privacy.
In addition, on that note, anyone with a half of brain 🧠 knows what constitutes privacy. It should not have to be spelled out!!!!
In conclusion, after reading case laws, i’ve noticed, which is complete bullshit, that a lot of judges and Justices seem to think that if it’s not written in the constitution close to or exact, it doesn’t apply or shouldn’t be further protected.
"Clarence Thomas?! We never hear from him!"
Don't worry you will, in 2022.
Love the glasses
lol thanks. I got them for free at Vidcon a couple years ago
Should Congress have term limits? Also, don't forget to check out the Professor Politics video: ruclips.net/video/v0xCWWAr5Zw/видео.html
Nah fam, they shouldn't.
I think so. In my state, Mitch McConnell has been our Senator for 24 years!
I propose 2 Senate terms (12 years) and 6 House terms (12 years).
the only term limits they have now is DEATH yes i am for term limits but senate 3 terms and house 7
FUCK YEAH CONGRESS NEEDS TERM LIMITS!!!!!!!! AND THEY NEED THEM NOW! And I'm just going to say this right now, and I hate to say this, but anyone who opposes term limits is just plain stupid!
@@FlyinBlaney To be honest, I think we need to have a 3 term limit for the House of Representatives, and a 1 term limit for the Senate.
The Articles of Confederation imposed term limits on Congress. The Constitution removed the term limits. That tells you what the Framers of the Constitution thought about term limits. As for Justice Thomas, he really cracks me up. It is mind boggling to contemplate his situation if his version of the Constitution were still law. He would not be sitting on the Court, and married to a white woman, he, under the best of circumstances that prevailed in the old days, would be in jail.
A further reason that term limits are a bad idea is that they are counterproductive. Party control of the House has changed in 1994, 2006, 2010, and 2018. The Senate changed party control in 1994, 2006, and 2014. What greater turnover would term limits produce? Further, about 70 of 100 Senators are in their first or second terms, and about 300 out of 435 Representatives have served for less than 12 years. As a result, we have wild-eyed first termers who have a high school civics notion of government and who lack an appreciation for the institution and for the national interest. As any employer will tell you, too much turnover is bad for the operation of the business.
You make great points. I think our efforts would be more productive targeting an end to gerrymandering.
@@iammrbeat Yes!
We The People WANT TERM LIMITS for OUR government PERIOD !!!!!!!!!!🇺🇸🧐👍
George Washington didn't want to be re-elected...my feeling is politics shouldn't be a career... Tell them folks to get a real job and stop riding the gravy train... LOL.. seriously
The longer they are in there, the more hungry they are to keep that power. It's an unfortunate yet natural inclination. Dang humans.
We need congressional term limits. We have career politicians who sit on their butts and make hundreds of thousands of dollars by doing nothing.
Where can I sign up?! 🙋♂️
Yet the keep winning elections, which means people want to keep them.
Actually career Politicians are sitting on their butts, while on the phone FUNDRAISING for their infinite reelection campaigns. 😂
Yes, there are too many intrenched in the hill.
#reelectnoone
We need term limits. Politicians have too much power
This court case was brought up on one of my AP Government practice questions. You explained it really well!
Definitely believe in term limits!
Dude, I'm going to school and my next class for the summer is American history pre civil war to post reconstruction, I use your videos to fill in where other people online only mention cases. Please keep it up, I promise to put your shared knowledge to good use.
Excellent content, isnt it? :) Agreed, Mr. Beat, keep up the outstanding vids of SCOTUS briefs.
Congress absolutely needs term limits - but we're going to have to pass that Constitutional Amendment to do it.
Thanks for Professor Politics
The whole point of term limits is to prevent a demegoug take over. I can't see a reason why a person who clearly represents their people enough to be reelected, should be stopped from doing so, they who wish to serve our country in war or words should be allowed to do so until they are worm away and need to be casted off for the next leader. Personally, only singular leaders should be limited, like the President, or PM.
I can give you 33 trillion reasons for term limits. And that's our $33 trillion dollar National Debt. The ONLY reason for that Behemoth Debt is Political dysfunction brought about by long term Politicians who value their own careers over what's good for America.
