June 29, 2010
As you may know the longest serving Senator in history, Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) passed away yesterday. Senator Byrd was a favorite of a few members of the WTP Class of 2010 - I believe for his many "Senior Soundbites." Go to www.youtube.com and type in "Robert Byrd barbaric" to watch John Iatesta's (WTP Class of 2010) favorite Byrd clip.
My question to you is, do you think there should be term limits on Members of Congress?
gw
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Well, that barbaric clip is quite amazing; I think it quite dramatically shows how, frankly, that age really can corrode the mind. It takes him quite a while to say the same word 4 times in a row. As you can see in this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNWbMGzT20c&NR=1
ReplyDeleteSenator Byrd is sleeping in the back of the room. I think it goes to show that there is an age for being a senator; much like there is in driving an automobile, where you must stop- for the sanity and safety of yourselves and others.
While I feel for his family and the one's who enjoyed hearing him speak, 51 years in the United States Senate is wayyyy too long. It brings up another corrupted aspect of government. An individual should not be given that position in power for such a long period of time. This must be limited to maybe 12 or fewer years. Power must be limited! Government must be limited! I do not believe we are losing someone with acceptable political ideas. Senator Byrd was a former member of the Klu Klux Klan! This radical involvement with such a racist, discriminatory group can only belong to a corrupted mind. He fought against the Civil Rights Act! I don't understand how he even got elected. Oh, wait a second! I know! His political views changed in order for being elected, like a majority of the politions we see. So, to summarize, Senator Byrd is a loss to his family and the individuals who, like myself, found his speeches a comedic relief rather than a political statement. Here's an article on his death/history.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/politics/29byrd.html?ref=us
I believe that there ought to be term limits on every office in government. Even if a senator or representative is considered "good" or "beneficial" to the future of the United States, corruption eventually occurs. No politician is immune from corruption, I believe. The speaker of the house has no term limits, and as a result, she stays in office, promoting her personal agenda that fiscally benefits her in stead of the entire country. It is a shame that now we are talking about term limits after the passing of Sen. Byrd, where just last year Sen. Ted Kennedy passed away, making him the 4th longest serving senator at 46 years, 9 months, and 16 days. I also cannot understand why anybody would consider a senator that used to be a member of the KKK (Sen. Byrd) to be a favorite. I understand that he tripped over his words a few times, but VP Joe Biden does that all the time. Back to term limits. It is unfortunate that it never occurred to the founding fathers that politicians would eventually be so corruptible that a term limit would need to be imposed on every public office, and as a result, only a few offices have term limits. It is understandable that if the people favored a politician then they would re-elect them, but as it stands, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's approval rating stands at 11%, while she has been in office ever since Newt Gingrich left office in 1998. I believe that Sen. Byrd, Sen. Kennedy, and Speaker of the House Pelosi all show that term limits are favorable for every public office.
ReplyDeleteThe political world is ever-changing. To compensate for such, it is my opinion that there should definitely be term limits for members in Congress. This ensures not only that a wider range of opinions will be represented, but that we do not end up with a man such as Byrd who was beset by health problems and ultimately distracted from his duty. As Angela pointed out, aging has many effects on one’s mind. Aside from the characteristic forgetfulness and fatigue, aging can cause many other serious health problems. In this link, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/28/robert-byrd-longest-serving-senator-dies/ , it is stated that Byrd spent his last few years as Senator “plagued by health problems” and “confined to a wheelchair”. He even had to skip “several votes in Congress” in the last few months of his life. While it is understandable why he needed to skip, the fact of the matter is that he should have been replaced by a different Senator many years ago. Byrd was unable to perform his essential duties to the United States due to his age and illnesses. There is no need to have any individual who is unable to fully commit to their job be a member of congress, thus age should be a limiting factor. However, even if a younger member of Congress has many insightful and grand ideas, it is a fundamental goal of the United States to represent many different points of views. Therefore, a term limit is essential to establishing a diverse congress that – as Heath and Connor pointed out – is unable to become corrupted with the personal aims of individuals.
ReplyDeleteThoughtful posts .. is there anyone out there who does not believe in term limits?
