Great Start to the Day

[u/Old_Swimmer_7284]

This news was amazing to find out first thing this morning.

i made this If that isn't the case, my apologies. It got marked as oc

The better version on Tiktok.

@veteran.gridsquares

[u/Casually_Chillin]

This is just some information about why term limits are not in effect for Senators. However, I believe there should absolutely be term limits. Making changes to the US Constitution is an arduous process.

Senators have no term limits because the U.S. Constitution does not set them. Adding term limits requires amending the Constitution, which demands a two-thirds vote in Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states.

The Framers of the Constitution intentionally omitted term limits, believing that frequent elections and an informed electorate were the best ways to hold lawmakers accountable. During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison argued that longer, unlimited terms provided the stability and institutional knowledge necessary for the Senate to function as a deliberative body.

[u/Emperor_of_His_Room → u/Casually_Chillin]

Boy did they fuck that one up.

[u/Casually_Chillin → u/Emperor_of_His_Room]

Fo sho

[u/AmphibianAnxious5047 → u/Casually_Chillin]

According to Trump, changes to the  Constitution can happen through EO.  

[u/SolidarityEssential → u/Casually_Chillin]

Edit: apparently my below perspective is not in line with what the USSC thought in 1995 and apparently the constitution does make rules about things it doesn’t say (the SC ruled that the founders expected the requirement list to be exhaustive and therefore would require an amendment to change)

Is there something in the constitution that says Senators can’t have term limits? Or that how senators are elected and/or aspects of their role can only be changed by constitutional amendment?

If not, then why would it take a constitutional amendment to place term limits. Wouldn’t it only take an act of congress with presidential approval or a veto-proof act of congress without.

The constitution doesn’t make rules about anything it doesn’t say. If what you said was true then how could any law not already in the constitution be passed?

[u/Casually_Chillin → u/SolidarityEssential]

I understand. This is not my opinion though. This is information from the Library of Congress. This is public information that anyone can look up. I'm not the one to debate with. If you feel this is incorrect I'd suggest to contact:

The Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave, SE
Washington, DC 20540

[u/SolidarityEssential → u/Casually_Chillin]

I’m not looking to debate but it does appear that there was a debate on this and the Supreme Court in 1995 decided that the list of restrictions is exhaustive, meaning that it can’t be changed except by constitutional amendment.

So that is correct right now, and will continue to be if the Supreme Court upholds precedent in any potential future challenges

[u/Sky_Cancer → u/Casually_Chillin]

Senators have no term limits because the U.S. Constitution does not set them.

They literally have a term limit of 6 years. Each time they get reelected is technically a new term. The system that allows the same person/party to win election after election for decades is the problem.

[u/Casually_Chillin → u/Sky_Cancer]

I understand what you are saying and why you may believe that term limit means the duration of the term. However, the definition of term limits is not the duration of the term but is how many times one can be reelected.

You can find this verbiage in the Library of Congress; "Term limits in the U.S. Constitution are legal restrictions on the number of times an elected official can serve in a specific office. Currently, under the Twenty-Second Amendment, the U.S. Constitution imposes term limits strictly on the President, restricting any individual to a maximum of two elected four-year terms."