@@radar0412 *All* the politicians are responsible for that, not just the long-term ones. Bringing in more fresh blood isn't going to change that on its own.
As much as I would like it if there were term limits, I agree that this was an unconstitutional way to do it
This decision is pretty odd to me. The constitution lays out requirements for representatives, but it doesn't say or imply that states can't have additional requirements beyond those. Arkansas wasn't allowing people who didn't meet those requirements to run just imposing an additional restriction. To me, that seems to be pretty well covered by states rights
You're on the right track. It all depends on whether the constitution totally preempted (field preemption) over the requirements for election to Congress. If so, then any additional legislation in the field would be unconstitutional under the supremacy clause.
However, I have not read the opinion and so this is just my best guess.
@@TheJingles007 doesn't the decision just completely ignore the 10th Amendment? The 10th Amendment says that any power not given to the federal government or prohibited to the states goes to the states. Surely that should mean that if the Constitution doesn't say states can't give term limits, that means they CAN.
But the Constitution lists the existing requirements, so the power of providing requirements for Congress(wo)men, including any additional ones, is specifically a Federal power. Thus, the 10th Amendment says the States do *not* have that power.
Hey mr beat! I have been watching your videos since I was just starting high school and you have taught me much. Now im citing this video as a source in a college essay about term limits.
Damnit, Bobbie.
So we would need an ammendment, right?
We would
Yes which I believe could be done by the vote of the people. If I recall correctly it would take 38 of 50 states that would have to be in favor of it. Then it would go to a Nationwide vote to be ratified into law.
So if We the people. Want Congress to have term limits, we have to start getting pensions for term limits for Congress with the amount of limits we are looking for to agree on. And vote for them showing that this state is in favor of it.
as someone from the UK i never did get term limits. If the people really like a leader and that person wants to keep running why keep them from doing so
Corruption
Exactly
Nobody should remain in power for too long. If a day comes when a politician is not willing to step out of office, that second ammenmend will come in handy. Never let go of that right.
First, write it correctly. Second, there are other, less violent, ways of getting rid of politicians. However, there must be term limits for Members of Congress.
@@OpinionesDeJACCsOpinions At what point is violence necessary though?
0:36 Dangit, Bobby!
Ted Cruz is looking foxy these days. He must be training for some more marathon readings of children’s books from the Senate floor. I know you say these videos don’t do as well as your others, but I sure enjoy them.
Steve Heimler And I have seen it all. Ted Cruz and foxy in the same sentence...
Supreme Court justices need to have term limits too!
Maybe not term limits, but perhaps an age or wellness cap. Seeing 90+ year old Senators being wheeled in on life support and then sleeping through the session does not instill confidence.
We absolutely need term limits for all elected officials and the Supreme Court. Far overdue.
Shocked Harriet Hageman voted against term limits!!! WHAT?!? Harriet don’t sell out the good American citizens!!!
For long l have known about the Arkansas term limit. lt is very appropriate for presidents and vice presidents, but not for legislators.
At the state level for sure
Do a video on Donald’s trumps country ban case
You mean Trump v Hawaii
I can and I will. I look forward to making that video.
@@christopherkopke7593 was it really Trump V Hawaii?
@@iammrbeat SWEET
In my opinion, a case like this should be revisited with the current conservative-leaning court. It was a democratic-leaning court who opposed this, so sending this question back to the states to institute term limits would be a great thing to do.
the supreme court would definitely overturn this like they did with roe vs wade, affirmative action, and other cases
Directly adding term limits is one thing, but do you really want to use technicalities to block what should still be legal under current law like we're back under Jim Crow?
Yes they should have term limits
Hey Mr Beat, you should examine the ways in which America is becoming an oligarchy
That's a great video idea actually. I love it.
Yes,Congress is elected for a 6 yr.
term - there is no limit in the number of terms they can be re - elected to office.
Just a (possible) video suggestion. Would you be interested in talking about Flood v Kuhn? An interesting case because the holding was that Major League Baseball is considered interstate commerce under the Sherman antitrust act.
That would be an awesome video and hopefully you see my comment and the video comes to fruition!!
To be honest, I don't mind career politicians that much, but I absolutly hate it when politicians(usually senators) who know damn well that they're in critical health remain in office until the day they die. I'm looking at you, Arlen Specter and John McCain!