ReplyDeletedude, i miss him already.
ReplyDeleteJust for the fun of it, I'm going to support NO TERM LIMITS! (please note: I am merely coming up with a defence to everyone else's offence! This does not represent my true feelings on the matter.)
ReplyDelete(Also note: this is fairly satirical)
The problem with term limits is that it hurts the tax payer. NOT KIDDING!! Do you know how often the tax payer would have to pay for new paint if a new person were elected every term?! It'd be an outrage! Their parking spaces would have to be re-painted every term! Plus the janitorial groups would have so much trouble: there'd be a huge loss in wages for them! No longer would they see Mr. Senator X walking past and be able to drop some hints about which way the vote may be going and get some really hard earned dough! No more first name basis! The trust wouldn't be there! If there was a limit on how many terms someone could serve for, the place would be in complete havoc because the janitors couldn't help them on first name basis!!! Also, the trust and knowledge that they'd picked the right man wouldn't be there for the general population of voters! They'd have to choose some new guy they'd never seen before to become their next representative! Who knows whether or not this guy is telling the truth! No, you really have to have someone represent you for 51 years to really get a good understanding of him, but then the old fart goes and DIES on you! Where's the justice!?! Where's the SANITY?!? If I couldn't vote for the same person for my entire life, I just wouldn't know what to do! And then, when you've had someone there for close to half a century, there's the fact that they provide something interesting to listen to while trying to pay attention to all the legal blargon that you have to sift through when researching decisions for a class. You have the one man (or woman) who's been there FOREVER and can manage to make to most wonderful statements--or lack thereof--that just make one laugh. Like who would expect someone to sleep in the back of the room during their working day? Classic! If there wasn't something out of the ordinary, people wouldn't pay attention to what was really going on up there on Capital hill! Then what would we do!?! We wouldn't care who we sent and before you knew it we could have allowed ourselves to have been blindly led to an uncomfortable position where we're all required to walk around with a probe up our ***es for sneezing wrong! We could end up living in Nazi Germany turned American without batting an eye lash! No NO NO! We must stay on guard and to do that, we need the man who's sat in the same chair for 51 years and falls asleep during wild debate, just so we'll have someone to pay attention to during our endless hours of researching mindless agreements made up on Capital Hill. Besides, who else is old enough to remember the wheel being invented and the creation of 'Pull My Finger'?
~Jennifer Watt
George Washington believed in a term limit because it prevented the possibilities of tyranny and helped to uphold democracy through the assurance that no one leader or representative would rule for too long. However the very idea of a term limit seems to deny the democratic rights that a limit would try to uphold. The limit would prevent voters from truly voting upon whom they deemed best suited office and best capable of continuing democracy.The moment the people of the U.S. cant elect officials that represent them the best is the moment the U.S. will cease to be democratic.
ReplyDeletePrevious posters have pointed out the possible corruption that may be caused by the lack of term limits. However before we condemn every politician as corruptible, we must first take into account the very idea of a representative government. Now as was earlier stated Senator Byrd was against the civil rights movement. While that may be morally wrong, no one can deny that at that point in American History many people in the nation did not believe in equality. The idea of representative Government is for the law makers to properly portray the interests of the voters who elected him. He was elected with the people knowing his ideas about civil rights, and because he upheld his ideas he was a good senator. Many would argue a good Senator is about the good they do in office, while in fact a good Senator is just one who upholds the ideas that got him elected. Therefore, as long as an individual continues to follow the principles that got s/he elected, they should have no term limit because they are still accurately representing the opinions on the people. Thus,Democracy is assured.
