Hacker News Reader

Comment by sgk284 | Hacker News Reader

I'd argue the opposite. By having no term limits, lobbyists are able to build up connections over years and take advantage of them. It also means any dirt, corruption, or bribery has an unbounded time for leverage.

Term limits work really well for the Whitehouse. I don't see why they wouldn't work well for Congress. And forcing lobbyists to reestablish rapport, dig up dirt, etc... with new congresspeople every few years would do wonders.

There's a reason financial institutions force people to take holidays. It's good for rooting out theft.

View on HN

> Term limits work really well for the Whitehouse.

This certainly isn't obvious.

Compare and contrast with monarchs, as the Framers did.

Edit: While I'd like to build out the analogy further, there's only one data point that I can find in the missing quadrant: The Philippines have a limited number and duration of terms for their legislators. One data point is not enough to even identify a single confounding factor, and there's too many ways in which the USA and the Philippines differ.

Prolonged reigns are not among the biggest flaws of monarchies. The primary problem is first and foremost the power a monarch generally has compared to a president or prime minister. Next comes the difficultly of removing that person from the position is incredibly difficult if they prove unfit in any way unlike positions in a democracy. Lastly is the selection process in which people are usually chosen for their bloodline and not any skill or even a predilection for governance. A long reigning monarch in fact is often linked to eras of prosperity for their countries rather than a steady decline as the monarch ages.

Also I should note that unlike fixes for the three flaws mentioned above, presidential term limits weren't officially part of the Constitution until after WWII. It clearly wasn't a high priority for the framers to formalize term limits.

> Next comes the difficultly of removing that person from the position is incredibly difficult if they prove unfit in any way unlike positions in a democracy.

I think current events are demonstrating that we're unable to remove hilariously unfit people in democracies, too.

Regardless of your opinions on this specific president, we need to recognize that removing any president through impeachment should require a high bar of difficulty in order to maintain the balance of power. Impeachment is a check on the president. Making it too easy would result in the president serving at the pleasure of Congress.

That said, I was mostly talking about elections in which we have the chance to remove our leaders every 2, 4, or 6 years.

When the president's crime is election rigging, the idea that we're supposed to keep him in check via the rigged election is pretty weak. When the president's crime is election rigging, the idea that we're supposed to keep him in check via the rigged election is pretty weak.

We've now established the precedent that brazen election rigging is fair game as long as your party holds a hair over 1/3 of the senate.

I don't disagree. However, I think the primary complaint is against people abdicating their constitutional responsibility and not the makeup of the Constitution itself.

Then why did the Framers add neither Presidential nor Congressional term limits to the Constitution (never mind the Federal judiciary)?

Imagine that Trump could be president for 20 years, instead of just 8. Or that George W Bush could. Or that Clinton could. No matter where you sit politically, at least one of those should give you pause.

I honestly wouldn't mind a president whose in charge for >8 years.

I don't like term limits because often times, the Congressman most likely to do right by their country are the ones that feel "safe" in their district. They can tell their party whips to fuck off, because they can run as an independent and still be elected. If we instituted term limits on Congress, my guess is that Congress would be inhabited entirely by corporate shills looking to get rich, rather mostly inhabited by such people, as is currently the case.

We've only had term limits on the executive since 1951.

The US has only had legally binding term limits for the presidency since 1951, but traditionally the president was expected to stand down after two terms. The constitutional term limits were introduced after Roosevelt managed to hold on to the presidency well past two terms until he died.

I think you can't ignore the importance of congressional oversight on the executive branch, and the benefits of experience there.

> There's a reason financial institutions force people to take holidays. It's good for rooting out theft.

Can anyone explain what this is referring to?

Someone else has to do the vacationer's job while they're gone, so the substitute may discover that something has been done improperly.

If you cap someone's career at 4 years, they might have more incentive to take as much lobby money as possible while they can.

This doesn’t change if you cap the person’s career at 40 years. Greedy people are going to be greedy.

Not necessarily, if you can serve for 40 years there's more risk in losing your sweet gig if you get found out.

Is there? Famous congresspeople are "found out" every single day and nothing happens.

The only real change in Congress that we are seeing is from people like AOC - determined and idealistic young people who see straight through the bullshit and aren't letting it get to them.

Maybe rather than an age limit we need to actually test Congresspeople on what they are legislating.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com