The Instigator
fluffybunnypuff
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Subutai
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

term limits

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Subutai
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/26/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 843 times Debate No: 38172
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

fluffybunnypuff

Pro

why do you want to have an eleite set of rulers who are able to be legislators for 70years. their job is to represent the public, how can they do so when the public has very slim chance of ever becomeing in that position? do you want obama to be a senator for 70years? w/o term limits, people like obama will be in ruleing positions for a long time and its hard to get them out w/o term limits.
Subutai

Con

I would like to thank fluffybunnypuff for challenging me to this debate. I will begin my arguments in this round.

I. Constitutionality

Since this debate does not concern the proposition of an amendment, this argument is relevant. Term limits violate the congressional qualifications area of the Constitution:

"U.S. District Judge William L. Dwyer, in a broad ruling, said the Washington term limits initiative was unconstitutional because it wrongly attempted to add qualifications for congressional candidates beyond those stipulated in the Constitution -- age, citizenship and residency in the state represented.

'A state may not diminish its voters' constitutional freedom of choice by making would-be candidates for Congress ineligible on the basis of incumbency or history of congressional service,' Dwyer wrote."[1]

In addition to this, term limits also violate both the 1st amendment and the 14th amendment:

"The judge also said the measure violated the First and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, describing the term limits initiative as imposing 'unduly restrictive" ballot access requirements on incumbent candidates and inimical to the "freedom of association" guaranteed by the First Amendment.'"[1]

This has been backed up by a recent Supreme Court ruling:

"On May 22, 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton (Sup. Ct. Doc. No. 93-1456) in a 5-4 decision held that Arkansas' constitutional amendment, Section 3 of Amendment 73, providing for limitations on congressional terms of office was unconstitutional in that it established an additional qualification for congressional office in violation of Article I, Sections 2 and 3 setting forth the three basic qualifications of age, citizenship and inhabitancy for Members of Congress."[2]

Term limits violate both amendments to the constitution (including one from the Bill of Rights) and from the constitution itself.

II. Experience

I will cut this argument into two parts. First, I will explain why term limits are bad for new senators.

Term limits also prevent legislators from gaining enough experience to be on the job. Every four to six years, a whole new process of experience training comes in. Without term limits, we can have more experienced members of Congress ruling us.

"In the business world, experience is valued because with experience comes knowledge of how to be efficient in your job and how to perform your job well. In fact, running a government can be significantly more complicated than running a business. "Term limits are one of those ideas that sound good in theory but are madness in practice. You wouldn't want to go to a hospital filled with medical residents or stock a sports team with an ever-changing cast of rookies. Legislating is hard. We need to give people time to learn how to do it."[3]

The Congressman must learn and master a wide variety of issues, and to do so takes time. Term limits prevent Congressmen from gaining the needed experience to effectively govern and make laws. One need look no further than the state government of California, which has enacted term limits and has been the premier example of fiscal ineptitude and poor governance.[3]

One can also find the same pattern for Missouri:

"A new report from the [University of Missouri] Truman School of Public Affairs argues that the shortening of lawmakers' careers has contributed to a lack of political expertise in the general assembly -- resulting in a less effective government.[4]

Next, I will explain why they are bad for senators about to be ousted:

"Term limits is and always has been a bad idea. The reason it's a bad idea is because it limits the choices of people the public has to vote for. If you have a really good public servant and you want to keep him, you can't. You have to get rid of the good candidate and replace him with someone who's inexperienced. By having term limits, we are eliminating the people who have wisdom and experience from political life. Like any job, it takes years to be good at what you do. About the time our elected officials have become good public servants, we're required to throw them out."[5]

"Term limits kick out the good leaders who may deserve to stay in office for excellent work."[6]

In addition to this, it is important to remember that when a Congressman is on his last term, he's not going to listen to the people he is representing because he doesn't have to. He's going to go out next term anyway.