I don't think that serving multiple terms will necessarily cause senators to become corrupted. However, I do think that it could limit the positive change that can be made in our government. Senators who serve their entire adult life are older than their newer peers and unfortunately, this may mean that they don’t fully understand some of the current issues our nation is facing. Senator Byrd grew up in a completely different America than today’s youth are experiencing. Other senators of his age may be “stuck in their ways” and lack understanding and openness towards the changes our nation has experienced over the years. In this case, failure to be open to new ideas, not corruption, is the issue. Furthermore, although a senator’s reelection indicates that the public likes the things they are doing, this might not always be the case. Some voters, especially the oldest and youngest voters, may simply vote for the candidate that they know. Whether seen as good or bad, having the same people in office each term will make change is less likely to occur in our government. Our government needs fresh ideas and people who represent our nation’s future to be successful.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe in a term limit for senators, mainly because they are elected by the people. If the people don't believe a senator is doing a good job, then they shouldn't elect him/her again. Robert Byrd was a senator for 51 years. That’s 9 terms, which means he was elected 9 times. The people voted for him, above the other candidates, 9 times. This clearly shows that the people believed him to be the best person for the job to represent West Virginia in the Senate. Maybe he was just past his prime by his 9th term, but up until then, he was a great senator. Also, serving more than one term only means the senator was doing a good enough job that the people wanted him/her to continue. If a senator does serve multiple terms, it doesn’t make him/her corrupt either. Their ideas and opinions may stay the same, they may change. But either way, they are elected by the people. If the people aren’t happy with their senators, they can only blame themselves.
ReplyDeleteYes, maybe he was a lot older than the other senators, and a lot older than a lot of the citizens of the US. But there are also old people out there in the world, our grand-pappies and grand-mammies. Byrd has lived a long time, and he brings the perspective of someone who has lived a long time. Having some older representatives might actually make Congress more representative because it helps to embody all groups of people. All people need to be represented in our government in order for it to work the way the Constitution intended. I’m not saying that having a senate full of 100-year-old people is what’s best for the country, but rather that one or two is not necessarily a bad thing. We shouldn’t throw out something just because it gets old. Sometimes you can teach an old dog new tricks, and sometimes you can’t. (I don’t really know how to express where I’m going with that…) Admittedly, having a senator that dozes off now and then may not be the best choice, but he was the people’s choice. Government by the people, for the people.
I do not believe that there should be term limits on Members of Congress. U.S. Senators are directly elected by the voters. Obviously, the reason Senator Byrd served over 50 years in the Senate was because his constituents believed that he was adequately representing their best interests in Washington.
ReplyDeleteThe people of West Virginia had the option of electing another Senator on nine different occasions. If they chose Senator Byrd nine different times, in the eyes of the people he represented, he was doing something right. As Locke said, if the people do not approve, they have the power and the responsibility to change their environment/situations.
Therefore, we shouldn't necessarily judge Senator Byrd, if anything our judgements should lie with the people of West Virginia who continuously elected him.
I am in agreement with both Mollie and Melissa; the people of West Virginia could have chosen not to vote for the senator. The people of the United States are given the option to vote for a member of the senate every six years, with this Senator Byrd could have been voted out of office at anytime. Also when looking at these clips, yes they are alarming, but they are most likely a small part of what Senator Byrd contributed to the Senate. Clearly many people look up to him as a Senator. One example of this is that he was voted President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate. This position only second to the Vice President of the United States. So although Senator Byrd may have gone down hill in his final term of Senate, it is clear that his terms in Senate were well served.
ReplyDeleteMany others above spoke of how this was a corrupted form of government, but unlike the position of the president where it is one man that can easily be corrupted and lead to tyranny, the Senate is fifty people. This means that every Senator is put into check by forty-nine other people.
In conclusion, I do not believe in term limits for Members of Congress.
Personally, I do not believe that there should be any term limits for senators. Although I do realize a line must be drawn somewhere, I believe it is necessary to uphold as true a democracy as possible if it is to be successful, and if the people believe that a single person is the best candidate election after election, then he should be voted in. Many opposing arguments above have pointed out the gateway toward corruption that this can easily open within the system as well as the factors that such things as declining health can have on one's ability to serve, however I do not believe that this problem lies built within the system itself, but lies within the citizens, and more specifically, the voters. In order to uphold a true, powerful, and successful democracy, it is necessary for the public to remain educated about what exactly they are voting for and supporting. If an older corrupt or mentally unstable man is elected in to congress, it is my view that that it is not in any way the fault of the democratic system, but merely of the majority of people who did not know what exactly they were supporting. In a true democracy, anyone should be able to run for the position. One would hope, however, that if a candidate is truly not eligible, the people would realize it and he would not be voted in. This is the basis of a true democracy. Therefore, the proposed solution of a set term limit for senators is completely ineffective, because if people are truly uninformed enough to elect a man of declining mental stability or corruption, they would be just as likely to elect a younger man of much corruption or declining health. In order for a democracy to truly thrive, the citizens must be educated and informed enough to truly elect the candidates who they believe will truly do the best for the country, and the lack of this knowledge is the stem from where corruption begins. Therefore the solution of term limits will in know way help to curb corruption, as time spent in congress is not truly where corruption branches out from.
