An age limit on leadership?

When George Washington declined another term in office, he earned the admiration of world leaders at that time. He also emphasized the concept of "government of the people and by the people". Senator Byrd was in office longer than I have been alive - there are dictators and royalty alike who have not reached that mark. How can someone locked in Washington for that long a period truly be aware of the needs of the people? I beilieve that limits should be imposed - unfortunately, given the lack of knowledge in general concerning our elected officials - and I admit to this myself - If Senator Byrd's name was placed on the ballot for the next election, he would likely retain his seat in congress.

TERM LIMITS ARE ESSENTIAL FOR PRESERVING LIBERTY!

Legislative seats were NEVER intended to be a life-long, fulltime job. Current lifetime elected officials completely lose touch with the real world (if they ever had it begin with) and operate purely for their own political gain ... not for the "general welfare". Texas legislators meet for 140 days every 2 years ... I vote for that!!!

Age is certainly one of the quantifiable factors that should dictate term limits ... as evidence: Patrick Leahy, Paul Kanjorsky, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, et al ... nuff said!

It's unfortunate that integrity can't be empirically measured and prevent election to public office or expedite removal from said office.

Would also like to see term limits for Supreme Court justices as well ... given the current administration's nominees.

Our founding fathers never intended these to be life-long positions -- I believe strongly that we need term limits for both Congress and the Senate -- also perhaps the House should change every four years instead of two -- it's constant campaigning for these people, but ten years for the house and twelve for the senate should be enough to get people vested -- and then move on, hopefully to ambassadorships, consultants and not lobbyists there should be a place they could help the country -- but term limits are definitely called for.

No. I'd rather have an elder who climbed
trees when he was young then a kid who looked at a computer screen from day 0
and has a cell phone taped to his ear.
Moving away from nature is death.

And the ranters were right at the keyboards pushing the garbage agenda of 'term limits' that has so wrecked California and Michigan. All their 'term limits' nonsense means is that you end up with an inexperienced legislature that is more concerned with their 'real' future after the legislature. It is revolviing door of temporary employees who are utterly clueless about the process, the system or anything else about the job. And the only people who could afford to serve in office would be the independently wealthy since those who actually work for a living and live on their income could not drop their careers for a period of years.

There is already a provision in the US Constitution by which voters can limit the number of terms which their elected representative will serve. It is called an "election" and their constituents can vote them out if they think it is time to for them to be gone.

Byrd's great knowledge of the US Senate procedures, its history, its traditions and its past actions (legislation) would never have happened it he had been forced to leave after 6 or 12 years.

The same applies to other long-serving elected officials who know - really know - what has gone before and how the process works.

You wouldn't fire a good employee just because they have worked for a business for 4, 8 or 20 years. That is just flat stupid!

There is an anecdote about two former Roman politicians viewing statues of their old leaders. "Why isn't a statue of you here?" said one. "And why is there one of you?" said the other!

While I never had much admiration for such a power-hungry old crow, the fact of the matter is that it was up to the voters of West Virginia to determine the length of Robert Byrd's career.
The fact they let it go on so long past prime time reflects poorly on them.

I don't object so much to "Senators for Life" as long as people elect them. I DO object to "judges for life" for Fed judges. No country or US State has that idiotic idea. Better a 15 year term, renewable every 5 years with a medical and mental fitness report.

I think BOTH judges for life and Senators for life also have to have annual fitness checks after age 70. If they can't meet them, they go into "Emeritus status" until or unless they show they can show up and do the job.
And if disabled or made unfit in terminal illness by medical or mental condition - they have to resign. Temporarily or permanently. No more senile and unfit Thurgood Marshalls or William O Douglases. Sen Johnson away from the Senate 2 years on a brain bleed. NO more doomed Reinquists or Kennedy's barely able or not able to do their duties as they battled end-stage cancer- yet wanting to cling to power with their dying breath.

That would keep the Justice Stevens and Oliver Wendell Holmes sorts who fourished in old age around, and the Sen Byrds who was going strong until his rapid decline started 18 months ago....but weed out the unfit that no longer can do their job or serve their country.