III. Power Shifting

As a consequence of term limits, as I pointed out earlier, Congressman are now less experienced in performing the duties he was elected for. He now goes to bureaucrats and lobbyists for help in his job. This obviously puts a lot of power into the hands of said bureaucrats and away from Congress. This exacerbates the campaign finance and power problems. This explains it further:

"[Reasearch associate professor] Valentine argues that the disappearance of long-term or career politicians in the general assembly has led to a deficit of policy experts. A former state senate staffer, Valentine said that the traditional route for lawmakers to distinguish themselves was to become a respected expert on a certain policy area and then become a resource for other lawmakers.

Without this practice, Valentine said term limits have given more power to lobbyists who - as non-government employees - can remain in the halls of the capitol longer than any elected official in Jefferson City ever could. But at the same time, these lobbyists are not held accountable to constituents."[4]

Term limits put more power in the hands of unelected bureaucrats who become the only ones who know how to work the system.

Overall, term limits are an inefficient way to deal with the problems in today's problem, and in certain cases, they can actually increase those problems and even shift power from one group to another.

Sources

[1]: http://tech.mit.edu...
[2]: http://digital.library.unt.edu...
[3]: http://voices.washingtonpost.com...
[4]: http://ozarksfirst.com...
[5]: http://www.perkel.com...
[6]: http://www.balancedpolitics.org...
Debate Round No. 1
fluffybunnypuff

Pro

you havent answered my questions, at least start with answering my questions.
do you want obama to be a senator for 70years? yes or no.
do you work for or are you a member of, or did you get paid by, gov or do your friends of family work for or are members of, or got paid by gov? do you plan on becomeing dictator of the us?
Subutai

Con

I guess this round will be for rebuttals.

"why do you want to have an eleite set of rulers who are able to be legislators for 70years.?"

If the people want to have a legislator in office for 70 years (which some have approached that mark), who are the minority to deny them that? America is a representative democracy. We elect our legislators. If the majority like their policies, they stay in office.

"their job is to represent the public, how can they do so when the public has very slim chance of ever becomeing in that position?"

Do their qualifications wane with experience? More experienced politicans can actually better serve the people because they now how to work the system, which new politicians can't do so well.

Here is an excrept from an article that explains this point: "In the business world, experience is valued because with experience comes knowledge of how to be efficient in your job and how to perform your job well. In fact, running a government can be significantly more complicated than running a business. "Term limits are one of those ideas that sound good in theory but are madness in practice. You wouldn't want to go to a hospital filled with medical residents or stock a sports team with an ever-changing cast of rookies. Legislating is hard. We need to give people time to learn how to do it.."[1]

I've said this before, but, it is important to remember that when a Congressman is on his last term, he's not going to listen to the people he is representing because he doesn't have to. He's going to go out next term anyway. Not having term limits ensures that politicians always stay on their toes.

"do you want obama to be a senator for 70years?"

No, but that's not for me to decide. That's for the people to decide. It is a democracy after all.

"w/o term limits, people like obama will be in ruleing positions for a long time and its hard to get them out w/o term limits."

Is that necessarily a bad thing? I mean, I already made the experience argument.

"do you work for or are you a member of, or did you get paid by, gov or do your friends of family work for or are members of, or got paid by gov?"

That's not really relevant.

do you plan on becomeing dictator of the us?

Yet again, not relevant. No, I do not want to beome dictator. It's not only unconstitutional, but since this is a democracy, it would be impossible (I hope...).

I hope this answers all your questions. The ball is still in your court.

Sources

[1]: http://www.perkel.com...
Debate Round No. 2
fluffybunnypuff

Pro

do you want to become a senator or elected politican and stay in the position unrestricted to term limits?
america is not a representivie democracy and this isnt a democracy. america is sapose to be a constituional republic, that is you cant legally remove term limits w/o 75% of the country wanting to do so.
the majority almost never like their politicians, they stay in office because of corruption, not beacuse the people want them there.
"w/o term limits, people like obama will be in ruleing positions for a long time and its hard to get them out w/o term limits."

