Since the 22nd Amendment sets term limits for the President, why don't we have term limits for Congress? - index of:party
Why not apply the same rules apply for the Congress president? When in power for too long leads to corruption and stagnation.
Also, the voters re-elected the incumbent senator for 92% of the time, regardless of the party. This indicates that an unfair advantage over the advantage that the competition have, regardless of the party.
Sitting senators fundraising competitors from eight to one. This contrast in the field of finance, probably explains the high rate of re-election (almost eighty two percent) for the incumbent. Many of these are campaign contributions from interest groups.
http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cf ...
http://www.examiner.com/x-27370-Columbia ...
http://www.termlimits.org/
Monday, February 15, 2010
Index Of:party Since The 22nd Amendment Sets Term Limits For The President, Why Don't We Have Term Limits For Congress?
2 comments:
There should be term limits. A party congress has more power than the president ever.
Without links to your page, but you're more right than you know. I would say that Congress should be to two terms with a minimum length of absence from the office before a U.S. limited selected. In relation to the U.S. Senate, is a term sufficiently with the same domination of the U.S. offices, the implementation of the ...
I am firmly convinced that our founding fathers did not expect that these people come into the office, and becomes a self-powered, career-minded flowers on the wall. Rather, they believed that the citizens to defend their neighbors, and then make the way for the next one.
Post a Comment