By now we have a large enough population in the United States that we don't need 'Senators for life'.

As much as possible, we need to eliminate the incentives to cater to special interests over the popular will of the constituents.

Absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely, and more frequent changes to the pool of Senators and Representatives would be a welcome change to the insider deals that currently control Washington.

Look at where are "professional" politicians have gotten us. 36 months and done.

There should never be an age limit.

Term limits for every elected office, however, need to be amended into our government.

I, for one, am extremely hesitant to impose any sort of age limit. Think about the lifetime of experiences that you are throwing away. I may not have always agreed with Sen. Byrd, but he was a treasure trove of experience. Moreover, the fact that he was effective to the very end speaks volumes about the ability to function in one's later years.

It really is crass to not be respectful of those who have a mountain of experience to draw upon. To even ask this question to me is disgusting.

does it say anyplace in the Constitution that members of Congres shall be limited in the number of terms that they can serve? Not withstanding the practice of redrawing districts by the majority to suit their re-election attempts it does seem that if the voters decide an elected official deserves re-election and they constantly re-elect, as was the case with the late Sen. Byrd, this is the voters choice. I see no problem with that and it does not seem inconsistent with what the founders meant to pass on for future generations

Members of Congress are already term limited. It's called standing for re-election. If Senators' and Representatives' constituencies want them in or out of Congress, that is their privilege and job, not the business of those who live in other members' districts.

One of the dangers is that a staff takes the place of the Member of Congress in making decisions. A completely unConstitutional situation.

AS a military officer I had the extremely stressful experience of months of working with, and then testifying before a HASC, in the l970s I can say without fear of intelligent contradiction that Professional Staffers are altogether too powerful in the Potomac River basin. Given his age and frail nature I suspect that the late Senator's inputs for some time now have really been the views and concerns of his professional staffers. I seriously doubt he had the mentally focused capacity to pursue much on his own. This is not what the Constitution intended. Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers did not make a full-time career of life on Constitution Avenue nor should we allow it now. There has to be a established law for term limits. We simply cannot control term limits by the election processes because of the massive funds available to incumbents and the public exposure their office routinely affords them. In short, the system is broke when a nursing home fugitive is allowed to sit a Senate chair right to the edge of eternity.

Well, the biggest reason that senators and congressmen are such horrible leaders is that they have unlimited terms. These low-lifes only care about getting re-elected. And guess what? They don't serve their constituents, but the businesses that fund their re-election campaigns!!!

The voter has always had the option of imposing an age limit on any elected official - by not re-electing them.

So what you are really asking is: should the voter's hand be forced (presumably, they insist on doing something you consider unwise)?

Which is curious for a number of reasons:
1) I would have thought you would propose a mental competency criterion if you are worried about a person's ability to serve - and I doubt that criterion strongly correlates to age.
2) Have you heard of age discrimination? Do you understand what it means and why it is illegal?
3) You worry about one or two out of hundreds of lawmakers being too old - but have no problem with Supreme Court justices, persons who have never been elected by anyone and cannot be voted out of office by anyone, serving life terms as one member of a group of only nine.

Maybe not a problem out of our first dozen pages of priorities.

The leadership and supporters of the minority power will support term limits, the majority won't. The number of purely idealist voters is negligible. See for example the term limit promise in Gingrich's Contract with America; after the GOP won itself 230 seats in the House they were only able to once muster over 200 votes to support federal term limits.

Nominally, elected congressional officials represent the voters of the states who put them into the position and those are the same people who can make the decision to remove them. I would vote against term limits for the simple reason that the most direct authority we voters can exercise over the federal government is the election of our Congressional representation and term limits weaken even that small amount of influence.

I agree with both sides of this issue. However, the ONLY way the challanger can have a fair chance in a normal election is that.

1. He/she is independently wealthy
or
2. the challenger gets AS MUCH air time, free postage, campaign funds and everything else to counteract the advantages of incumbency.

I made the comment in the 70's that the Russian communist government had more turnover than the US Congress because of the advantages of incumbency.