Is that necessarily a bad thing? I mean, I already made the experience argument. IS THAT REALLY A BAD THING? YOU JUST SAID YOU DONT WANT OBAMA TO BE SENATOR FOR 70YEARS YES IT IS A BAD THING.

"do you work for or are you a member of, or did you get paid by, gov or do your friends of family work for or are members of, or got paid by gov?" I ASSUME THAT IS A YES SINCE YOU DIDNT ANSWER.

do you agree that most politicians are corrupt and dont represent the public anyways?
it takes no training or expirenence, and you dont need to be a policy expert to be a representive by defitinion, all it takes is a majority vote.
policy expert is an individual opinion, and doesnt nessicarily mean the policies they want to impose are good or the public's wants.

the majority of the the public prefer term limits rather than no term limits, banning term limits wont happen unless the country throws the consitution and the public's wishes down the drain and turns into martial law authoritarian totalitarian hypocrities. the majority of the public want choice in is congress.
dont you want to be able to choose who is in congress?
dont you want a chance at being able to be in congress?

banning Term limits violate the congressional qualifications area of the Constitution. have you read the constituion? i had to check your profile to see if you were from us, because you lieing about the consitition made me think maybe you were talking about a different countries consitution. you are from us. read the entire us constitution.
art I sec 2. the house of representives shall be composed of members choosen every second year by the people of the several states...
art I sec 3. the senate of the united states shall be composed of two senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof, for six years; and each senator shall have one vote.
art II sec 1. the executive power shall be vested in a president of the united states of america. he shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the vice-president, chosen for the same term, be elected as follows.
consitutional term limits are 2yrs for house of representivie. 6years for senator. 4years for president + 2nd term if reelected.
term limits doesnt= term limit initive.
the "term limit initive" they were talking about is proably a specific proposal, or proposed bill/legislation, to add more requirements that go beyond the consitutional requirements, in order to be a congress member.
ex: requireing someone be white, would go beyond the consitution's requirments to be a congress member
sometimes politicians lie, use code words in public that the public doesnt understand, use deceptive language, and use oposite speak.

this quote doesnt say that term limits are unconstitional: "Arkansas' constitutional amendment, Section 3 of Amendment 73, providing for limitations on congressional terms of office was unconstitutional in that it established an additional qualification for congressional office"
there is the us consitution, then each state has their own consitution. the us consitution is supreme law. they are saying that an amendment in the arkansas consitution didnt comply with the us constitution because it established additional qualifications for congressional office.
they were probaly refering to the section titled under the table of contents "providing for limitations on congressional terms of office". in the table of context, it titles sections, and the sections often include more than just what is in the title. if it wasnt the title, they might have been refering the the section that included limitations, tho were refering to the part of the section that included additional requirements.

"Term limits is and always has been a bad idea. The reason it's a bad idea is because it limits the choices of people the public has to vote for." this statement is contradictory.

90%+of politicans are bad.
"when a Congressman is on his last term, he's not going to listen to the people he is representing because he doesn't have to. He's going to go out next term anyway."
when a congressman has no term limits, he's not going to listen to the people becacuse he's never going out unless recalled.
congressmen are still sapose to represent the people or else their sapose to be recalled. with such a corrupt government term limits are a much easier way to get corrupt politicans out than recalling them. their most often replaced with equally corrupt politicans.
congressmen go to buracrates and lobbiests, not to help them do their job, to get bribed and paid off, regardless of how long they stay in office.
where are you getting these loony ideas?
each time their is a campaign, people get paid off, after elected and in office, they often continue to get paid off and fund raise even on their last term. their not sapose to.
about 15% of the country voted in obama, most r low info voters voteing based on lesser of 2 evils admitting they dislike both, or based on looks.
canidates sometimes lie, make false promosies, bate and switch, 2faced, flip flop, and dont mention true wants during campaign then surprize reveal true wants after elected, resulting in voters not getting what they voted for.
canidates become rich partially because they represent or do favors for rich people to get campaign contributions.
richest canidates become primarys because they can afford the most ads, so their most well known and popular w the public, resulting in richest canidates and campaign contributers being represented instead of the people.
gov-benifits are given to companies that contribute to the politician's campaign, or secret pay offs or corosion. resulting in companies buying themself to big to fail to big to jail status, law exemption, tax exemption, subsidies, and bailouts.

next time i'd prefer if you put your source right under your quotes or set of quotes that came from that source.
Subutai

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this debate. However, most of my opponent's round three argument is a meaningless ramble. Here, I will just counter excerpts from my opponent's argument.