This is even more relevant now with Joe Biden
Everyone should have limits. We're not an autonomous nation, were not run by robots and algorithms..... Yet.
I agree
Term Limits For All Elected Federal officials and all federal judges. Total of 3 lifetime 2 year terms for house members; Total of 1 lifetime 6 year term for members of the Senate. If they cannot do the job in 6 years, both house and senate, then they should not run. All Federal Judges, one 20 year lifetime term. Any federal official, elected, appointed, or hired, who violates the oath of their office, and/or abuses the power given to them by “We The People”, shall be stripped of all retirement benefits and be subject to a minimum of 20 years in a maximum security prison that is at least a minimum of 1,000 miles from their home.
Excellent, another great video, as a law geek I love your take in the Wisconsin v Yoder case, and can't wait to see your take on Mcdonald v Chicago one day.
Thank you so much! Yeah, McDonald v. Chicago is definitely on my list. Hopefully I can get to it this year. :D
Term limits, bad for supporters of people who get repeatedly elected (like FDR for the presidency), but kind of good for opponents of said elected officials. Interestingly enough, even though Republicans were responsible for the 22nd amendment being ratified in 1951, Ronald Reagan was against the amendment (not surprising considering that he was one of the most popular presidents ever, and of course in 1984 won all but Minnesota and Washington DC)
Term limits would especially not be needed if every President was as good as George Washington. :)
@@iammrbeat or former Rep John Conyers (D-NY) who was elected in the 60's and removed from office for sexual misconduct a couple of years ago
@@iammrbeat with regards to George Washington, playing devil's advocate, there are people I know who feel that he is protected from historical criticism due to being the first president of the United States. Knowing from your top 10 presidents video that he's your number 1, how would you respond to statements like that?
Seems the correct way to get term limits set up
If the people like a current representative, I don't see why they should be prohibited from keeping them in office
Drain that career politican swamp impose term limits!
Are there any Supreme Court cases that dealt with the 3rd amendment?
It’s not used anymore so I don’t see why it would be challenged
I'm pretty undecided on this issue. I like the idea of term limits because it helps prevent corruption, should keep candidates more focused on their job and not the next election, and makes people think more about the smaller elections instead of just the presidental one.
On the other hand, term limits do create inexperience in congress, which can be bad when they are the ones making the laws, especially when the president is new.
Consider how comfortable of a position senators are in and how much power they have. Whether you dislike McConnell or Schumer, they both have a lot of power over the nation but are only held accountable within their states. They'll never lose either of their states.
@@francisluglio6611 This is a problem inherent to the senate itself rather than term limits. Also one of them is basically powerless when the other party holds the majority.
@@Deranfan that’s fair. Although there’s also the speaker of the house. It seems like a little much to ask the voters to also decide who hold these positions though. Perhaps the solution is to get rid of the power these positions have so that we don’t have nonsense like the Hastert Rule
Our $33 trillion National Debt brought about by longterm Representatives far outweighs any concerns about someone being new in Washington.
Idk I’m split on this one. I can see the arguments on both sides here. I’m leaning towards no.
I am split, too. :/
As a non-american, with only a brief understanding of the different houses, it seems REALLY odd, and counter to the original purpose of the senate, for it to have term limits. On the other hand, anything that makes the political class less entrenched can only be a good thing. Term limits for congress shouldn't have to be a thing, but it might be a neccecary evil.
(4:23) How about instead of that, we make it so that no one can serve more than a total of 12 years in Congress? Why should Reps. be any less than Senators?
The Congress of the Confederation, the predecessor of the modern U.S. Congress, had term limits in place. However, for some reason as part of the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution of the United States, the founders seem to have forgotten about term limits.
As with Congress, so should the Supreme Court but different terms and reasons for it to occur. I don't know exactly how long should each member of each chamber be able to serve, but I feel that justices should retire at age 75 just like their Canadian equivalents.
I'm more in favor of 3 terms for the Senate, as each term is 6 years. So 3 terms would be 18 years. More than enough time to make changes or accomplish any goals you had.
House 6 terms 12 years.
Both Senate and House terms would be separate. Meaning they could do a full 6 in house then full 3 in Senate.