Campaign finance reform helps, but is not the answer.

Mandatory retirement age at 75 seems a good compromise.

Why term limit anybody? without term limits we could have more Joe Bidens, John Kerrys, Tom DeLays, Nancy Pelosis, Harry Reids, et al. Try to "google" the bio for any politician and see what their real world work experience is. Try tracking these folks as they enter congress owing lots of campaign debt and retire with millions. With term limits we would not have the entertainment of Joe Biden or Bob Nelson. Is this a great country or what??

That is the problem, you get all these old timers in office and they never leave. They are so set on there ways that nothing changes. We limit the time for presidents to 8 years, the same should apply to all other elected offices. Nothing is going to change if we don't get some NEW people in office and make the changes that we need.

I don't think the founders of our country intended that our elected representatives make their position a lifetime occupation. Where else can a person become elected and from day ONE receive a 100% pension for life and top-of-the-line medical benefits paid for by the people that elected them? How about voting for handsome pay raises throughout the terms? Where can we, the ordinary individual sign up for such an entitlement. TERM LIMITS? ABSOLUTELY! Give each a limit of eight years then the option to continue their health care on their own dime, not yours or mine. Pension for LIFE? Many of our elected representatives have NEVER held a regular job in their lives - think about it! From your early years you live comfortably, enjoy numerous perks, pay raises, vacations, health insurance, transportation and office expenses and never have to worry about losing your job - just lining your pockets at the taxpayers expense.

I don't think the founders of our country intended that our elected representatives make their position a lifetime occupation. Where else can a person become elected and from day ONE receive a 100% pension for life and top-of-the-line medical benefits paid for by the people that elected them? How about voting for handsome pay raises throughout the terms? Where can we, the ordinary individual sign up for such an entitlement. TERM LIMITS? ABSOLUTELY! Give each a limit of eight years then the option to continue their health care on their own dime, not yours or mine. Pension for LIFE? Many of our elected representatives have NEVER held a regular job in their lives - think about it! From your early years you live comfortably, enjoy numerous perks, pay raises, vacations, health insurance, transportation and office expenses and never have to worry about losing your job - just lining your pockets at the taxpayers expense.

I strongly agree to set terms of service with an opportunity to be elected again if they did a good job. Sometimes when you stay long in a job you become an easy target to be corrupted. By setting terms we will avoid this and give an opportunity to others.

I think all of our present & future politicians should face a vote of confidence

We need term limits... maybe you can serve two terms, then you have to be out of that particular office for at least one term before you can run for that office again. Can we create a petition for a ballot initiative to force this rule or would we need a constitutional amendment?

Senator Byrd severely tainted his reputation with his focus on pork and earmarks to get himself re-elected. That "me first" mentality, all too common in government, is a disgrace. In the end, he was a doddering old fool who should have been pensioned off years ago.

Age limits are arbitrary, and hence, un-Constitutional. Any EEO person can tell you that. The sole requirement for the office should be the person's ability to discharge the duties that come with that job. If Burkhard Heim could come up with revolutionary theories in physics while blind and crippled, if the governor of New York can function as a blind man, if Stephen Hawking and Christopher Reeves could make a difference in spite of being confined to wheel chairs; then the ability of mental acquity should be the sole requirement for the job of representing the people or the states at the federal level.

Term limits for Senators and Representatives should not be a national determination; but solely that of the states and the people. If their senator or representative don't do their jobs well enough; it won't matter how many dollars their backers pour into their campaigns, the voters will elect someone else, as happened in NC.

And, if I remember correctly, Congressmen have to put in 12 years before they are eligible for a pension. 2 terms for senators, 6 for representatives, or any combination of the above.

The question of imposing limitations on the tenure of leaders is not one that has a catch-all answer for every sector. The answer depends highly on the nature of each organization and the role of executive level leadership within it. For example, the benefit to students of having the insight of a professor who has lectured for 50 years on a subject may be far greater than the benefit to a pro athlete of a coach in his 90's. Certain sectors by nature are more volatile and a capacity to blaze new trails is much more important than the perspective of time in the day-to-day function of executive leadership (high-tech industries, for example).