"YOU JUST SAID YOU DONT WANT OBAMA TO BE SENATOR FOR 70YEARS YES IT IS A BAD THING."

I'm not the sole voter in America. Very few of the people I want in office ever go into office, and term limits aren't going to fix that. Also, the replacer could be even worse than Obama (an Obama 2.0 if you will).

"it takes no training or expirenence, and you dont need to be a policy expert to be a representive by defitinion, all it takes is a majority vote."

Almost every job fits into a tiered system where people with more experience hold more responsibility and authority. But with term limits, there is no one with experience to take those positions. All the legislators are freshman so no one has any job experience. No business would boot all employees after 10 years- this just amounts to preventing the accumulation of experience. Congress shouldn’t operate like that either.

"It takes most new legislators about four years to learn the intricacies of the legislative process, the social organization of the House and Senate, the details of government, broader issues, and how to balance everything with the needs of their districts and the expectations of their party,” he said.

“By the time they gain this knowledge, they only have a relatively short time to utilize their knowledge before their term limit expires. In addition, the absence of experienced legislators precludes learning from more experienced peers.”"[1]

"the majority of the the public prefer term limits rather than no term limits, banning term limits wont happen unless the country throws the consitution and the public's wishes down the drain and turns into martial law authoritarian totalitarian hypocrities. the majority of the public want choice in is congress."

This is the really bad epitome of my opponent's ramble. My opponent is commiting an Ad Populum fallacy - meaning he's calling on the wants of the majority for public policy. However, the majority isn't always right. Two cases would be the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany (both were popularly supported).

"banning Term limits violate the congressional qualifications area of the Constitution. have you read the constituion?"

Yes. There is no provision for term limits in the constitution. Amendment 22 wouldn't have been ratified if that weren't true.

"there is the us consitution, then each state has their own consitution. the us consitution is supreme law. they are saying that an amendment in the arkansas consitution didnt comply with the us constitution because it established additional qualifications for congressional office."

What they are saying is that Arkansas cannot impose term limits on its congressional politicians because it violates the constitution. The only qualifications listed in the constitution are age, citizenship, and inhabitancy. There is nothing else, including therm limits, in the constitution regarding this.

"Term limits is and always has been a bad idea. The reason it's a bad idea is because it limits the choices of people the public has to vote for." this statement is contradictory."

Not really. If the public likes a certain politicians, but that politicians is no longer allowed to run, the term limits have effectively limited the choices of the people because they took out a popular politician. If the people like a politician, let him stay.

"when a congressman has no term limits, he's not going to listen to the people becacuse he's never going out unless recalled."

Sorry, but thi is just really dumb. Representatives have elections every two years, and senators every six years. They are constantly concerned about getting reelected, which they wouldn't be (and therefore ambivalent to the people) if term limits existed.

Overall, term limits will make an already delicate political situation first. They should not be implemented.

Sources

[1]: http://newsok.com...

Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
thats not how you spell retarded, retard
Posted by fluffybunnypuff 3 years ago
fluffybunnypuff
your a liar Subutai. your ether retardid or pretending to be retardid. im going to take you off my friend list.
Posted by TheEnergyHippo 3 years ago
TheEnergyHippo
Pro skipped round 2
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 3 years ago
imabench
fluffybunnypuffSubutaiTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: pros arguments were completely idiotic and didnt actually even address any of con's arguments until the final round. Hell most of pro's arguments were either repeated questions to the con or just pointless rants. Arguments to con, sources to con, and spelling to con as well since pro types like english is his second language.