@@GANTZ100pts
I think at the moment I'm liking staggered terms, instead of a finite set.
From Congress both House and Senate should have term limits including Supreme Court Justice and all Federal Circuit Court
Term limits is such an interesting topic because the pros and cons I think weigh the same in the end. I go back and forth on it all the time.
So do I. When I was younger, though, I was definitely all in for term limits.
Here's a fact that you forgot to put on the PRO side of the Scale. Our $33 trillion dollar National Debt. POW! Scale Broken!! Term limits NOW!! 😂
@@radar0412 Yes, the national debt is terrible, but how would term limits actually get enough fiscal conservatives and politicians willing to compromise with the other party elected to actually pass the needed budget cuts to at least start cutting the Deficit? The new guys who get elected replacing the retirees would be just as likely to be as fiscally irresponsible.
@@Compucles Agreed. Term limits wouldn't encourage Congress to address our National Debt Crisis. So we have to make it ONE TERM ONLY. Congress knows if they cut 3rd rail programs like Social security, Medicare and the military, and raise taxes, then YOU WON'T REELECT THEM. With ONE TERM ONLY our Representatives can cut 3rd rail programs, and or raise taxes to address our National Debt Crisis without the fear of retaliation from the average Americans. I'll let you decide how long that one term shall be. I don't care.
@@radar0412debt isnt as big of a problem as people believe, our debt is overwhelmingly owned by the american government and american public with our biggest international lender being japan.
Congress should absolutely have term limits. Feinstein (89) still living oldest senator and Lester L. Wolff oldest Rep (102 died 2021)
Why haven’t I watched this one yet🤦
No term limits creates complacency and allows the roots of corruption to set deeper. Their should be an 8 year max limit, and your replacement is voted in at year 6 (or year 2 if the American people decide they are sick of you), giving you two years to cross train your replacement. Problem solved.
Yes, we need term limits for all elected positions...and for many appointed positions, including Supreme Court judges.
The deeper a tumor grows, the harder it is to get rid of it. That tumor also becomes more dangerous.
I don’t think congress should have terms limits. Change my mind
You know that Elijah Cummings guy? He had his senate seat for 30 year's. He was in Congress when I was 7.
Nancy pelosi about the same. They need term limits.
Congress absolutely needs term limits. It's absolutely disgusting that woman and guy got away with undoing the will of the people in Arkansas. If I was in Arkansas I would be so mad.
The liberal justices also needed a fucking reality check about the importance of checks and balances.
Really good visual aid
I don’t like term limits any more after I saw a former governor of my state building all kinds of projects in his home county while cutting public education funding after he didn’t have to worry about facing the voters again.
Governors don't set the spending budget for the State, and they can't unilaterally cut state funding for education or anything else. Only the State legislature can do that.
@radar0412 Yes, I'm aware of that. However, when the legislature is (as it was at the time) controlled by a supermajority of the governor's party, they're basically acting as a rubber stamp. If the Governor wasn't term limited, he likely wouldn't have pushed through those pet projects.
@@danielsobczak What I know for a Fact, is if you let Washington run for reelection Ad infinitum, you'll eventually get a $33 trillion National Debt. One 8 year only term all houses, no possibility of running again for any other office ever again. That will also take care of too much money in Politics as well. Once they get elected their one and only time, their fundraising days are over for good, and they can only focus on good governance.
@@radar0412 and you never have to answer to your constituents again. $33 trillion came in a very large part (although not exclusively) thanks to tax cuts for the rich, not by taking care of the people.
I thought they can just change the requirements for people serving in the lower state House to "has not served more than 3 terms in the US House of Representatives or the Arkansas House of Representatives or 2 terms in the US Senate" and then the requirements would automatically apply to the US Congressmen as well?
3:06 ha! Take that, Electoral College!
6 2-year terms for house representatives so that it's 12 years for both house and senate.
One term be best. If representatives have a chance to get reelected, they're going to be on the phone 24/7, 1450 days fundraising for their reelection campaigns! That's BUSINESS AS USUAL! Better just ONE TERM instead of 2. After they get elected, their fundraising days are over.
Next for your states compared series, you should do Alabama and Mississippi.