However, this does not in any way mean that more experienced leaders should just be put out to pasture. The effort involved must be mutual between leader and organization but at some point it is a fact that the best impact a person can have is in mentoring and guiding younger people who are doing the day-to-day work. By taking a cooperative approach that views power or influence as a means of service rather than a means of personal gain in a competition to obtain more status both organizational and constituent needs are met most effectively.

In most sectors I believe firmly that the answer to this question can only be answered internally by each organization. If any policy is to be imposed, I see no reason whatsoever that it be externally that doesn't constitute an unnecessary impingement of freedom. The one exception to this rule, in my opinion, is the halls of government. However, my reasoning has nothing to do with the capacity of leaders but rather the potential for corruption and the decay of accountability. The evidence that I see in the news on a daily basis is that by and large having an electoral process so biased towards incumbency and congressional perks so lavish that maintaining one's position of privilege quickly becomes the focus of energy rather than the practice of good government and service.

I would start with constitutional reform to drastically limit the perks of office in the following ways:

1. Reduce salaries, health and pension benefits or tie them to national averages. There is no reason a serving member of congress should have to worry about bills but the privilege of public service should not be a ticket to "the good life". The monies saved from the reduction of benefits should first go to reducing our debt and then eventually be earmarked for helping raise salaries for teachers, cops, firemen and other public service occupations, especially those in places of great need.

2. All future proposals for salary and benefits must be approved by public referendum at the state level. If your people think you're doing a good job, you get a raise. If not, you don't.

3. Drastic campaign finance reform. I know that money plays far too great a role in who gets elected at all levels of government. I wish I had a fabulous answer. I believe that change will ultimately come when someone mounts an effective national campaign on a shoestring budget, primarily using the internet and social media as a means of getting their message out to the masses for free.

4. To that end, put some of the federal funds covering things like unnecessary private jets, cocktail parties and other perks of office into expanding our broadband infrastructure and regulating internet access as a public right, not a privilege. The more informed the electorate, the more effective our system of government becomes.

5. End the franking privilege. There is no reason incumbents need to be allowed to mail things for free, especially what amounts to re-election literature that in no way is essential to the activity of being a leader. Get elected on your own dime, not mine.

6. Manage pensions and other benefits effective post-incumbency like private companies where you pay into a 401K or other retirement investment. Having to live "like the rest of us" will lead to decisions made with "the rest of us" in mind. In addition, if you make a single speech for money or take another job, essentially cashing in on your former office or demonstrating the ability to support yourself without public funds, then you lose all benefits except those gained from paying into your retirement account (which would roll over into your new 401K or alternative retirement account). I don't want to see another Eisenhower situation, but I also don't want to keep mailing checks to millionaires either.

7. Limit staff sizes. Not only will this reduce the federal payroll, it will force legislators write their own bills and to actually read the things they are voting on rather than handing off the boring stuff to interns. This should lead to clearer legislation with fewer loopholes and less pork and to leaders who are there to do a job not just collect gifts fr--ahem, meet with--lobbyists.

If a position in congress becomes synonymous with hard work, compromise, and dedication to service wherein the reward is the opportunity to better one's community and nation rather than a fat paycheck, health care, pension and partying on the public dime then I think term limits will take care of themselves as staying on long-term will require sacrifice. Those who do stay will have to have a certain level of energy in order to actually do the work and will not be able to simply lean on staffers to tell them what is on the agenda for the day. Those who would use a long-term in office for personal gain simply won't have that opportunity.

Tern limits for Congress are needed and necessary. Senators could be restricted to two terms and representatives to six terms.

Age restrictions are and would be discriminatory

I think that as long as elections are fair and the people want you to stay, you should be able to. Justices should have term limits because they are appointed and the Consititution should be able to be applied to current circumstances. It was never meant to be stagnant. It's timeless like the ten commandments. But in order for democracy to remain true and laws to remain consistent with the changing will of the people over time, NO ONE should ever be appointed for life.