ReplyDeleteSenators should have limited terms. Older age can lead to health problems that cause a lapse in judgment and reasoning. This was the case with Senator Byrd as shown in the video clip above. He stumbled over his words and it took him a long time to say something that wasn’t a contribution to the discussion. Also, without term limitations, a senator can accumulate too much power and become corrupt. Politicians funnel money to organizations, which in turn will help reelect them by giving them political support and money towards their campaigns. Overtime, senators can work their way into higher positions of authority and work with other congressmen to make deals to help each other. During Byrd’s tenure, he was able to use his accumulated power to get a naval base built in his state West Virginia when West Virginia doesn’t even border the ocean. He was one of many who abused power to work on a project which cost the taxpayers more than the benefits of project offer. Ted Stevens is another example of abused power due to seniority and its benefits. He got many projects approved for his state Alaska. In order to maintain a limited government in America, checks such as senate term limitations must be put in place. This is what Lord Acton meant when he said “All power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
ReplyDeleteSenators, for the good of America, should have age limits. The human mind, unfortunately, must decay as it ages… This goes for senators as well. While they may have American spirit, they must pass on the reigns to the next generation. Old and decrepit men with ideas in the past shouldn’t be determining how our country is run. We need to surge forward, keep changing, continue improving our society; and these men won’t help. Therefore, I believe an age of 70 years is acceptable for a Senators, so that every American can see positive change in his lifetime. After said amounts of time, these politicians should retire and feel honored for their input on America’s path, not try to pursue it until their final breath.
ReplyDeleteAn example of a similar, unfortunate situation because of a Senator’s age can be found at:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18560
With Medical traumas such as these plaguing Congress, should an age limit be put on 70 or 80 years?
I agree with Austin's comments. Although the people elect who comes into office, I believe that a set age may be the best way to go. A senator can be re-elected as many times as the people wish necessary but I agree that once they reach around the age of 70-80 then they should renounce and retire. Although having those of an older age is a good thing because they are wise and have experience, like someone said above, there are constant changes with time and sometimes those of an older generation are not as likely to know or understand this day and age. Also, health issues and problems with old age can cause problems and although it's not corruption, it can sometimes lead to one being unfit to fulfill a placement in office. Therefore, sometimes a limit can be a good thing.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Kara's and Austin's comments, Senator Byrd's age was not a mystery to his constituents. If they felt that his age was detrimental to their interests being represented in Washington D.C., they always had the opportunity to decide (by voting)that another person was better suited for the job.
ReplyDeletePerhaps, the greater population of a state is comprised of senior citizens. They won't necessarily want a "youngster" who cannot relate to them, to represent them in Congress.
No one has to be nice and vote for an elderly person who he or she sees as unfit to cater to the task at hand. However, no one needs to be mean and tell an elderly citizen-who just wants to be a public servant and maybe missed his or her calling earlier on in life-that he or she cannot be on the ballot because he or she is "too old".
Term limits are a tricky buisness. Personaly, i believe that if the candidate is right for the job the voters will keep voting them into office so they acheive the perfect community figure representation. However, many people fall into ruts of just voting for the same person year after year and never noticing that the person is changing his or her views as they go. Also, since they have been in washington for such a long time they become complacent and dont feel that they have to do anything above and beyond that their state would really like them to do. They would become more corrupt becasue of all of the back dealing of the lobbyists and corportations.
ReplyDeleteBascily, only if the candiatate is perfect for the job should they keep getting elected, if they have become corrupt and complacent, they dont deserve to have an unlimited term limit.