I remember this. Many states, nearly half, in the mid 90’s voted and passed term limits. Proof then there was overwhelming support for the measure. What should have been done was limited the language to just the term limits but the additional language is what the lawsuit targeted.
Ah, letting powerful judges make the decision that limits power. How convenient.
It's not like they'd be limiting their own power. If they were acting in the interests of power, they would want to limit the power of a competing branch of the Federal Government.
No they should not have term limits!
Not until they run up the National Debt to $100 trillion? 😅
Term limits need to come soon. Just write it up and send it around to the states. It isn't Congress that should be doing t his but he States, anyway.
Yeah, they will never vote for themselves to have term limits. Because that would be voting themselves out.
@@GANTZ100pts I think the only way term limits would ever pass through congress would be if there was a grandfather clause excluding members in at that time.
OF course.............the first step to stopping the rampant corruption is not making it so profitable to buy a politician. Read a book like ":Throw them all out" by Peter Schweitzer and you will find all the proof you need. Term limits will have to be a chance for the honest politician to get in. Hopefully this honest politician stays honest. Lobbyists are really good at breaking the moral compass of our politicians.
I believe we should have term limits
this aged like wine
Dang it Bobby!
damm. strait were going todo an artical five we're going to get it done cause im tired of Pelosi and Schumer.
Add McConnell and McCarthy to that list as well
I think it be fair if Congress has term limits, and it might strengthen the checks and balance system between Legislative and Executive branch, or it might not, but we won't know unless it's allowed
As for House of Representatives having 3 terms while the senate and president only gets 2 is fair when you consider each Representative only gets 2 years per term before facing the idea of reelection. That's half amount of time a President has in one term, and third of the time senate has in one term
I agree with the decision.
President During this time: Bill Clinton
Chief Justice: William Rehnquist
Argued November 29, 1994
Decided May 22, 1995
Decision: 5-4 in favor of Thornton (Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, Stevens. Rehnquist, Scalia, O’Connor, Thomas for US.)
Priority 1: Make gerrymandering illegal. Priority 2: Get rid of the electoral college. ... Somewhere around priority 8: Term limits for US congress.
Yeah gerrymandering has far more serious implications.
Why should EC be a priority? I'd say it should be reformed
Amendments are not supposed to be easy to pass
Indeed
It's interesting to look at the reasons why most people favor term limits for Congress. When asked, most people answer along the lines of most Congressmen and Senators being career politicians who know nothing about how to get by in America, and only know how to play political tricks to ensure election victories. Once in office they vote themselves all kinds of perks and privileges that most Americans have no access to. BTW, the term limit amendment is one of the top contenders if an Article 5 convention were to be held.
As a leftist, I'm kinda terrified by the SCOTUS supermajority right now, but if they overturned this that would be cool.
Yes.
Do one about Trinidad and Tobago
Garvin Benjamin -G LION I’ll sneak this on his calendar and see if he notices!
I do agree with the decision. I don’t think states have that kind of authority in regards to the federal offices.
Can you do a history of U.S. territories and our protectorates?
That's a solid idea. Thanks for the suggestion.
It's a state's rights issue but more generally it's about decentralization vs consolidation of power. A career congressperson has the benefit of long-standing lobbyists, name recognition, and understanding of the system and how to game it. This gives any incumbent a significant advantage over any challenger and may ultimately lead them to answering more to special interests than their constituents. Especially in senate with so few seats, that's a lot of power for those who learn to maintain it. This power is much more diluted in the house and with smaller voter bases, they are naturally forced to be more accountable to the people they represent. Thornton argued the tenth amendment since there was no explicit statement saying qualifications to the election process approved by a referendum is out of bounds. Senators ought to have limits, House members aren't as powerful and is less necessary imo, unconstitutional or not. It's about accountability and honest representation without hoarding power.
Then you need to get Congress to pass a law for term limits (fat chance), or get a Constitutional Amendment for it.. In this case, the list of qualifications in the Constitution *is* an explicit statement granting the power of qualification for the election process of the U.S. Congress to the Federal Government.
I don't get how article 1 sections I and II possibly say anything against this? They seem to put restrictions on who can run, But nothing there seems to indicate that there can't be any further restrictions on who can run, Or that anyone who fits those criteria must be able to run?