@MHOUST - Congresspersons are eligible for pensions after age 62 after completing 5 years of service, starting at no more than 80% of their final salary. However, given that current congressional salaries range from $174,000.00 to $223,500.00, 80% is still quite generous.

Of course term limits. For him to working at the age of 92 his capabilities of thought process have slowed down enough. I know this for a fact I have worked in Health Care all my life. Too many fat cats in our Government. Get rid of all of them, they have drained our economy dry !

Are you serious? Robert Byrd was NO kind of leader. At the end he was a doddering old slobbering fool shaking his shaky hands and blithering. At the beginning he was a racist horrible KKK member who never got rid of the sentiments. In the middle he was a narcissitic greedhead who wanted his name on every building road and bridge in WV. The media shows its liberal bias when they lionize this creep.

Of course there should be term limits. Leadership like Byrd droppings is not essential, in fact, it's damaging. Do you really intend to say that there is no one else in a country of over 300,000,000 who would not do a good job?

The fallacy of "letting the democratic process" rule over artificially imposed term limits didn't stop Congress from preventing another FDR in amending the Constitution. At least FDR appeared on the ballot in all 48 states (at the time). Senator Byrd was re-elected solely by West Virginia. Thereafter he was able to arrogate untold Federal millions, belonging to all of us, and remain "in office" until he was barely able to lick a postage stamp without assistance. How is that "democratic" given the power he had over the rest of us?

Incidentally, Presidential disability is contemplated in the amendments to the Constitution: Congress has no such restriction, and all the chicanery and jockeying for Teddy Kennedy's vote would have been avoided if he had resigned, gracefully, when he was diagnosed with the fulminant brain tumor. But, again, Congress doesn't operate in the real world.

this wise old bhutanese artist i met some years ago told me "better to have one good king for 50 years than 10 bad presidents."

I read a conspiracy book about the creation of a "Fountain of Youth" treatment that would lengthen the lives of many important people to live well past their 150th birthdays. These people ranged from the very wealthy house of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, to every member of the Supreme Court of the United States. Of course, this technology was made possible by a group of insidious Belgium Crown scientists, funded by the Saxe-Coburg-Gotha clan bent on the re-acquisition of her lost colonies in America, and the naming of Elizabeth R as Empress of the Etats-Unis.

Fun fiction of course, but they do say that wisdom and knowledge is only bounded by the aging of the brain and body. So its a shame that Mr. Byrd didnt have his brain harvested and then outfitted with a bio-mechanical system for him to continue to live and serve on the Senate before he dropped dead. I am sure that Ted Kennedy was spending a great deal of Massachusetts money for this technology to be aquired at MIT. But I am sure we'll read about it in some book to come...

"12 years and OUT!"

Raise the term limits for POTUS to 3 terms (12 years), limit Senators to 2 terms (12 years) and limit Representatives to 6 terms (again, 12 years).

This would go a long way toward discouraging the type of career politicians we are plaqued with today. The founding fahters had no concept that people would chose the tiresome task of governing as a profession, but they had no concept of the lure the growing power of our government would prove to be.

It amazes me that the Congress managed to get the 22nd amendment passed based on limiting the personal power of the President and forbidding the establishment of a "President for life" yet managed to exempt themselves from the same arguments. "Senator for life" is equally harmful to our society. Frankly what is good for the goose is good for the gander. If the President is limited so then should be our legislators, and for that matter, our Supreme Court... 20 years tops for the Supremes, regardless of their age (though I believe they should step aside when they hit 80 or so).

The bottom line is, as with any job, if your health is in decline, as it was with Senator Byrd, and your are not able to actively perform your job, you should resign (step down). Senator Byrd missed a number of crucial votes recently because of his ill health and that makes my point.

I concur with term limits. Professional politicians were never intended by the Founding Fathers. Senority rules favor the longest serving politicians... high positions bring home pork. Why is it Congress has overall negative ratings but individually we continue to send the same people back time after time?

Next time you are voting ask those around you what they think the major issues are... you'll most likely get a blank stare.