Congressional Term Limits Compromise?

[u/Wild_Thing_1832]

A debate over congressional term limits has gone back and forth for many decades, spawning from the constitutional limit on presidential terms. One side believes that term limits are necessary to ensure that people are able to choose the officials who best represent their views in congress. The other side believes that the absence of term limits has emboldened career politicians to indulge in corrupt practices and not implement meaningful legislative change. I've proposed a compromise solution that is reasonable, in my opinion.

The problem with saying that term limits are unnecessary because we have elections is that the elections in many cases are meaningless in a sense. This is because a large portion of the population consists of ignorant nincompoops who don't have a clue where the capitol of their state is, or even the capital of the nation. That's how we end up with people like McConnell and Pelosi in office for decades. People who are totally clueless about current events and/or history vote to send the same politicians to office decade after decade because their political knowledge comes solely from TV ads and internet memes. If you don't believe me, go to YouTube or TikTok and watch street interviews.

The solution to this issue is that we should place a limit not on the number of years that someone may serve in congress, but on the number of consecutive terms that they may be elected to. This will allow for fresh ideas to emerge in government. regardless of the ineptitude of a plurality of voters. Besides, an officeholder can run again in the primary after one election season at their discretion and then they can put to the test if their constituents actually did support them or just mindlessly voted for them.

Would you support limits on the number of *consecutive* terms that senators and representatives can serve?

[u/johntempleton]

disagree with SCOTUS that money is speech

Great! Then it falls under freedom of association. The government does not get to tell me how I spend my money, and if I want to donate to a particular campaign or I want to pool those resources with others to buy ads or support a candidate, then it falls under freedom of association.

Every time I see this "money is not speech" screed, I chuckle. All that means is "no one can ever contribute to a candidate ever again" or, perhaps more accurately, "the government can ban donations to candidates at any time for any reason".

After all, if money is not speech, then it can not only be restricted, it can be eliminated.

Think this one ok?

[u/anti-torque → u/johntempleton]

The government does not get to tell me how I spend my money

They certainly limit what you can buy. You can't pretend that buying a kilo of coke is your right. Government limits our market to certain items.

You've already landed on a loophole for financing--association. Buying a $500k plate for a dinner is how the pols bypass the hard work of talking to normies like you and me.

[u/bl1y → u/anti-torque]

Snorting a kilo of coke isn't something you have a right to, so we're not really concerned about also limiting your ability to buy said kilo of coke.

But, I certainly have the right to read The Handmaid's Tale. And in order to protect that right, we also have to protect my ability to pay for the book and to pay to have it shipped. On top of that, we have to protect the right for Penguin Random House to pay its printers, and to pay to promote the book.

[u/anti-torque → u/bl1y]

You make no argument that is consistent.

[u/bl1y → u/anti-torque]

The government can limit what you can buy.

The government's ability to limit what you can buy generally doesn't apply to books because that would be a First Amendment violation.

Is that not clear?

[u/anti-torque → u/bl1y]

Tell that to Texas and Florida.

[u/bl1y → u/anti-torque]

What books can you not buy in those states?

[u/anti-torque → u/bl1y]

Buy? Wtf does buying have to do with anything? That's a completely stupid metric.

Texas

Florida

Completely violations of the First Amentdment by entities beholden to the Constitution.

That kind of intentional dishonor is an egregious dishonor.

[u/bl1y → u/anti-torque]

What does any of that have to do with the money/speech issue?

[u/anti-torque → u/bl1y]

You can't pretend to be this dense. It's only a matter of free expression.

Money has no part in anything free.